# Why Worldbuilding is Bad



## I'm A Banana

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



			
				M John Harrison said:
			
		

> 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 unneccessary 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 neccessary. 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.




From here. Discuss.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Utter crap.


RC


----------



## Kestrel

Heh...I was just considering posting this...saw it on William Gibson's blog.

Never create beyond the surrounding hexes or the next session.  Crude outlines sure, but anything more detailed can limit your creativity.  

(This has been my big hangup with published settings lately, they are great for ideas, but stifle you in the long run)

IMHO, YMMV  AAF!


----------



## Ry

This is very relevant advice for a sci-fi writer.

This is terrible advice for most DMs.

This is somewhat appropriate advice for a small number of DMs with a very particular kind of style.


----------



## robberbaron

He's quite right - if you want the players to move through the world without really being in it.

Personally, I like to know that there is more to a gameworld than a series of dungeons, a list of maidens to be rescued/deflowered (depending upon alignment), etc. Games I've played in which had no depth seemed little more than multiplayer Fighting Fantasy books.

It would be interesting to have a poll on this subject.


----------



## wingsandsword

There is a world of difference in creating a literary work like a sci-fi novel, and creating a campaign setting for a roleplaying game.  While there might be a few similarities, you have to treat them as separate creative exercises.

Worldbuilding helps build the illusion of a complete world for the players, the idea that there is more to this setting than this one adventure with the one town and the one dungeon and maybe some nearby places that are nothing but names on a map.  When playing in a newly built world, or a world the players are unfamiliar with, my players ask lots of questions about the setting so they can understand the world they are playing in.  While I could deflect some of them by requiring knowledge skill checks (and sometimes do if I think that a starting character shouldn't be able to know that), many players want to know what their characters would know about a setting so they can come up with character concepts, backgrounds, ideas for how to play their character.


----------



## I'm A Banana

So, people are saying it doesn't apply in D&D. Why not? Does it not still literalize the need to invent? Does it not give unnecessary permission for the acts of game writing and game playing? Does it not numb the ability of the player to do their part of the bargain, because it believes it has to do everything around here if the job's to get done?

Is it technically necessary for D&D in a way it isn't for writing? Is it not the great clomping food of nerdism, trying to exhaustively define a place that isn't there? Why would a good DM so exhaustively define something that doesn't exist? Is it ever really possible? Do players interact with everything the DM designs? Doesn't the worldbuilder's "psychological type" still imply that their setting is a hallowed place of dedication and lifelong study?

[sblock]
My own view is that it's more necessary in D&D, because you don't lead players by the nose in the same way you lead readers by the nose as an author, so you do need to create more than what's right in front of them. Specifically, you need to create what's all around them, so that they can go back or to the side and there's still something there. Though I do think the idea of exhaustively cataloging a place that doesn't exist leads to immense volumes of effort that is largely wasted in the game, and is more about the DM having fun creating than about the needs of the campaign.
[/sblock]


----------



## Kafkonia

Wow. If I actually cared what M. John Harrison thought about things... anything... this might have some effect on me.

Unfortunately, I don't. So it won't.

Moving on...


----------



## Desdichado

rycanada said:
			
		

> This is very relevant advice for a sci-fi writer.
> 
> This is terrible advice for most DMs.
> 
> This is somewhat appropriate advice for a small number of DMs with a very particular kind of style.



QFT.  Although some of my favorite sci-fi and fantasy authors defy that advice--Edgar Rice Burroughs, for instance.  J. R. R. Tolkien.  But I can see his point for an author.  It's not really relevent for GMs.  Running a game takes place in something closer to "realtime" than writing a story, so you need to have some details already in place when your players encounter them, becuase if you have to stop to think about them when they get there, that makes for a really boring game.  It works for writing a story, but not playing a game.


----------



## Pbartender

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Worldbuilding helps build the illusion of a complete world for the players, the idea that there is more to this setting than this one adventure with the one town and the one dungeon and maybe some nearby places that are nothing but names on a map.  When playing in a newly built world, or a world the players are unfamiliar with, my players ask lots of questions about the setting so they can understand the world they are playing in.  While I could deflect some of them by requiring knowledge skill checks (and sometimes do if I think that a starting character shouldn't be able to know that), many players want to know what their characters would know about a setting so they can come up with character concepts, backgrounds, ideas for how to play their character.




On the other hand, my preferred method of world building is to keep most area rather vague, and fill in the details as they become relevant...

My players also ask lots of questions.  When it involves building the characters, I usually tell them, "These are the basics of that area and culture.  Feel free to come up with details and I'll use them."  when It comes up in-game, I usually have a good idea ahead of time and I'll add deatails as needed. If I'm not ready for it, I'll come up with details on the spot (based on the vague notions I've already got) and make certain I write them down so I don't forget.  It's fun, since it gives the players a hand in the world building, and there's a greater sense of discovery since the players don't necessarily have all the details at the beginning.

You can still have the illusion of a complete world without actually having a complete world.


----------



## freyar

Kafkonia said:
			
		

> Wow. If I actually cared what M. John Harrison thought about things... anything... this might have some effect on me.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't. So it won't.
> 
> Moving on...




I have to agree with this sentiment.  

But it seems to me that the world would be a worse place without the detailed world building Tolkien did.  And I happen to like the depth of FR, if not all the specific details.


----------



## Ry

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So, people are saying it doesn't apply in D&D. Why not?




Personally, I argue against setting prep for the exact reasons you describe.  But if you're looking for simulationist play, where the players are supposed to explore and interact with an immersive world, you need to do at least a little worldbuilding.  Again, not my style, but it's not an invalid choice.


----------



## Desdichado

Kafkonia said:
			
		

> Wow. If I actually cared what M. John Harrison thought about things... anything... this might have some effect on me.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't. So it won't.
> 
> Moving on...



Wow, that's a helpful post.

There's a lot to be said for simply ignoring threads that don't interest you rather than purposefully pissing in them.

For the record, I don't even know who M. John Harrison is, but I care more about what he says about things than I do about what Kafkonia says about things.


----------



## Vanuslux

Sooooooo...by this logic Tolkien is a boring nerd?


----------



## Emirikol

DM's would do well to heed this advice.  I've been in campaigns where DM's sit around and design places where PC's will never go and never interact with meanwhile ignoring the most important thing:  THE ADVENTURE.   It's like designing a dungeon with a bunch of rooms that arent' accessable not related to any plot or interesting exploration whatsoever.  It's like starting a campaign at first level and starting your levelled dungeon design at the 30th level of the underdark.   If it's not part of the plot, don't waste your time.  Time is precious.

That said, a DM must consider that he needs to present enough information for players to feel that they are "somewhere else."  Those things would include:  MAP, list of countries, short bio on any countries that the PC's may know something about, and LOCAL rumors that the PC's might know something about.

I've seen it done in Living Greyhawk.  Triads neglecting scenario quality for nonsense things like pointless metaorgs and "behind the scenes" plot design.

If the players are never going to see it.  DON'T BOTHER.

Ever read a scenario where the background is 52 pages long, but the scenario is only 8 pages and it's all about NPC motivations for the otyough and green slime and their symbiotic relationship with each other (or other such useless nonsense)?

The DM needs to balance his time carefully.

jh
P.s.  (all caps for emphasis..not shouting) I'VE WASTED HUNDREDS OF HOURS ON WORLD DESIGN AND TOTALLY AGREE THAT IT'S NOTHING COMPARED TO THE ADVENTURE..FOR WHICH WORLD DESIGN HAS LITTLE EFFECT UPON THE QUALITY OF THE ADVENTURE.
..


----------



## Umbran

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Does it not numb the ability of the player to do their part of the bargain, because it believes it has to do everything around here if the job's to get done?




No, it does not. The author-reader relationship is remarkably different from the DM-player relationship.  No DM worth his salt thinks he or she "has to do everything around here".  Instead, he thinks in terms of giving the players the information they need to decide what their characters should do.  



> Doesn't the worldbuilder's "psychological type" still imply that their setting is a hallowed place of dedication and lifelong study?




As if all DMs fit a single "psychological type"?  I don't think the characterization of all DMs as a single type is accurate in the slightest.  No, I don't think many, or even most, DMs think in the manner you describe at all.


----------



## Kunimatyu

I'm going to go against the grain here, and say that this is great advice.

Design what your players will see, and don't design too far in advance - you want those blank spaces for when you get a cool idea, you don't want to go ahead and fill them just because they're empty.

Also, I've found that most players do not remember(or care!) about worldbuilding details, especially minor ones that don't serve a purpose in-game. If your players don't interact with these things, detailed worldbuilding is just intellectual masturbation that limits creativity later on.


----------



## PhantomNarrator

*RPG's are not fiction*

It's true that worldbuilders can sometimes get caught up in minutiae that players will never exploit or appreciate, but a certain level of detail is essential to drawing people into the gaming experience.

Role-playing poses very different challenges than writing fiction does. Since any "plot" in a rpg should be totally dependent on the actions of the players rather than on characters under the author's control, long term campaigns need a level of worldbuilding and adventure design that fiction doesn't. People have to be able to interact with the environment, and you can never predict what players will ultimately do. This forces the GM to consider things fiction authors can usually safely ignore or get by on bluff.


----------



## Cam Banks

I think he's hit the nail on something, however.

There's a significant proportion of any fan base that desires everything to be laid out, explained, catalogued, referenced, indexed, and explored. From my experience writing Dragonlance game material and fiction, I've come face to face with this from some of the folks who I work with. Fans come from reading the books and want it all to be explained in some Holy Grail of a game sourcebook. They want all the stats, they want all the population figures, commerce, mundane information, motives, relationships, adventure hooks, charts, and so forth.

I wrote a short story for the most recent Dragonlance anthology, and I didn't name the town it took place in, or the names of three of the characters, because it was from the point of view of a half-ogre afflicted with _feeblemind_ and it was all he could do just to focus on what was happening around him. No sooner had some of the regular message board folks read it, they wanted to know all of those details. I didn't have them, and I didn't really see a need to give them.

So are we on two sides of a divide, here? Do we _all_ need the statistics, charts, solved mysteries, and so forth? Or is that just a thing _some_ of us want?

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Cam Banks

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Sooooooo...by this logic Tolkien is a boring nerd?




A boring nerd who needed a better editor. 

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## The Cardinal

wow
irrelevant crap
by a second-rate sf writer
who would have thought such a thing possible?


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Running a game takes place in something closer to "realtime" than writing a story, so you need to have some details already in place when your players encounter them, becuase if you have to stop to think about them when they get there, that makes for a really boring game.




One of the skills of a "good" DM is improvisation, though. Certainly you don't expect everything your players do to be pre-planned, is there a reason we should have all parts of our world pre-planned?



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> You can still have the illusion of a complete world without actually having a complete world.




QFMFT. Advice has continually been "create only as needed." I totally believe that D&D needs to create more than a novel, but I'm not sure it needs to create all that much more.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Hobo said:
			
		

> QFT.  Although some of my favorite sci-fi and fantasy authors defy that advice--Edgar Rice Burroughs, for instance.  J. R. R. Tolkien.  But I can see his point for an author.



Ditto. If an author revels too much in worldbuilding, you'll get bored, _unless_ you want that worldbuilding - that's the reason why Lord of the Rings is liked (because the world is only hinted at), and why the Silmarillion is less liked or often called boring - it's only a worldbuilding tale.
Too much world can stifle the narrative

For DMs - they need worldbuilding, because they have to respond in real time. The narrative is developing during play, and is driven forward by the players. Worldbuilding is only "in-advance" outlining of the stage to avoid too much improvising.

However, too much worldbuilding can have the similar result: If the world is too well defined, then it _can_ stifle plots, prevent the players from doing certain things - similar to railroading.

This said, I'd say, that 
1) Worldbuilding as preparation in advance is good and swell, perhaps crucial.
2) worldbuilding as a purely intellectual exercise, well this can easily end in the second scenario.


----------



## Peni Griffin

Actually, it's not particularly good advice even for writers.  It's advice to "do things my way, not your way," based on a weakness which the author lacks, but to which not all worldbuilders fall prey; i.e., building the world at the expense of the story.  He'd spend his time better giving advice about how to approach his own strengths and avoid his own weaknesses - the only topics any of us can truly give useful advice on.  

Tolkien would never have written the Hobbit or LOTR if he hadn't had his language- and world-building hobby.  Diana Wynne Jones makes worlds the way other people make sandwiches - vivid, realistic, self-consistent worlds and series of worlds about which the reader learns just the right amount.  I don't know how much work she puts into the process of creating them, and I don't need to know.  The result counts.  How you get there doesn't.

There are nine and sixty ways of creating tribal lays, and every single one of them is right.  Some people have to have the worldbuilding and some people get bogged down in them and some people can't make them at all, and make a virtue of it.  There's no point in making hard-and-fast rules about any of it.  Personally, I have to overprepare for every session I DM, every public talk I give, everything I do that involves prolonged speaking.  Other people can do satisfactory games at five minutes notice.  

More power to everybody.  Do it the way that works for you, not the way that works for somebody else.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Sooooooo...by this logic Tolkien is a boring nerd?




To be fair, that's 100% a valid criticism.  Lots of people are fans of Tolkien, but Steve Jackson cut out huge swaths of the books to make things flow faster and to tell a more dramatic story. And the people who are the most intense fans of Tolkien...tend to be boring nerds.  

The idea that Tolkien isn't that great of a writer is hardly a revolutionary idea.


----------



## TwoSix

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> ...
> So are we on two sides of a divide, here? Do we _all_ need the statistics, charts, solved mysteries, and so forth? Or is that just a thing _some_ of us want?




There are plenty of people who do want the complete atlas and encyclopedia of Fantasy World X.  However, the great majority of them ARE great clomping nerds, or at least having a clomping nerd episode.


----------



## Celebrim

Who?  M. John Harrison?  Who are we talking about here?  What has he written?  Why haven't I heard of anything this guy has done?

Could it be because he's never had a memorable setting?  Could it be that maybe there is something missing from his highly esteemed prose?  Could it be that this guy is dismissive of 'world building' because he's just not very good at it?  Frankly, I wouldn't trust someone who's contribution to the arts seems to be solely deconstructive to be a good judge of the utility of construction, especially if he chooses to refer to it with such phrases as the 'great clomping foot of nerdiness'.  Objectiveness in this matter doesn't seem to be his strong point.

I don't know.  I've never read a single work buy him, and never even heard of them.  I don't know enough about Mr. Harrison to have a well thought out opinion.  But I do know that I once ran through the Internet Speculative Fiction list to rate the works I'd read, and by the time I'd finished making my list I'd rated some 500 science fiction and fantasy novels - and none of them were by M. John Harrison and virtually non of which had 'Star Trek' or 'Star Wars' in the title or had a cover with a blouse ripper.  But maybe the fact I've never read Harrison is my fault.  Maybe I'm just an illiterate pleb.  Maybe he's the greatest thing since Tolkien crawled out of the trenches or Delany crawled out from under a rock, but the fact of the matter is that this guy might as well be nobody for all the impact he's making on readers.  Because, if he had any impact beyond the respect of his peers, I'd have heard of him and read him.

In any event, I think he offers advice that is to say the least, highly suspect and of questionable value to even writers of speculative fiction much less game referees.  One obvious objection is that a lot of writers with more fame and recognition and dare I say literary acclaim than he seem to have done quite a bit of thinking and planning that looks awfully like world building.  Another obvious objection is that running a game is very different than writing a story.  Another obvious objection is that he doesn't really present an argument, so much as a trite 'just so' story backed with almost religious conviction and with the usual accompanying attack on the pyschology of anyone who thinks differently than he does - and then segues right into a political rant.  One wonders whether his peers appreciate being told that there normal process of producing a story is akin to a mental disease.  This is normally the sort of behavior that leads me to believe I'd be wasting my time reading anything that the writer read, but I'll avoid the temptation to reply to his ad hominems in kind.

In short, echoing the earlier poster, "utter crap".

UPDATE: Came across this post at random, and should note that I actually had read one of his books at the time of this post.  I had heard of, and did try to read his work, 'Light'.  Unfortunately, I found the book badly written and childishly 'darker-than-thou' and put it down as a bad cause with in 20-30 pages.  Then apparently promptly forgot about it, because I've twice since then checked the book out of the library on recommendation by an online review only to open it and get a few pages in and go, "Oh... it's that one."


----------



## Mark CMG

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So, people are saying it doesn't apply in D&D. Why not?





Because it is fun.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Who? M. John Harrison? Who are we talking about here? What has he written? Why haven't I heard of anything this guy has done?




Check out the Wikipedia page. He's not just some hack.

But this isn't about the messenger, it's about what he's saying. He's got at least enough cred to validly offer advise to other creators.


----------



## Victim

robberbaron said:
			
		

> He's quite right - if you want the players to move through the world without really being in it.
> 
> Personally, I like to know that there is more to a gameworld than a series of dungeons, a list of maidens to be rescued/deflowered (depending upon alignment), etc. Games I've played in which had no depth seemed little more than multiplayer Fighting Fantasy books.
> 
> It would be interesting to have a poll on this subject.




I think characterization does that, not worldbuilding.  

In my experience, most worldbuilding is wasted effort since it doesn't really come up.  Things too deep below the surface aren't visible.  And even immediately apparent details are generally of little irrelevance especially compared to the time it takes to bring them all up.  

Defining a setting in broad strokes is the way to go, IMO, since it means you can communicate the fundamentals easily, and it provides stuff to work with without being overly confining.


----------



## Infernal Teddy

Who?

Sorry, but as a GM, part of the fun - for me - is world building, and watching the enjoyment the players show at my creation.


----------



## Celebrim

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> To be fair, that's 100% a valid criticism.




Because 100 million readers world wide just have to be wrong... 



> Lots of people are fans of Tolkien, but Steve Jackson cut out huge swaths of the books to make things flow faster and to tell a more dramatic story.




That is a matter of opinion.  After, _Peter Jackson's_ klunker of a movie in 'King Kong', its increasingly being floated around Hollywood that maybe _Peter Jackson_ isn't so much a great director as someone that had such good material that it would have been hard to be even the slightest bit faithful to it and manage not to be extraordinarily successful.  Again, 100 million readers and all.  For one thing, its not at all clear that anything PJ did to the _story_ made it any more accessible, so much visualizing a story and trimming it down ALWAYS makes it more accessible to the wider public.  For my money, the real secret to the movies success was neither the questionable script nor the often plodding direction, but Lee and Howe's visuals.



> And the people who are the most intense fans of Tolkien...tend to be boring nerds.




Ahhh, yes.  The ad hominem attack in place of actual argument.  I don't suppose that it ever occurred to you that people who tend to be intense fans of books of any sort, tend to be 'boring nerds'.  The argument is therefore circular.  People are made nerds by definition of 'liking to read'.  It doesn't necessarily follow that this sterotype is valid in any fashion.



> The idea that Tolkien isn't that great of a writer is hardly a revolutionary idea.




No, but it is one that increasingly calls into question the taste of those holding the idea.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> So are we on two sides of a divide, here? Do we _all_ need the statistics, charts, solved mysteries, and so forth? Or is that just a thing _some_ of us want?
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




It's a thing that some of us want.  The few times I do end up playing my GM tends to give us  a general idea of what's around but doesnt flesh anything out outside of where we are until it's pretty clear that we're getting ready to go there. As longtime DM I started out with the superdetailed model then eventually came to my senses and went on the build as you go model. 

Superdetailed settings are kind of a turnoff for me only because as DM becoming familiar with these settings seems more like homework than fun work.  I own several settings that I strip mine materials from for my own games. Material like Wilderlands of High Fantasy work fine for me so much material to use, and no one really needs to know where it originally came from.


----------



## the Jester

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

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




Sci-fi novels are NOT roleplaying games. For a sci-fi novel, he may be right. For an rpg, he is completely wrong.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Sooooooo...by this logic Tolkien is a boring nerd?



All nerds are boring, and Tolkien is the king of the nerds.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Check out the Wikipedia page. He's not just some hack.




Did you even READ the first line of the Wikipedia entry??????

M. John Harrison 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._John_Harrison&oldid=123555420


----------



## Celebrim

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But this isn't about the messenger, it's about what he's saying. He's got at least enough cred to validly offer advise to other creators.




Does he?  If what he's saying doesn't make sense, which it doesn't, and is offered without support for the position, which it is, and doesn't correspond to the observed nature of the world - namely that lots of skillful writers do engage in world building, then it is fair to ask what sort of person is offering the position.  And the answer is, the writer is famous for writing high brow narratives that deconstruct the role of myth making in the telling of fiction.  In other words, he writes stories about writing stories, and seems to be solely famous for that - not surprisingly mostly within the literary community itself, since these are the ones that would care.  

So basically what we have here is someone elevating his opinion to the level of fact, and then broadly and preemptively insulting anyone that might disagree with him.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> No, but it is one that increasingly calls into question the taste of those holding the idea.




Celebrim, take a deep breath. I was just pointing out that invoking Tolkien doesn't defend the idea that worldbuilding is somehow essential to D&D nearly enough, because for all the worldbuilding he did, his books can still come across as clunky, plodding, and more fascinated with their own detail than with telling a gripping story. Tolkien is praised for a lot of things, but never his _efficiency_.

Invoking Tolkien isn't the way to prove the point that D&D needs extensive worldbuilding, and that the advise to not bother with much worldbuilding still stands because a lot of Tolkien's worldbuilding *was* wasted effort as far as LotR was concerned.


----------



## TerraDave

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Sooooooo...by this logic Tolkien is a boring nerd?




Well exactly. As far as I can tell, "world building" has been a central part of many successful fantasy and sci fi, er, worlds. 

And think of other media. Watch the "making of" part of any decent fantasy movie or something from a related genre. Lots of sometimes almost litteral "world building". Or practically any successfull fantasy computer/video/online game. All about the world(s). 

I am actually curious to know what the counter example is?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Peni Griffin said:
			
		

> Actually, it's not particularly good advice even for writers.  It's advice to "do things my way, not your way," based on a weakness which the author lacks, but to which not all worldbuilders fall prey; i.e., building the world at the expense of the story.  He'd spend his time better giving advice about how to approach his own strengths and avoid his own weaknesses - the only topics any of us can truly give useful advice on.
> 
> Tolkien would never have written the Hobbit or LOTR if he hadn't had his language- and world-building hobby.  Diana Wynne Jones makes worlds the way other people make sandwiches - vivid, realistic, self-consistent worlds and series of worlds about which the reader learns just the right amount.  I don't know how much work she puts into the process of creating them, and I don't need to know.  The result counts.  How you get there doesn't.
> 
> There are nine and sixty ways of creating tribal lays, and every single one of them is right.  Some people have to have the worldbuilding and some people get bogged down in them and some people can't make them at all, and make a virtue of it.  There's no point in making hard-and-fast rules about any of it.  Personally, I have to overprepare for every session I DM, every public talk I give, everything I do that involves prolonged speaking.  Other people can do satisfactory games at five minutes notice.
> 
> More power to everybody.  Do it the way that works for you, not the way that works for somebody else.




Excellent post, Peni Griffin.    

There is a world of difference (pun intended) between becoming mired in something and using something as a tool.  As it is impossible to actually build a complete world, the goal is (or should be) always to create those things that you need to in order to create the _illusion_ of a complete world.

RC


----------



## Kestrel

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So, people are saying it doesn't apply in D&D. Why not? Does it not still literalize the need to invent? Does it not give unnecessary permission for the acts of game writing and game playing? Does it not numb the ability of the player to do their part of the bargain, because it believes it has to do everything around here if the job's to get done?
> 
> Is it technically necessary for D&D in a way it isn't for writing? Is it not the great clomping food of nerdism, trying to exhaustively define a place that isn't there? Why would a good DM so exhaustively define something that doesn't exist? Is it ever really possible? Do players interact with everything the DM designs? Doesn't the worldbuilder's "psychological type" still imply that their setting is a hallowed place of dedication and lifelong study?
> 
> [sblock]
> My own view is that it's more necessary in D&D, because you don't lead players by the nose in the same way you lead readers by the nose as an author, so you do need to create more than what's right in front of them. Specifically, you need to create what's all around them, so that they can go back or to the side and there's still something there. Though I do think the idea of exhaustively cataloging a place that doesn't exist leads to immense volumes of effort that is largely wasted in the game, and is more about the DM having fun creating than about the needs of the campaign.
> [/sblock]




Hey, follow your bliss.  If that's detailing the eating habits of the Sewer denizens of the City State of Gobblegook, then go for it.

Will the majority of it get used in a game and will the players care beyond the loot of the dead guy on thier sword?  That's pretty unlikely.  Players only care about the stuff that involves thier character directly, the fluff about the King of Gobblegook?  They could care less unless it gives them loot or xp.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Tolkien is praised for a lot of things, but never his _efficiency_.





He is by me.  There is not a single word wasted in LotR, and the degrees by which PJ had to alter the later narrative to cover changes made in previous installments is evidence of this.  The ending of LotR is one of (IMHO), the most triumphant and heartbreaking endings ever written.  The movie, not so much.

YMMV.

RC


----------



## Umbran

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> One of the skills of a "good" DM is improvisation, though. Certainly you don't expect everything your players do to be pre-planned, is there a reason we should have all parts of our world pre-planned?




Well, let's be clear here - the author seems to have stated that worldbuilding, in general, is bad.  And you also seem to jump to the extreme.  But, since when does worldbuilding, in general, imply that "all parts of the world are pre-planned"?  I don't think the extreme is a good argument that it should be avoided entirely, as the piece suggests.

It isn't as if the real case is digital - all preplaned or all improvised.  There is a balance to all things - a certain amount of worldbuilding is called for, and a certain amount of improvisation.


----------



## Ulric

Remember, this is coming from a professional novelist. Here are a few things to keep in mind. 

1) If a professional writer spends too much time on "world building", he produces and publishes a book every ten years instead of every year. Unless that ten year book is fabulous, he doesn't have enough money to pay the rent.  

2) If a professional novelist spends too much time on "world building", he may be lacking in his or her ability to plot and/or characterize. Without good characters and a good plot, no novel will work. But without a good, complex world, the novel might still work. EXAMPLES: 1) the movie The Breakfast Club. Not much "world building" there. The world? A few rooms in a highschool. 2) Any "psychological thriller" type book where the point is the mental happenings in the characters minds, regardless of where they might be from moment to moment. Etc...etc....

3) Being a wantta-be novelist myself, I've been to plenty of writing conventions and talked to plenty of writers who never finish anything because of "world building". Most of these writers will probably never finish a book, ever. World Building is just one excuse. Writers have hundreds more that all equal "I'm not really serious about actually producing anything" but I'm not honest enough with myself to admit it.

Now, all this being said, I think that, in general, "world building is bad" isn't very good advice. As long as world building doesn't become an excuse to avoid characterization or plot or the completion of a work, then there is nothing wrong with it--and if it's done right, and is related to the type of book or setting you're creating, then it will make everything else stronger and better. So I say, World Build Away! And I probably wouldn't look to M. John Harrison's books if I was thrilled by a complexity of setting. 

NOTE: "Spending time at Enworld is bad". Why? Because this is time I should be spending writing. But this is so much easier and fun. HA HA. Spending time at Enworld is bad. Maybe I'll write an article about it and see if Neil Gaiman will post it in his blog.


----------



## Hand of Evil

World building is only needed for the part you are going to use in your story.  You don't need to create the whole world if no one is ever going to set foot in it or come into contact with it.


----------



## Ghendar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Utter crap.
> 
> 
> RC




Encapsulates pretty damn well my opinion on the subject. 

His thoughts carry no more and no less weight than any one elses. Utter crap is right on.




			
				rycanada said:
			
		

> This is very relevant advice for a sci-fi writer.
> 
> This is terrible advice for most DMs.




I was thinking the exact same thing. What works for writing doesn't necessarily work well for RPG world design.


----------



## Pbartender

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, let's be clear here - the author seems to have stated that worldbuilding, in general, is bad.




Really?  I thought he was proposing that _extraneous_ world building is bad.

In other words: Don't worldbuild more than what your novel (or adventure campaign) needs, it can too easily get pedantic and distracting.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Umbran said:
			
		

> It isn't as if the real case is digital - all preplaned or all improvised.  There is a balance to all things - a certain amount of worldbuilding is called for, and a certain amount of improvisation.




The most sensible thing said in this thread yet. 

And done with tact and without attacking anyone at that! 
Inconceivable!


----------



## I'm A Banana

> But, since when does worldbuilding, in general, imply that "all parts of the world are pre-planned"




The implication in world-building is that you are building an entire world, the setting (for the adventure or the story). The criticism is, as far as I can see, that building the world is pointless. You need to build the story (the triumph of storytelling over worldbuilding), or, in D&D's case, the adventure.


----------



## el-remmen

Kam Midg said:
			
		

> Though I do think the idea of exhaustively cataloging a place that doesn't exist leads to immense volumes of effort that is largely wasted in the game, and is more about the DM having fun creating than about the needs of the campaign.




Can't it be both? 

I mean, I have a hell of a whole lot of fun developing and detailing Aquerra, and would probably continue to do it (or some other world) even if I stopped playing D&D.

However, as part of that process I am developing the immediate area around the PCs and getting inspired for further detail and variation depending on what the PCs do and the ideas the player's bring to the table.


----------



## Mallus

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Who?  M. John Harrison?  Who are we talking about here?  What has he written?  Why haven't I heard of anything this guy has done?



If you're in the US, you probably haven't heard of him because his books weren't readily available here until quite recently (he's British). The only works of his that I've read are the novel _Light_ and a collection of his _Viriconium_ stories.

_Light_ is one of the best SF books I've read in years, if not in, well, ever. It also gives you a some perspective about where he's coming from. The _Viriconium_ stories are also good, but they're more akin to Calvino than mainstream fantasy.

For the record, I (kinda) agree with what Harrison is saying at the same time I think he's dead wrong. He's making the fairly common mistake of starting from the position that all fiction has the same goals. Or that the same criteria apply universally.


----------



## Reynard

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Invoking Tolkien isn't the way to prove the point that D&D needs extensive worldbuilding, and that the advise to not bother with much worldbuilding still stands because a lot of Tolkien's worldbuilding *was* wasted effort as far as LotR was concerned.




Um... No.

Just, no.  That you would even suggest such a thing is, to me, astounding.  Dizzying, even.  let's see if I can explain it in a way that makes sense in the context of running a D&D campaign.

Everything that occurred within the pages of the Lord of the Rings was informed by the world building that Tolkien did, because the story itself grew out of the worldbuilding -- not the other way around.  To suggest that Tolkien's worldbuilding was "wasted effort" for the LotR displays either a great disdain for the work and the man, or an absolute lack of understanding of the work or the man.

As it relates to D&D: worldbuilding creates camapigns.  What's where, what happened when and to whom, who's who -- these all inform the adventures and the characters and their particular "story".  Even if the PCs never encounter an element doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on them.  I have never been to Washington DC, nor have I ever met George W. Bush, but I am pretty sure he has an impact on my "day to day" adventures - -and would have a whole lot more if I was still in the US Army.

Part of the problem, I think, is people who see world building as wasted effort don't care about versimilitude, they don't care about details, and they aren't interested in building something that exists beyond the character they are currently playing.  This is a perfectly viable way to play, but it seems atithetical to the idea of the RPG to me.  Why would you play throwaway characters in a throwaway setting?  You have these tools at your disposal to create a whole world -- not just as the Dm, but as a player, too.  Don't people play subsequent campaigns in the same worlds anymore?  Don't people play their characters' children and children's children?  Is it just me?  Is the idea of making legends and legacies that live on a dead one?

I engage in worldbuilding because the results, at the table, are far superior to the alternative, and the stories we tell of those results, we tell for decades after they happen.  Because there is context, for everyone.  If the world in which the adventure occurs in which the characters exist doesn't matter, how can the adventure or the characters matter?


----------



## Set

So this author lacks interest in reading anything that's detailed?  Cool.  People with short-attention spans need books too, I guess.

I'll sit back here and read books from authors like Tolkein or Lovecraft, who are willing to craft a detailed setting *as part and parcel of establishing mood and theme.*

Sure, there are cases gone horribly, horribly wrong, like the Wheel of Time story, where the author seems unable, or unwilling, to break off the travelogue and get down to advancing the plot, but in most instances, I prefer a well-detailed world than one that flies by and has no significance or coherent structure to it.

Details make a setting memorable.  If this dude wrote the Realms, I suppose this would be the entirety of the Waterdeep Boxed Set;

"Waterdeep is some big city on the Sword Coast.  A bunch of people live there, but the PCs won't talk to most of them, and if you were any good as a GM, you could just improvise all that boring stuff on your own.  There's a big mountain, and a dungeon under it, for your adventuring needs.  Fill in as needed by using the random dungeon generator in the back of the 1st Ed DM's Guide, and choose encounters by flipping to random pages in the Monster Manual.  Attempting to 'make sense' of trivia such as architecture or ecosystems or 'why' some encounter would be where it is would just be a humongous waste of time, you incredibly boring geek."


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> My own view is that it's more necessary in D&D, because you don't lead players by the nose in the same way you lead readers by the nose as an author, so you do need to create more than what's right in front of them. Specifically, you need to create what's all around them, so that they can go back or to the side and there's still something there. Though I do think the idea of exhaustively cataloging a place that doesn't exist leads to immense volumes of effort that is largely wasted in the game, and is more about the DM having fun creating than about the needs of the campaign.




But do a DM's worldbuilding efforts and the needs of the campaign have to be counter to each other?    

If the DMs world is rigid so that the players have no ability to change anything, that is probably not good.  

If the DM railroads the players just to show off his amazing creativity; again not good.

If the DM has fun building the world, and by having his fun creates an immersive world that his players can interact with and enjoy, what is the problem?


----------



## Reynard

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> World building is only needed for the part you are going to use in your story.  You don't need to create the whole world if no one is ever going to set foot in it or come into contact with it.




Wrong.  A world is more than the sum of its parts.  A place can reach beyond its own borders and history can reach through time.  And do, in almost all cases.

Playing a light hearted, temporary game with no sense of setting is fine as a diversion, I guess, but it is throwing away most of the potential unique to RPGs, for both players and GMs.


----------



## Mallus

Set said:
			
		

> So this author lacks interest in reading anything that's detailed?



Maybe. But I'm pretty sure he likes _depth_.

Really, if you like SF, at all, try his novel _Light_. I rank it up there with _Lord of Light_, _Neuromancer_, and _The Forever War_, which is the highest praise I can toss around.


----------



## Delta

rycanada said:
			
		

> This is very relevant advice for a sci-fi writer.
> 
> This is terrible advice for most DMs.




I would have posted, but here RY stole all my thunder.

Writing a story and making a game are opposite tasks. Here's Greg Costikyan, one of the best thinkers on the subject: http://www.costik.com/gamnstry.html

Side question: Can the game designers of _World of Warcraft_ do without worldbuilding? Is their job closer to DM'ing than novel-writing? Discuss.


----------



## Ulric

M John Harrison said:
			
		

> Above all, worldbuilding is not technically neccessary. 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.



In his mind, "world building" means you actually have to come up with all the details of a world? Apparently so, as it would constitute the "biggest library ever built". 

And I don't even understand the next part: "This gives us a clue to the psychological type of the worldbuilder...and makes us very afraid." 

I have no idea what he means by this...and I have a psychology degree! I just can't seem to generate any fear when thinking about world building, or world building nerds. I wish he would have explained this more.


----------



## Sejs

Dune.


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There is not a single word wasted in LotR...



It's also true that LotR has a whole mess of words put in service of goals that certain people don't find worthwhile. I imagine that a lot of people around here would feel the same way about Proust's _In Search of Lost Time_.

Hell, there are probably even a few odd birds on ENWorld that love 'em both...


----------



## moritheil

Kafkonia said:
			
		

> Wow. If I actually cared what M. John Harrison thought about things... anything... this might have some effect on me.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't. So it won't.
> 
> Moving on...




Rock on.

The thing is, when a writer posts advice, it tends to be valid for his own style of writing and his own creativity.  For anything else, YMMV.  I'm endlessly amused whenever some writer who makes big bucks comes out with some throw-away statement and people spend months neurotically obsessing over it.


----------



## Imaro

I personally think it's a different strokes for different folks type of thing.  If setting is "wasted" on your players, why assume everyone else's players are the same?  My players delve in politics, mysteries, exploration, etc.  In order for me to have a world where their actions have "real" ramifications, consequences, effects, and fallout, a certain level of world detail is necessary. YMMV of course.

I feel as if the same argument for worldbuilding could be applied to adventure building as well.  Use a random dungeon generator, and hook generator to make up an adventure.  It cuts down on work.  All you gotta do now is throw some monsters in their.  Better yet make up a few tables(for monsters and treasures of each level) and randomly roll whenever PC's get to a room, even less work.  If all your players care about is loot and xp points this works just fine.

In the end I GM to create, my adventures come from the flow of the PC's within the world I've created and it works good and feels natural for me.  I don't want to run a string of dungeon crawls or plotted quests...is this badwrong fun in some way?  In this instance how is world building a waste of time.  It's a method you may disagree with(for you), but claiming it's a waste of time seems to imply that your way is a true-ism, and those just don't exist in games like D&D.  

 I don't think any one way to inspire creativity is going to be the same for every person, some people might get totally stuck with just a blank canvas and "make an adventure" for inspiration.  That same person might find a ton of hooks and seeds, seemingly detailling themselves as he fleshes out his world.  How then is it a waste for him to do this?  In the end do what's best and most fun for you...isn't that the point of making the game your own?


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Reynard said:
			
		

> Everything that occurred within the pages of the Lord of the Rings was informed by the world building that Tolkien did, because the story itself grew out of the worldbuilding -- not the other way around.  To suggest that Tolkien's worldbuilding was "wasted effort" for the LotR displays either a great disdain for the work and the man, or an absolute lack of understanding of the work or the man.




...or you could just think that all of that background was a little unneccesary and boring. I mean that's valid too right? You can agree with that without insinuatuing that person is stupid for "not getting it" right? 





			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> Part of the problem, I think, is people who see world building as wasted effort don't care about versimilitude, they don't care about details, and they aren't interested in building something that exists beyond the character they are currently playing.  This is a perfectly viable way to play,




But...



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> but it seems atithetical to the idea of the RPG to me.




Translation: My way is better. 



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> Why would you play throwaway characters in a throwaway setting?




Because the people at that particular table might simply want to do that? Maybe a DM might figure that time and effort to build a campaign world isnt worth it for these particular players? Maybe he / she just DONT WANNA. 



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> You have these tools at your disposal to create a whole world -- not just as the Dm, but as a player, too.  Don't people play subsequent campaigns in the same worlds anymore?  Don't people play their characters' children and children's children?  Is it just me?  Is the idea of making legends and legacies that live on a dead one?




You don't use tools just because they are there. You use them because you either need to, or want to. If a person is so inclined then great, if not it doesnt mean that they are soehow underutilizing the game resources.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> I engage in worldbuilding because the results, at the table, are far superior to the alternative, and the stories we tell of those results, we tell for decades after they happen.  Because there is context, for everyone.




That's great for you and yours. I'm glad that works for you. 



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> If the world in which the adventure occurs in which the characters exist doesn't matter, how can the adventure or the characters matter?




It matters that the players at the table are having fun. Whether it's a one shot or a series of games with the same players and characters in a barely fleshed out world. The insinuation that people are doing it wrong just becasue theyre not doing it youre way is just absurd and is pretty much the same kind of arrogance that the writer  of that piece has toward people like you.


----------



## Set

Ulric said:
			
		

> And I don't even understand the next part: "This gives us a clue to the psychological type of the worldbuilder...and makes us very afraid."
> 
> I have no idea what he means by this...and I have a psychology degree! I just can't seem to generate any fear when thinking about world building, or world building nerds. I wish he would have explained this more.




My thought would be that he thinks of a 'world-building' mentality as being something like those obsessive people who can recite baseball statistics going back 40 years, or, to use a more locally-relevant comparison, those of us who were infamous for being able to quote chapter and verse of monster statistics, to the great annoyance of our DMs...  Hence his reference to 'clomping nerdishness' or whatever.

So really, if you have any interest in the setting of a story, say being one of those people who buys stuff like the Atlas of Pern, or enjoys the Forgotten Realms, or know far too much about the worlds of Star Wars or Star Trek, to the point of knowing what an 'Expanded Universe' is, or who Mara Jade is, or what the Prime Directive is all about, or, heaven forfend, watches the History Channel, then you are a 'clomping nerd' and deserving of the authors derision.

'Cause that's what we *really* need more of, as fans of science fiction, fantasy and the gaming genre, yet another artificial divide to pit us against each other, as if any one of us were any more or less a 'nerd' or 'nerd' where even a valid insult in this day and age, when the highest grossing movies are about a nerd who was bitten by a bug and got super-powers and some sashaying pirates fighting magical cursed people on the open seas.

Shyeah.  Try harder, dude.  Nerds are *in.*  And even if we're not, you're totally preaching to the wrong target audience...


----------



## Nifft

Seems to me (based on experience and what folks have posted in this thread) that worldbuilding can inspire or distract.

From a purely gaming perspective, worldbuilding to a degree has often times been very beneficial. If the PCs express an interest in an area they've heard about, that leads to an adventure that they helped choose. If they don't express an interest, perhaps at that point it's counter-productive to flesh out the region, but plot hooks involving visitors and interests from that area may still come into play.

For example, I don't expect my PCs to spend much time in Hell, but infernal politics are affecting the Prime... so I have to detail that area.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Prophet2b

Yeah... that was pretty bad...  I suppose that if you want to churn out book after book after book in rapid succession to make a lot of money off of mediocre (or even poor) writing one should listen to his advice, but the truly magnificent stories... those are stories _in a world_.

Tolkien is only one example.  Robert Jordan's _Wheel of Time_ series is a great example of a story that takes place in a world - a world that he created, planned out, and is still planning out.  Terry Goodkind's _Sword of Truth_ series is another good example.  For a Sci-Fi example, just look at _Serenity_ (okay, so it's not a book, but it's still a story) - Joss Whedon put a ton of work into the world that was never seen on television, and may never have been seen.  Or Star Wars for that matter... huge world (an entire galaxy) surrounding a "small" story, which is one reason fans have found it so easy to continue to the storyline - they have a context from which to draw upon (even if the subsequent books aren't all that great of literature - the world context is still there, and Star Wars would have sucked without it).

A world is important because it is from the world's context that society and cultures are molded and influenced by one another.  If an author or GM wants a truly realistic story, they're going to need a truly realistic world.

Consider our world for a moment.  There are phrases that we use, dialects we've formed, fashions we've adopted, and references we make every single day that we don't even think about, but without the context of the world around us and our past history, these things would never have come to be.

Without a world, all your story becomes is a claustrophobic, static environment with no realistic mood or theme.

This isn't to say that there haven't been "decent" stories produced by authors who don't create the worlds.  It's only to say that if you want a truly great story, you're going to need a world.  That is, after all, where stories take place.  The world defines the story, not the other way around.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Y'know, I have a friend who said, of the original trilogy, that the thing that made the Star Wars universe work for him was that it felt "used".  IOW, it had a history and a scope outside of the story at hand.  Things happened before Luke Skywalker; things would happen after he was gone.

I like that, and think it (at least somewhat) true.


----------



## Victim

Reynard said:
			
		

> Part of the problem, I think, is people who see world building as wasted effort don't care about versimilitude, they don't care about details, and they aren't interested in building something that exists beyond the character they are currently playing.  This is a perfectly viable way to play, but it seems atithetical to the idea of the RPG to me.  Why would you play throwaway characters in a throwaway setting?  You have these tools at your disposal to create a whole world -- not just as the Dm, but as a player, too.  Don't people play subsequent campaigns in the same worlds anymore?  Don't people play their characters' children and children's children?  Is it just me?  Is the idea of making legends and legacies that live on a dead one?




A heavily defined setting has too many lines on the page for players to easily draw their own legends, imo.


----------



## papastebu

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So, people are saying it doesn't apply in D&D. Why not? Does it not still literalize the need to invent? Does it not give unnecessary permission for the acts of game writing and game playing? Does it not numb the ability of the player to do their part of the bargain, because it believes it has to do everything around here if the job's to get done?
> 
> Is it technically necessary for D&D in a way it isn't for writing? Is it not the great clomping food of nerdism, trying to exhaustively define a place that isn't there? Why would a good DM so exhaustively define something that doesn't exist? Is it ever really possible? Do players interact with everything the DM designs? Doesn't the worldbuilder's "psychological type" still imply that their setting is a hallowed place of dedication and lifelong study?
> 
> [sblock]
> My own view is that it's more necessary in D&D, because you don't lead players by the nose in the same way you lead readers by the nose as an author, so you do need to create more than what's right in front of them. Specifically, you need to create what's all around them, so that they can go back or to the side and there's still something there. Though I do think the idea of exhaustively cataloging a place that doesn't exist leads to immense volumes of effort that is largely wasted in the game, and is more about the DM having fun creating than about the needs of the campaign.
> [/sblock]




Who's to say that this is not a good thing, having fun creating, that is? I live in an area where gamers are either way too young for me to hang out with, or are way too far away to make playing in or GMing their games practicable. If I wasn't so into world-building, for my fiction _and_ the game(s), then I wouldn't really be able to stay connected to the hobby I've come to love over 29-30 years. Even if you have created, on paper or in your mind's-eye, every blade of grass in your world, there's no need to tell the reader/player about it all. I have often been amazed at how things in a novel come alive for me when the author has put a massive amount of time and energy into what's in there before I ever set foot in that world. I don't like exhaustive description when reading, because it slows down narrative considerably, but knowing that if I turned my head *this* direction, rather than being led the way I'm "supposed" to go, that I would see something there instead of nothing, helps me suspend my disbelief.
Take Jim Butcher's _Dresden Files_ novels, for example. He has a pretty good picture of Chicago in his head, and it comes out in the descriptions of places in the books. He then takes the supernatural aspects and weaves them into the picture that already exists. To me this helps lend the books verisimilitude. If he didn't have that picture of Chicago--though it is either researched or he's lived there, rather than make everything from scratch--I wouldn't enjoy the stories as much as I do.


----------



## Reynard

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> ...or you could just think that all of that background was a little unneccesary and boring. I mean that's valid too right?




Actually, it isn't valid.  People think that whether they like something or not is the same thing as criticism.  It's not.  Criticism is something different entirely and it is not, as some would believe, entirely subjective.  there are benchmarks by which we can measure the literary quality of the work, as well as the literary importance of elements of the work.  Just because you think its a little unneccesary and boring doesn't make it so, and you can, in a very real way, be wrong in at least the first part of that statement (whether you find something boring is eithe rhear nor there and isn't a reflection of the quality of a piece, one way or the other.)



> You can agree with that without insinuatuing that person is stupid for "not getting it" right?




Look, everybody is entitled to their opinion, but when you are talking about literary work, any literary work, opinions are invalid in the face of criticism.



> Translation: My way is better.




Translation: From this point foward, i have chosen to feel offended and put upon by Reynard, who couldn't possibly be using hyperbole or exaggeration to make a point and must, absolutely, be making sweeping statements of fact.  Moreover, it is absolutely assured that Reynard is engaging in one-true-wayism, and not in any way making use of standard forum techniques to express what he finds great and wonderfula nd worthwhile in an RPG.  And, finally, I furthermore heretofore pledge to ignore any statement of Reynard's that can be construed as IMO, YMMV or similar unless it is strictly and exactly stated, because otherwise the default assumption must be that Reynard is demanding you think, eat, sleep and poop just like him.


----------



## Reynard

Victim said:
			
		

> A heavily defined setting has too many lines on the page for players to easily draw their own legends, imo.




Only if the setting details are immutable.  If the players have the power, through their actions both IC and OOC, to change the world, a heavily defined setting is a beautiful tool with which to create.  I mean, it is one thing to have a PC build a dominion, but to do it on the ruins another dominion he brought to knee... that's a beautiful thing.


----------



## Imaro

Victim said:
			
		

> A heavily defined setting has too many lines on the page for players to easily draw their own legends, imo.




This is only true if the GM makes it that way.  The same way an adventure can be too maped out and linear.  This isn't an inherent weakness of a detailed setting.


----------



## BryonD

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So, people are saying it doesn't apply in D&D. Why not?



Because fiction is developed for selling copies to many people. (or at least entertaining many people)
My D&D world building is for my personal enjoyment of the process.

If you find someone who wrotes fiction purely for their own pleasure of writing then I would state that this advice is not aimed at them and also does not apply to them either.


----------



## Kestrel

Reynard said:
			
		

> Part of the problem, I think, is people who see world building as wasted effort don't care about versimilitude, they don't care about details, and they aren't interested in building something that exists beyond the character they are currently playing.




Just because I don't care to build Middle-Earth doesn't mean that my game doesn't have details or is in the process of building something beyond the characters.  For myself, it means that I prefer the gameworld and its details to be built within the confines of the sessions and discussion between players and GM.  Instead of me reading to the players the hard cold facts of my creation, instead we are working together to build something ourselves, in game.

I want my players to be invested in the world, not simply reading the stuff i wrote in a vacuum.

I mean, wasn't this how the original Greyhawk created?  From the exploits of Gary's players?


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Reynard said:
			
		

> Actually, it isn't valid.  People think that whether they like something or not is the same thing as criticism.  It's not.  Criticism is something different entirely and it is not, as some would believe, entirely subjective.  there are benchmarks by which we can measure the literary quality of the work, as well as the literary importance of elements of the work.  Just because you think its a little unneccesary and boring doesn't make it so, and you can, in a very real way, be wrong in at least the first part of that statement (whether you find something boring is eithe rhear nor there and isn't a reflection of the quality of a piece, one way or the other.)




I see what youre saying with this. However the average person who reads a book isnt really thinking that deeply about the criteria of literary criticism. They just want to read a good story. Now nowhere in my posts have I stated that LOTR was bad, but there were parts of it that were boring and unneccesary. I know that my opinion doesnt matter to you, but it does to me since I'm the one who is actually spending time (and more often money)  reading the book. 



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> Translation: From this point foward, i have chosen to feel offended and put upon by Reynard, who couldn't possibly be using hyperbole or exaggeration to make a point and must, absolutely, be making sweeping statements of fact.  Moreover, it is absolutely assured that Reynard is engaging in one-true-wayism, and not in any way making use of standard forum techniques to express what he finds great and wonderfula nd worthwhile in an RPG.  And, finally, I furthermore heretofore pledge to ignore any statement of Reynard's that can be construed as IMO, YMMV or similar unless it is strictly and exactly stated, because otherwise the default assumption must be that Reynard is demanding you think, eat, sleep and poop just like him.




D00d, you are the least of the offensive people around here I hope that's not you feel that wasnt my intent. Trust me if I thought you were really being a jerk I'd let you know in a heartbeat. I dont feel put upon by you at all either. It's the INTERNERD, man. I'm gonna run and play my games the way I want to regardless of what a bunch of people on a D&D message board say. 

Relax it's not that serious, man.


----------



## Desdichado

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> One of the skills of a "good" DM is improvisation, though. Certainly you don't expect everything your players do to be pre-planned, is there a reason we should have all parts of our world pre-planned?



Oh, certainly.  Although my handful of username changes, as well as largely absent status for the last several months may have obscured it, I am a "famous" proponent of the Ray Winninger school of setting design: minimalist to an almost extreme degree.

That said, I still don't agree with the quote in the OP.  Some worldbuilding needs to be done in order to write a sci-fi story of any note.  A bit more needs to be done to run a sci-fi game of any note (and I'm using the broader definition of sci-fi that includes fantasy here).  And worldbuilding is a fun hobby in it's own right.

He makes a good point; bad writers who fall in love with their setting and elucidate it at the expense of other aspects of the story are... well.. bad writers.  But really; how often does that happen anyway among writers who manage to get published?  The only notable example I can think of is China Mieville.


----------



## Reynard

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> D00d, you are the least of the offensive people around here I hope that's not you feel that wasnt my intent. Trust me if I thought you were really being a jerk I'd let you know in a heartbeat. I dont feel put upon by you at all either. It's the INTERNERD, man. I'm gonna run and play my games the way I want to regardless of what a bunch of people on a D&D message board say.
> 
> Relax it's not that serious, man.




All statement made of tasty, tasty truth.  Obviously, the whole quitting smoking thing is starting to take its toll.  My apologies.


----------



## moritheil

Ah, and now the flames.


----------



## Desdichado

Set said:
			
		

> I'll sit back here and read books from authors like Tolkein or Lovecraft, who are willing to craft a detailed setting *as part and parcel of establishing mood and theme.*



Sorry, Set, but that just made me laugh out loud.  Lovecraft was *not* a worldbuilder and rather infamously held out the opinion more than once that there was no cohesive strategy or philosophy behind his "Yog-Sothothery"--it was all just a bunch of plot devices made up on the spot for the needs of the story at hand.  It later developed into a kind of in-joke where a small club of writers shared names of books, entities and personalities--but worldbuilding it most assuredly was not.


----------



## WayneLigon

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Check out the Wikipedia page. He's not just some hack.
> 
> But this isn't about the messenger, it's about what he's saying. He's got at least enough cred to validly offer advise to other creators.




Eh, not really. I've heard of Viriconium, but I've never read any of his stuff or know anyone who has read any of his stuff (and I see no Hugo or Nebula or Locus nominations or awards there, if that means anything). From the quotes and a few blog posts I just finished, it sounds like he's more of a literary/poetry writer who happens to have chosen a fantasy/science fiction backdrop for dialog and character examination because of the freedom it affords him for imagery. So for him, worldbuilding isn't going to be a high priority. 

I'm thinking most writers of his type are not going to be moved very much towards worldbuilding, but his relevance to the greater body of science fiction and fantasy is virtually nil.

Certainly we've seen clumsy writers more in love with the detail of their creations than was needed, or who seem to have stuck wide swaths of 'world building detail' into a novel because they think 'that it is the sort of thing _one does _' rather than it being nessesary to their tale. But that's a flaw of the writer, not of the process of worldbuidling. A tool that is used for the wrong thing at the wrong time is not a bad tool.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Reynard said:
			
		

> All statement made of tasty, tasty truth.  Obviously, the whole quitting smoking thing is starting to take its toll.  My apologies.




Best of luck quitting the habit. 
Also, If I offended you in some way you have my apologies as well.


----------



## Celebrim

Mallus said:
			
		

> If you're in the US, you probably haven't heard of him because his books weren't readily available here until quite recently (he's British).




Except that I've not only read a lot of works by British authors, I have quite a few on my shelf.  Right now I'd argue that the preeminent British sci-fi author publishing is Iain Banks, which makes for interesting counterpoint, because Banks is known for among other things, his intricately crafted and engaging settings.  (The premier British fantasy writer is probably Terry Pratchett.)  Do only 'great plodding nerds' like Iain Banks or Pratchett?  There must be more 'great plodding nerds' than those presumably admirable (in his eyes) people who prefer Mr. Hamilton's stuff.  Does Iain Banks write like a 'great plodding nerd'?  Should Iain Banks 'scare' me, as if his stories were written by someone mentally or pyschologically deficient because they have detailed and engaging settings that almost certainly couldn't have been crafted without someone doing a great deal of thought about a setting?  Should I think that Gene Wolfe is a poor master of prose because his works are so heavily dependent on thier settings?  Is he shallow and of little depth?  Should I despise Tolkien because he more or less invented world building as we now know it, and with it helped usher in the revival of epic prose and high fantasy and unintentionally to no small extent role-playing games (read his forward to LotR)?  Did these writers not know what they were doing?

No, stretch back a little further.  What are we to make of the Illiad or Beowulf if we think world building is of little value.  Certainly, neither Homer nor the author of Beowulf thought of what they were doing as 'world building', but consider how carefully they construct thier setting.  Troy's ancient walls inspired 'great plodding nerds' to heights of revelry long before Tolkien and still do today, not because of the Troy that actually existed but because of the Troy that Homer invented.  Is Homer a poor story teller???  Would to God that I was that bad, that I could only communicate to people as distantly removed from my own culture as the cultures of the works of Science Fiction are from my own!  

How about Victor Hugo?  Is he a poor story teller?  He doesn't engage in world building as we know it today, but he does craft everything that a modern world builder would have to craft as a vehicle for his stories. (Read him unabridged!)  The same goes for Alexander Dumas, or in the modern era Asimov or Heinlien and so forth.  

This guy's opinion goes against all the evidence that we have of what it means to craft an enduring and beloved story, and he's so pompous about it that he finishes not just by declaring that everyone who disagrees is probably mentally defective, but in a fit of unintentional self-disclosure basically compares what they do to 'George Bush' - which I'd guess for someone of his mentality is as damning of an insult as his mind could conjure.



> The only works of his that I've read are the novel _Light_ and a collection of his _Viriconium_ stories.
> 
> _Light_ is one of the best SF books I've read in years, if not in, well, ever. It also gives you a some perspective about where he's coming from. The _Viriconium_ stories are also good, but they're more akin to Calvino than mainstream fantasy.
> 
> For the record, I (kinda) agree with what Harrison is saying at the same time I think he's dead wrong. He's making the fairly common mistake of starting from the position that all fiction has the same goals. Or that the same criteria apply universally.




In addition to the craft of story telling, we must in this context of this forum be concerned with the craft of game management and adventure creation.  And here, the goals of our art differ so markedly from the goals of a novel that we can dispense with most of what little insight Mr. Harrison's rant might provide us.  Because, while there is some value in suggesting that a story is about its plot and protagonists and central characters and the setting is but secondary to this, I think most of us would agree that the principle role of the DM as a creator is not to create the plot and protagonists but to allow the players to create the protagonists and to have a large or even the larger role in creating the plot.  To do this, nothing else serves but to give the players a world in which to move through - one that hopefully has the illusion of as few grey and unpainted areas as possible and iprovokes thier couriousity to explore it and even emmerses them in it emotionally so that they actually care about the outcome.  

Don't expect Viriconium D20 or GURPS splatbooks any time soon.

I agree with Umbran and others that this is not a binary issue.  But the problem is that in order to agree with Mr. Harrison, I'd first have to agree to some straw man definition of what it meant to engage in world building which a priori defined world building to mean 'at the expense of creating a story'.   And once you realize that his rant only works for a straw man, you realize just how shallow the peice is.


----------



## Corsair

I somewhat agree with the basic premise.  Worldbuilding taken to an extreme creates a very detailed, but generally less fun world.  My analysis is based on playing with 10 different DMs.  Invariably, the three that had the least enjoyable games were the three who had the extremely detailed worlds, and spent more time populating the countryside with the correct number of people to maintain population density than they did focusing on crafting interesting adventures.

Are these mutually exclusive?  No.   But I read the author's point as "if you are building a story (or game in our case) on just the world, you're making a mistake".  The adventure/story is more important and should receive the majority of the effort.


----------



## Celebrim

Hobo said:
			
		

> Sorry, Set, but that just made me laugh out loud.  Lovecraft was *not* a worldbuilder and rather infamously held out the opinion more than once that there was no cohesive strategy or philosophy behind his "Yog-Sothothery"--it was all just a bunch of plot devices made up on the spot for the needs of the story at hand.  It later developed into a kind of in-joke where a small club of writers shared names of books, entities and personalities--but worldbuilding it most assuredly was not.




Although I'm generally on the 'Mr. Harrison is full of crap' side of this argument, Hobo is quite correct.  Lovecraft was not, or at least not primarily, a world builder.  There is very little like a coherent world in his stories, because his stories have little need of a coherent universe that spans between stories and arguably would be ill-served by one.  Much of the world building and coherence one would attribute to Lovecraft, was actually done by his fans and admirers.

However, there is a good deal of small scale world building going on his stories to the extent that he finds it necessary.  Take a story like 'The Shadow over Innsmouth'.  While we don't normally think of world building on this scale, because it is so intimate, Lovecraft is engaging in something that most DM's would see as world building for almost the entire duration of the story.  Almost all of the story consists of a character taking a walking tour of a small town and narrating its history and the details of its architecture to the reader, with alot of vague hints at its connections to mysterious larger things in the wider world.  The actual action and characterization in the story is minimal, because what the author needs to do first and foremost is emmerse you in this town so that the reader is (or feels as if) they are there, so that when things go 'bump' the reader jumps.  And the technique that he uses is almost indistinguishable from world building - laying out the streets, describing individual buildings, family trees, and a detailed history - to the point that it is quite easy to create RPG materials from what he wrote.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Hobo said:
			
		

> Running a game takes place in something closer to "realtime" than writing a story, so you need to have some details already in place when your players encounter them, becuase if you have to stop to think about them when they get there, that makes for a really boring game.  It works for writing a story, but not playing a game.




Like when Homer asked if Itchy and Scratchy was broadcast live, and told no, that would be too hard on the animators.    

First of all, there is an inherent give and take between DM and players.  They have to come to some mutually agreeable division of labor.  At the one end of the spectrum is the total railroad in which you might as well be reading a book.  At the other end is rolling on the random encounter table, fighting, and then rolling again.  Most group fall somewhere in between, and it's up to them to decide how much of the world they want drawn in, and how much remains 'here there be dragons' territory.  

The essence of most 'art' whether its writing or painting or music, is its unidirectional.  The artist presents and moves on to his next interest; the viewer/reader/listener consumes, and while they certainly form their own opinions and can express them (in excruciating detail sometimes), they by and large have no effect on the artist.

I would argue that RPGs are the antithesis of this.  While the DM holds certain perogatives, so do they players, and its the interaction of those two that produce (IMO) the most fun and interesting and unexpected games.   I don't think GRR Martin gives a rat's patootie what I think about his writing; I damn well expect my GM to care whether or not I'm enjoying the game. 

More to the point, world-building, even if elements of the world never see print or play, is essential to presenting a cohesive story.  Glaring plot lapses, implausibilities, continuity lapses, unbeliveable characters, all are symptomatic of instances where a little more world-building would have helped.


----------



## Umbran

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Really?  I thought he was proposing that _extraneous_ world building is bad.




I don't see that at all in the text.  There's no explicit mitigation for a little bit of it being useful, or even okay.  I don't even see any wording that allows for that interpretation to be inferred.  He's quite negative on it as a whole, with no allowance for exceptions.

If you can tell me what in the text brings you to your conclusion, I'm very interested in hearing it.


----------



## Pbartender

Umbran said:
			
		

> If you can tell me what in the text brings you to your conclusion, I'm very interested in hearing it.




Oh, nothing in particular...  Just an impression that in hindsight, and after rereading the text in question, was likely mistaken and fully influenced by my personal view on the matter.


----------



## The Shaman

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The idea that Tolkien isn't that great of a writer is hardly a revolutionary idea.



"Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer." - JRRT


----------



## Mallus

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Except that I've not only read alot of works by British authors



I didn't mean to imply you weren't familiar with British SF, I was hazarding a guess as to why you hadn't heard of him seeing as he was only recently _published_ in the US. 



> I have quite a few on my shelf.



The British SF/F on my bookshelf are all US editions, well, except for books 2-6 of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, 'cause I got _hooked_.



> Right now I'd argue that the preeminent British sci-fi author publishing is Iain Banks, which makes for interesting counterpoint, because Banks is known for among other things, his intricately crafted and engaging settings.



I like Banks, too. After _Light_, my favorite recent SF novel is his _Use of Weapons_. They're both really strong works.



> Do only 'great plodding nerds' like Iain Banks or Pratchett?



No comment  .



> Should I think that Gene Wolfe is a poor master of prose because his works are so heavily dependent on their settings?



Of course not. Then again, neither do do I believe that the _The Book of the New Sun_ should be the model for all fiction, despite my unabashed adoration of them.

Different books have different aims. Harrison's advice applies to certain modes of fiction. It isn't universal. In the same way that creating/evoking a setting a la Tolkien in Middle Earth isn't a universal for good fiction.



> This guy's opinion goes against all the evidence that we have of what it means to craft an enduring and beloved story...



No, his opinion goes against your opinion of what constitutes an enduring and beloved story. Do you want a laundry list of well-regarded works of fiction that don't prioritize setting, or a journalistic impulse towards place? 

Can't we just agree that different fiction has different goals and employs different methods? 



> And here, the goals of our art differ so markedly from the goals of a novel that we can dispense with most of what little insight Mr. Harrison's rant might provide us.



We agree completely here. But to be fair, applying Harrison's comments to RPG's was the OP's doing.



> But the problem is that in order to agree with Mr. Harrison, I'd first have to agree to some straw man definition of what it meant to engage in world building which a priori defined world building to mean 'at the expense of creating a story'.



The trick is to recognize that Harrison's remarks aren't universal. The fact that the don't apply to all fiction doesn't merit they don't have merit or merit discussion.


----------



## Mallus

The Shaman said:
			
		

> "Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer." - JRRT



Why did you post a quote of Tolkien's that makes him sound like a petty ass?


----------



## Desdichado

I never thought that quote made him sound like that.  It merely highlights the fact that his goals and the goals of the novel writing and appreciating literature status quo were wholly incompatible and he had no problem with that.

I'm also surprised that my sly tweaking of China Mieville's nose as a prime example of a bad writer who let setting description get carried away way out of hand hasn't prompted up a storm of angry defensive retorts yet.


----------



## jujutsunerd

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Should Iain Banks 'scare' me




This is just barely on topic, but, given that he's written The Wasp Factory, yes, we should be scared of him. Or at least I am. Or at least I was scared when I read the book, oh so many years ago. 

/Jonas


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Hobo said:
			
		

> I'm also surprised that my sly tweaking of China Mieville's nose as a prime example of a bad writer who let setting description get carried away way out of hand hasn't prompted up a storm of angry defensive retorts yet.




That's cause it's spot-on.     Perdido Street Station should have come with a complimentary prescritption for Ritalin.


----------



## Mallus

Hobo said:
			
		

> It merely highlights the fact that his goals and the goals of the novel writing and appreciating literature status quo were wholly incompatible and he had no problem with that.



It sounds to me like Tolkien dismissing the 'literary establishment' in the same way the literary establishment dismissed him, just pettiness all around. I can't take establishment critics to task for ignoring Tolkien's contribution to English literature and then turn a blind eye to his pig-headed remarks. I mean, weren't good books _not_ about hobbits being written at that time in England?



> I'm also surprised that my sly tweaking of China Mieville's nose as a prime example of a bad writer who let setting description get carried away way out of hand hasn't prompted up a storm of angry defensive retorts yet.



Because, unlike Tolkien, Mieville hasn't ascended bodily to Heaven  

It's funny. China's gone on record badmouthing Tolkien and yet I like them for pretty much the same reason; the settings, in all their gloriously cluttered detail. Some small part of my brain was aware when their novels stop doing 'novel stuff' and start spiraling discursively into more than you ever needed to know about scarab-headed women and hobbit toast-buttering songs. But you know what? I ate it up.

It's like some kind of receptor-site damage on a neuron. Pointless exotic details bond there and deliver me great pleasure like a drug. I bet a lot of SF/F fans are similarly afflicted. 

Put another way, I like Bas-Lag and New Crobuzon better than anything Mieville's actually done with or in them, and I can just about say the same thing about Middle Earth.


----------



## Storm Raven

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Eh, not really. I've heard of Viriconium, but I've never read any of his stuff or know anyone who has read any of his stuff (and I see no Hugo or Nebula or Locus nominations or awards there, if that means anything).




_A Storm of Wings_ - locus award nominee
_In Viriconium_ - locus award nominee
_Light_ - locus and clarke award nominee
_Things That Never Happen_ - locus award nominee
_Travel Arrangements: Short Stories_ - locus and world fantasy award nominee
_Viriconium Nights_ - locus and world fantasy award nominee


----------



## Mallus

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> _Light_ - locus and clarke award nominee



Do you know what beat _Light_ that year?


----------



## Celebrim

Mallus said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to imply you weren't familiar with British SF, I was hazarding a guess as to why you hadn't heard of him seeing as he was only recently _published_ in the US.




Whether or not someone is published in the US should have small effect on the word of mouth, or awards like the Hugo, Nebula or World Fantasy awards which would spread the authors fame.  



> The British SF/F on my bookshelf are all US editions, well, except for books 2-6 of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, 'cause I got _hooked_.




I have a few Silverburgs in British editions because of the difficulty in finding some of his works in the American edition.



> I like Banks, too. After _Light_, my favorite recent SF novel is his _Use of Weapons_. They're both really strong works.




I'm very fond of banks, but less so of 'Use of Weapons'.  I think it is one of those 'love it or hate it', works, because it seems like its either every fans favorite or every fans least favorite.  I prefer 'Look to Windward'.



> Of course not. Then again, neither do do I believe that the _The Book of the New Sun_ should be the model for all fiction, despite my unabashed adoration of them.




Well, yes.  If we all wrote exactly the same, what a boring world it would be.



> Different books have different aims. Harrison's advice applies to certain modes of fiction.




Basically, his own.



> It isn't universal.




"Every moment of a science fiction story must represent the triumph of writing over worldbuilding." - M John Harrison

I'm not the one claiming universality.  



> In the same way that creating/evoking a setting a la Tolkien in Middle Earth isn't a universal for good fiction.




All I have to show is that creating/evoking a setting can produce good fiction, and then I've obtained a satisfactory proof.  



> No, his opinion goes against your opinion of what constitutes an enduring and beloved story. Do you want a laundry list of well-regarded works of fiction that don't prioritize setting, or a journalistic impulse towards place?




No need.  All I need is a laundry list of well-regarded works of fiction that do.  I don't need to prove that its possible to write a story without much attention to a setting.  My personal opinion is that stories with interesting internally consistant settings are better than most of the post-modern junk that tries to dispense with it, but I don't need to prove my opinion superior - just that it is a defensible opinion.  Case in point, a writer like Jonathan Letham is too me far more readable, interesting, saying something important, for works like 'Gun with Occasional Music', 'Motherless Brooklyn', and even 'As She Climbed Across the Table' than he is in a deconstructivist (and to me deeply disappointing) story like 'Amnesia Moon'.  I'm just not sure that there is all that much interesting territory to explore in consciously created but empty anti-worlds of 'New Wave' sci-fi, and the more successful writers in that style seemed to me to be the ones that could most depart from it.

I'm reminded of a line from Tolkien where he talks about how stories about good times are quickly told, but stories about horrible times take a long time.  Or didn't some one say that every pleasant time was basically the same, but unpleasantness had an infinite variaty?  Well, it seems to me that every story about meaninglessness has the same thing to say, but stories about meaning have an infinite variaty.

In any event, I know which stories seem to attract the most admirers.  



> Can't we just agree that different fiction has different goals and employs different methods?




Don't ask me.  Ask Mr. Harrison. 



> We agree completely here. But to be fair, applying Harrison's comments to RPG's was the OP's doing.




True.  But, if I'm to take the position that this provides no insight into running an RPG, then I have to say something about it.



> The fact that the don't apply to all fiction doesn't merit they don't have merit or merit discussion.




If I didn't think they merited discussion, I wouldn't be discussing it.  Bad ideas are worthy of discussion just like good ones.  But, the discussion I think that this bad idea merits is a rounding condemnation followed by a more useful discussion of the pitfalls to avoid in leaning to far one way or the other than what Mr. Harrison provides with his universal condemnation and 'the thing is evident in itself' non-argument.  But, it's not like I think posting flame bait is in and of itself a bad thing.  I don't think the OP was trying to be disruptive (he's not spamming threads, he's not interrupting threads).


----------



## Ourph

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> To be fair, that's 100% a valid criticism.  Lots of people are fans of Tolkien, but Steve Jackson cut out huge swaths of the books to make things flow faster and to tell a more dramatic story.




Have you seen the 15+ hours of special features on the LotR DVDs?  Steve Jackson and crew engaged in a LOT of world building that either didn't make it into the movies or was on screen for a just a few seconds, but that creative work inspired and informed a lot of stuff that made those movies great.  There may be things to compare and contrast between Jackson and Tolkien but engaging in behind-the-scenes world building isn't one of them IMO.


----------



## papastebu

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> But that's a flaw of the writer, not of the process of worldbuidling. A tool that is used for the wrong thing at the wrong time is not a bad tool.




It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

In things I've read and documentaries I've seen, Tolkien was always described as despairing over the loss of how he saw the world was supposed to be. The England he grew up in was very different, and still changing, from the world he lived in when published. The imagery in his works supports this.
He started all of that stuff, The Hobbit, LotR, the Silmarillion, as stories for his kids, and for one other reason: self-expression.
To me this is as valid a reason for the super-detailing of a world as any other. He wanted to transport those who listened to the stories, or who read them. I admit that he may have overdone it for some people's tastes. I didn't 100% love his work because of the inclusion of so many details, but he definitely had his impact upon my young psyche. This is one of the things I want to do for a living.


----------



## helium3

Peni Griffin said:
			
		

> Actually, it's not particularly good advice even for writers.  It's advice to "do things my way, not your way," based on a weakness which the author lacks, but to which not all worldbuilders fall prey; i.e., building the world at the expense of the story.  He'd spend his time better giving advice about how to approach his own strengths and avoid his own weaknesses - the only topics any of us can truly give useful advice on.
> 
> Tolkien would never have written the Hobbit or LOTR if he hadn't had his language- and world-building hobby.  Diana Wynne Jones makes worlds the way other people make sandwiches - vivid, realistic, self-consistent worlds and series of worlds about which the reader learns just the right amount.  I don't know how much work she puts into the process of creating them, and I don't need to know.  The result counts.  How you get there doesn't.
> 
> There are nine and sixty ways of creating tribal lays, and every single one of them is right.  Some people have to have the worldbuilding and some people get bogged down in them and some people can't make them at all, and make a virtue of it.  There's no point in making hard-and-fast rules about any of it.  Personally, I have to overprepare for every session I DM, every public talk I give, everything I do that involves prolonged speaking.  Other people can do satisfactory games at five minutes notice.
> 
> More power to everybody.  Do it the way that works for you, not the way that works for somebody else.




This is the truth.

It also depends to a great extent on what you're attempting to accomplish. Some situations require intensive world-building and others don't.


----------



## Roman

Thank you Mr. Harrison for 'getting a clue' about my psychological type and being 'very afraid' of me. I must be a terribly dangerous person, because I engage in worldbuilding.


----------



## Mystaros

His statement is a perfect excuse for technically proficient writers who cannot themselves create, but would rather steal and then mock other people's works while enabling their characters (usually far more competent analogues of the author) to wallow in solipsistic delusions of grandeur.

Those who can create, do. Those who cannot, steal other's works and pretend they have no value.


----------



## Storm Raven

Mallus said:
			
		

> Do you know what beat _Light_ that year?




It was 2003.

_The Years of Rice and Salt_ by Kim Stanley Robinson won the Locus award that year.

_The Separation_ by Christopher Priest won the Clarke award.

_Light_ won the Tiptree award, and was also nominated for a British Science Fiction Association award.


----------



## helium3

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Check out the Wikipedia page. He's not just some hack.
> 
> But this isn't about the messenger, it's about what he's saying. He's got at least enough cred to validly offer advise to other creators.




The word Virconium sounds familiar. He gets compared to Italo Calvino, who I like. China Mieville apparently thinks he should be a Nobel Laureate.

Of the above three facts, only one (other than that he's actually had stuff published) actually makes me think his opinion is worth listening too.

I think the issue here is that what he's saying isn't particularly profound, but the way he manages to say it makes him sound like a pompous blow-hard. There are many more constructive and diplomatic ways to say "Don't let the construction of your work's setting command your attention to the detriment of the actual work."

Does someone have an actual link to where this was posted? Maybe there's some context here I'm missing.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Sooooooo...by this logic Tolkien is a boring nerd?



Nope. Tolkien followed the advice. What do we know about Middle-earth outside the areas the heroes traveled through? Very little.

I think he's right on, even for FRPGs. I don't think he means literally ignore everything outside the protagonists' area, just don't worry about detail until needed. That's exactly the guide I follow and it works great.


----------



## Mallus

Mystaros said:
			
		

> His statement is a perfect excuse for technically proficient writers who cannot themselves create, but would rather steal and then mock other people's works while enabling their characters (usually far more competent analogues of the author) to wallow in solipsistic delusions of grandeur.



I hope the protagonists of _Light_ aren't author analogues. Read Harrison and see if you still think you're statement apply to him (have you read him?).

Also, theft is a matter of course in art, as is belittling ones peers and forebears. When artists --of any stripe-- talk about their craft, you have to learn to disregard the self-aggrandizing, the over-generalized, the petty, vain, hateful, narrow-minded and utterly f-ing stupid and extract the little kernals of insight. 

Actually, this skill comes in handy when anyone starts talking.


----------



## Odhanan

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Utter crap.
> 
> 
> RC



Same thing. 

He sounds either jealous, lazy, or just likes the provocation. I get what he's saying, but his tone and and his logic are completely skewed and offensive.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> He is by me.  There is not a single word wasted in LotR,



I agree. In contrast, see the "Wheel of Time" series.


----------



## Cam Banks

jujutsunerd said:
			
		

> This is just barely on topic, but, given that he's written The Wasp Factory, yes, we should be scared of him. Or at least I am. Or at least I was scared when I read the book, oh so many years ago.




He's no relation of mine, by the way. I know, you were curious, but no.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Mallus

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Whether or not someone is published in the US should have small effect on the word of mouth, or awards like the Hugo, Nebula or World Fantasy awards which would spread the authors fame.



And yet I've read him and you heven't. Mallus 1, Celebrim 0  



> I think it is one of those 'love it or hate it', works, because it seems like its either every fans favorite or every fans least favorite.



I blame the protagonist for that. 



> Basically, his own.



Do you believe advice to 'avoid minutiae' and 'leave room for mystery/ambiguity' isn't widely applicable?



> I'm not the one claiming universality.



No, you're the one failing to put Harrison's remarks in context. Don't all artists talk like that when they talk about art? In provocative, sweeping generalizations? That's the rule as far as my experience goes.   



> All I have to show is that creating/evoking a setting can produce good fiction, and then I've obtained a satisfactory proof.



The real issue isn't whether he's always right --nobody here claimed that. Does his insight apply at all?   



> My personal opinion is that stories with interesting internally consistant settings are better than most of the post-modern junk that tries to dispense with it...



Post-modern junk like _The Great Gatsby_? Now that's a lean, efficient piece of work. A book that both follows Harrison's advice and provides the one of the definitive pictures of its time and place.


----------



## Desdichado

Mallus said:
			
		

> Post-modern junk like _The Great Gatsby_? Now that's a lean, efficient piece of work. A book that both follows Harrison's advice and provides the one of the definitive pictures of its time and place.



I'm not convinced that that's relevent, though.  _The Great Gatsby_ is a novel in which the setting was the everyday world that the author knew and presumably the readers would too, and the more detailed setting description about the particular place and society in which the novel takes place--*is* described in great detail by Fitzgerald, while the other stuff about the setting is merely inferred because there was no reason to spell it out.

In a fantasy or science fiction book, that's not true, and arguably one of the primary drivers of the genre *is* the setting and how it differs from the everyday world that the readers already know.  While his advice about not going overboard on setting detail is noted, and I agree with it (again; looking at the few authors who manage to get published despite not grasping this detail, their books are dreadful to read) it also seems to go a bit too far.  One of the consistent details and main attractions of this genre is exploring a setting different from the regular world.


----------



## pawsplay

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

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




I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Dr. Tolkien and Barker on this one. Sorry, Mr. Harrison.


----------



## Dr. Prunesquallor

Mallus said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to imply you weren't familiar with British SF, I was hazarding a guess as to why you hadn't heard of him seeing as he was only recently _published_ in the US.





A minor nit. "The Pastel City,"  the first of the Viriconium stories, was published in the US in 1971 by Pocket Books New York. Mr. Harrison has perhaps been out of fashion for a while and is now being republished in the US.

Funnily enough, "Pastel City" seems to have numerous odd little "world-building" details such as "the Dead Freight Dirge" sung by the soldiers of Birkin Grif's warband and references to the absent Benedict Paucemanly who flew to the Moon (and appears in a later tale, I believe). Maybe the author has "outgrown" his own previous work.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the Viriconium stuff, reminds me of old school Moorcock.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

I tend to do a lot of worldbuilding as a DM.  I want a world that is fairly internally consistent, and I place a lot of importance on figuring out the logical impact of magic on the world.  It's hard enough to design adventures taking into account the spells that 2-3 casters will use over 1-5 days.  But to figure out what life in a large city would look like with anything close to DMG demographics?  That requires a LOT of prep if it is to be logical.  How do day-to-day life and geopolitical interactions change when you have multiple LEGENDARY (12th-level+) casters?  (the ones who must exist to churn out all those rings of protection)  

Worldbuilding is also necessary in my current campaign because, as an experiment, I'm using "Status Quo" challenges, rather than "1 or 2 ELs higher than the party's level."  The hobgoblin overlords have their forces roughly sketched out ahead of time.  The captains are levels 6-7 with 80 soldiers, the governors about 9-10 with 250 elite troops, and so on, up to the 20th-level half-fiend emperor.  That's immutable, no matter what levels of the PCs when they take on one of these tiers.  To me, the fact that PCs so often always face CR-appropriate challenges is one of the hardest things in which to suspend disbelief.  If the town locksmith sells Amazing (DC 40) locks, then the gem merchant should use those on his strongboxes, regardless of the PCs' level.  

I need to do a good amount of worldbuilding because I'm not THAT good at improvisation relative to the logical consistency that I expect.  D&D should be an open-ended game where nearly anything as possible.  If the PCs want to go to the capital city one day, I should know if there is a magic shop, what magical protections and guards the shopkeeper has, what items he has available, and so on.  If they want to sneak into the palace to kidnap the princess, I should know what spells protect the palace, what the caster level is of those spells, the layout of the palace, how many guards there are and where they are, and so on.  

An author knows exactly what is going to happen in a novel.  As a DM, I enjoy being surprised by the players' initiative and creativity.  I just have to be prepared for them to do anything they want to do.


----------



## Dr. Prunesquallor

Dr. Prunesquallor said:
			
		

> A minor nit. "The Pastel City,"  the first of the Viriconium stories, was published in the US in 1971 by Pocket Books New York.




You know, reading this makes me realize _I_ am the great clomping foot of nerdism.


----------



## Reynard

Hobo said:
			
		

> I'm not convinced that that's relevent, though.  _The Great Gatsby_ is a novel in which the setting was the everyday world that the author knew and presumably the readers would too, and the more detailed setting description about the particular place and society in which the novel takes place--*is* described in great detail by Fitzgerald, while the other stuff about the setting is merely inferred because there was no reason to spell it out.
> 
> In a fantasy or science fiction book, that's not true, and arguably one of the primary drivers of the genre *is* the setting and how it differs from the everyday world that the readers already know.  While his advice about not going overboard on setting detail is noted, and I agree with it (again; looking at the few authors who manage to get published despite not grasping this detail, their books are dreadful to read) it also seems to go a bit too far.  One of the consistent details and main attractions of this genre is exploring a setting different from the regular world.




I find it odd that I have consistently disagreed with Hobo's view of gaming, campaign management and simiilar issues, but totally agree with him when it comes to fiction.

Should that feel as wierd as it does?


----------



## Pbartender

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I agree. In contrast, see the "Wheel of Time" series.




I find it interesting that this series of books has now been used as an example by both sides of the argument.   



			
				Prophet2b said:
			
		

> ... but the truly magnificent stories... those are stories _in a world_.
> 
> Tolkien is only one example.  Robert Jordan's _Wheel of Time_ series is a great example of a story that takes place in a world - a world that he created, planned out, and is still planning out.






			
				Set said:
			
		

> Sure, there are cases gone horribly, horribly wrong, like the Wheel of Time story, where the author seems unable, or unwilling, to break off the travelogue and get down to advancing the plot...


----------



## Mallus

Dr. Prunesquallor said:
			
		

> Maybe the author has "outgrown" his own previous work.



Yeah, the Viriconium series starts in one of the Runestaff books and ends in Calvino's Invisible Cities... 

I hesitate to use the word 'outgrown', it's so pejorative... but you definitely see Harrison figuring out what that dream of cities means to him.


----------



## The Shaman

Mallus said:
			
		

> Why did you post a quote of Tolkien's that makes him sound like a petty ass?



Having never met the gentlemen myself, perhaps he was, in fact, a petty ass.

But I didn't get that from reading the quote - more of a wry amusement. Tough to tell without inflection.

Anyway . . .

Put aside refereeing the game for a moment - as a player, do you care about world-building?

I do, very much. I remember my character's first visit to the Welcome Wench and seeing Velunan fireamber wine and Keoish ale on the bill of fare, and thinking to myself, "Hmmm, I wonder where those places are, and what's there?" I have much more confidence in a referee who actually knows the answer than one who either makes something up on the spot, or says, "Well, why don't you tell me what you think should be there?"


----------



## Desdichado

Reynard said:
			
		

> I find it odd that I have consistently disagreed with Hobo's view of gaming, campaign management and simiilar issues, but totally agree with him when it comes to fiction.
> 
> Should that feel as wierd as it does?



It's just a statistical anomaly.  Don't worry; soon we'll be at each other's throats again and all will be right with the world.


----------



## edgewaters

I'm going to duck the slings and arrows of new school outrage here and say that the original article is indeed quite correct and ad hoc worldbuilding is superior. 

Starting a fresh campaign I have never done more than the most brief sketch of the wider world. It is allowed to emerge *from* play, it is not forced on play. It is incorrect to think fitting square pegs into round holes is in any way superior. I would rather spend the time detailing an immediate, microcosmic locale in which the players will be spending their time, than attempting to prefigure the most trivial details of a faraway land they may never visit. 

Also a completely prefigured campaign rules out any player participation in determining facets of the campaign world, something I have always encouraged.


----------



## Desdichado

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I do, very much. I remember my character's first visit to the Welcome Wench and seeing Velunan fireamber wine and Keoish ale on the bill of fare, and thinking to myself, "Hmmm, I wonder where those places are, and what's there?" I have much more confidence in a referee who actually knows the answer than one who either makes something up on the spot, or says, "Well, why don't you tell me what you think should be there?"



Arguably, a good GM is one that makes something like that up on the spot, but you never know it.  

I make up quite a bit on the spot, but I present it as confidently as if I knew it all beforehand.  Then I make notes while gaming so I don't later contradict myself.


----------



## phindar

I've screwed it up both ways.  I've made worlds so rigidly detailed that the pcs were justs ghosts floating through them, unable to affect anything of import, leaving no footsteps or fingerprints.  And I've made worlds so vague that if the pcs wander off track they see the 2x4's holding up the shop fronts.

The trick, I suspect, isn't that one method is superior to the other.  The trick, I suspect, is finding the right balance for the GM and the group.


----------



## billd91

I'm going to go out and say that I think the Harrison is more correct than not. Here's the point:



			
				Harrison's blog said:
			
		

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




He's not saying that an author should do no world-building behind the scenes, but that extensive world-building in the narrative of the story is bad and should be subordinate to the narrative. 
I don't think this means that the story shouldn't offer glimpses of the world around the narrative or construct the world's reality as it relates to the ongoing story or even provide the necessary context to the story. Those are elements of the world that directly support the narrative, rather than existing to build the world in the eyes of the reader.


----------



## Mallus

Hobo said:
			
		

> Arguably, a good GM is one that makes something like that up on the spot, but you never know it.



I do it all the time. Of course, the end-result is CITY, so I'm not sure what I'm demonstrating. BTW, if any of you read the Story Hour, there's a new post up.

Damn, I have to run the game tonight and I here I am posting instead of printing out The Adventure. First honest-to-God dungeon I've used in 10 levels of play...

I've got more to say about Gatsby vs. LotR (wow, I feel like I'm in high school again), and some general remarks toward what different readerships want out of their books, but it'll have to wait.


----------



## papastebu

Hobo said:
			
		

> I never thought that quote made him sound like that.  It merely highlights the fact that his goals and the goals of the novel writing and appreciating literature status quo were wholly incompatible and he had no problem with that.
> 
> I'm also surprised that my sly tweaking of China Mieville's nose as a prime example of a bad writer who let setting description get carried away way out of hand hasn't prompted up a storm of angry defensive retorts yet.




It was only "sly" because nobody commented on it.


----------



## Mallus

billd91 said:
			
		

> I don't think this means that the story shouldn't offer glimpses of the world around the narrative or construct the world's reality as it relates to the ongoing story or even provide the necessary context to the story. Those are elements of the world that directly support the narrative, rather than existing to build the world in the eyes of the reader.



Yes. You win the thread.

Worldbuilding in service of the narrative, not as some kind of parallel structure that offers its own separate pleasure. 

Of course, that doesn't always apply, as is so throughly demonstrated by LotR ...


----------



## The Shaman

Hobo said:
			
		

> Arguably, a good GM is one that makes something like that up on the spot, but you never know it.



I would say those GMs are improbably rare, in my experience.

Referees who aren't interested in world-building may toss off a name like that here or there, but in my experience most simply don't bother, and thus every tavern offers the same bland flagon of ale or goblet of wine. The Inn of the Welcome Wench offers a selection of nine different imported libations, and I know that each one is tied to an actual place in the game-world that my character could go explore if I was so inclined. I've yet to meet the improv ref would could pull that off that kind of detail as convincingly and consistently as one who invests the time and effort at world-building.


----------



## The Shaman

phindar said:
			
		

> I've screwed it up both ways.  I've made worlds so rigidly detailed that the pcs were justs ghosts floating through them, unable to affect anything of import, leaving no footsteps or fingerprints.  And I've made worlds so vague that if the pcs wander off track they see the 2x4's holding up the shop fronts.
> 
> The trick, I suspect, isn't that one method is superior to the other.  The trick, I suspect, is finding the right balance for the GM and the group.



That's the money quote right there.


----------



## Reynard

edgewaters said:
			
		

> Also a completely prefigured campaign rules out any player participation in determining facets of the campaign world, something I have always encouraged.




Well, when you are speaking in absolutes, of course everything sucks.  Maybe, though, there's a level of moderation and flexibility even in a world where "everything" has been prefigured.  I mean, it is pretty much impossible to write an ecyclopediac, comprehensive study of an imaginary place.  At some point, a player is going to ask a question or suggest something and it is going to fit, or something is going to have to be made up.

But, carry on assuming that everyone doing macroscopic design is hitting his players with the NO! hammer every time they sit down.


----------



## Baron Opal

M John Harrison said:
			
		

> Worldbuilding is dull. Worldbuilding literalises the urge to invent. Worldbuilding gives an unneccessary 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.




For a sci fi story? Absolutely. For preparing a background for a RPG? Hardly.

Where this is applicable is that you don't want to spend too much time over-preparing. Creating parts of the world that will never be seen is wasted effort. However, many referees love the act of creation that worldbuilding is, along with wanting a firm underpinning of the physics and metaphysics of the setting to create an internally consistent world.

For a story, your characters and their actions require the most effort. The background is simply the background. For a game, the characters aren't under your control and require a background to react against and to define themselves against.

In short, apples vs. oranges.

And now, to read the thread.


----------



## Ourph

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> For a story, your characters and their actions require the most effort. The background is simply the background. For a game, the characters aren't under your control and require a background to react against and to define themselves against.




While I 95% agree with this, I think it's important to note that in some very good fiction the world or parts thereof may actually BE "characters".  Not in a traditional sense, but in terms of their importance and centrality to the story.  I would argue that this is the case in a lot of Stephen R. Donaldsons writings (both fantasy and scifi).


----------



## apoptosis

billd91 said:
			
		

> I'm going to go out and say that I think the Harrison is more correct than not. Here's the point:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not saying that an author should do no world-building behind the scenes, but that extensive world-building in the narrative of the story is bad and should be subordinate to the narrative.
> I don't think this means that the story shouldn't offer glimpses of the world around the narrative or construct the world's reality as it relates to the ongoing story or even provide the necessary context to the story. Those are elements of the world that directly support the narrative, rather than existing to build the world in the eyes of the reader.




I agree with this completely, and I also thought that this is what he was trying to say.  Often writers so badly want to show you the world that they created that the book becomes a rather dull imaginary history or verbose atlas.  The narrative and story should explore the world and not the world be the focus of the narrative.  

THis is coming from someone who really enoys worldbuilding, but realize that many authors really do too much of it within their fiction.  While there are authors who you read that invite you into a world that seems to be a complete facade with no detail, I tend to see more and more writers wanting the reader to really know their world, and the story suffers from it.

On the other hand for RPGs, totally different medium and worldbuiliding can be a lot more advantageous.


----------



## Prophet2b

Pbartender said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that this series of books has now been used as an example by both sides of the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Set said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, there are cases gone horribly, horribly wrong, like the Wheel of Time story, where the author seems unable, or unwilling, to break off the travelogue and get down to advancing the plot...
Click to expand...



Haha.  Well...  While I find it tiresome at times, too, Jordan's books are incredibly popular - and for good reason.  My point was that their popularity stems from the fact that the world is so absolutely, stunningly real.  I don't see how any other author could keep so many readers so intrigued by (as Set said) a "travelogue" alone - because he can't.  It's the world that intrigues and keeps people wanting more.

That's my opinion, anyway.  You get a sense that what is taking place is both a culmination of everything that took place before, and yet also only a small part of the whole.  There is something else, beyond the story.  There are myths and legends and histories and lands all to be explored that won't get explored by these people.  That sense and feel could not be there without such incredible world planning.

Those who don't like the series I won't argue with - it's definitely not for everyone.  But I think Jordan has enough readers that he's still a good example of at least _popular_ and _very successful_ fantasy writer who is as popular and successful as he is because of the world.  Without the world as it is, his story would be horrendous beyond imagination.


----------



## apoptosis

I actually think that Jordan is a great example of someone who concentrates on worldbuilding to the detriment of the story.


----------



## ThirdWizard

World building is not verisimilitude and verisimilitude is not world building.

You can have one without the other in both directions. This is true of D&D and this is even more true of fiction. A writer can make allusions to things that don't even exist in his mind as fleshed out concepts and still create provocative fiction. You can tease readers with far away places and concepts all the while creating a very real "living and breathing" world, without ever actually writing out anything about those far away places or societies or anything else you mention in your writing.

Why? Because no one is going to call you on it in fiction, because they can't. They aren't there. If you create a scene with your hero visiting an alien bar where he notes some aliens trying to pedal something called "worm sand" because he wouldn't go near it after what it did to a friend of his, you don't have to know what it did, who the aliens are, or what his friend's name is. And, if you aren't going to mention it in your work, why detail it at all? It adds verisimilitude without work. That's always a good thing.

Later, if you find it would be beneficial to the story, you can go back and expand on it. I'm of the school of thought that says it is better to not have it defined for this exact purpose. What would be best for the story, I think, is often not what you originally created, because now you can tailor it to a specific plot thread that might not have even existed when you originally created it. 

I do this all the time in D&D. I create lots of things that are just throw away at the time, but keep them in mind for the future. When I find something that fits, I weave it back into the adventure and it looks like I had that planned all along. For example, I recently had an NPC that the PCs work with often dissapear, no one knowing where he went, though he said something about important business. I had _no idea_ why he was gone. I just knew that at some point in the future, I would find a place for him to jump back into the story dramatically. And, now I have.

You can do this for all kinds of setting elements. Just because there's an NPC who the PCs interact with from a distant country doesn't mean you have to define things about that country, and it certainly doesn't mean you should design anything about the country from a writing perspective (as opposed to D&D). You can note some oddities about him and move on. When the PCs finally go visit the country, then you can expand on it, but there's little reason to do so before then. That goes triple or quadruple for writing.


----------



## Banshee16

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I think he's hit the nail on something, however.
> 
> There's a significant proportion of any fan base that desires everything to be laid out, explained, catalogued, referenced, indexed, and explored. From my experience writing Dragonlance game material and fiction, I've come face to face with this from some of the folks who I work with. Fans come from reading the books and want it all to be explained in some Holy Grail of a game sourcebook. They want all the stats, they want all the population figures, commerce, mundane information, motives, relationships, adventure hooks, charts, and so forth.
> 
> I wrote a short story for the most recent Dragonlance anthology, and I didn't name the town it took place in, or the names of three of the characters, because it was from the point of view of a half-ogre afflicted with _feeblemind_ and it was all he could do just to focus on what was happening around him. No sooner had some of the regular message board folks read it, they wanted to know all of those details. I didn't have them, and I didn't really see a need to give them.
> 
> So are we on two sides of a divide, here? Do we _all_ need the statistics, charts, solved mysteries, and so forth? Or is that just a thing _some_ of us want?
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




I'd suspect it's a mix....I think as a GM, overarching details are important...you should know what the local kingdoms are, in the area where the PCs are active...who are the rulers?  How do people dress?  Are they nice?  Tyrants?  Repressed?  Those details give players enough information to start building an opinion, and knowing how to act.  Do they need to know exactly what people eat, or how many cobblers are in this town, or how much money the king has in his stash?  Likely not.....unless they want to kill the king, and take his stuff.

I think the point the author was making was to not lose sight of the forest for the trees.  As a writer, you can't be so focused on the details of an imaginary world that you forget that you're trying to tell a good story.  But as a GM, you need to have consistent details so that you're not just making things up as you go, without any form of internal consistency........ie. it's a bad idea to have one adventure where the PCs are acting against an evil king, because you want them to be the resistance for a few modules....and then turn around and have the king be an old, benevolent ruler who's about to die, 5 adventures later.....that's a lack of consistency.  What happened to the evil overlord?  The two are somewhat mutually exclusive.

At the same time, it's no sense making the family tree of the last 10 generations of that king's family, unless you want to interact with him.....ie. have some long lost relative try to kill him, in order to take the throne.....or maybe have a PC be related to him.

Banshee


----------



## Imaro

I just have a quick question for all you world ad-hockers, what do you do if your players go off on a tangent.  I personally like for my worlds to be consistent and to a point(cause it is still fantasy) logical. Has your ad-hocing ever led to a situation where you didn't remember something you alluded to, or later wanted to change your mind about?  IMHO I find this disconcerting as a player or as a GM.  My players have asked for information and went about doing things in ways I would've never pictured and my worldbilding has always allowed me enough info to make it work.  On a side note isn't keeping track of all these side notes on things that don't exist extra effort as well?

As for changing things once you've built your world...who says you can't?  If this was true no one would houserule and change published settings, but it's done all the time.  At least with the world built it gives you more ways to see a coherent way to implement the changes you want to make.  I really think some people on this thread are equating world-building with rigid, uncompromising GM and they're not the same.  A Gm can be just as rigid and uncompromising with any aspect of his game and they're two seperate issues.


----------



## edgewaters

Imaro said:
			
		

> I just have a quick question for all you world ad-hockers, what do you do if your players go off on a tangent.  I personally like for my worlds to be consistent and to a point(cause it is still fantasy) logical. Has your ad-hocing ever led to a situation where you didn't remember something you alluded to, or later wanted to change your mind about?
> 
> ...
> 
> As for changing things once you've built your world...who says you can't?  If this was true no one would houserule and change published settings, but it's done all the time.




Aren't you being a little inconsistent right now?   

If a prefigured preplanned world where everything is nailed down STILL needs to be changed (and is thus inconsistent), what are you worried about?

IMO consistency is actually easier with a less detailed world. Everything has come up in play and is easier to remember, sticks in the mind better, than the contents of a binder full of rambling essays. And you should have notes which perform the same function as the essays.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

edgewaters said:
			
		

> IMO consistency is actually easier with a less detailed world. Everything has come up in play and is easier to remember, sticks in the mind better, than the contents of a binder full of rambling essays.




I personally find this untrue.  True, perhaps, if the worldbuilding is done in 'rambling essays,' but this is the digital age; a reasonably competent computer literate person (say, good enough to consistently get to and post on a message board  ) can do worldbuilding in MS Word or Wordperfect and generate an index for it that will allow him easy reference; with a smidgeon more expertise or a copy of any commercial HTML editor, he can hypertext up his world document and make it even easier to reference.

As to the original quote, I think it takes a subjective viewpoint that applies either to the author's own preferences or to a certain subset of speculative fiction, and then applies it to the whole.

Me, I *hate* detailed worldbuilding in books.  Bores me to tears.  Howard gave a more vivid picture of the Hyborian Age in a paragraph than most fantasists, operating in the Tolkien mold, do in a whole novel, and Howard also developed the world as he went along, leaving plenty of empty space for storytelling...

But Howard still did worldbuilding OUTSIDE THE STORIES (and, subtly, in them).  He wrote out a rough history that allowed him to reference ideas consistently, to tie his Conan yarns in with earlier works and with Lovecraft's mythos, and to give hints of the wider world or even map it out.


----------



## Steel_Wind

rycanada said:
			
		

> This is very relevant advice for a sci-fi writer.
> 
> This is terrible advice for most DMs.
> 
> This is somewhat appropriate advice for a small number of DMs with a very particular kind of style.




No. It's terrible advice for both the DM and Sci Fi writer. It's okay advice for the fantasy author - but only to a point.

The problem is that SF, in order to work, operates under our laws of reality and physics. You can bend them (a la Star Trek) but you must do so coherently and in a rational and ordered manner.  That is the defining characteristic of speculative fiction.

Because it is THAT rationality which distinguishes SF from Fantasy. The rules of a fantasy world are not our own.  There, a writer is given license to rewrite those rules. But in a SF world they do not have that license. The rules must work and be plausible and consistent - or the reader loses his suspension of disbelief and turns away from the SF tale in disgust.

It is that very element which is the heart and soul of the distinction between SF and Fantasy,

And it is also why the quote mentioned in the OP's post is 100% dead frickkin wrong.


----------



## edgewaters

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I personally find this untrue.  True, perhaps, if the worldbuilding is done in 'rambling essays,' but this is the digital age; a reasonably competent computer literate person (say, good enough to consistently get to and post on a message board  ) can do worldbuilding in MS Word or Wordperfect and generate an index for it that will allow him easy reference; with a smidgeon more expertise or a copy of any commercial HTML editor, he can hypertext up his world document and make it even easier to reference.




Sure but is he to cross reference everything he's written for any possible conflict, before making any statement? Seems that his imagination would quickly be hog-tied and trussed up as well as Gulliver in Lilliput in short order!

The more you paint, the more you are likely to paint yourself in a corner.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> No. It's terrible advice for both the DM and Sci Fi writer. It's okay advice for the fantasy author - but only to a point.
> 
> The problem is that SF, in order to work, operates under our laws of reality and physics. You can bend them (a la Star Trek) but you must do so coherently and in a rational and ordered manner.  That is the defining characteristic of speculative fiction.




What if the protagonist (or wherever the POV is taken from) has no understanding of science? Does it really matter if tech just works? I don't see how scifi itself has any more reason than fantasy to world build.


----------



## The Thayan Menace

*Verisimilitude Über Alles!*



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Utter crap.



Agreed; simulationism (incl. world-building) is not necessarily a psychotic endeavor. Oh, and one more thing:





Thanks for the MTG quiz link, guys!

-Samir Asad
​


----------



## Michael Silverbane

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> What if the protagonist (or wherever the POV is taken from) has no understanding of science? Does it really matter if tech just works? I don't see how scifi itself has any more reason than fantasy to world build.




That is basically the difference between what is called hard science fiction and science fantasy...  They are subgenres...

Later
silver


----------



## ThirdWizard

Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> That is basically the difference between what is called hard science fiction and science fantasy...  They are subgenres...
> 
> Later
> silver




Yes, I know. Lets add space opera to the list as well, since its even further from hard science fiction (ala Star Wars), cyberpunk, etc. So if it isn't hard science fiction, its not science fiction?

EDIT: Or should we simply say that _hard science fiction_ has more necessity to world build instead of saying science fiction in general? That sounds fine to me.


----------



## Nyeshet

Had this advice come from a more respected author - Orson Scott Card, Terry Goodkind, Anne Bishop, Diane W Jones, to give a few examples - I probably would have given it far more consideration. As it is, it comes from a name I have never heard before, and I can only wonder whether this might be a reflection of his style in his works. Are his settings so bland, so outlandish in their composition, so lacking in coherence, that they have failed to gain recognition, failed to sell? 

Perhaps I am wrong in my wonderings upon his works, but I have to admit that I quite strongly disagree with his advice. 

Granted, over-doing it can be a problem when worldbuilding for a written work, as it can drown the book in minute details, but so long as it is done in moderation - or, for some works, just a bit beyond necessary moderation - worldbuilding aids the author in visualizing and understanding the interrelations of their work. Some stories, due to their particular style, can do away with most world building and still work out quite well. But anything that is likely to become a series will need at least a little or it will suffer from what I term the 'quilted patch' effect: several parts that have no real coherence or interrelation with each other despite having supposedly been interacting together for generations if not longer. 

In a game, I have found that at least the bare bones of the setting must be worked out for the sake of coherence. If a continent beyond the horizon has not had contact with the one on which the PCs stand for more than a thousand years, then there is no need to determine much of anything about it other than its existence and perhaps any interesting detail that might be affecting the PC's continent. On the other hand, it is best that the DM has worked out what kingdoms border the one the PCs are in and whether they are friends, foes, etc and what major interactions they have (if any) with said PC inhabited kingdom. And if the PCs are in a town with three roads leading from it, the DM certainly needs to know what is next upon each road, as who knows which direction the PCs will be taking. You can make it up, but what if that very act invalidates something along another road later. Making things up over and over again leads to a quilted patch effect faster than any other method. 

For a one shot campaign and even for some one shot novels leaving most if not nearly all world building by the side of the road is not a problem, but for anything expected to last more than one story, more than one session, worldbuilding is necessary, useful, and even expected (in my experience, anyway).


----------



## Set

Breaking in to say *Peter Jackson!*  PETER JACKSON!  ARGH!

Peter Jackson = adapting Tolkein's works to the big screen. 

Not 'Steve Jackson.'  Steven Jackson = GURPS, Car Wars, and other game stuff.

As for the author's opinions, they work for some, other methods work for others.  Dogmatically saying, 'only my way works, and your an enormous nerd if you do it the other way' isn't terribly accurate.  Nor does it lend itself to having your opinions taken seriously.

And hey, the argument that a reader should be really interested in a setting that the author himself doesn't care about seems a little thin anyway...


----------



## Mallus

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> The problem is that SF, in order to work, operates under our laws of reality and physics.



Except that in a great deal of great SF, it doesn't. But what does that have to do with Harrison's admonition against making an exhaustive survey of you imaginary world?



> You can bend them (a la Star Trek) but you must do so coherently and in a rational and ordered manner.



Trek makes hash out of science. Whole new species of particle physics were invented haphazardly whenever the writers felt the need the turn the crew into babies or sex maniacs (I exaggerate, barely).

For the record, I _do_ think Star Trek is rightly considered science fiction, because it addresses most of the major themes associated with the genre, in a serious fashion --usually. But claiming its approach to scientific speculation is ordered and rational is crazy talk. 



> That is the defining characteristic of speculative fiction.



The defining characteristics of SF are a whole other can of worms. At the very least its not merely a matter of scientific accuracy, or an honest attempt at it. Even hard SF stalwarts like Stephen Baxter sometimes write about things that are wholly outside what can meaningfully be called science; like car-sized FTL spaceships, star-killing handguns, and dark matter birds that flock malevolently in suns.  



> Because it is THAT rationality which distinguishes SF from Fantasy.



Or a pretense to that rationality. 

Godzilla (or better, the original Gojira) isn't particularly rational, but it sure looks like science fiction, being a work that directly addresses the anxiety over rapid technological change, say, like the Bomb.



> But in a SF world they do not have that license. The rules must work and be plausible and consistent - or the reader loses his suspension of disbelief and turns away from the SF tale in disgust.



SF writers have the license to engage in their own kinds of fantasy; force fields, instantaneous communication, FTL, magic gussied up as psionics, the utter inanity of most depictions of space warfare. 



> It is that very element which is the heart and soul of the distinction between SF and Fantasy



I think important differences between "SF" and "F" are thematic. That conceptualization at least results in a more stable definition of the genres. 



> And it is also why the quote mentioned in the OP's post is 100% dead frickkin wrong.



But the quote concerns worldbuilding when it occludes the main point of the work, not all attempts at creating a coherent counter-factual world.


----------



## apoptosis

Strangely this topic is somewhat related to a New Campaign I am running (using TSOY, I wanted to use C&C but my friend really wants to play TSOY).

The idea behind this campaign is that at the start of every 'story' it takes place in a tavern, with the characters (totally metagame) recounting their adventures.  This is just a metagame way for a player (each player will take a turn) to determine the setting/campaign of the next story for the characters (though all players  get to throw in ideas for potential NPCs, relationship maps, conflicts etc.), which I then will run the 'adventure/story' for. 

Using this idea I have only a rough map with only a few defined areas (ones i wanted to create) and the rest is blank and will be filled in as the campaign continues mostly by the players ideas.

This was totally tangental to the discussion, but thought I would throw it in (and wanted to see if anyone else thought it is an interesting way to do a campaign, i hope it is fun but am a little worried it might suck bad and be totally incoherent)

Apop


----------



## Mallus

Nyeshet said:
			
		

> Had this advice come from a more respected author - Terry Goodkind



Are you using the form of respected that really means maligned?

Seriously, not hearing about an author doesn't mean their work is bad, it means you're ignorant of their work. For instance, this weekend I saw the Met rebroadcast of _Eugene Onegin_ by Tchaikovsky, a work that I was wholly ignorant of. Never read it, didn't know it was a famous opera. That had absolutely no bearing on its quality.


----------



## LostSoul

I think it is good advice for specific types of people, and bad for others.

I don't think there's really much else to say; some people's games will be enhanced by focus on worldbuilding, and other people's games will be the lesser for it.  

It's just a matter of taste.


----------



## papastebu

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> EDIT: Or should we simply say that _hard science fiction_ has more necessity to world build instead of saying science fiction in general? That sounds fine to me.



 I would actually say that hard science fiction has less necessity for world-building than any other form of speculative fiction. This is because, generally, hard science is the milieu, rather than the world/galaxy in which events take place.

A great many of Asimov's stories, for example, required little world-building, because he had the science right in his head, and he didn't write about things that people couldn't extrapolate within their sense of disbelief from things that they saw or heard about every day. The readers could basically build the world themselves, and Asimov was free to state "This is the state that the world has arrived at, given what we have today taken to *this* point." He speculated, for sure, but his framework was already there.

Star wars, on the other hand, is fantastic, and required more explanation, because the force is a fictional speculation based on a real-world speculation. Blasters are not accepted fact, or even extrapolated "fact", based on existing technology. The closest thing, I think, to hard science that exists in Star Wars is the lightsaber, with its ion stream contained by a magnetic field. Even that's a stretch; how come it's not a ball of light on the end of a stick?

Anyway, the point is that if you have less fact to back it up, in a game or a story, then you are going to need to have more things--settings, objects, occurrences, histories, relationships, laws, etc, ad nauseam--in place for the reader/player to look and say, "Oh. That's why that works/happened/looks like that," or whatever.


----------



## Woas

I agree with the OP and the statement provide. The reason is because it basically is saying the same thing that the First Commandment of Dungeon Mastering says:

First Rule of Dungeoncraft: Do Not Force Yourself To Create More Than You Have To.


Yeah... the old Dungeoncraft articles are like my DMing bible so... I agree. Knowing that Jay Farquard is the king of the West Cupcake Kingdom is not necessary if you do not intend for the game to every involve Jay Farquard nor his Kingdom of desserts.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert

Set said:
			
		

> So this author lacks interest in reading anything that's detailed?  Cool.  People with short-attention spans need books too, I guess.
> 
> I'll sit back here and read books from authors like Tolkein or Lovecraft, who are willing to craft a detailed setting *as part and parcel of establishing mood and theme.*




I'll grant you Tolkien, but Lovecraft didn't spend time on worldbuilding as much as simply referring to names and events of earlier stories of his, as well as those of his pen pals.

The whole "Cthulhu Mythos" was turned into a coherent form only _after_ his death...


Another good example is Terry Pratchett. He started writing his stories without worrying about petty things like geography, and for a long time apparently denied that it was even _possible_ to create maps of the Discworld or Ankh-Morpork. And even when he did admit it, he subcontracted much of the job to someone else. Here the worldbuilding came _after_ the fact.

I maintain that Harrison's words are excellent advice for writers (obviously it isn't for GMs, but those have to act under different circumstances). Tolkien got away with it because he was a freaking _professor of literature_ who knew what he was doing when writing literature himself, but almost all would-be authors lack this background. Thus, the danger is very real that they will get distracted by their world-building so much that they will be unable to write a coherent story, or else feel compelled to add more world building than is useful.

An author who only uses minimal world-building creates his story by thinking: "I want these things to happen to my character - what parts of the world do I have to invent to justify it?"

An author who does the world-building first is in real danger of instead letting the setting drive the growth of the character - and thus introduce all sorts of events that are not useful for the story, explain all sorts of world details that are irrelevant to the story, and so forth.

Quantity does not equal quality when writing stories. Too many authors forget that.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Kafkonia said:
			
		

> Wow. If I actually cared what M. John Harrison thought about things... anything... this might have some effect on me.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't. So it won't.
> 
> Moving on...



Hmm, I have never read his books.

Now I know that there is a reason not to.

The authors that I read _do_ put work into their world building. Some have run classes on the subject. At least one has made a synopsis of one of her classes available online (Patricia C. Wrede). I like it better when I feel that the setting is not some painted cloth over a cheap wooden frame on the back lot of a bad motion picture company.

As has been stated before - crap.

The Auld Grump


----------



## FireLance

Boy, this quote has touched a lot of nerves.

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but he may be using the word "worldbuilding" in a different sense from many of the previous posters.

His key proposition seems to be: when you are writing, are you telling a story, or describing a world? If you are doing the latter, you're doing it wrong. You're writing an encyclopedia, not a story.

While I think he has a point, I wouldn't say he's completely correct. I think it depends on what genre you're writing, and what your readers want. A short story needs to be tighter and can spare fewer words for details not vital to setting, plot or characterization, for example, while a full length novel has more scope for purely descriptive passages.

What is the parallel to gaming? Well, when you're DMing, are you running an adventure, or describing your campaign setting? How much time do you spend in game talking about elements of your campaign setting that are not relevant to the adventure? If the party is at an inn and orders ale, do you identify the country that the ale is from, tell them where it is, describe its climate and salient features, and give a short run-down if its recent history, even if the PCs are not going to have anything to do with the country in the foreseeable future? And, either way, do your players like it?


----------



## Set

If the author was a little more talented, I suspect we wouldn't be seeing people arguing that he was complimenting Tolkein, etc. with terms like 'clomping nerdism.' 

There are authors, that, IMO, prove his point.  Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time I've listed as an example.  Too much detail.  Not enough plot advancement.  Characters seem to be retarded (not meant as in brain-damaged, meant in the literal definition, as of 'held back, unable to advance.') and are often abandoned for many hundreds of pages, or even *thousands of pages.*  To pick another author that I like, who has gone, IMO, over to the dark side, Neal Stephenson.  Too much background color, to the point of it detracting from an otherwise compelling story.  (Unlike say, Dan Brown or Tom Clancy, who use too much local historical color / sociopolitical techno-porn to pad out an otherwise deadly-dull narrative, but that's not a problem with an overdeveloped world, so much as a frustrating tendency to explain everything to the reader as if he was four years old and just moved on from reading Spot and the Big Red Ball.)

There are other authors that, equally IMO, refute his point.  I'll skip Tolkein and go straight into David Brin and Peter Hamilton and Raymond Feist and Fred Saberhagen and Larry Niven and Greg Egan.  All present richly detailed worlds, without losing the thread of the narrative, or risking having the setting eclipse the characters.

Various examples of setting eclipsing characters or plot or action, all IMO;

Star Trek: the Motion Picture (the cast stands around and stares at the pretty SFX)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (so...  deadly.... dull...  Yes, the darn ships are blinking in musical scales.  Yes, the pretty colored lights are probably hypnotic and enthralling to small paralyzed rodents.  Get the hell over it already.)

Rendezvous with Rama (It's a big damn ship!  Somebody do something before my brain explodes!)
Much of Isaac Asimov's work (perhaps I'm not being fair.  I never could finish anything he's written.  Perhaps the last 30 pages of every one of his books contains an amazing revelation that would have changed my life, but I never could get there.)

The only time I want the *entire narrative* to involve the unveiling of a new world is if there are dinosaurs involved, or it's a Harryhausen film involving Sinbad.  But the author didn't impugn the *entire narrative* being about the world-building reveal.  The mere *act* of world-building, even if it is never overused in the narrative, he maligns and considers a sign of some sort of psychological disorder, which makes me wonder what he thinks of God...


----------



## ThoughtBubble

Imaro said:
			
		

> I just have a quick question for all you world ad-hockers, what do you do if your players go off on a tangent.  I personally like for my worlds to be consistent and to a point(cause it is still fantasy) logical. Has your ad-hocing ever led to a situation where you didn't remember something you alluded to, or later wanted to change your mind about?  IMHO I find this disconcerting as a player or as a GM.  My players have asked for information and went about doing things in ways I would've never pictured and my worldbilding has always allowed me enough info to make it work.  On a side note isn't keeping track of all these side notes on things that don't exist extra effort as well?
> 
> As for changing things once you've built your world...who says you can't?  If this was true no one would houserule and change published settings, but it's done all the time.  At least with the world built it gives you more ways to see a coherent way to implement the changes you want to make.  I really think some people on this thread are equating world-building with rigid, uncompromising GM and they're not the same.  A Gm can be just as rigid and uncompromising with any aspect of his game and they're two seperate issues.




I'm not quite an Ad-hocker, but my world building has become less and less strignet as time passes. Adding things on the fly has put me in a few positions where, suddenly, I'm countering something I said before. Usually my players call me on it, at which point, we adjust and move on.

Me: So, the general says: "I don't know what you're talking about."
Player: Wait a sec, we contacted him about the rebellion last session!
Me: Really, what'd you say?
Player: We said...(brief explanation follows)
Me: Oh, right.  "Your message arrived in a timely fashion..."

However, as time passes, that doesn't happen so much. Almost everything we're doing now is small, fast and relevant. Most of it is so darn cool that it doesn't fall off the radar, we're too busy grabbing it and running. I put the effort that I used to put into building a world into building a coocoon of cool events involving the players. 

The caution is much more so that worldbuilding can constrain and destroy creativity and feedback instead of enable it. Badly done worldbuilding gives the author (DM) a big list of why things coudn't possibly happen and ways to say no to the player. Really, you're a small fry because Elminster or Drizzt would have taken care of all of the problems anyway.

The caution is that building a world may take away from the fun parts of the game. Make sure your world supports the game you want to play. Make sure your world supports interesting situations to play through, and plenty of room for conflict. If your world building supports good game building, you're on the right track.


----------



## ThoughtBubble

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Can't it be both?
> 
> I mean, I have a hell of a whole lot of fun developing and detailing Aquerra, and would probably continue to do it (or some other world) even if I stopped playing D&D.
> 
> However, as part of that process I am developing the immediate area around the PCs and getting inspired for further detail and variation depending on what the PCs do and the ideas the player's bring to the table.




I think it can be both. But most of the heavily world-built games I've played in ran into one of three problems:
1) There were setting elements that the players couldn't possibly know about that were insermountably preventing our success. These weren't really shared, but just sort of popped up as a given fact that we should have known. "Oh yeah, everyone knows Gimmin the Deamon slayer has eyes that see absolute truth."
2) The DM was so invested in the world he couldn't bear to let us change any of it. And we also had to hear tons about it. 
3) The world was, frankly, kind of innapropriate to the game (who cares about local crops when you're in flying ships battling dragon hordes).

It sounds like you avoid all of this by taking note of the players, their characters and the immediate situation.


----------



## Hussar

I would also point out that the article doesn't say that all world building is bad.  What it's saying is that the plot should be first and world building second.  Tolkein is a perfect example of this.  LOTR and The Hobbit do have lots of world building bits, but, in the end, they are damn good stories. 

Compare to the Similarian.  Here's a book that's pretty much all world building with bits of plot tossed in.  I know that some people hail it, but, for me, it was a terrible grind to get through.  BORING.  It got to the point that I just didn't care.

And, Thoughbubble touches on this, this is the danger for DM's when world building.  His three problems do happen in campaign settings.  We see DM's react with shock and horror if you start deviating from setting canon in published settings.  Heck, look at the reactions to different writers about the Planes and you see how seriously some people take setting.

As a DM, I'd rather focus on plot than setting.  Most players IME don't really care that much about the setting.  Getting them engaged in the setting is hard enough without trying to bore them to tears about extraneous details.  I've seen advice on this board that says not to even bother trying to engage players in the setting.  I wouldn't go that far, but, really, setting is in the back seat to adventures in my game.


----------



## edgewaters

Nyeshet said:
			
		

> Had this advice come from a more respected author - Orson Scott Card, Terry Goodkind, Anne Bishop, Diane W Jones, to give a few examples - I probably would have given it far more consideration. As it is, it comes from a name I have never heard before, and I can only wonder whether this might be a reflection of his style in his works. Are his settings so bland, so outlandish in their composition, so lacking in coherence, that they have failed to gain recognition, failed to sell?




Uhmmm ... quite the opposite, lol.

An extraordinarily well-respected writer. A writer *for* writers, you might say. You're probably not familiar with him because he did relatively little work in the fantasy field.


----------



## rounser

> Boy, this quote has touched a lot of nerves.



Yes, IMO it's touched upon a sacred cow in desperate need of being sent to the abattoir.  Or needs it's importance at least knocked down quite a few pegs.

Dungeoncraft, Wolfgang Baur's Adventure Rules and this author all seem to be pointing out something that IMO should be obvious, but runs so contrary to D&D culture that few can see the forest for the trees.  I suspect that the reason this cow is so resilient to slaughter is just how invested people are in their worldbuilding - to admit that most of it's a waste of time in terms of actually running the game would undermine the excuse for (in some cases) hundreds of hours of work.  

It being enjoyable in it's own right is probably excuse enough to worldbuild, but pretending that it's actual game prep is mostly wishful thinking in many cases.  For all practical intents and purposes, game prep for D&D is making the adventure (which includes encounter-level worldbuilding, but so few people do this as part of their worldbuilding that it's the exception that proves the rule), not detailing thousands of years of history or the cultural mores of elves.


----------



## Wraith Form

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Sooooooo...by this logic Tolkien is a boring nerd?




I don't know if you've heard, but actually he's dead.

And without trying to piss on the thread, as Hobo indicates, I think it says a lot that we have no idea who M. John Harrison is.  (Except Edgewaters up there.)


----------



## EditorBFG

I think what Harrison basically means by "worldbuilding" in fiction is the equivalent of boxed text in a module.

Some groups want the GM to read the boxed text. But I don't know a lot of them personally. While I think adventures should be written with detailed room descriptions for the GM-- boxed text is useful in that regard-- I also think the GM should describe things organically as the game proceeds rather than forcing players to listen to the literary stylings of the adventure writers.

Same thing with world descriptions in fiction. The writer needs to understand his world with as much or as little detail as is necessary to propel the story and maintain consistency. Tolkien's worldbuilding was his hobby, but the descriptions he includes in the actual narrative of LOTR are necessary and stylistically appropriate. Starting writers need the advice Harrison is dispensing; seasoned authors, I think, choose what they want to tell the reader with the accuracy of experience and know the rules well enough to break them.

I see prose with too much world description all the time.

EDIT: By the way, I think all this debate about Harrison's validity as a successful author is tangential and irrelevant to the discussion. We're evaluating the statement itself, not debating the literary merits of the writer who made it. There are almost certainly bad or talentless writers who can teach a good creative writing class, and I know for a fact there are brilliant writers who cannot give writing advice worth a darn (and they usually know it; art is something they _do_ rather than talk about). So Harrison's qualifications, other than perhaps being a published author who was asked for such advice in the first place, are immaterial.


----------



## Infernal Teddy

I tried reading one or two of his books at the local bookstore yesterday...

What a waste of half an hour...


----------



## Hussar

On the thought that world building leads to better stories. 

Ballocks.

Grimm Fairy Tales.  Zero world building.  Probably some of the most enduring stories in the English Language.

People mentioned Dune.  Really?  How much world building is there in the first book?  Beyond a few throwaway lines.  I always thought Dune worked in a whole lot of ways, but, travelogue?  I gotta read that again.  Dune is driven by plot, not by setting.

Actually, honestly, in pretty much any really famous and enduring novel (we'll see if Robert Jordan still has legs a couple of decades from now), plot takes precedence over setting.  Star Wars isn't incredibly popular because of the setting.  It was incredibly popular because its a damn good story with special effects that no one had ever seen before.

From a player perspective, I've run into this a couple of times.  If it doesn't really impact my character, I can't say that I care that much.  Why should I?  It's great to get excited about the name of a beer, but, I can see that shine wearing off very, very quickly.

Put it another way.  Think of your great gaming experiences.  The ones that stand out in your mind as the best times around the table for you.  Now, do those experiences stand out because of setting or plot?  For me, it's plot.  It's the time the party kicked in the door to find an advanced rust monster only to obliterate it the next round.  It's the time the thief set off the trap one time too many and got fried.  It's the battle with the black dragon, the wraith, the wraith's wight cohorts, and the five hill giants.  It's the time throwing a bucket at the otyugh because I thought it was a rat in the dark.

Setting?  Being wowed about the fact that someone's setting fits a certain perspective?  Not so much.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert

Hussar said:
			
		

> On the thought that world building leads to better stories.
> 
> Ballocks.
> 
> Grimm Fairy Tales.  Zero world building.  Probably some of the most enduring stories in the English Language.




Well, those are not quite the same. The "authors" didn't actually write the stories - they merely collected them by interviewing a large number of Germans and writing down what they were told. These fairy tales emerged from the collective body of myth and folklore of the German people. While this was not "world building" as such, these stories were not created in a vacuum.

And it's good to hear that they had an impact in other countries, too...


----------



## hong

Whatever you say, the USS Enterprise would still totally pwn a Star Destroyer.


Hong "but Driz'zt still beats them all" Ooi


----------



## Dr Simon

I come down on the side of "Only create what you need, plus a little bit more". 

One early criticism of the Creative Conclave was that it was creating a world "where every blade of grass is listed".  That's not entirely true   , but I can see the point. There's a lot more initial work to set your game in, say, Tekumel, than in a broad-strokes world like Greyhawk.  You don't need precise population statistics for a nation, you just need to say that it's crowded, like Japan or sparse, like Finland.  You don't need a full lexicon of elven words, but a smattering of every day phrases and perhaps a standardised 'sound' to the language is nice (but not essential).

It's something I've tried to bear in mind with the revised version of Conclave, hence more directly game-related material. It was originally meant to be a world for RPGs but the discussion boards ended up with more con-lang and world-builder types than gamers so things got a bit esoteric. The Gloranthan Digest was another that went that way. That's when you've got to sit back and look at *why* you are doing this world-building.  Intellectual exercise? Go as detailed as you want. Game setting?  How much do you really need?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Odhanan said:
			
		

> He sounds either jealous, lazy, or just likes the provocation. I get what he's saying, but his tone and and his logic are completely skewed and offensive.





In other words, it's no better than if _*I*_ had written it.


----------



## Kestrel

Hussar said:
			
		

> On the thought that world building leads to better stories.
> 
> Ballocks.




My thoughts exactly.  Its the player's actions that they remember, not the world that a GM created.  Gameworlds are good as a tool for the GM to create the setting for the players, but should never be the focus of the game.  The players are.


----------



## Desdichado

Imaro said:
			
		

> I just have a quick question for all you world ad-hockers, what do you do if your players go off on a tangent.  I personally like for my worlds to be consistent and to a point(cause it is still fantasy) logical. Has your ad-hocing ever led to a situation where you didn't remember something you alluded to, or later wanted to change your mind about?  IMHO I find this disconcerting as a player or as a GM.  My players have asked for information and went about doing things in ways I would've never pictured and my worldbilding has always allowed me enough info to make it work.  On a side note isn't keeping track of all these side notes on things that don't exist extra effort as well?
> 
> As for changing things once you've built your world...who says you can't?  If this was true no one would houserule and change published settings, but it's done all the time.  At least with the world built it gives you more ways to see a coherent way to implement the changes you want to make.  I really think some people on this thread are equating world-building with rigid, uncompromising GM and they're not the same.  A Gm can be just as rigid and uncompromising with any aspect of his game and they're two seperate issues.



I guess I don't understand the question completely.  The possibility of players going off on a tangent is exactly why some level of ad-hoc improvisation is necessary for almost all GMs.  That's the time when _everyone_ becomes an ad-hocker, at least for a short time.  Ad-hoc style GMs don't do anything different than other GMs when players go off on a tangent; what defines the ad-hoc style is how they run the game when the PC's *aren't* going off on a tangent.


----------



## Desdichado

Mallus said:
			
		

> Are you using the form of respected that really means maligned?
> 
> Seriously, not hearing about an author doesn't mean their work is bad, it means you're ignorant of their work. For instance, this weekend I saw the Met rebroadcast of _Eugene Onegin_ by Tchaikovsky, a work that I was wholly ignorant of. Never read it, didn't know it was a famous opera. That had absolutely no bearing on its quality.



I had the same thought--I have a hard time with some of the posts in this thread that talk about Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan, etc. as "respected" authors, or authors whose style should be emulated.  I guess they manage to sell a fair amount, and that counts for something.


----------



## edgewaters

Frankly worldbuilding has almost nothing to do with the situation of players going off on a tangent in most cases.

Worldbuilding is macrocosmic. Whether or not you've detailed some kingdom 2000 miles from where the players are is really not going to affect things if they go off on a tangent.

Detailing the microcosm in which the players find themselves is a matter separate from worldbuilding. There's a very important distinction between worldbuilding and detailing a small kingdom.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hobo said:
			
		

> I had the same thought--I have a hard time with some of the posts in this thread that talk about Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan, etc. as "respected" authors, or authors whose style should be emulated.  I guess they manage to sell a fair amount, and that counts for something.





Actually, I agree.  Goodkind and Card leave me cold.  Well, Card for the most part (his first two Ender novels I enjoyed).


----------



## Desdichado

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Tolkien got away with it because he was a freaking _professor of literature_ who knew what he was doing when writing literature himself, but almost all would-be authors lack this background. Thus, the danger is very real that they will get distracted by their world-building so much that they will be unable to write a coherent story, or else feel compelled to add more world building than is useful.



To nitpick, JH, Tolkien was a professor of *language*, not literature.  Those were the two department of English within Exeter College at Oxford, and there was a bitter rivalry between them that Tolkien in many ways epitomizes.  The Lord of the Rings thumbs its nose quite flagrantly at literary conventions.

And for what it's worth, the lit guys *did and do* say that Tolkien was distracted by his world-building so much that he was unable to write a coherent story and was obviously compelled to add more worldbuilding than was useful.  One notorious criticism of Lord of the Rings is the meandering way in which the story develops, stopping for all kinds of non-essential tourist traps along the way.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hobo said:
			
		

> And for what it's worth, the lit guys *did and do* say that Tolkien was distracted by his world-building so much that he was unable to write a coherent story and was obviously compelled to add more worldbuilding than was useful.  One notorious criticism of Lord of the Rings is the meandering way in which the story develops, stopping for all kinds of non-essential tourist traps along the way.





This explains its lack of popularity, and must be the reason why it was voted the best book of the 20th Century.


----------



## Imaro

You know I keep seeing the assesment that players aren't into the "background" of a setting and that it is usually wasted upon them.  If this is the case why are rpg's based on settiings made and sold.  Star Wars, Exalted, Qin:Warring States, etc.  are all games that have an inherent world attached to them, and that players enjoy interacting with. In Star Wars a player may not interact with a sith lord or go to the homeworld of the jedi council for many levels, but they're there and this adds to the enjoyment and versimilitude of playing a jedi.  In Exalted a PC knows that the Wyld is the purview of the lunars, fae and mutants, they may not interact with them directly in an adventure but if they take a side trek into a Wyld area both the GM and the players know what they're most likely to encounter.

I wonder if the whole "world building is a waste" sentiment could be self perpetuating.  Yeah it's a waste if it doesn't capture your players imagination, but if it does all it can do is add to the enjoyment of the game.  Maybe the problem is that some people just aren't good at it.  I personally am not a fan of dungeoncrawls and feel adventures more so than the actual world should be the purview of a character and their particular desires.  What good is it if I've prepared the Lost Tomb of Ansakor, if the PC's instead want to spend a session jockeying for political position amongst the decadent nobles of Algoth Doure?  

The world-building gives a canvas upon whic the PC's are free to paint whatever picture they want.  A pre-made adveture however seems to have already painted the picture and gives the illusion that the PC's have free will.  If all I have for the night is the Caverns of Maegoth Wold detailed then I've essentially forced the PC's to go into those caverns...If I've built the island of Maegoth Wold then the PC's have way more freedom in what type of adventure they want to pursue, they're motivations, passions, and interests direct what part of the island they explore or interact with instead of what I planned for them to interact with.

Is it more work? Certainly.  But it's worth it IMHO to give my players that experience of a real environment.


----------



## Desdichado

Yeah, I think Tolkien would have felt nicely validated by that.  Although honestly; he and his kind lost that war, I think.  The priorities of the old philologists and their curriculum have essentially disappeared while literature is still running along nicely more or less as it was in his time.

I also got the impression from some of his _Letters_ and whatnot that he was a bit exasperated by some of the fans he developed late in his life who loved Lord of the Rings but not for the same reasons he did.


----------



## buzz

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> World building is not verisimilitude and verisimilitude is not world building.



I nominate this for best Quote of the Thread. Nail, head, hit.


----------



## edgewaters

Imaro said:
			
		

> What good is it if I've prepared the Lost Tomb of Ansakor, if the PC's instead want to spend a session jockeying for political position amongst the decadent nobles of Algoth Doure?




First off, detailing the Lost Tomb of Ansakor isn't worldbuilding. Worldbuilding is just what it sounds like - *world* building.

Second, if you've been playing with the group in question for a while, you should have a good idea of what they plan to go about doing next, and prepare accordingly if you feel that it would be helpful. 



> The world-building gives a canvas upon whic the PC's are free to paint whatever picture they want.




Well, not really. It's a canvas that's already been painted, usually without any player input. IMO world-building happens during the course of a campaign, if you haven't nailed everything down. There's little room for that if you've already determined everything.

If all you've got is a rough map of the continent and few details, and the players say they want to go and have adventures in a place that's like Roman England, no problem!! You can just create it. But if you've already worked out what's where and detailed it extensively, and you don't have any place like Roman England, you've wasted your time and will have to scrap a whole lot of stuff to make room for it.



> A pre-made adveture however seems to have already painted the picture and gives the illusion that the PC's have free will.




Ah! Not so. This is only true of story-driven adventures where the players are assumed to be doing such and such for the story to continue.



> If all I have for the night is the Caverns of Maegoth Wold detailed then I've essentially forced the PC's to go into those caverns...If I've built the island of Maegoth Wold then the PC's have way more freedom in what type of adventure they want to pursue, they're motivations, passions, and interests direct what part of the island they explore or interact with instead of what I planned for them to interact with.




I don't really see any difference here. One is wilderness, the other is a dungeon, and they can potentially ignore either and go elsewhere unless you forcibly prevent it.

Likewise if you look at early modules like Keep on the Borderlands or Secret of Bone Hill, the players are free to have the type of adventure they want dictated by whatever their "motivations, passions, and interests" are. They could have an entire adventure without even going to the dungeons, and the module supports it. The dungeon is just there and its probable they will go to it, but hardly necessary; the town is detailed just as well, and they can explore or interact with it as easily as with the dungeon if that's what they want.

This has nothing to do with whether the adventure takes place in a few square miles or in a few thousand square miles, but whether or not it is story-driven. If the DM has already written the story of what the players are going to do, then their freedom is limited.


----------



## buzz

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

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



Reminds me of a discussion many of us here had a week or two ago. This is also being discussed over on Story Games.

I think Harrison makes a valid point applicable to both writing and RPG'ing, as demonstrated by those citing Baur and Dungeoncraft. And I definitely believe (as I remarked in the first thread above), that a certain amount of the world-detailing we've come to expect in RPGs exists less to serve play and more as a tool to sell sourcebooks. To give an example I used before, I already have more data on Eberron than I could ever conceivably use in play, much less retain in my memory in any useful way... and I haven't even looked at any of the novels yet.

That said... there's definitely a subset of the gaming populace that enjoys pure world building—from both sides of the screen. I've played with people who wanted to know all the details about the masonry used in the bridge our PCs were walking over... and DMs who gladly wanted to tell them.

And the whole phenomena of the setting splat is an outgrowth of hobby publishers' discovery that many gamers enjoy reading—or even simply _owning_—sourcebooks as much as (or more than) they do actually playing.

So, as an absolute, 100% true piece of RPG advice, Harrison is obviously wrong. However, _in general_, I think that his sentiment is very applicable, at least in terms of DMs prioritizing their time. 

The players need something to _do_ far more than they need something to _look at_. The amount of time and effort the latter merits will depend on what your group as a whole prioritizes in play.


----------



## Reynard

buzz said:
			
		

> The players need something to _do_ far more than they need something to _look at_. The amount of time and effort the latter merits will depend on what your group as a whole prioritizes in play.




I would agree, but with the addition that they also need a place to do those things, both immediate and microcosmic and expansive and macrocosmic.

YMMV, etc...


----------



## Jürgen Hubert

Why do people here keep on harping on how this comment by Harrison applies to gaming when it never was intended to do so in the first place?

I mean, it's pretty obvious - or at least, it should be - that gaming and writing stories have completely different needs:

In writing a story, everything is controlled by a single person - the author. The story centers on the events surrounding the protagonists. Any world-building which is not creates people, places and things not mentioned or referred to in the story is simply unneccessary. And (and I think that was the main point of Harrison's critique) if you do more world-building than neccessary, you might be tempted to extend the story itself to create pages upon pages of needless exposition.

In creating a game world, events are controlled by multiple persons - the game master and the players. Sure, the game master needs to be familiar with the world, but the players need to be familiar with the basics as well - so that they know what their characters can and cannot do, and what kinds of consequences certain actions will have. They need to know all these so that they can play their characters appropriately.

To sum it up, worldbuilding is neccessary for creating and playing in game worlds, and less so for creating good stories and novels. Is there anything else here to argue?


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This explains its lack of popularity, and must be the reason why it was voted the best book of the 20th Century.




So now popularity = good?  That's a bit of a turnaround for you RC.  *Tweak*  

I think people are conflating setting with world building.  They are not the same thing.  Every story requires setting.  You have to have _somewhere_ for the plot to happen, even if it's just a bench in a Beckett play.  World Building is going beyond what you need for the plot of the story and detailing extraneous details.

Star Wars has been named a couple of times as a World Building story.  That's not true.  Or, rather, it wasn't true until a bunch of fans got together and started knocking together all sorts of stuff that wasn't in the original stories.  Look at SW A New Hope.  By the end of the movie, what do we know of Tatooine?


It's a desert planet and fairly dangerous
Sandpeople are bad and walk in single file.
Jawas are scavengers that flog used droids and such
a bunch of apparently bad people hang out at the same pub in Mos Eisely

That's about it.  There's no world building going on there.  We don't know the names or background of any character other than the main ones.  Everyone else shows up for 15 seconds and never appears again.  If Star Wars was about world building, Lucas would have gone on and on about the geneology of Jawas and how they live their day to day lives.  Same with Sandpeople.  The various species in the Cantina would be named and backgrounds given.  Mos Eisely would have a detailed history stretching back a fair ways.  

Yes, by the end of six movies, umpteen books and several RPG's, we have a fairly detailed universe.  But, the movies weren't about that.  All that stuff came later and had very little to actually do with the movies.

Having a rich setting is not necessarily world building.  Having a detailed setting isn't really world building.  World Building is when you start detailing EVERYTHING.  Published campaign settings, if they survive long enough, start to become exercises in world building.  Once you get beyond the basics that you need to play in the setting, that's when world building starts.  

Naming a town and describing the buildings isn't world building.  That's just setting.  Keep on the Borderlands isn't world buildiing.  Ptolus is world building.


----------



## wingsandsword

Hussar said:
			
		

> Star Wars isn't incredibly popular because of the setting.  It was incredibly popular because its a damn good story with special effects that no one had ever seen before.



When I first saw Star Wars as a kid in the late 80's, there were other sci-fi movies that had come out in it's wake.  There were flashy movies with cool special effects, there were fine novels and good stories to be told.

However, to the twelve-year-old budding geek I was, one thing that set Star Wars apart was the setting.  The movies really did feel like they were taking place in a much bigger universe full of a rich history and that all the characters had their own stories, all the planets they went to had their own histories.  Star Wars was more than a movie, it was an entire galaxy, even if we didn't know much about it, it always seemed like there was so much more we'd find out one day.

Maybe that was just excellent storytelling on the part of George Lucas, but most DMs aren't Lucas, or Spielberg, or Tolkien, and if they want to create the illusion of a rich and "lived in" world it's going to take a decent amount of thinking up-front so when PC's ask "what's over there?" or "who's that?" the DM won't shatter that illusion with "I don't know"

It is certainly possible to go far overboard on "worldbuilding" to the point where it harms a game.  I've seen it happen, I've seen DM's with elaborate homebrew seeings full of complicated lore and history fleshed out in excruciating detail that he knows by heart, and this becomes a problem when the players are not anywhere near as familiar with this and the DM builds the game assuming they are.  However, there are 10,000 pitfalls a DM can run into, and that's one of the less encountered ones and a DM has to go pretty far to reach a point where worldbuilding hurts the game instead of helps it.


----------



## Infernal Teddy

edgewaters said:
			
		

> Detailing the microcosm in which the players find themselves is a matter separate from worldbuilding. There's a very important distinction between worldbuilding and detailing a small kingdom.




Somehow, I don'te see the difference. It's just a matter of scale.


----------



## Frozen DM

Prophet2b said:
			
		

> Tolkien is only one example.  Robert Jordan's _Wheel of Time_ series is a great example of a story that takes place in a world - a world that he created, planned out, and is still planning out.  Terry Goodkind's _Sword of Truth_ series is another good example.  For a Sci-Fi example, just look at _Serenity_ (okay, so it's not a book, but it's still a story) - Joss Whedon put a ton of work into the world that was never seen on television, and may never have been seen.  Or Star Wars for that matter... huge world (an entire galaxy) surrounding a "small" story, which is one reason fans have found it so easy to continue to the storyline - they have a context from which to draw upon (even if the subsequent books aren't all that great of literature - the world context is still there, and Star Wars would have sucked without it).




These examples you cite are, in my opinion, perfect points supporting Harrison's argument. 

First to address Jordan and Goodkind. I think others have already offered accurate criticisms of their work. The fact is, the "world-building" does little more than pad the books with pointless detail. Both series continue to wander from point A to point B, but have managed to hit points in about 15 different alphabets in the mean time. But I digress, I'm more interested in addressing your other two examples. 

Serenity/Firefly (as wonderful as it is) is hardly a poster-child for "world-building". There is a huge difference between detail-oriented world-building, where every element of the world is defined into the smallest detail, and keeping a consistent tone. Do you really think Joss Whedon really spent hours detailing the political structure of the Alliance? Mapping out every operation and combat theatre of the Unification War? Hell, do you even think he knew the names of the commanding officers in the Battle of Serenity Valley? Hardly. His writers created a world consistent with a specific genre/style, did their best not to contradict established events in the series and, otherwise, would just make stuff up as it came along. I doubt most of the planet's in the series were thought of ahead of time, but each week a new world was needed, so a new one was created. They didn't even keep character names consistent between original story bible and movie. Harrison's criticism is not that authors spend too much time crafting internally consistent stories/settings, but that too much time is spent on minutia that is not relevant to the story at hand.

Same goes for Star Wars. It's a very simple universe("world") with little real depth or detail. Characters are broad archetypes with only enough surface detail to let audiences accept them. The setting and worlds were created in the same manner. Desert-planet, water-planet, jungle-planet, ice-planet. These are hardly detailed setting elements. Again, Lucas created just enough of the world to tell his story. And that's all most authors need to do. 

GM's need to do a bit more, granted, but not to the extent some claim is necessary. There is nothing wrong with that, I do it to. I love world-building and creating detailed back-stories for the setting. But I don't believe for a minute that my efforts at world-building have a significant impact on the quality of my game. It's an intellectual exercise nothing more. If your players are visiting a dwarven fortress, it's enough to know the layout, the major NPC's and maybe a few flavour elements. Knowing the names and lineage of every ruler dating back 2000+ years, is a bit much. But this is the type of detail some GM's (and authors) seem to think actually adds to the story. I really don't think it does. 

The way I see it, you should craft only what is needed to tell your story. This is the approach I'm taking in the newest campaign I'm putting together. I have the core story, and I'm creating the setting around that. The only races I am using are those that fit the needs of the story. I'm not detailing any elements of the world not directly connected to this story. If the player's ask about something unrelated, I'll make something up, write it down and hope I can keep it consistent later on.


----------



## Imaro

edgewaters said:
			
		

> First off, detailing the Lost Tomb of Ansakor isn't worldbuilding. Worldbuilding is just what it sounds like - *world* building.




Uhm...yeah that's my point.  I don't think you understood what I was saying here.



			
				edgewaters said:
			
		

> Second, if you've been playing with the group in question for a while, you should have a good idea of what they plan to go about doing next, and prepare accordingly if you feel that it would be helpful.




So what if you haven't been playing for a while...Let's say first adventure out your rogue PC wants to join the Thieve's Guild.  What are it's initiation requirements, it's structure, ranks, figures he would be introduced to, location, how do you get into contact with them, they're agenda, etc.



			
				edgewaters said:
			
		

> Well, not really. It's a canvas that's already been painted, usually without any player input. IMO world-building happens during the course of a campaign, if you haven't nailed everything down. There's little room for that if you've already determined everything.




This is an assumption, and a bad one at  that.  It assumes the GM once setting dowm the world will not allow it to be changed...that's a playstyle problem independent of actual worldbuilding.  The PC's affect the world through their actions...in the end what's to stop a PC from changing the political structure of a city, a nation...what stops him from making world-level alterations as long as that's what he wants to do.  Worldbuilding in and of  itself? No.





			
				edgewaters said:
			
		

> Ah! Not so. This is only true of story-driven adventures where the players are assumed to be doing such and such for the story to continue.




Ok let's take the Sunless Citadel module, not story driven...all it is is a location(dungeon) and a neighboring town(Oakhurst) the only thing provided for you as far as the town is concerned is background, rumors(some that have nothing to do with the actual adventure) and a stat block.  How does this adventure promote anything but going to the dungeon without the GM fleshing out those "world building" details?





			
				edgewaters said:
			
		

> I don't really see any difference here. One is wilderness, the other is a dungeon, and they can potentially ignore either and go elsewhere unless you forcibly prevent it.




There's a big difference, you're assuming the island is one vast wilderness, while I'm asssuming it's inhabited with cultures, people, and places that are fleshed out.  This allows the PC's anything from social adventures to dungeoncrawls depending on what they want to pursue.



			
				edgewaters said:
			
		

> Likewise if you look at early modules like Keep on the Borderlands or Secret of Bone Hill, the players are free to have the type of adventure they want dictated by whatever their "motivations, passions, and interests" are. They could have an entire adventure without even going to the dungeons, and the module supports it. The dungeon is just there and its probable they will go to it, but hardly necessary; the town is detailed just as well, and they can explore or interact with it as easily as with the dungeon if that's what they want.




But in order to have an "adventure" they are confined to the dungeon and area around it.  If the world is built they aren't.



			
				edgewaters said:
			
		

> This has nothing to do with whether the adventure takes place in a few square miles or in a few thousand square miles, but whether or not it is story-driven. If the DM has already written the story of what the players are going to do, then their freedom is limited.




But what does this have to do with world building...If this was the effect of world building, no adventures, changes, greatness would or could be achieved in our own world.  Part of worldbuilding is making the setting dynamic, you're assuming in creating a world one is forced to make it static.


----------



## Hussar

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> 
> To sum it up, worldbuilding is neccessary for creating and playing in game worlds, and less so for creating good stories and novels. Is there anything else here to argue?




I disagree.  You don't need world building to have a campaign.  Look at the Adventure Paths for example.  The cities of Sasserine and Cauldron are only skeletally detailed.  The Amedio Jungle is mostly a blank.  The people and history of the area is painted in a very, very broad brush.

Do I need to fill in all those gaps to play Shackled City, Age of Worms or Savage Tide?  I don't think so.  There's enough detail there to lend verisimitude, but, it's certainly not simulationist.  There's no real attempt to build an entire coherent history and culture in the area and there doesn't need to be.  

I'm not sure about Age of Worms, but, the basic premise of STAP is not one of cultural exploration.  Heck, 99% of the population of Far Port isn't even named, nor is there breakdown of demographics of the humans in the town.  What faiths do they worship?  What are their backgrounds?  What do they do in their day to day lives?  The modules are silent and well they should be.  Who cares?


----------



## Arnwyn

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

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



No, he doesn't. Though his advice sounds good for writers.



> From here. Discuss.



I'm a DM playing a game for recreation, not a writer.



[Edit: Whoops. Missed that there were 5 pages of this... I'm probably completely out to lunch as to where the discussion went, so never mind!]


----------



## buzz

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Is there anything else here to argue?



The question of degree seems the applicable bit w/r/t RPGs. Obviously, an RPG needs a setting; the question is, I think, how much detail do you need prior to play, and what effect does said detail have on play?

(For the sake of this thread, I'm leaving aside RPGs designed to create detail in play and focusing on D&D and similar games, i.e., where the details are typically hashed out away from the table, either by the GM or by the publisher.)



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> I would agree, but with the addition that they also need a place to do those things, both immediate and microcosmic and expansive and macrocosmic.



Right. Like I said in the other thread, D&D gives you a lot of basic assumptions, so you can just grab a module and go if your group mostly wants to kill stuff. If they want more than that, then detailing the surrounding environs—and possibly questioning D&D's assumptions in the process—increases in priority.


----------



## Hussar

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> When I first saw Star Wars as a kid in the late 80's, there were other sci-fi movies that had come out in it's wake.  There were flashy movies with cool special effects, there were fine novels and good stories to be told.
> 
> However, to the twelve-year-old budding geek I was, one thing that set Star Wars apart was the setting.  The movies really did feel like they were taking place in a much bigger universe full of a rich history and that all the characters had their own stories, all the planets they went to had their own histories.  Star Wars was more than a movie, it was an entire galaxy, even if we didn't know much about it, it always seemed like there was so much more we'd find out one day.
> 
> *snip*




A couple of points.  Of course the movie felt like it had a rich history.  It was ripped pretty much whole cloth from other movies.  

Had Star Wars come out in 1989, I highly doubt it would have had the impact that it did in 1976.  You would not have had people going back to the theater dozens of times to watch it again and again.  It was a phenomenon at the time and that aura has kept it high in the collective minds of geeks everywhere despite the fact that the movies aren't really all that good.


----------



## buzz

Hussar said:
			
		

> You don't need world building to have a campaign.



You do, in the sense that you need a place where everyone agrees the in-game action is happening. I.e., a "setting." With D&D, that can be as simple as "We're using the default assumptions in the rulebooks," or it can involve the DM spending lots of time writing about elvish history.


----------



## Hussar

buzz said:
			
		

> You do, in the sense that you need a place where everyone agrees the in-game action is happening. I.e., a "setting." With D&D, that can be as simple as "We're using the default assumptions in the rulebooks," or it can involve the DM spending lots of time writing about elvish history.




True, you need a setting.  But, that's not world building.  Setting is just where things happen.  World building is a creative exercise to detail EVERYTHING.  Or, at least that's how I interpret it.


----------



## Odhanan

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Why do people here keep on harping on how this comment by Harrison applies to gaming when it never was intended to do so in the first place?




I don't necessarily agree with your point that world-building would be more "necessary" in RPGs than literature. That's just the way we've learned to run and "take possession" of them as "ours" (i.e. the act of world-building makes us own the world depicted by the RPG, even (more so) if it is a world suggested rather than fully described, as in the case of core DnD, imo). 

But you make a sound point: his comment was about writing, not GMing.

His point of view applied to literature is utter crap. 

Crap on the tone and way it's written, and crap on the sense because it is terribly short-sighted. You'll excuse me to quote a previous poster (I could have posted the comment about Victor Hugo, which was IMO very appropriate, but here you go):



> Actually, it's not particularly good advice even for writers. It's advice to "do things my way, not your way," based on a weakness which the author lacks, but to which not all worldbuilders fall prey; i.e., building the world at the expense of the story. He'd spend his time better giving advice about how to approach his own strengths and avoid his own weaknesses - the only topics any of us can truly give useful advice on.
> 
> Tolkien would never have written the Hobbit or LOTR if he hadn't had his language- and world-building hobby. Diana Wynne Jones makes worlds the way other people make sandwiches - vivid, realistic, self-consistent worlds and series of worlds about which the reader learns just the right amount. I don't know how much work she puts into the process of creating them, and I don't need to know. The result counts. How you get there doesn't.
> 
> There are nine and sixty ways of creating tribal lays, and every single one of them is right. Some people have to have the worldbuilding and some people get bogged down in them and some people can't make them at all, and make a virtue of it. There's no point in making hard-and-fast rules about any of it. Personally, I have to overprepare for every session I DM, every public talk I give, everything I do that involves prolonged speaking. Other people can do satisfactory games at five minutes notice.
> 
> More power to everybody. Do it the way that works for you, not the way that works for somebody else.




Spot on. 

People criticizing Tolkien for engaging in "needless side-trips" and considering his writing to be "bad storytelling" just don't understand the Lord of the Rings, and subsequently its main influences (which aren't literary, but poetic -in its broadest definition- and mythological, from an era preceding 'modern writing' efficiency traps and mumbo jumbo to rather depict a vivid emotional tone and image of what the story's supposed to mean, no matter how long it takes).

He can say he is not from the same "school". He can say he dislikes the LOTR and explain why. He can explain how he writes efficient stories, what works for him. That's all perfectly fine. But pretending to "know better" is just preposterous (not to mention short-sighted, pretentious, with the knee-jerk tone that goes with it).


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Hobo said:
			
		

> I had the same thought--I have a hard time with some of the posts in this thread that talk about Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan, etc. as "respected" authors, or authors whose style should be emulated. I guess they manage to sell a fair amount, and that counts for something.




No no, it's ok, you can say it:  Goodkind is a total hack and more than a little depraved.   I suppose someone finds his detailed descriptions of barbed demon phallus useful or interesting, but I just don't.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:
			
		

> True, you need a setting.  But, that's not world building.  Setting is just where things happen.  World building is a creative exercise to detail EVERYTHING.  Or, at least that's how I interpret it.




I think it's going into the realm of absurdity to think that a GM details everything when worldbuilding.  Your taking an extreme viewpoint if you believe that's the meaning of world building and extremes rarely apply in day to day life.  As an example of what I mean by worldbuilding is the following.

1.) A world map(or at least a map of what is generally known to exist) marked with major geographic features, kingdoms, major cities, major roads, prominent ruins/dungeons/places etc.

2.) a general culture/race sheet for PC races and the cultures that exist in my world.  These generally contains beliefs, dress, art-forms, feelings towards other races/cultures, basic laws, building styles, technology level, available equipment, etc.

3.) General notes on how Prominent organizations,guilds, trade, economy, magic, etc. work within and between these kingdoms/race/cultures.

4.) Houserules(w/in game reason for establishing them if necessary)

5.) Theme and mood document.  This is just a few paragraphs on what moods and themes I want this particlar campaign to convey with a brainstorming section where I list things, people, places, monsters, etc. that will convey these themes and moods.(This is ususally done with alot of player input.)

It can get more and more detailed dependant on time, especially the area where the campaign starts...but I have enough information already established to give my players answers to most of their character gen questions as well as to improvise with consistency.( I usually plan for my nextcampaign as the former is starting to wind down, so the time factor is rarely an issue).


----------



## ShinHakkaider

I think the problem I'm seeing here is that there's alot of all or nothing, black or white in the statements being made in this thread in regards to worldbuilding. If we're going to reach any type of real consensus as to how world building is benefical or not, first we all have to accept that not everyone "worldbuilds" in the same way as opposed to setting intellectual pit traps for the opposition when they question your methods. 

So far it seems like there are many ways to worldbuild, which also has to do with playstyle as well. Not to pick specifically on edgewaters and Imaro but I'm just going to use this as an example: 



			
				edgewaters said:
			
		

> Second, if you've been playing with the group in question for a while, you should have a good idea of what they plan to go about doing next, and prepare accordingly if you feel that it would be helpful.




then Imaro's counter: 



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> So what if you haven't been playing for a while...Let's say first adventure out your rogue PC wants to join the Thieve's Guild. What are it's initiation requirements, it's structure, ranks, figures he would be introduced to, location, how do you get into contact with them, they're agenda, etc.




Now at my table when players are starting off with 1st level characters there's usually at least a meeting or a series of e-mails asking what the players are interested in doing. There's an understanding that there needs to be some preparation involved so this would be the time to speak up. If there were a player who was interested in joining the Theives Guild he'd need to let me know that he's at least thinking about this so that I can atleast get some notes together. 

It also goes to the fact that in real life I dont have a tremendous amount of time for preparation so when I do prep I like to prep with at least a bit of focus. I mainly use prewritten adventures (right now I'm running the Age Of Worms adventure path with 5 players) because they take considerably less time to prep for me and I like the use of the visual aides that come with the adventure. Now what I tend to do is try to make things matter to the PC's so that they are invested in what's going on. 

In my experience you kind of have to help guide players along especially if there is no focus, alot of the time unless they have specific goals (which can be incorporated usually along side whatever the main story is) you have to point them in at least  the general direction (s) of where they might want to go. Now that's just ME. I don't claim that my way is the best way or the right way or the only way but that's how I run my games. My players don't have a problem with it, because they have input as far as things they want to do with their characters as long as they let me know in advance. If I had a player who was aware if this and then decided that they wanted to do do something else just because they felt the need to at that moment and throw off the entire game, I'd have to roll with it at the time. But I'd pull that player aside after the game and tell him straight up, if youre going to do something like that again you need to let me know what you want so that we dont throw off the game.  If that's something you feel you need to do on a consistent basis then he'd need to find another DM. 

bringing it back to the worldbuilding thing, for me even if youre using a module or an adventure path, there is still worldbuilding to be done. But then it's a more collabaorative effort and one that needs to allow a certain amount of respect and slack for both the DM and the players. Right now in my game one of the players, a monk, mentioned to me that he wants to look in to getting magic tatoos for his character. He told me this a while ago and since then I've worked out how his character is going start being pointed in the right direction so obtain them. 

Diamond Lake is a dead end for that, but since the PC's have become friendly with a local wizard he's has mentioned that he has a friend stationed in the nearby Blackwall Keep  who might be able to help. This friend plays a minor role in one of the adventures that's coming up that will provide the PC incentive to take cetain actions to recover the information that he needs. I try to do something like that with each PC, will there eventually need to be an orgin for the magic tatoos in the game world? Probably but only if the PC or any of the PC's are interested, if they are not then it doesnt matter. That's how I do my worldbuilding, a little at a time as needed by the PC's focus at the time. 

I cetainly dont do it as an intellectual exercise or to edify my own ego. I do it because the PC's need to know and even then there is only so far that I'll go. Detailing the history and lineage of every dwarven clan in my gameworld  would be a waste. Detailing  architecture and such in my game world would be a waste, I describe the buildings in just enough detail for the PC's to know that it's different than the last ward or city that they were in. If I have to use real world equivalents  or actual pictures I will, but it's not going to be more than two or three sentances of description for about a second or two fo screen time.

Bascially, the impression that I get from the superdetailed setting crowd is that they feel that they are ready to cover anything that is thrown at them because they've planned every detail ahead of time. I'd like to believe that's true, but for that to be true they'd have to be infallable and perfect which they are not. That and players have the darnedest knack for catching DM's unawares. Having detail is great and if that's your thing then go for it, but really stop trying to discount the build as you go DM's it's not fair to those of us whose method actually works for our players.


----------



## Imaro

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> . Having detail is great and if that's your thing then go for it, but really stop trying to discount the build as you go DM's it's not fair to those of us whose method actually works for our players.




How are the "super detailed" crowd exspressing the build as you go method is wrong.  The title of the thread is "Why Worldbuilding is Bad"  then numerous posters have chimed in commenting that it's a waste of time, serves no purpose, players aren't interested, etc.  If anything the pro-worldbuilders are defending against these purely oppinion claims with eamples of why it isn't any of those things.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> So now popularity = good?  That's a bit of a turnaround for you RC.  *Tweak*




  I was expecting that.   

(Honestly, I'd be upset if no one called me on it.    )

No, popularity isn't a general indication of quality.  OTOH, it is a general indication that a whole lot of people don't find something a crashing bore. 

For example, I hate _Armaggeddon_.  To me, the movie sucked.  The pacing was bad, the acting was bad, the science was dreadful, and every scene was given the same emphasis so that, rather than seeming like a roller coaster ride, it seemed flat.  I can honestly say that all the film had going for it was some stunning eye candy.  While I found the movie a crashing bore, though, I would hesitate to say that the movie _actually was_ a crashing bore.  Clearly many, many people found it entertaining.

So, I can certainly claim that LotR cannot _objectively_ be a crashing bore on the basis of its popularity, but I cannot claim that LotR is _objectively good_ on that same basis.



> I think people are conflating setting with world building.  They are not the same thing.  Every story requires setting.  You have to have _somewhere_ for the plot to happen, even if it's just a bench in a Beckett play.  World Building is going beyond what you need for the plot of the story and detailing extraneous details.




If you define world building as detailing things that are extraneous, of coure world building isn't necessary.  That's a self-defining argument.    



> Star Wars has been named a couple of times as a World Building story.  That's not true.  Or, rather, it wasn't true until a bunch of fans got together and started knocking together all sorts of stuff that wasn't in the original stories.  Look at SW A New Hope.  By the end of the movie, what do we know of Tatooine?
> 
> 
> It's a desert planet and fairly dangerous
> Sandpeople are bad and walk in single file.
> Jawas are scavengers that flog used droids and such
> a bunch of apparently bad people hang out at the same pub in Mos Eisely




We know that there's a new model of landspeeder that just came out.  We know about banthas, and we know that Krayt Dragons (sp?) prowl the sands, although we've never seen one (we have, perhaps, seen one's skeletal remains, and we know what they sound like).  We know that Jawas and droids are both generally ill regarded.  We know that the locals "farm" moisture, and that they use evaporators to do so.  We know that they use droids to "talk" to the machinery, and we are given some insight into the fact that the 'vaporators sometimes need repair, and that there is a harvest.  We know that the local crime lord is named Jabba the Hutt, and that he is mad at Han for dropping a shipment, and that he employs bounty hunters.  We know that Luke has a flyer not unlike the A-Wing, which he's used to shoot womp rats in Beggar's Canyon.  We know that Mos Eisley is a space port, and that a large number of alien types can be found there.  We know that the Academy has been recruiting on Tatooine, and that Luke's friend has gone to join the Rebellion....Moreover, we later see him, and we know his name (Biggs) even though he isn't a main character.  Just as we know the names of characters like Jabba the Hutt, Greedo, etc., even though some of these don't even appear in the movie.  It's simply wrong to say that "We don't know the names or background of any character other than the main ones".

That's about it.  There's no world building going on there.    

Of course, if you define world building as going on and on about the geneology of Jawas and how they live their day to day lives, then I would agree that world building was useless.  However, there is a real difference between what the creator(s) need to know and what is shown on screen.  Just as there is a real difference between what the DM knows, and how much of that knowledge is communicated to the players.  Simply because the players aren't told all of the history of the WLD, doesn't mean that the history doesn't inform play through the DM's treatment of the material.



> Having a rich setting is not necessarily world building.  Having a detailed setting isn't really world building.  World Building is when you start detailing EVERYTHING.




We differ in our definitions, then, and probably don't really disagree.  IMHO, having a rich, detailed setting _*is*_ world building.  Detailing EVERYTHING is _excessive_ world building.


RC


----------



## Anand

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Sorry, but as a GM, part of the fun - for me - is world building, and watching the enjoyment the players show at my creation.




I agree here. You don't *have* to create a world, and definitively shouldn't push it to your players, but a lot of people (me included) like to create world just for the sake. It's fun, and it's my time. If I can use parts of it to be a better DM, even better.


----------



## FireLance

I'm going to stop using that loaded term "worldbuilding" and express what I think in simpler terms.

With respect to writing:

1. The writer invests a great deal of effort into the creation and detailing of a world: good, although not always necessary.

2. The writer is able to intersperse interesting details about his world into the narrative in a way that enriches the reader's experience: good.

3. The writer's descriptions of his world overpower the narrative so much so that it seems like he is writing an encyclopedia instead of a story: usually not a good idea.

With respect to gaming:

1. The DM invests a great deal of effort into the creation and detailing of a world: good, although not always necessary.

2. The DM is able to intersperse interesting details about his world into the game in a way that enriches the player's experience: good.

3. The DM's descriptions of his world overpower the game so much so that it seems like he is delivering a lecture instead of a running a game: usually not a good idea.


----------



## Desdichado

This all would have been a lot simpler if the advice had been written more along the lines of: "don't get carried away in dropping extraneous details into your writing that bring the plot to a screeching halt.  It's just self-indulgent and a sign of bad writing."

For the most part, I think we could all agree to that, and honestly I think that's all he really meant.


----------



## Reynard

Never Mind.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:
			
		

> I think it's going into the realm of absurdity to think that a GM details everything when worldbuilding.  Your taking an extreme viewpoint if you believe that's the meaning of world building and extremes rarely apply in day to day life.  As an example of what I mean by worldbuilding is the following.
> 
> 1.) A world map(or at least a map of what is generally known to exist) marked with major geographic features, kingdoms, major cities, major roads, prominent ruins/dungeons/places etc.
> 
> 2.) a general culture/race sheet for PC races and the cultures that exist in my world.  These generally contains beliefs, dress, art-forms, feelings towards other races/cultures, basic laws, building styles, technology level, available equipment, etc.
> 
> 3.) General notes on how Prominent organizations,guilds, trade, economy, magic, etc. work within and between these kingdoms/race/cultures.
> 
> 4.) Houserules(w/in game reason for establishing them if necessary)
> 
> 5.) Theme and mood document.  This is just a few paragraphs on what moods and themes I want this particlar campaign to convey with a brainstorming section where I list things, people, places, monsters, etc. that will convey these themes and moods.(This is ususally done with alot of player input.)
> 
> It can get more and more detailed dependant on time, especially the area where the campaign starts...but I have enough information already established to give my players answers to most of their character gen questions as well as to improvise with consistency.( I usually plan for my nextcampaign as the former is starting to wind down, so the time factor is rarely an issue).




But that's just setting.  The OP isn't talking about that and neither is the article.  It's pretty obvious that every story (or campaign) needs a setting.  Of course it does.  What it doesn't need is for the setting to be made more important than the plot.



> and we know that Krayt Dragons (sp?) prowl the sands




Really?  When is that word actually used in the movie.  All we know is that Obi Wan made a loud noise and it scarred the Sand People away.

Read the original article again.  He's not saying that you don't need a setting.  That would be stupid.  He's saying that you don't need any more setting than what the story calls for.  Setting should take the back seat to plot.  

Having a detailed setting is not world building IMO.  A detailed setting is just that - lots of setting details.  World Building is when you start trying to create an entirely functional world.  Nothing in Star Wars really suggests how Tatooine works.  We have no idea of how their economy functions or their govenernment or much of anything besides nice tidbits that give the appearance of a functioning setting.

The difference between a rich detailed setting and world building is the difference between The Lord of the Rings and the The Silmarillion.  While you can make arguements for LOTR being a tad dry and boring in places, The Silmarillion reads like a geneology report.


----------



## Hussar

FireLance said:
			
		

> I'm going to stop using that loaded term "worldbuilding" and express what I think in simpler terms.
> 
> With respect to writing:
> 
> 1. The writer invests a great deal of effort into the creation and detailing of a world: good, although not always necessary.
> 
> 2. The writer is able to intersperse interesting details about his world into the narrative in a way that enriches the reader's experience: good.
> 
> 3. The writer's descriptions of his world overpower the narrative so much so that it seems like he is writing an encyclopedia instead of a story: usually not a good idea.
> 
> With respect to gaming:
> 
> 1. The DM invests a great deal of effort into the creation and detailing of a world: good, although not always necessary.
> 
> 2. The DM is able to intersperse interesting details about his world into the game in a way that enriches the player's experience: good.
> 
> 3. The DM's descriptions of his world overpower the game so much so that it seems like he is delivering a lecture instead of a running a game: usually not a good idea.




Wut he said.


----------



## Storm Raven

Nyeshet said:
			
		

> Had this advice come from a more respected author - Orson Scott Card, Terry Goodkind, Anne Bishop, Diane W Jones, to give a few examples - I probably would have given it far more consideration. As it is, it comes from a name I have never heard before, and I can only wonder whether this might be a reflection of his style in his works. Are his settings so bland, so outlandish in their composition, so lacking in coherence, that they have failed to gain recognition, failed to sell?




Actually, his works are probably best described as the opposite of this. He simply doesn't belabor the setting details over the story. And I would suggest that Harrison is a quite well-respected author, and deservedly so, given his dozen or so major award nominations (with a couple award wins thrown in ther) and a list of a couple dozen publishing credits over the course of a thirty year career. The fact that you are unfamiliar with him does nothing to diminish this, and given a couple of the names on the list of authors you have provided as "respected", well, I don't think your lack of familiarity with him is a strike against him.



> _Perhaps I am wrong in my wonderings upon his works, but I have to admit that I quite strongly disagree with his advice.
> 
> Granted, over-doing it can be a problem when worldbuilding for a written work, as it can drown the book in minute details, but so long as it is done in moderation - or, for some works, just a bit beyond necessary moderation - worldbuilding aids the author in visualizing and understanding the interrelations of their work._




I think you are misundertanding his advice. Insofar as you think you are disagreeing with Harrison, you are actually in total agreement with his statement. Note that he doesn't say "never do worldbuilding"; he says "story should always take precedence over worldbuilding". In other words, worldbuilding should be subordinated to the story - or, to use your words, used in moderation. But his point is that the story should be paramount.

To tell the truth, I can't think of a single story (or RPG campaign) for which this is not excellent advice. Sure, some stories revel in the detailed travelogue - Jordan has been used as an example already - but the stories suffer because of this. Sure, Jordan is popular, but how many people talk about his works and say something like "the plot is good, but I wish he wouldn't keep getting bogged down in all the side details and get on with the story"? The _Wheel of Time_ would probably be improved with less worldbuilding, and more story.

I can think of very few books for which the opposite is true (actually, off the top of my head, zero; but there might be some book out there I haven't thought of).

Worldbuilding in fantasy is more or less the equivalent of the "info-dump" in science fiction. The author has done a lot of research into a subject (or in the case of worldbuilding, a lot of work putting the background together) and, when writing, doesn't want that to go to "waste". So he dumps it on the reader, even if that draws the story to a halt and ins't really needed (or is even somewhat counterproductive). The key is not to have the worldbuilding (or infor-dump), but to give out just enough to support the story, without getting in the way of the story.


----------



## Odhanan

Hobo said:
			
		

> This all would have been a lot simpler if the advice had been written more along the lines of: "don't get carried away in dropping extraneous details into your writing that bring the plot to a screeching halt.  It's just self-indulgent and a sign of bad writing."
> 
> For the most part, I think we could all agree to that, and honestly I think that's all he really meant.




It seems very surprising, to say the least, that a writer by profession with such an enlightening opinion on the subject would word his opinion that poorly. 

(feel the sarcasm here)

So, while I do agree that the comment would have been much better with the wording you propose (though I'd still disagree about the "self-indulgence" and "bad writing" diagnostics), I can only disagree, based on the assumption that he actually is a good writer, that it is not what he only meant. The terms and tone used are loaded, to me, and that's what I despise.


----------



## Desdichado

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I can think of very few books for which the opposite is true (actually, off the top of my head, zero; but there might be some book out there I haven't thought of).



I wouldn't mind with Erikson and Glen Cook.  Both use prose styles that are a bit too minimalist for my taste; I feel lost until I can get at least a little bit of a grip around the setting, and they so assiduously avoid describing it that reading them is frustrating for a significant portion of each book until it finally starts to come together a bit.


----------



## Reynard

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Worldbuilding in fantasy is more or less the equivalent of the "info-dump" in science fiction. The author has done a lot of research into a subject (or in the case of worldbuilding, a lot of work putting the background together) and, when writing, doesn't want that to go to "waste". So he dumps it on the reader, even if that draws the story to a halt and ins't really needed (or is even somewhat counterproductive). The key is not to have the worldbuilding (or infor-dump), but to give out just enough to support the story, without getting in the way of the story.




This actually has ****-all to do with worldbuilding versus not worldbuilding and applies equally to fiction and gaming: that which doesn't deduct from the enjoyment of the reader/player is not bad.  This isn't the same thing as  saying that which improves the enjoyment of the reader/player is good.

If I, as a writer or setting designer, create a document regarding the ecology of the swamp muffler that is 25,000 words long and goes into extreme detail on the swamp muffler's eating, breeding and defecating habits, and then mention swamp mufflers exactly once in one paragraph while the main characters/PCs travel through a swamp, I haven't stolen anything from them or somehow hurt them.  Whether or not I improved their enjoyment is irrelevent.  And, I didn't infodump on them.  I made a mention.  it was significant only in that it made sense with everything else I have designed, all my other worldbuilding.

The difference is that in the novel, it was probably extraneous work that only provided me with a sense of pleasure and satisfaction (until my no talent hack of a kid repackages and publishes the Ecology of the Swamp Muffler after my death anyway).  As a GM though, I have added to my world in a way that may or may not matter, dependent upon the players.  i mean, players do some funny stuff.  If I describe the swamp muffler's mating song, one might well go hunting it down.  All that work I did -- which was originally for my own enjoyment -- now provides me with the tools to entertain the player who, for whatever reason, wants to catch a swamp muffler.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:
			
		

> But that's just setting.  The OP isn't talking about that and neither is the article.  It's pretty obvious that every story (or campaign) needs a setting.  Of course it does.  What it doesn't need is for the setting to be made more important than the plot.




Please define where "setting" ends and worldbuilding begins because I'm starting not to follow you.  Who said anything about making the world more important than the characters, plots, etc.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Read the original article again.  He's not saying that you don't need a setting.  That would be stupid.  He's saying that you don't need any more setting than what the story calls for.  Setting should take the back seat to plot.




And that is easy to do with a book(if one is so inclined) because you control the protagonist's actions.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Having a detailed setting is not world building IMO.  A detailed setting is just that - lots of setting details.  World Building is when you start trying to create an entirely functional world.  Nothing in Star Wars really suggests how Tatooine works.  We have no idea of how their economy functions or their govenernment or much of anything besides nice tidbits that give the appearance of a functioning setting.
> 
> The difference between a rich detailed setting and world building is the difference between The Lord of the Rings and the The Silmarillion.  While you can make arguements for LOTR being a tad dry and boring in places, The Silmarillion reads like a geneology report.




So detailing a distant kingdom is...creating setting, even if it has no bearing on what is immediately happening in the game?  Color me confused.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:
			
		

> But that's just setting.  The OP isn't talking about that and neither is the article.  It's pretty obvious that every story (or campaign) needs a setting.  Of course it does.  What it doesn't need is for the setting to be made more important than the plot.




Please define where "setting" ends and worldbuilding begins because I'm starting not to follow you.  Who said anything about making the world more important than the characters, plots, etc.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Read the original article again.  He's not saying that you don't need a setting.  That would be stupid.  He's saying that you don't need any more setting than what the story calls for.  Setting should take the back seat to plot.




And that is easy to do with a book(if one is so inclined) because you control the protagonist's actions.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Having a detailed setting is not world building IMO.  A detailed setting is just that - lots of setting details.  World Building is when you start trying to create an entirely functional world.  Nothing in Star Wars really suggests how Tatooine works.  We have no idea of how their economy functions or their govenernment or much of anything besides nice tidbits that give the appearance of a functioning setting.
> 
> The difference between a rich detailed setting and world building is the difference between The Lord of the Rings and the The Silmarillion.  While you can make arguements for LOTR being a tad dry and boring in places, The Silmarillion reads like a geneology report.




So detailing a distant kingdom is...creating setting, even if it has no bearing on what is immediately happening in the game?  Color me confused.


----------



## Storm Raven

Reynard said:
			
		

> This actually has ****-all to do with worldbuilding versus not worldbuilding and applies equally to fiction and gaming: that which doesn't deduct from the enjoyment of the reader/player is not bad.  This isn't the same thing as  saying that which improves the enjoyment of the reader/player is good.




Actually, it has a lot to do with worldbuilding verses no worldbuilding, insofar as Harrison's point is concerned. He didn't say "don't do worldbuilding". He said "don't let worldbuilding interfere with the story".



> _If I, as a writer or setting designer, create a document regarding the ecology of the swamp muffler that is 25,000 words long and goes into extreme detail on the swamp muffler's eating, breeding and defecating habits, and then mention swamp mufflers exactly once in one paragraph while the main characters/PCs travel through a swamp, I haven't stolen anything from them or somehow hurt them._




And, in doing so, you have, to a large extent, followed Harrison's advice. The story triumphed over worldbuilding. What would be counter to his advice would be if, instead of mentioning the swamp muffler once, you introduced a character named "Mike the Swamp Dude" who spent an entire chapter talking to the main character's about the swamp muffler, and none of that information was useful to the story in any way. That's an info-dump, and it is fairly common in mediocre science fiction and fantasy. The author has some cool background detail that he _really, really_ wants to use, so he contrives a circumstance to tell you about it.



> _Whether or not I improved their enjoyment is irrelevent.  And, I didn't infodump on them.  I made a mention.  it was significant only in that it made sense with everything else I have designed, all my other worldbuilding._




And that isn't what Harrison is criticizing. Go back and read his quote again. He's saying story should triumph over worldbuilding. I don't think you are disagreeing with him.



> _The difference is that in the novel, it was probably extraneous work that only provided me with a sense of pleasure and satisfaction (until my no talent hack of a kid repackages and publishes the Ecology of the Swamp Muffler after my death anyway).  As a GM though, I have added to my world in a way that may or may not matter, dependent upon the players.  i mean, players do some funny stuff.  If I describe the swamp muffler's mating song, one might well go hunting it down.  All that work I did -- which was originally for my own enjoyment -- now provides me with the tools to entertain the player who, for whatever reason, wants to catch a swamp muffler._




I will caveat this with the notion that time is not infinite. You, as a DM or a writer, do not have an infinite amount of time to prepare a campaign. Therefore, setting details that consume lots of time, but don't impact the campaign (or story) in any meaningful way _may_ hurt the PCs (or reader) in the sense that the time spent writing the 25,000 words about the swamp muffler (who only rated a throwaway mention once) might have been spent making something that _did_ matter.


----------



## Odhanan

> Therefore, setting details that consume lots of time, but don't impact the campaign in any meaningful way _may_ hurt the PCs




Or it _may not_, which I think you agree with, given you've italicized your use of "may" ?


----------



## Desdichado

Imaro said:
			
		

> Who said anything about making the world more important than the characters, plots, etc.



[size=-2]_Psst!  Hey, Imaro!  It's in the original post--it's exactly what the last six pages have been talking about._[/size]


----------



## Pbartender

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> We know that there's a new model of landspeeder that just came out.  We know about banthas, and we know that Krayt Dragons (sp?) prowl the sands, although we've never seen one (we have, perhaps, seen one's skeletal remains, and we know what they sound like).  We know that Jawas and droids are both generally ill regarded.  We know that the locals "farm" moisture, and that they use evaporators to do so.  We know that they use droids to "talk" to the machinery, and we are given some insight into the fact that the 'vaporators sometimes need repair, and that there is a harvest.  We know that the local crime lord is named Jabba the Hutt, and that he is mad at Han for dropping a shipment, and that he employs bounty hunters.  We know that Luke has a flyer not unlike the A-Wing, which he's used to shoot womp rats in Beggar's Canyon.  We know that Mos Eisley is a space port, and that a large number of alien types can be found there.  We know that the Academy has been recruiting on Tatooine, and that Luke's friend has gone to join the Rebellion....Moreover, we later see him, and we know his name (Biggs) even though he isn't a main character.  Just as we know the names of characters like Jabba the Hutt, Greedo, etc., even though some of these don't even appear in the movie.  It's simply wrong to say that "We don't know the names or background of any character other than the main ones".
> 
> That's about it.  There's no world building going on there.




Right, but that's all world-building with a purpose, because it's where the action is taking place.  Now, take for example Corellia, which doesn't feature in the movie as a setting.  What do we know about Corellia by the end of the movie?

We know that Corellia makes ships for the Empire, and that the Corellian ships are generally considered superior to the "local bulk-cruisers".  That's it. And that's fine, because we don't need to know anything else.  It's just part of a throw-away line meant only to emphasize Han's competence and the _Falcon_'s speed in comparison to the competition they're up against.

We don't need to know about Corellian Whiskey, or Corellian Pirates, or even the fact that Han Solo is from Corellia, or that the _Millenium Falcon_ was built there. We don't need to know about Corellia's culture, or the population, or the climate, or its politics.  It can certainly be interesting to know those things, but they're also irrelevant to the adventure taking place.


----------



## Storm Raven

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Or it _may not_, which I think you agree with, given you've italicized your use of "may" ?




Yes, I do agree. However, I think that, in my experience, it usually does. DMs who spend enormous amounts of time worrying about the color of Queen Griselda's eyes and whether or not the eye color of her ancestors could produce such a combination tend to be DMs who are not focused on things that the PCs actually care about.

As time has gone on, it seems that fantasy writers have been suffering more and more from this tendency to include piles of extra information in their books - Goodkind's _Soul of the Fire_ is a whopping 800 pages long. Moorock managed to bring in _The Weird of the White Wolf_ at 160 pages. I must say, I prefer Moorock's way of presenting material.


----------



## GVDammerung

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Sci-fi writer M John Harrison tells you why you don't need to spend hours crafting your campaign setting:
> 
> Originally Posted by M John Harrison
> 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 unneccessary 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 neccessary. 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.
> 
> 
> From here. Discuss.




Twaddle.  

For example, Moby Dick by Herman Melville is as much a monograph on 19th Century whaling as the story of a guy and an albino cetatian.  It is also accounted one of the (if not the) greatest American novels.

Lord of the Rings, as others have noted, is as much history as action and is both hugely popular and critically claimed, and successful, and influential.

Howard's Hyborian Age follows suit.  Perhaps better than any other example, Howard's fame for action amply demonstrates how such yarns can benefit from world building and how the two can productively coexist.  Indeed, without Howard's worldlbuilding in the form of the Hyborian Age, Conan might as well be just some guy.

In the science fiction field, Larry Niven and his Ringworld/Known Universe stories build some of the most unique worlds to be encountered.  On the small screen, the Star Trek franchise has made a fetish out of worldbuilding to great acclaim.  No better example may be had than that of the Klingons, whose government, politics, religion, philosophy, military, sports, mating rituals, pets etc. have been explored for dramatic effect.

The examples contrary to the quoted author within the realm of literature are legion.  The quoted author appears to offer solace to merely adequite or neophyte authors (to say nothing of the hacks) unable to move much beyond who is doing what to whom, right now.  Put another way, in the spirit of the author's loaded vernacular - twaddle.  

This said, tastes vary and there is certainly a place for the penny dreadful, potboiler, Harlequin Romance and simple tale of daring do.  The is also a place for Melville, Tolkien, Howard etc.  The latter are justifiably remembered, while the former are just creatures of the moment.

Taking the quoted material out of its literary context and applying it to gaming, something the author did not obviously intend, much the same might be said, in my opinion.

There is a group of players, fewer DM's I'll imagine, who revel in straightahead monster slaying against mono- or two dimensional backdrops.  Kill that monster!  Take that treasure!  Gain that level!  "Are we having fun yet?"  Sure!  Because the action is the thing and a minimal backdrop will suffice to set up the all important action.  I can't say whether this group of players and DMs are in a majority or minority.  I can say this.  I will not DM for such players nor will I long play with such a DM.  If you like the straightahead, no frills style, good for you, but I want nothing to do with you as a player or DM.  Nothing personal.  Just gaming.

I roleplay for the immersive experience of imagining myself in a fantastic setting of one sort or another and immersion is vastly fascilitated by setting detail that I find can only come about by worldbuilding.  Action is part of this, but without sufficient context, action alone is unsatisfying to me.   It is for this reason, for example, that I find nothing to appeal to me in playing D&D minitures as a skirmish game unconnected to any greater setting with attendant plots, storylines and most importantly histories.  I'll use the minis to fascilitate the D&D roleplaying game but as a game by themselves, all the undiluted action of minis sans world or setting holds no allure for me.

IMO.  YMMV.


----------



## apoptosis

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, it has a lot to do with worldbuilding verses no worldbuilding, insofar as Harrison's point is concerned. He didn't say "don't do worldbuilding". He said "don't let worldbuilding interfere with the story".
> 
> 
> 
> And, in doing so, you have, to a large extent, followed Harrison's advice. The story triumphed over worldbuilding. What would be counter to his advice would be if, instead of mentioning the swamp muffler once, you introduced a character named "Mike the Swamp Dude" who spent an entire chapter talking to the main character's about the swamp muffler, and none of that information was useful to the story in any way. That's an info-dump, and it is fairly common in mediocre science fiction and fantasy. The author has some cool background detail that he _really, really_ wants to use, so he contrives a circumstance to tell you about it.
> 
> 
> 
> And that isn't what Harrison is criticizing. Go back and read his quote again. He's saying story should triumph over worldbuilding. I don't think you are disagreeing with him.




That is exactly what i thought Harrison was saying as well.  

It is not that details are not important as they can give life and versimiltude to the story, but that authors that are focused on worldbuilding end up visiting the department of extraneous backstory often enough to the detriment of the writing.

The point that setting and worldbuilding are different, I completely agree with and I think is a very important to this discussion.  

The difference for me would be, the details in the town that the story takes place in are part of the setting and can bring it to life, an info dump in the story about the nearby capitol that has little impact on the story is part of the worldbuilding problem.

When reading fiction I can really tell the writers who are focused on worldbuilding in their writing, you can see where they have this powerful desire to show you the world that they created regardless of any substantial connection to the story that they are creating.

Strangely this discussion caused me to enter Bizarro World.

I almost never agree with Storm Raven or Hussar and am almost always in agreement with Raven Crowking.

and now I fully agree with both Hussar and Storm Raven (of course all involved dont know that because I am a chronic lurker).


----------



## Jürgen Hubert

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Right, but that's all world-building with a purpose, because it's where the action is taking place.  Now, take for example Corellia, which doesn't feature in the movie as a setting.  What do we know about Corellia by the end of the movie?
> 
> We know that Corellia makes ships for the Empire, and that the Corellian ships are generally considered superior to the "local bulk-cruisers".  That's it. And that's fine, because we don't need to know anything else.  It's just part of a throw-away line meant only to emphasize Han's competence and the _Falcon_'s speed in comparison to the competition they're up against.
> 
> We don't need to know about Corellian Whiskey, or Corellian Pirates, or even the fact that Han Solo is from Corellia, or that the _Millenium Falcon_ was built there. We don't need to know about Corellia's culture, or the population, or the climate, or its politics.  It can certainly be interesting to know those things, but they're also irrelevant to the adventure taking place.




I think the kind of world-building Harrison rants against would be represented by a five-minute monologue by Solo about how he was born and grew up on Corellian, how beautiful/ugly it is there, and how Corellian ships are the best damn ships in the galaxy, certainly better than those flimsy things built on Alderaan, since everybody knows that Alderaans can't build ships worth a damn, he was on Alderaan once, it was a real dump and he was glad to be away from there, but that's where he met his first Hutt, and that helped him get into the smuggling business under the greatest smuggler before him...

_That_ kind of world-building.


----------



## Greg K

Pbartender said:
			
		

> We don't need to know about Corellian Whiskey, or Corellian Pirates, or even the fact that Han Solo is from Corellia, or that the _Millenium Falcon_ was built there. We don't need to know about Corellia's culture, or the population, or the climate, or its politics.  It can certainly be interesting to know those things, but they're also irrelevant to the adventure taking place.




However, for a rpg, if a PC could come from a given culture, then some info about the culture is, imo, going to be necessary.  It may not come out in the game or the player of the character may reveal bits as the game progresses (e.g., when character b acts in a way that differes from Character A's cultural expectations). Regardless, it does give the player at least some understanding what it means to be from the culture, info that may be incorporated  for back story, and, if desired, a reference to diverge from the cultural norms or to play the cultural stereotype.  Finally, if you are using PrCs then Corellian Pirates may need some details if it is something that he has heard of and needs info to decide if his character wants to join.


----------



## Storm Raven

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Lord of the Rings, as others have noted, is as much history as action and is both hugely popular and critically claimed, and successful, and influential.
> 
> Howard's Hyborian Age follows suit.  Perhaps better than any other example, Howard's fame for action amply demonstrates how such yarns can benefit from world building and how the two can productively coexist.  Indeed, without Howard's worldlbuilding in the form of the Hyborian Age, Conan might as well be just some guy.
> 
> In the science fiction field, Larry Niven and his Ringworld/Known Universe stories build some of the most unique worlds to be encountered.  On the small screen, the Star Trek franchise has made a fetish out of worldbuilding to great acclaim.  No better example may be had than that of the Klingons, whose government, politics, religion, philosophy, military, sports, mating rituals, pets etc. have been explored for dramatic effect.
> 
> The examples contrary to the quoted author within the realm of literature are legion.  The quoted author appears to offer solace to merely adequite or neophyte authors (to say nothing of the hacks) unable to move much beyond who is doing what to whom, right now.  Put another way, in the spirit of the author's loaded vernacular - twaddle.
> 
> This said, tastes vary and there is certainly a place for the penny dreadful, potboiler, Harlequin Romance and simple tale of daring do.  The is also a place for Melville, Tolkien, Howard etc.  The latter are justifiably remembered, while the former are just creatures of the moment.




I think that you have proved Harrison's point. Look at the books you have cited in counterpoint to his. Sure, they are popular genre novels, but with the exception of Tolkien (and Melville, but _Moby Dick's_ weakness is the inordinate amount of time spent telling us about how whalers work, what makes it last is the revenge story), they are all consigned to the literary ghetto. These aren't "good literature", they are books adored by science fiction and fantasy afficionados - and those who get whole hog into the worldbuilding aspects can, in large part, be decribed as nerdy.

For example, the "world" of _Star Trek_ is entirely irrelevant to the typical viewer (and self-contradictory to boot, which makes it _not_ a good example of world building) - it is only really relevant to the guys who buy the technical Starfleet manual and similar products - and they are rare. And in the actual series, we get relatively little world information compared to the volume of story.


----------



## Ourph

Hussar said:
			
		

> But that's just setting.  The OP isn't talking about that and neither is the article.  It's pretty obvious that every story (or campaign) needs a setting.  Of course it does.  What it doesn't need is for the setting to be made more important than the plot.




That's not what I got from the linked article.  What I got from it was that the author shouldn't know any more about the setting than what makes it into the story.  That's something I totally disagree with and, honestly, can't understand how any author could write fantasy or science fiction under those conditions.


----------



## Celebrim

While I'm normally a fan of applying a most charitable interpretation to what someone said, I think some of Mr. Harrisons defenders have gone overboard and are now substituting what they wish he had said for what he actually said.

In particular, as I said before, Mr. Harrison's argument only works if you assume a straw man definition of 'world building' - something along the lines of 'world building that gets in the way of the story' or 'world building that exhaustively details things that aren't relevant to the story'.  But of course, the former is a circular definition that tells us nothing that isn't trivial, and the latter doesn't actually occur often enough in practice to be of concern.

So let us settle down and say what world building is.  

World building is any imaginative process of detailing a setting that creators of fiction use which does not directly create a story, but which is preparatory to the story and designed to aid in creating versimilitude, emmersiveness, and internal consistancy within whatever story that the creator is setting out to tell.  So for example, creating a scale map of any sort is world building.  A map is not necessary to a story.  You can tell a story just fine without any sort of scale map and without worrying about the travel times between any two places.  However, many authors do create maps, either as illustrations so that readers will understand the imaginary geography, or else as illustrations _so that they the writer will understand the imaginary geography_.  For example, Tolkein famously created highly detailed scale maps so that he could plot out the travel times of the various characters in the story so that he would know where each character was on any given date and that it would be reasonable within the story that they had arrived at that point in the time described.  Now, that might not strictly be necessary, but it doesn't get in the way of the story.  Instead, it enhances the story IMO, by helping the reader understand what is in fact a very complex story with very complex and diverse goals.

(I should note that I'm of the group that says that Tolkiens writing is very efficient indeed, and I found the mention of 'The Great Gatsby' particularly funny, because when I teach Tolkien's LotR's, one of the devices I've employed is putting pages from the LotR side by side with 'The Great Gatsby' so that the writing styles can be compared.  This is generally a revelation to anyone that actually wants to learn and doesn't have there minds pre-made up and set by LotR's reputation as difficult to read, ramblilng, or 'inefficient'.  Anyone that thinks LotR is 'inefficient' simply isn't looking very closely.  I also consider this a pretty bizarre criticism of the story considering how much story Tolkien crams into the work in the space he uses, compared to modernist stories like Joyce's 'Ulysses' that are hailed as triumphs of the literary art.  I know whose writing strikes me as more 'efficient', but for that matter I don't think that efficiency is a very good standard for judging a story anyway.  In a story, I don't care how quickly you take me from point A to point B; I care how much I enjoy the ride.  Air travel is very efficient, but not nearly as fun as canoeing, hiking or even a leisurely car trip if the area you are travelling in is interesting.  I'm generally inclined to think that most critics of Tolkien's writing are basically peeved that the public could care less about Joyce after they invested so much emotion in praising Joyce, etc.  They certainly show no sign of having actually read Tolkien.  But, I digress.)

It should be really obvious that RPG's need a bit more world building than fiction.  Every DM that ever drew a map engaged in enough world building to make Mr. Harrison question the psychology of you and your 'victims'.  

But there is more to world building than drawing maps and computing travel times.

Everyone that invented flora and fauna and set out to justify its role in the ecology or the physics of its body plan has engaged in world building.  Setting a gargantuan red dragon in a room with no gargantuan exits at the bottom of a dungeon of 5' corridors doesn't involve much world building, but creating a plausible food source and means of egress for the dragon does.  Thinking about consequences of dragons like bones, piles of dragon offal and dung, beetles crawling in the waste, and reeking dragon musk is more world building.  

I dare say that DM's that didn't worry about the fact that the gargantuan red dragon had no means to leave the little lair he was in would be frowned on by most modern gamers if the game or story was meant to be taken seriously at all.

Everyone that has ever described a history of how the society got to where it was has engaged in world building.  Everyone that has ever created a creation story and described a cosmology has engaged in world building.  Everyone that has ever invented a technology and made some attempt to make it seem plausible has engaged in world building.  Everyone that has spent time imagining what the impact of a particular technology might be on society has engaged in world building.

Heck, everyone that has spent time researching before writing a story has engaged in world building.

Science Fiction and Fantasy writers do this all the time, and a I dare say its on the whole a good thing to do, or least there are alot of good authors that have done so.

But, try as you might to twist his words around, that's not what Mr. Harrison said.  Mr. Harrison didn't merely say that world building could be wasted effort or could when inserted without reason detract from the story and render it stale.  Mr. Harrison used much stronger language than that, and it is IMO more insulting to Mr. Harrison to assume that he did not at all say what he meant than it is to say that what he said was incorrect. 

I've already wrote alot about what I think about what he actually said, so I'll just stick with "Utter crap", and move on.  

Researching Mr. Harrison though, I find he is famous for writing stories which are deliberately internally inconsistant, which deliberately break versimilitude, and which turn out to be settings about settings and stories about stories.  He writes stories in which the first assumption of the reader, namely that there is meaning to be found in the fiction, turns out to be false and that it is all revealed as merely fiction in the end.  In other words, Mr. Harrison's rant is entirely consistant with the philosophical position he's staking out in his works, and it is entirely consistant with what we know of the emotionalism of people who hold that political position that they would be frightened of the psychology of people who do not hold it.  So let's do Mr. Harrison at least the respect of taking him seriously and not pretending that he said something more easily defensible and comfortable to hear.


----------



## Imaro

Hobo said:
			
		

> [size=-2]_Psst!  Hey, Imaro!  It's in the original post--it's exactly what the last six pages have been talking about._[/size]




Psst, hey Hobo.   I already gave my views on assumptions.  Maybe that's what you're talking about but it has nothing to do with the original post or worldbuilding in and of itself.


----------



## buzz

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Howard's Hyborian Age follows suit.  Perhaps better than any other example, Howard's fame for action amply demonstrates how such yarns can benefit from world building and how the two can productively coexist.  Indeed, without Howard's worldlbuilding in the form of the Hyborian Age, Conan might as well be just some guy.



I don't think Howard's work is a good example at all. The details of the world are kept very sketchy in the stories, with emphasis on the atmosphere. We get just enough of Hyboria to understand Conan's place in the world.



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> On the small screen, the Star Trek franchise has made a fetish out of worldbuilding to great acclaim.  No better example may be had than that of the Klingons, whose government, politics, religion, philosophy, military, sports, mating rituals, pets etc. have been explored for dramatic effect.



I was under the impression that these are the aspects of Trek that get lampooned the most.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really?  When is that word actually used in the movie.  All we know is that Obi Wan made a loud noise and it scarred the Sand People away.




Even if I am incorrect on that one point (and I am not sure I am; I'd have to rewatch the movie), all the others are ample demonstration that there is more going on in Star Wars than you originally supposed, right?


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Ourph said:
			
		

> That's not what I got from the linked article.  What I got from it was that the author shouldn't know any more about the setting than what makes it into the story.  That's something I totally disagree with and, honestly, can't understand how any author could write fantasy or science fiction under those conditions.




Even if they wanted to.  Even when I write short stories, I create all sorts of stuff that never makes it onto paper (or screen, as it were) and shouldn't.  But little details, backstory, whatever, give a character depth to the author, and that will show on the page one way or another.  It's like detecting planets by how their gravity affects other planets; the fact that the character's mother was killled by orcs may not make it into the story, but it should affect how that character behaves.  Call it 'method writing' if you will.


----------



## hexgrid

Hobo said:
			
		

> This all would have been a lot simpler if the advice had been written more along the lines of: "don't get carried away in dropping extraneous details into your writing that bring the plot to a screeching halt.  It's just self-indulgent and a sign of bad writing."




Yeah, what he's saying is actually pretty obvious not at all controversial. If he hadn't used such confrontational and absolutist language, it wouldn't have attracted attention or generated discussion.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Right, but that's all world-building with a purpose, because it's where the action is taking place.  Now, take for example Corellia, which doesn't feature in the movie as a setting.  What do we know about Corellia by the end of the movie?
> 
> We know that Corellia makes ships for the Empire, and that the Corellian ships are generally considered superior to the "local bulk-cruisers".  That's it. And that's fine, because we don't need to know anything else.  It's just part of a throw-away line meant only to emphasize Han's competence and the _Falcon_'s speed in comparison to the competition they're up against.
> 
> We don't need to know about Corellian Whiskey, or Corellian Pirates, or even the fact that Han Solo is from Corellia, or that the _Millenium Falcon_ was built there. We don't need to know about Corellia's culture, or the population, or the climate, or its politics.  It can certainly be interesting to know those things, but they're also irrelevant to the adventure taking place.




Don't forget that there is a world of difference between world-building (which goes on before, during, and often after production) and the narrative itself.  Every writer's book on my shelf suggests development of character, for instance, and suggests that you know specific things about your characters _even though they may never appear on the page_.  It's generally the difference between characters that breathe, and those that feel like flat puppets on the page.

World building is the same.  I define world-building as "The creation of details that move a setting from the generic to the specific".

The bit about the new model landspeeder, for example, or Luke's T-14, we know only from dialogue.  And the landspeeder has no impact on the action at all.


----------



## Raven Crowking

apoptosis said:
			
		

> Strangely this discussion caused me to enter Bizarro World.
> 
> I...am almost always in agreement with Raven Crowking.





In that case, you were already in Bizarro World.

Heh.


----------



## Odhanan

> Simply because the players aren't told all of the history of the WLD, doesn't mean that the history doesn't inform play through the DM's treatment of the material.




Same thing about writing a story for readers, actually.

When you write fiction, you can engage in acts of worldbuilding that will not show up on the page directly, but will influence your treatment of the story the same way the treatment of the story influences the worldbuidling occuring _de facto_. 

Let's say I'm writing a scene taking place in heaven. I need to find some element to evoke the feeling of heaven without forcing tangible descriptions on the reader. I happen to look by the window at that moment and I see the sun rising. I decide to use this as an image in my writing: the character arrives in heaven, and the sun rises in front of him. I describe the color, the warmth, the fresh scents all around, the feeling of spring and rebirth, so on, so forth. 

Point is, people won't know I've been looking at the sunrise while writing this. They don't need to know in order to understand the story.

The same way, cultural materials, history, ethnicities etc I would create to tell a story won't necessarily appear directly in the story, but they will influence my descriptions of people, places etc in the story itself. They will affect my own familiarity with the elements of the fiction I'm writing. Sometimes for the better (depth, coherence, verisimilitude), sometimes for the worse (needless side-tracking, confusion of the reader, boredom). It all depends how you choose to use the tool. 

The way Harrison is wording it, worldbuilding's always bad. It's dull. Unnecessary, an ENEMY of writing (and before there is any criticism of this, please read his statement again: he's not saying that "may" or "may not" be bad, that it "may be excessive in some instances". He's saying that's the antagonist of good writing. Period). It's just so shortsighted it's laughable. 

There had to be an agenda behind this if we make the assumption the guy actually has brains. Looking at today's entry on his blog, it's clear to me there was.


----------



## Desdichado

hexgrid said:
			
		

> Yeah, what he's saying is actually pretty obvious not at all controversial. If he hadn't used such confrontational and absolutist language, it wouldn't have attracted attention or generated discussion.



Indeed.

Although it seems obvious, however, it's a well-documented trap that legions of writers fall into regardless.  Even some--as have been mentioned in this thread **cough cough** Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, China Mieville **cough cough**--who are relatively successful at selling their books in the short term.  Whether or not they will stand the test of time and still be popular in ten years or so remains to be seen.


----------



## Mallus

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> In the science fiction field, Larry Niven and his Ringworld/Known Universe stories build some of the most unique worlds to be encountered.



Niven's a good example of an author who kept the level of detail in his imaginary universe pretty low. Memorable, but low.

Look at the Known Space aliens, which can be neatly summed up with single adjectives; rash (Kzinti), cowardly (Puppeteers), blind (Kdatlyno), immobile (Grogs), enigmatic (Outsiders), xenophobic (Trinocs), which Niven does himself, repeatably. Which is also why his races tend to stick in readers minds. They're distinctive, immediately grasped, and essentially _shallow_ --which in his case, shouldn't be taken as a criticism. He's using just enough detail to suit his needs. 

Niven's a poster boy for the right, or at least the memorable detail, not exhaustive detail.


----------



## Raven Crowking

buzz said:
			
		

> I don't think Howard's work is a good example at all. The details of the world are kept very sketchy in the stories, with emphasis on the atmosphere. We get just enough of Hyboria to understand Conan's place in the world.





Actually, though, Howard wrote _for his own use_ other things to allow him to situate the stories, and to link ideas together, and these _do_ find there way from story to story, regardless of which of his "heroes" Howard is portraying.  For example, Howard wrote a "history" of his fictional Picts, which eventually devolve into the Worms of the Earth.  He also created an ancient prehistory of snake-men.  Both work their way into many stories, even those set in modern times.

There is currently being published a complete series of Howard's works in Weird Tales, as well as the complete Conan stories in three volumes, the Kull stories, the Pict stories (Bran Mak Morn), and the Solomon Kane stories.  The extra bits and papers at the end are, IMHO (both as writer and as DM) as interesting as the stories themselves.

(It took me _years_ to finally read the appendixes at the back of the LotR, btw, and I am very glad I finally did.)

And, Celebrim, that was a great post!  


RC


----------



## Odhanan

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, Celebrim, that was a great post!
> 
> RC




Indeed it was. A pleasure to read your thoughts, Celebrim.


----------



## sniffles

Somebody probably said this better than I can, but this thread is too long for me to read all the posts now.

_*Originally Posted by M John Harrison*
Every moment of a science fiction story must represent the triumph of writing over worldbuilding._

I snipped this because the point that first caught my attention is this: We're on a gaming forum. He's talking about fiction writing. Worldbuilding for fiction is not the same as worldbuilding for a roleplaying game.

When you're reading a book you discover the world in which it's set along with the protagonist. It comes as a surprise. This can be true in a RPG also. But when the PCs climb the rise into the valley they've never seen before, it helps if the GM has some idea what lies beyond that rise.


----------



## Reynard

So, what, we ended up with the idea that Harrison was ranting against bad writers?

Yeah.  Controversial, that.

Um... next?


----------



## Desdichado

Mallus said:
			
		

> Niven's a poster boy for the right



Gah!  I should report your post for discussing politics.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Even if I am incorrect on that one point (and I am not sure I am; I'd have to rewatch the movie), all the others are ample demonstration that there is more going on in Star Wars than you originally supposed, right?




You can have verisimilitude without worldbuilding, though.


----------



## apoptosis

I think he was ranting about a specific form of bad writing.  

While Cerebrim brings up a good point that we (myself included) have somewhat diluted his words (sort of a tirade);  I still feel that his point that worldbuilding can interfere with the narrative is valid. 

Though like most things it is a matter of degrees.  Tolkien's world building was helpful in fleshing out Middle-Earth but I think at times he definitely was guilty of unnecessary infodump that detracted from the narrative.


----------



## Mallus

Once more into the breach... 



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> However, many authors do create maps, either as illustrations so that readers will understand the imaginary geography...



And Harrison's suggesting that this constitutes 'going off the track'. Terry Pratchett's is quoted saying similar things about his Discworld; he won't draw a map of it because "you can't map the imagination". 

I'm not suggesting that Pratchett's remarks 'prove' Harrison's, merely that Harrison is hardly alone in those sentiments. 



> I should note that I'm of the group that says that Tolkiens writing is very efficient indeed, and I found the mention of 'The Great Gatsby' particularly funny



Do tell. 



> when I teach Tolkien's LotR's, one of the devices I've employed is putting pages from the LotR side by side with 'The Great Gatsby' so that the writing styles can be compared.  This is generally a revelation to anyone that actually wants to learn and doesn't have there minds pre-made up and set by LotR's reputation as difficult to read, ramblilng, or 'inefficient'.  Anyone that thinks LotR is 'inefficient' simply isn't looking very closely.



That's not especially telling. You've done a comparison between the two texts as a classroom exercise and found that your students agree with you. Great. 

I've read both. Heck, I adore both. I find Gatsby to be a model of compact, evocative writing (Fitzgerald can speak volumes with a single sentence, like when nails Meyer Woflsheim with the remark about his cuff links being made from 'real human molars'). 

LotR is not. One of its greatest strengths is that it stops being 'novel-like in places and instead becomes part encyclopedia, part atlas, part folk history, and part hobbit toast-buttering songs.



> I also consider this a pretty bizarre criticism of the story considering how much story Tolkien crams into the work in the space he uses



It's not how much Tolkien crams into LotR, it's 'what'. To some readers LotR is effectively barren. They don't care about Middle Earth's history, hobbit customs, the genealogy of the Kings of Gondor and the fall of the Men of the West. To quote the immortal Morrissey 'It says nothing to me about my life."

A personal example. My lovely wife tore through _In Search of Lost Time_ a few years back. Something a lazy reader wouldn't do. Proust's salon culture is fairly far removed from the gun-crazy City of Brotherly Love we live in, but nevertheless, she could relate to it. She's tried reading LotR several times, but couldn't get through it. The enterprise that Tolkien excels at is meaningless to her. Middle Earth is meaningless to her. 

Now I wonder what Harrsion thinks of Proust? That'd me interesting... 



> ...compared to modernist stories like Joyce's 'Ulysses' that are hailed as triumphs of the literary art.



I've heard _Ulysses_ described as 'a novel about everything'. All of the human experience. Personally, I think it's too dense to be readable as a novel. It's more like an artifact, sort of a map of Western cultural history... frankly , I'm not too fond of it. But Joyce's stories in _The Dead_, particularly "The Dead", are amazing. The last paragraph of "The Dead" is worth more to me that all of LotR. It says more. To me, personally, and all...  



> I'm generally inclined to think that most critics of Tolkien's writing are basically peeved that the public could care less about Joyce after they invested so much emotion in praising Joyce, etc.



Which of course is silly. Critics of Baywatch weren't merely peeved that more people weren't watching PBS. 



> Mr. Harrison used much stronger language than that...



To make a point. Which was apparently missed by a lot of people who got their dander up because they found Harrison to be insulted books that they liked, and refused to recognize that his statement's obviously weren't intended as universal. You know, because he was just making a point. I chalk that up to partisanship. 

And think about it for a minute. If we limited ourselves to making universally applicable statements about 'art' or 'writing' we'd never talk about them. 



> Researching Mr. Harrison though, I find he is famous for writing stories which are deliberately internally inconsistant, which deliberately break versimilitude, and which turn out to be settings about settings and stories about stories.



Does 'researching' Mr. Harrison include actually reading his books? 



> He writes stories in which the first assumption of the reader, namely that there is meaning to be found in the fiction, turns out to be false and that it is all revealed as merely fiction in the end.



Does 'researching' Mr. Harrison include actually reading his books? 



> In other words, Mr. Harrison's rant is entirely consistant with the philosophical position he's staking out in his works, and it is entirely consistant with what we know of the emotionalism of people who hold that political position that they would be frightened of the psychology of people who do not hold it.



And what position is that?


----------



## Raven Crowking

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> You can have verisimilitude without worldbuilding, though.





Not the way I define the terms.

I define world-building as "The creation of details that move a setting from the generic to the specific".

I don't think you can ever have verisimilitude without knowing that those "trees" are confiers, or oaks, or whatnot, or having some sense of specific culture.


----------



## Mallus

Hobo said:
			
		

> Gah!  I should report your post for discussing politics.



Niven can't be a poster boy for the right. Isn't he from Southern California? During the 70's?


----------



## buzz

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't think you can ever have verisimilitude without knowing that those "trees" are confiers, or oaks, or whatnot, or having some sense of specific culture.



Vincent Baker gives a great example on his blog about how a GM he knew was able to create amazing detail and verisimilitude, on the fly, without lots of pre-game work.


			
				Vincent baker said:
			
		

> Then he told me how he'd done it. He'd taken three principles - I wish I could remember them in particular, J please step in here, but they were like "nobody thinks that they themselves are evil," "the Grand Galactic Empire is procedurally conservative," and "nobody really enjoys their job" - three principles something like those, and whenever any of his players asked him about anything in the setting, he'd simply apply those principles to create the answer.
> 
> "I duck into a broom closet." "Okay. There are a bunch of reg-77f portbrushes in there, but someone hasn't bothered to replace them yet, they're all slimy and they smell." All the details you'd need to bring the setting home, give it weight and momentum, and yet J didn't precreate the contents of a single broom closet.



This is exactly what came to mind when I first read ThirdWizard's comment. Verisimilitude is about consistency, I think. It doesn't necessitate writing a phat setting bible.


----------



## LostSoul

sniffles said:
			
		

> But when the PCs climb the rise into the valley they've never seen before, it helps if the GM has some idea what lies beyond that rise.




Wouldn't he say something like, "Whatever's important to the adventure"?


----------



## Desdichado

Mallus said:
			
		

> Niven can't be a poster boy for the right. Isn't he from Southern California? During the 70's?



Hey, Ronald Reagan was Governer from 1967 to 1975 after all.


----------



## Pbartender

buzz said:
			
		

> Vincent Baker gives a great example on his blog about how a GM he knew was able to create amazing detail and verisimilitude, on the fly, without lots of pre-game work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vincent baker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then he told me how he'd done it. He'd taken three principles - I wish I could remember them in particular, J please step in here, but they were like "nobody thinks that they themselves are evil," "the Grand Galactic Empire is procedurally conservative," and "nobody really enjoys their job" - three principles something like those, and whenever any of his players asked him about anything in the setting, he'd simply apply those principles to create the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly what came to mind when I first read ThirdWizard's comment. Verisimilitude is about consistency, I think. It doesn't necessitate writing a phat setting bible.
Click to expand...



Ooo.  I like that.  It reminds me of Burning Wheel's Instincts and Beliefs, something which I've been having my D20 players use instead of character histories and personality profiles, but applied to an entire country/culture/civilization/organization.  I really like that.

It actually inspires me to do a bit of filling in for my own campaign setting.


----------



## Celebrim

Mallus said:
			
		

> And Harrison's suggesting that this constitutes 'going off the track'.




I know what he is suggesting.  But no matter how many times he or anyone else suggests it, I don't have to agree with it.



> It's not how much Tolkien crams into LotR, it's 'what'. To some readers LotR is effectively barren.




That's not especially telling.  



> They don't care about Middle Earth's history, hobbit customs, the genealogy of the Kings of Gondor and the fall of the Men of the West. To quote the immortal Morrissey 'It says nothing to me about my life."




'The Great Gatsby' says nothing to me about my life, whereas The Lord of the Rings hits me where I live, sometimes painfully, and sometimes with great joy.  But I don't care about fantasies about life in rural aristocratic New York in the 1920's, fashion, cocktails, and such because there isn't a single character in the whole novel I can remotely relate to and there isn't a thing that they do that seems to have any sense to it outside of the context of this novel.  It means something particular to somebody sometime back when it was written, and I suspect some people are caught up in the illusionism of it, imagining that they now 'know something' about life in the 1920's, but its barren to me.  

Of course, maybe this is my fault.  Maybe if I'd paid more attention in class, had a better teacher, done some research on the story, or thought more on the words, I'd uncover the gnostic knowledge required to unlock the works secrets.  This is certainly possible, as I'm often inclined to say the same thing to people who find LotR's to be devoid of any meaning beyond fanciful histories and 'hobbit toast buttering songs', as if the whole of the work was merely its fantastic secondary creation.  So, maybe it is me.  But that's really neither here nor there.  The point is that I get LotR with the knowledge that I have and the experiences that I have, and well, I could care less for Gatsby because I don't.  It's required reading, they say.  I hope, they enjoy it.



> A personal example. My lovely wife tore through _In Search of Lost Time_ a few years back. Something a lazy reader wouldn't do. Proust's salon culture is fairly far removed from the gun-crazy City of Brotherly Love we live in, but nevertheless, she could relate to it. She's tried reading LotR several times, but couldn't get through it. The enterprise that Tolkien excels at is meaningless to her. Middle Earth is meaningless to her.




Some month I have time to waste, I'll have to force myself to plow through Proust.  Or maybe not. 



> But Joyce's stories in _The Dead_, particularly "The Dead", are amazing. The last paragraph of "The Dead" is worth more to me that all of LotR. It says more. To me, personally, and all...




And to me, personally, I get more out of one paragraph in 'Shadow from the Past' or 'The Pass of Cirith Ungol', than I get from the whole story which effects you so.  Not that I can't see that there might be something from someone to hold dear in it, but its just not for me whatever it is.



> Which of course is silly. Critics of Baywatch weren't merely peeved that more people weren't watching PBS.




I'm not so sure of that, but I couldn't say strongly one way or the other - having never watched Baywatch any more than I've read Mr. Harrison.   



> To make a point. Which was apparently missed by a lot of people who got their dander up because they found Harrison to be insulted books that they liked, and refused to recognize that his statement's obviously weren't intended as universal.




Once again, they quite obviously were.  I don't know anything about the private intentions of the author beyond what is in the text.  But the words he wrote were obviously quite strongly universal.


----------



## buzz

Pbartender said:
			
		

> It reminds me of Burning Wheel's Instincts and Beliefs...



Dude, you were paying attention when I ran that BW demo at Gameday? SWEET!


----------



## Desdichado

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 'The Great Gatsby' says nothing to me about my life, whereas The Lord of the Rings hits me where I live, sometimes painfully, and sometimes with great joy.  But I don't care about fantasies about life in rural aristocratic New York in the 1920's, fashion, cocktails, and such because there isn't a single character in the whole novel I can remotely relate to and there isn't a thing that they do that seems to have any sense to it outside of the context of this novel.  It means something particular to somebody sometime back when it was written, and I suspect some people are caught up in the illusionism of it, imagining that they now 'know something' about life in the 1920's, but its barren to me.



Really?  I always thought one of the great strengths of _The Great Gatsby_ was how relatable the characters were.  The narrator is someone I can relate to as a somewhat bemused observer who gets caught up in the whole thing, Gatsby himself is a very sympathetic character as someone who can't let go of his unrequited love, and goes too far trying to pursue it.  Even what's their faces--the woman he likes and her husband--remind me all too well of people I know; the entitled and self-serving way that they casually dismantle Gatsby's dreams and even his life, and then try to go on pretending that nothing happened.  I mean, I'm not saying I relate to them, but I certainly know people like that.

_The Great Gatsby_ is great _human_ drama.  That's why it's been so loved all these years.


----------



## ThirdWizard

buzz said:
			
		

> Vincent Baker gives a great example on his blog about how a GM he knew was able to create amazing detail and verisimilitude, on the fly, without lots of pre-game work.




That's very cool, and what I aspire toward. Most of my adventures are planes-spanning with maybe a paragraph description of the locale they're visiting for that adventure. I don't have to know the details of the place, because as long as it keeps its feel, then I get my verisimilitude. This is the same concept I use with NPCs. I give them some goals and some personality then work with those things when actually playing. I guess I treat setting as a really big NPC. 



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> Ooo.  I like that.  It reminds me of Burning Wheel's Instincts and Beliefs, something which I've been having my D20 players use instead of character histories and personality profiles, but applied to an entire country/culture/civilization/organization.  I really like that.




I've often found that histories to little for actually aiding roleplaying (they're good for plothooks, though). Detailed histories rarely have a moment to moment impact on the PCs actions, but something like this intrigues me.


----------



## Pbartender

buzz said:
			
		

> Dude, you were paying attention when I ran that BW demo at Gameday? SWEET!




Damn straight, I was.  

And the whole Beliefs and Instincts spiel was one of the best things I've ever brought home from a gameday.  For my latest D20 (Iron Heroes) game, I limited my players' character write-ups to: 7 adjectives that describe the character, 3 beliefs, 3 instincts, a physical description in 250 words or less, and a personal history in 250 words or less.  It worked wonderfully.  Plenty there to give roleplayng guidance for characters, but not so much that roleplaying gets bogged down in tons of details that eventually get forgotten about and ignored.

Now, I think I'd do well to apply the same concept to my campaign setting...  It'd suit my world-building style quite well, I think.


----------



## catsclaw227

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> One of the skills of a "good" DM is improvisation, though. Certainly you don't expect everything your players do to be pre-planned, is there a reason we should have all parts of our world pre-planned?






			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> QFMFT. Advice has continually been "create only as needed." I totally believe that D&D needs to create more than a novel, but I'm not sure it needs to create all that much more.



While I agree with this to some extent, I believe that worldbuilding is more than just "what's in the next hex" or "who is the blacksmith and what are his motivations.".

There are many things that exist within the immediate world of the PCs that are not readily quantifiable or easily improvised without some preliminary planning. Things like:

1.  Gods and Pantheons (and how prevalent is worship, faith, etc)
2.  Societal customs (class or caste, slavery, gender roles, etc)
3.  Technologies (how does magic, tech play a part in the world, what affect do they have on things)
4.  Government and Economics (political systems, alliances, primary commodities, etc)

And while these things don't need bone-grinding detail, I would think that any PC would know the basics of these things inherently and therefore know how to react in certain circumstances.  Even if a world-primer or gazetteer is not handed out, the DM should know these things so that the world has some depth, and at least be able to discuss them without pause or rolling dice to decide how it works.

CC


----------



## catsclaw227

And I didn't read all 7 pages of this thread, so if this has been said already.... then nevermind.


----------



## The Shaman

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> There are many things that exist within the immediate world of the PCs that are not readily quantifiable or easily improvised without some preliminary planning.



The (predictable) response is that the players can make up deities and cultures their characters worship, thereby adding to the game-world and saving the referee the trouble of making them herself, that technologies can be made up on the fly as needed, and that unless you are planning to run a game in which the characters are going to be trading extensively, things like local commodities and caravan routes only need to be detailed if they directly impact the adventure, in which case they can be added as needed.

Two thoughts:

1. Several posters have complained that the quote in the original post is being taken "too literally," and offering various explanations for what the author really meant. That may be (but by no means assuredly is) true, but consider for a moment that the quote is offered in support of the thesis, "*Why worldbuilding is bad*."

Taken by itself, the quote can be interpreted a couple of ways, rather like the JRRT quote I offered upthread. However, the OP doesn't attempt to make that fine a point of it: worldbuilding is bad, and here's a quote from a science fiction author that supports my premise. It's not hard to see understand the more severe interpretation applied to it, since that's exactly the way the OP intended it to be interpreted.

2. Some science fiction roleplaying games include mechanics for world-generation - examples include _Burning Empires_ and _Traveller_.

In the case of _Traveller_, the rules include mechanics for generating a "universal world profile," or UWP, that includes the following: starport type, planet size, atmosphere composition, hydrographic cover, population, government, law level, and tech level, plus trade codes and the presence of gas giants and military bases. The UWP focuses on information that the players and their characters need to know: can I get fuel for my starship? can I breathe the air? how many people live there? can I carry a fusion gun and a tac missle around startown? how bribable are the bureaucrats? can I buy an air/raft here? will I get a good price on my trade goods?

In my experience it is possible to run a perfectly satisfying _Traveller_ game using nothing more than the UWP data and some improvisation. Do the players care why an atmosphere is tainted or not, or do they just want to know if they need filter masks or not? Does the title of the charismatic dictator who is the head of government for the world really matter if the only government representatives the players are likely to encounter is the starport staff and the local law enforcement? And no matter her title, isn't a cop a cop for that matter? If the question comes up, it's possible for a _Traveller_ referee to come up with an answer on the fly, or with only a minimum of planning, because the UWP answers a great many of the players' most likely questions straight out of the gate, leaving the referee to focus on the adventure instead of background that isn't directly relevant to the characters.

_Traveller_ also provides additional rules to assist the referee with building upon the UWP to create entire star systems in remarkable detail. From the primary star's mass, temperature, age, and luminosity to the mainworld's orbit, climate, density, escape velocity, natural resources and manufactured gods, population distribution, and political institutions  to all of the system's companion stars, outworlds and satellites.

I am co-refereeing a _Traveller_ game right now, and I spent the time to detail out eighteen different systems, soup to nuts, before we began play. What I found is that the additional detail provides me with much more inspiration for challenges to present the players and their characters, more bolts for my quiver (or missles for my magazine, if you like) than just relying on the UWP and the inspiration of the moment. The time spent on world-building (or star cluster-building, in this case) revealed facets about the setting to me that would not be readily available from just the UWP or supporting tables in the basic rules - for example, for most of the systems the time spent travelling from the jump point to the starport is of a longer duration than the basic rules infeer, meaning there are more opportunities for encounters in space along the way than might be expected using just the simple flight time chart. I am also able to provide the players with more meaningful informationwithout relying on the referee(s) because so much is available to them for the asking.

This is particularly important given that there is no "adventure" _per se_ in this game - all of the encounters, patrons, and so forth are generated randomly using the tables in the rules or supplements. There is a strongly improvisational element in this game, and the setting details go a long way toward making that work by providing a stage on which those random encounters play out.

Will I use everything I wrote for each system? No, not by a long shot - then again, since I have only a vague idea what the crew will do before they do it, I don't know exactly what information I will need either, so by giving myself a leg up on the setting details, I find it much easier to adjudicate the results of their choices. I don't consider any of that effort "wasted," since I learned more about the setting than I originally conceived through the process of building.

I think that the referee or dungeon master or storyteller should work with their strengths, and where improvisation works for some, more detailed planning works for others. If the end result is a satisfying game, then that's what matters. With that in mind, I completely reject the thesis that "worldbuilding is badwrongfun."


----------



## howandwhy99

Bottom Up!  
Top Down!  
Bottom Up!  
Top Down!  
Bottom Up!  
Top Down! 
Bottom Up!  
Top Down!

It's been a long time since we had this thread.


----------



## buzz

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Damn straight, I was.
> 
> And the whole Beliefs and Instincts spiel was one of the best things I've ever brought home from a gameday.  For my latest D20 (Iron Heroes) game, I limited my players' character write-ups to: 7 adjectives that describe the character, 3 beliefs, 3 instincts, a physical description in 250 words or less, and a personal history in 250 words or less.  It worked wonderfully.  Plenty there to give roleplayng guidance for characters, but not so much that roleplaying gets bogged down in tons of details that eventually get forgotten about and ignored.
> 
> Now, I think I'd do well to apply the same concept to my campaign setting...  It'd suit my world-building style quite well, I think.



That's crazy sexy cool, Pb.   It's exactly what I've been toying with for my next campaign.  I'm really happy to see you take something away from the event.


----------



## Hussar

It's interesting that people have brought up Star Trek as an example of World Building done right.  And specifically Klingon's were brought out.  For a lot of people, Klingon's have become a complete caricature of the original concept.  As time went on, they become more and more bestial looking, the whole animalistic thing going, plus, the concept of honor was pretty much chucked out the window by every Klingon character.

I would point to the development of the Klingon as a perfect example of World Building gone wrong.  Detailing the society to the point where it became completely meaningless, choked under masses of often contradictory elements.

As far as defining world building, then, I agree with Celebrim, that if you define world building as any creative act which adds detail to a setting, then sure, it's not a bad thing.  I disagree that that is what the article is talking about, but, yes, if we accept the idea that any setting creation is world building then of course it isn't bad.

However, again, I'll repeat what I said, I think that the difference between settign and world building is one of scale.  Granted, there's no cut off line where one becomes the other, but, at the far end of creating a setting, you have world building.  

Like I said before, it's the difference between the Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion.

And, from a DM's perspective, I can see the difference as well.  It's all well and good to create a setting for your campaign.  It's another thing entirely to expect other people to care about the entire thing.  If you bludgeon your players over the head with the setting points you've created simply to justify the effort you've put into creating them, that's a bad thing.


----------



## danzig138

edgewaters said:
			
		

> Worldbuilding is macrocosmic. Whether or not you've detailed some kingdom 2000 miles from where the players are is really not going to affect things if they go off on a tangent.




Guess that really depends on the tangent on which they go off on, doesn't it? 

As for the OP. . . eh. Whatever. I'm not sure what he was trying to say - I found the passage unpleasant to read. 

As for the thread. . . I'm all for whatever works for you and yours. However, there are too many people saying what other people need and don't need. Too much One True Wayism for me. 

Personally, I like having extra detail. It might never come up directly in play, but it can still have an effect on the things that do come up, even if the extra detail is in a kingdom 2000 miles away. I like good (but not super involved) details in my game books about the setting.

And I find, for me, some improv skills are a must. But it's easier for me to ad-hoc things if I have more setting information than if I don't.  

Standard disclaimers apply.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

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



Does he?  It sounds to me like he's telling WRITERS they don't need to spend hours crafting a STORY setting.  RPG's are NOT written fiction.  They have similarities, elements in common.  But they are not subject to ALL the same rules, requirements, and accepted idiosyncracies.


----------



## Set

> I would point to the development of the Klingon as a perfect example of World Building gone wrong. Detailing the society to the point where it became completely meaningless, choked under masses of often contradictory elements.




If by that you mean 'transformed over time from a one-dimensional cold war-era stereotype into something almost like a living species, as complex and contradictory and hard to pin a label on as human beings,' then yes, the development of Klingons has certainly gone off the rails.

Ironically, had everyone who has written for Star Trek after their introduction stuck to some sort of worldbuilding story bible as to what Klingons were like, and not bothered to flesh them out beyond the 'dirty reds' cliche, *that* would, IMO, be an example of world-building as a straightjacket limiting creativity.

Half the fun of drawing lines is then finding ways to cross them.  Elves are nice, except for this one, he's nasty piece of work.  1/2 Orcs are brutish, violent thugs, except for my Paladin / Monk / whatever.  Without lines, without definition, without someone coming along and saying, "Dark Elves are evil, run by a spider-worshipping matriarchy and live underground," someone else couldn't come along and say, "But *this* Dark Elf has run away from that society, and that conflict between his nature and his nurture is what drives him, and will end up turning him into the most insanely popular, intensely reviled and over-exposed property since Wolverine..."

Without the 'world-building' that goes into creating Menzoberranzan, Drizz't is just some dark-skinned elf who whines a lot about how his mommy used to beat him.  By showing us the world he grew up in, his entire character suddenly gains meaning.

Absent the world he grew up in, the history that informs him, he'd just be a weirdo who likes to complain for apparently no reason at all.  He's got a reason.  And by showing us that world that formed him, those events that drove him away from his homeland, we understand the man himself.

Ultimately, it's a matter of taste.  I respect an author who cares enough about what he's writing to think about the histories that inform the characters, and the worlds they've grown up in.  If the author himself doesn't give a rat's butt about what he's writing, it's unlikely that he's going to be able to inspire me with the setting or characters that failed to inspire him...


----------



## Hussar

As to whether this applies to D&D or not, well, I think it does.  

I find myself buying less and less these days and I've often wondered why.  I think this article hits it quite well for me.  I'm very tired of buying material and then using maybe 1% of it and then it sits on my shelf gathering dust.  I have three Creature Collections on my shelf and the chances that I'll buy yet another monster book have dropped to zero as I realize I've barely scratched the SRD monsters, let alone another thousand or so that I already have.

Or, take another example.  Most city sourcebooks are roughly the same.  Start with a map.  Define about a hundred or so keyed locations, give a history and background.  This or that city book might vary on the theme a bit, but, by and large, that's it.  Now, take something like MEG's Urban Blight book which gives you 20 adventure locations to be slotted into any city.  

I compare world building to the standard city book.  I might use 10% of it and that's it.  Urban Blight, because it was geared towards the idea that every location should be used, I used 15 of the 20 locations.  Three quarters of the book!  Urban Blight ties the setting to the plot and becomes very usable.  Most city books you'd be lucky to use a small fraction of the locations.

IMO, supplements should be tied to the idea of their utility in an adventure, not simply exist because it adds color.


----------



## S'mon

I think Trek is actually a good example of how accretive or bottom-up word building can go wrong, at least when you have multiple authors.  Elements that made sense when introduced, like Worf's obsession with archaic Klingon blade weapons, rapidly ceased to make sense when universalised, with archaic blade weapons becoming the standard-issue weaponry of the klingon warrior (and apparently superior to phasers).  Likewise the fake exploding consoles in the Kobayashi Maru simulation, used to simulate damage to the ship, becoming in STTNG+ actual ship consoles actually exploding and killing bridge officers.   This is just the kind of thing that top-down world building can avoid.  Compare Babylon-5, a heavily top-down setting; B5's setting problems are very different from ST's.  I still think the bottom-up approach is superior for RPGs, giving a lot more freedom for improvisation, but Klingons are a counter example.  This kind of thing happens in D&D too, eg the development of the drow from hints in the 1e MM through Vault of the Drow, to Forgotten Realms over-exposure and (arguable) cheesiness.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Margaret Atwood, for all her faults, had a good point when she commented that people who want to write stories so that they can build up fictional histories or ethnographies or the like should just go ahead and do it - there's absolutely nothing wrong or less creative about producing such a work as opposed to a novel or series of short stories or whatever.


----------



## Raven Crowking

buzz said:
			
		

> Vincent Baker gives a great example on his blog about how a GM he knew was able to create amazing detail and verisimilitude, on the fly, without lots of pre-game work.





World-building is an activity that can, as I said earlier, take place before, during, or after the narrative...in this case, before, during, or after the adventure.  Of course, if every time the players ask what kind of trees grow in these parts, the answer is "oaks and a few scrub pines" you should be doing some additional prep.


----------



## Desdichado

Set said:
			
		

> Without the 'world-building' that goes into creating Menzoberranzan, Drizz't is just some dark-skinned elf who whines a lot about how his mommy used to beat him.  By showing us the world he grew up in, his entire character suddenly gains meaning.
> 
> Absent the world he grew up in, the history that informs him, he'd just be a weirdo who likes to complain for apparently no reason at all.  He's got a reason.  And by showing us that world that formed him, those events that drove him away from his homeland, we understand the man himself.



Yeah--and that second paragraph kinda describes Driz'zt pretty well until the books were actually set in Menzoberranzan, IIRC.  The development of drow culture wasn't extraneous; it was crucial to the plot of several of the novels.


----------



## Kestrel

If everything in the world is predetermined before the characters are even created, then the likelihood of them affecting the world is next to none.  There is no sense of wonder in exploring or discovering whats over the next hill when its already written down for you to read.  

Look at Forgotten Realms today, where the main complaint Ive heard about the setting is that the PCs don't matter in a world where superpowered npcs exist.  That every area of Faerun is so intricately detailed that a player only has to read a sourcebook to know everything about a society.  There's nothing for a gm to describe and if he changes it from what is written, a player can accuse him of getting it wrong.

No wonder, no excitement, just reams and reams of boxed text.  No attachment for the players, because they never had a chance to have any effect on it.  They are just going through the amusement park, looking at the pretty set pieces, but never actually getting to create anything. 

Usual disclaimers of course.


----------



## BryonD

Kestrel said:
			
		

> If everything in the world is predetermined before the characters are even created, then the likelihood of them affecting the world is next to none.  There is no sense of wonder in exploring or discovering whats over the next hill when its already written down for you to read.
> 
> Look at Forgotten Realms today, where the main complaint Ive heard about the setting is that the PCs don't matter in a world where superpowered npcs exist.  That every area of Faerun is so intricately detailed that a player only has to read a sourcebook to know everything about a society.  There's nothing for a gm to describe and if he changes it from what is written, a player can accuse him of getting it wrong.
> 
> No wonder, no excitement, just reams and reams of boxed text.  No attachment for the players, because they never had a chance to have any effect on it.  They are just going through the amusement park, looking at the pretty set pieces, but never actually getting to create anything.
> 
> Usual disclaimers of course.



Of course if you are world building then none of this applies because your own product isn't out there for the players to sit down and read.


----------



## Imaro

Kestrel said:
			
		

> If everything in the world is predetermined before the characters are even created, then the likelihood of them affecting the world is next to none.  There is no sense of wonder in exploring or discovering whats over the next hill when its already written down for you to read.
> 
> Look at Forgotten Realms today, where the main complaint Ive heard about the setting is that the PCs don't matter in a world where superpowered npcs exist.  That every area of Faerun is so intricately detailed that a player only has to read a sourcebook to know everything about a society.  There's nothing for a gm to describe and if he changes it from what is written, a player can accuse him of getting it wrong.
> 
> No wonder, no excitement, just reams and reams of boxed text.  No attachment for the players, because they never had a chance to have any effect on it.  They are just going through the amusement park, looking at the pretty set pieces, but never actually getting to create anything.
> 
> Usual disclaimers of course.





Again I think this is a problem of certain GM's who don't want their world to be changed, not an inherent flaw of actual world building.  Hopefully, when you build a world your building it for the purpose of facilitating your PC's adventures while giving them grounding and set pieces to enact their desires, will, or ambitions upon.  Their wonder and excitement come from affecting changes, dealing with consequences and creating things.  If the GM stops them from doing this in his world that's a GM problem not a world building problem.


----------



## Desdichado

Kestrel said:
			
		

> If everything in the world is predetermined before the characters are even created, then the likelihood of them affecting the world is next to none.  There is no sense of wonder in exploring or discovering whats over the next hill when its already written down for you to read.
> 
> Look at Forgotten Realms today, where the main complaint Ive heard about the setting is that the PCs don't matter in a world where superpowered npcs exist.  That every area of Faerun is so intricately detailed that a player only has to read a sourcebook to know everything about a society.  There's nothing for a gm to describe and if he changes it from what is written, a player can accuse him of getting it wrong.
> 
> No wonder, no excitement, just reams and reams of boxed text.  No attachment for the players, because they never had a chance to have any effect on it.  They are just going through the amusement park, looking at the pretty set pieces, but never actually getting to create anything.
> 
> Usual disclaimers of course.



Y'know, I do sometimes wonder if Forgotten Realms is--if anything--even more popular as a setting to read about than as a setting to play in.


----------



## Kestrel

Imaro said:
			
		

> Again I think this is a problem of certain GM's who don't want their world to be changed, not an inherent flaw of actual world building.  Hopefully, when you build a world your building it for the purpose of facilitating your PC's adventures while giving them grounding and set pieces to enact their desires, will, or ambitions upon.  Their wonder and excitement come from affecting changes, dealing with consequences and creating things.  If the GM stops them from doing this in his world that's a GM problem not a world building problem.





This is true, it is a GM problem.   My guess though is that if a GM creates something, they are going to want to show it off, which could lead to the world they created overshadowing the game at the table.

This is sorta what I think Harrison might be talking about.  If you spend all this time creating a world to write about, then the actual writing becomes about the world, not the story, which the reader, unless he's really into the world, doesn't care about because it makes for dry reading.  Setting should serve as the framework, not as the work itself.  There's a balance though.  Details can add to the story, giving it a richness that it needs, but you have to know when to draw the line.


----------



## buzz

Hobo said:
			
		

> Y'know, I do sometimes wonder if Forgotten Realms is--if anything--even more popular as a setting to read about than as a setting to play in.



Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!


----------



## GVDammerung

sniffles said:
			
		

> Somebody probably said this better than I can, but this thread is too long for me to read all the posts now.
> 
> _*Originally Posted by M John Harrison*
> Every moment of a science fiction story must represent the triumph of writing over worldbuilding._
> 
> I snipped this because the point that first caught my attention is this: We're on a gaming forum. He's talking about fiction writing. Worldbuilding for fiction is not the same as worldbuilding for a roleplaying game.




Agreed.  The strongest point of commonality, IMO, is that of the frame or context.  The action occupies (most often) the foreground in that it is the engine the moves the plot or game.  However, the action takes place within a frame or context that is worldbuilding.  This worldbuilding can be very detailed or very sparse, its utility (most often) being how it serves the action in the foreground of the story or game that is moving the plot or game.

Tastes will vary.  I think that a story or game is a richer, more fulfilling and a more emersive expereince if the frame or context, the worldbuilding, is given at least as much attention as the main, motive actions.  Where the background or worldbuilding is sparse, the experince, book or game, to me comes across as by various degrees shallow or hollow, certainly only rarely memorable.

In the science fiction realm of which Harrison speaks, Larry Niven's Ringworld is a personal favorite that showcases worldbuilding.  Ringworld itself is one gigantic exercise in worldbuilding without which the story would otherwise be nothing.  Ringworld had to have its physics, cultures etc. set out in detail for the basic story of Louis Wu etc. to work.

The Dune books are another great example.  The history of the Dune universe from CHOAM to the Spacing Guild to the Landsrat to the Freememn to the Beni-Gesertae (sp) to the Mentats etc. are all essential acts of comprehensive world building without which Paul Atredies etc. story would mean little.  

There are many more.

Harrison's opinion comes acropper almost immeditately after he annunciates it.  A short list of sciencefiction that has stood some test of time proves Harrison wrong, at least in the strict, aggressively declarative manner in which he phrases his opinion.

Made into a teleplay, much the same is true.  Like it or disllike it, the Star Trek universe is replete with worldbuilding, from the trials of Star Fleet Academy to the ship design facility on Sirius Planitia (sp), to the Mars defensive perimeter, to the Jovan run, to the United Federation of Planets and its internal politics and its relationship with Star Fleet Command to the intricacies of the starships and their various subsystems to the various aliens, most notably the Klingons, to the Gamma Quadrant etc.  Like it or dislike it, the Star Trek francise is replete with worldbuilding and is vastly popular and successful, transcending its medium to become part of popular culture, in a way even the immensely popular Star Wars has failed to equal.  

Babylon 5 is even more world building centric, with the focus on Babylon 5 as a living place -virtually a character (at least in Seasons 1-3, less so in Seasons 4 and 5).  Much the same is true of Deep Space Nine, the Star Trek doppleganger.

Moving to gaming, Traveller (Classic Version) could not exist without substantial, sustained and constant worldbuilding.  The PCs are usually travelling from one world to another and if each is not to be a gray, lighter or darker, version of every other, each must be built - the more so if the adventure goes much beyond the local starport.  Recognizing this, the line of classic traveller products includes any number of worldbuilding, literally, accessories, as do subsequent incarnations of the game.

Cyberpunk (R. Talsorian) is even more dependent on worldbuilding to drive adventures, despite being derivative of cyberpunk fiction.  Each Megacorp needs to be detailed if it is not to be just another faceless business.  The Corporate Reports look to provide precise detail for the most prominent Megacorps in the game (Arasaka, Militech etc.)  So too, the cultural peculiarities of the setting must be explored in more than casual fashion - Nomads, Solos, Medias etc.  Then, there is the Net, memorably described by Rache Bartmoss.  And of course Nightcity, the main stage for play, to say nothing of the Chrome, which is more than just equipment lists as the equipment detail reinforces the themes of the game as cyberpunk.

Moving just a bit further afield, I think much the same is true.  As much as I dislike the specifics of the detail in the Forgotten Realms, I believe the setting would not be as successful and as long lived as it has been without all of the detail - the worldbuilding.  Greyhawk has correspondingly suffered, IMO, for want of more worldbuilding - finding its details scattered or just almost nonexistant and certainly constrained and confined to the Flanaess for the most part.

Gaming much more than in fiction, I believe, requires worldbuilding because the DM and players are not simply passively reading, they are actively interacting with the fictional environment.  Unless the game is beer and pretzels, worldbuilding IMO distinguishes the good games from the merely adequite or worse.  

YMMV


----------



## Storm Raven

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> In the science fiction realm of which Harrison speaks, Larry Niven's Ringworld is a personal favorite that showcases worldbuilding.  Ringworld itself is one gigantic exercise in worldbuilding without which the story would otherwise be nothing.  Ringworld had to have its physics, cultures etc. set out in detail for the basic story of Louis Wu etc. to work.




I think I disagree here. _Ringworld_ is a case with very limited worldbuilding. The main alien races are describable (and are described) in one or two sentence statements. The Ringworld itself is only loosely described (and in the original book, was thought out porrly enough that it wouldn't work without the additions made in _Ringworld Engineers_, as the structure would have been unstable). The cultures of the Ringworld inhabitants are described in very limited ways, and only sufficiently to drive the narrative. In _Ringworld_, the story triumphs over worldbuilding.



> _The Dune books are another great example.  The history of the Dune universe from CHOAM to the Spacing Guild to the Landsrat to the Freememn to the Beni-Gesertae (sp) to the Mentats etc. are all essential acts of comprehensive world building without which Paul Atredies etc. story would mean little._




Yes, they are a great example, but not of what you say they are. CHOAM is described in a couple sentences, all of the politics of Landsraad are reduced to a small discussion. The Bene-Gesserit are described to the extent that they have great martial arts and manipulative skills and they are trying to breed a Kwisatz-Haderach, and little more. Mentats are given a paragraph or two of description. The world building, compared to the story, is slight.

Your other examples are, to a great extent, similar. Note that Harrison didn't say "no worldbuilding". He said "story should trump worldbuilding". Star Trek, in the main, does this. Star Trek, when it comes in the form of technical manuals, does not. Imagine if the material in the "technical manual" was crammed into an episode of one of the shows. How crappy would that be? Lots of science fiction and fantasy writers fall into the trap of doing almost exactly that, and it makes their writing suffer. And that's exactly what Harrison appears to be talking about.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Once more, world-building doesn't mean "intrusion of reams of information in the narrative" -- it means the necessary work to establish the setting that the narrative requires.


RC


----------



## Infernal Teddy

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Once more, world-building doesn't mean "intrusion of reams of information in the narrative" -- it means the necessary work to establish the setting that the narrative requires.
> 
> 
> RC




QFT


----------



## Odhanan

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Once more, world-building doesn't mean "intrusion of reams of information in the narrative" -- it means the necessary work to establish the setting that the narrative requires.
> 
> 
> RC




QFT indeed.


----------



## GVDammerung

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I think I disagree here. _Ringworld_ is a case with very limited worldbuilding. The main alien races are describable (and are described) in one or two sentence statements. The Ringworld itself is only loosely described (and in the original book, was thought out porrly enough that it wouldn't work without the additions made in _Ringworld Engineers_, as the structure would have been unstable). The cultures of the Ringworld inhabitants are described in very limited ways, and only sufficiently to drive the narrative. In _Ringworld_, the story triumphs over worldbuilding.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are a great example, but not of what you say they are. CHOAM is described in a couple sentences, all of the politics of Landsraad are reduced to a small discussion. The Bene-Gesserit are described to the extent that they have great martial arts and manipulative skills and they are trying to breed a Kwisatz-Haderach, and little more. Mentats are given a paragraph or two of description. The world building, compared to the story, is slight.
> 
> Your other examples are, to a great extent, similar. Note that Harrison didn't say "no worldbuilding". He said "story should trump worldbuilding". Star Trek, in the main, does this. Star Trek, when it comes in the form of technical manuals, does not. Imagine if the material in the "technical manual" was crammed into an episode of one of the shows. How crappy would that be? Lots of science fiction and fantasy writers fall into the trap of doing almost exactly that, and it makes their writing suffer. And that's exactly what Harrison appears to be talking about.




I think this is a cup half-empty or half-full disagreement.  

In my view, worldbuilding need not be page after page of exposition on the setting or context devoid of any narrative function other than description.  Rather, good worldbuilding  in fiction (IMO) accumulates in the course of the narrative so as not to overly get in its way.  Thus, for example, we learn a little about the spice mining in Dune here, some more there and still more over there, there and there etc.  It is when we add up the sum total of the scatttered bits of worldbuilding that the world comes together.

I read your opinion as grounded on a lack of extensive world development in one spot.  My opinion is grounded on a appreciation of development that is scattered in a variety of places and builds the world, not all at once or in one spot, but throughout the text.

I think the Ringworld and Dune books more than support my sense of how the respective worlds are built in the text - gradually in the course of the story, so as to be unintrusive to the story.


----------



## GVDammerung

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Once more, world-building doesn't mean "intrusion of reams of information in the narrative" -- it means the necessary work to establish the setting that the narrative requires.
> 
> 
> RC




Put another way - what he said!


----------



## wingsandsword

Kestrel said:
			
		

> If everything in the world is predetermined before the characters are even created, then the likelihood of them affecting the world is next to none.  There is no sense of wonder in exploring or discovering whats over the next hill when its already written down for you to read.
> 
> Look at Forgotten Realms today, where the main complaint Ive heard about the setting is that the PCs don't matter in a world where superpowered npcs exist.  That every area of Faerun is so intricately detailed that a player only has to read a sourcebook to know everything about a society.  There's nothing for a gm to describe and if he changes it from what is written, a player can accuse him of getting it wrong.
> 
> No wonder, no excitement, just reams and reams of boxed text.  No attachment for the players, because they never had a chance to have any effect on it.  They are just going through the amusement park, looking at the pretty set pieces, but never actually getting to create anything.




Your mileage may vary, but that's almost the exact opposite of the way I've seen the Realms unfold in play.

Take my last Forgotten Realms campaign, 5 PC's, and in terms of setting knowledge we had:
1. A person who had only played the Baldur's Gate video games and read one Realms novel (Spellfire)  and it was her first D&D game.
2. A person who had read a few of the novels (Avatar trilogy and a handful of Elminster and Drizzt books) and played D&D but not in the Realms.
3. A person who had played a lot of RPG's but only a very slight amount of D&D, and never in the Realms, and they hadn't played any video games set in the realms or read any novels set there.
4. A person who had played a lot of D&D, but the only Realms game was in one where the DM heavily altered the setting.
5. A person who had played a lot of D&D, including a lot of Realms games and had learned a certain amount of realmslore, but was fairly casual about the setting and as long as the major organizations/religions/cities/countries lined up with his broad expectations he didn't have a problem with the details being different from game to game.

I'm a fan of the Realms myself, I know it better than pretty much any gamer I know locally and can use that to add flavor and dimension to an RPG scenario in almost any part of Faerun (and some parts beyond there), but compared to some hardcore Realms fans I've encountered online I know very little.  Yes, there are some people who are obsessive over the Realms enough to be upset if they go down a certain road and the DM doesn't say they run across a specific inn from a 15 year old Dragon Magazine article or if they find that the Guildmaster of the Coopers Guild in Waterdeep isn't the same guy they read about, or if some High Priest of Chauntea they find at a rural temple espouses some dogma that is somehow slightly incompatible with the as-written description of their faith.  However, that's more of a player problem than a DM problem.  

It's sometimes come up of "why doesn't Elminster help us?" or "Where is Drizzt now?" or the like.  In every FR game I've ever been in, the "big name" NPC's have always either been busy with crisises of their own, or made at most brief cameos to help briefly and moved on.  It's a big world, and there is enough problems out there for lots of people to get involved.  Think of all the bad things that have happened in the Realms, like the destruction of Tilverton or Karsus's Folly, not even the Uber-NPC's get to save the day all the time, and sometimes tragedy could have been averted if the right hero (i.e. a PC) was at the right place at the right time.

For many DM's, a well built and detailed setting means they have lots of help in creating the illusion of a fantasy world that the PC's are living in.  The presence of a large stable of established NPC's gives more of a feeling that the PC's aren't alone in the world, not that they have competition for what the PC's are doing.

I think the Forgotten Realms is a prime example of worldbuilding gone right.  It is the depth of the setting that draws a lot of people to the Realms.


----------



## Storm Raven

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> I think this is a cup half-empty or half-full disagreement.




I think it is more a difference concerning whether Harrison is saying "worldbuilding is verboten" and "story should trump over worldbuilding". 



> _In my view, worldbuilding need not be page after page of exposition on the setting or context devoid of any narrative function other than description.  Rather, good worldbuilding  in fiction (IMO) accumulates in the course of the narrative so as not to overly get in its way.  Thus, for example, we learn a little about the spice mining in Dune here, some more there and still more over there, there and there etc.  It is when we add up the sum total of the scatttered bits of worldbuilding that the world comes together._




And what you describe as "good worldbuilding" is something that I don't think Harrison would disagree with. He says "writing must triumph over worldbuilding". By inserting worldbuilding elements in the narrative in a method that is designed to support and enhance the story, the writing is paramount over worldbuilding. The opposite occurs when "cool" world design elements are slathered on for no good narrative reason, even if they are added in small chunks. There is almost no extraneous worldbuilding material in _Dune_ (the tightest written of all the series), almost every element introduced has a purpose in the story and helpd drive the narrative. _The Eye of the World_, in contrast, is laden with piled of totally irrelevant material, even when included in small bits (just about every farmhouse they stop at during their journey is described in tedious detail, as is every meal, and every girl's tug of her hair, and so on). Even though it is spread throughout the book in small bits, it adds up to a massive, clomping, tedious level of dullness that detracts from the interesting parts of the story. L.E. Modesitt also does this, describing endless meals of crusty bread, and repeated dinners, stops at inns and other trivial elements of world atmosphere that serve zero purpose in the story other than to show off all the background detail of the world.



> _I think the Ringworld and Dune books more than support my sense of how the respective worlds are built in the text - gradually in the course of the story, so as to be unintrusive to the story._




And as such, the limited level of worldbuilding that takes place in those books supports Harrison's point, because the story takes precedence.


----------



## apoptosis

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Once more, world-building doesn't mean "intrusion of reams of information in the narrative" -- it means the necessary work to establish the setting that the narrative requires.
> 
> 
> RC




This is probably the fundamental disagreement then. WHAT is considered world-building?  What you defined as world-building, I do not.  I think what you described is setting (detailing) the narrative.  I believe world-building in reference to writing is basically "intrusion of reams of information in the narrative"

By this I mean you can world-build behind the scenes and it never really enter the story except to flesh out the setting of the narrative and give it a living/breathing feel (This is actually not a bad use of it). Frankly the reader never really knows you have "world-built"

But world-building as I see it (in fiction) is when the world-building takes place in the narrative.  Where the writer basically info dumps about his world which is basically irrelevant to the narrative.

This is without a doubt not a fine line and there is a lot of grey area (info dump vs making the setting seem real); but I do know that I can recognize when it happens and I tend to see it as the mark of poor fiction writing in general (there are always exceptions to this).

Apop


----------



## Celebrim

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> ...(just about every farmhouse they stop at during their journey is described in tedious detail, as is every meal, and every girl's tug of her hair, and so on). Even though it is spread throughout the book in small bits, it adds up to a massive, clomping, tedious level of dullness that detracts from the interesting parts of the story. L.E. Modesitt also does this, describing endless meals of crusty bread, and repeated dinners, stops at inns and other trivial elements of world atmosphere that serve zero purpose in the story other than to show off all the background detail of the world.




Except none of this has anything at all to do with world building.  There are several ways to demonstrate this, but the easiest is to note that none of this requires a thought experiment of any sort.  I don't have to create a 'map' in order to detail endless travel across an imaginary landscape.  I don't have to think about agarian economics to describe endless meals of crusty bread.  I don't have to think about how much fertile land a nation has and what its birth rate is to have endless battles of seemingly endless hordes.  I don't have to compute actual travel times from Earth to Neptune assuming a constant .2g acceleration and the position of the planets in September of 2209, to have endless tedium in zero g.  I don't have to engage in world building at all in order to fill a book up with tedious detail.  The two things are completely unrelated.  I don't have to have a realistic or at least coherent technology to spend pages describing the various decks on a starship.  I don't have to have battles that actually reflect the technological assumptions I desribe.  I can engage in alot of world building and the vast majority of it might never appear directly within the story.  You may not notice that the fact that the date of departure from Earth and the date of arrival in Neptune is realistic for the stories assumptions about technology, and the hours of calculation and study of planetary physics might end up in the story as a single sentence.  Tedious detail has nothing to do with world building.  True, you can introduce tedious detail into a story with world building - for example, I could lay out precisely how you calculate the travel time between Earth and Neptune in the story although rarely have I ever seen that done in a published work - but you can introduce tedious detail into a story without it and most tedious detail in fiction never came from a world building process. 

Another way to note this is to look at a short story like the previously mentioned story by Joyce, 'The Death'.  Now, Joyce does do things much like world building in say Ulysses (he openly stated that among his goals was to detail Dublin in such detail that if the city were destroyed it could be reconstructed just from the text), but in the 'The Death' such world building elements are much less in evidence.  There is however alot of very fine grained detail that has nothing to do with world building - for example longish passages of small talk at the gathering that don't seem to directly advance the story but just set the stories scale and mood.  The detail here again doesn't involve any world building.

World building is a very specific process that is largely external to the writing.  It isn't merely atmospherics and details, although hopefully, evocative, intriguing, and internally consistent details are the results of the process.  But, you can have all sorts of atmospherics and details that are unrelated to world building and which weren't created by a world building creative process and where just thrown in on a whim of the author's creativity without much apparent thought as to what they imply.  (China Meiville, I'm looking at you.)  An obvious example would be a story which contained in its numerous details inconsistancies and self-contridictions and the very sorts of things that world building is designed to avoid.  (Incidently, this is precisely why Star Trek is a horrible example of 'world building', because with the exception of Klingon language, almost nothing in the 'story' was created by a world building process.  Hense, all the various inconsistancies, retconns, unresolvable contridictions, abandoned story elements, and so forth.)

So you aren't really complaining about world building at all; you are just complaining about tedious detail.

And in that case, you've said nothing more interesting than 'boring stories are boring'.  Well, OK.  Thanks for that insight.


----------



## The Shaman

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Except none of this has anything at all to do with world building. . . .
> 
> So you aren't really complaining about world building at all; you are just complaining about tedious detail.
> 
> And in that case, you've said nothing more interesting than 'boring stories are boring'.  Well, OK.  Thanks for that insight.



Yep.

The implicit assumption is that those who engage in a more extensive world-building process are inherently likely to introduce extraneous or tedious detail during the game. I haven't found that to be the case.


----------



## apoptosis

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Yep.
> 
> The implicit assumption is that those who engage in a more extensive world-building process are inherently likely to introduce extraneous or tedious detail during the game. I haven't found that to be the case.




As far as games go, I would probably agree that this is correct. But in my opinion while this relates to the issue, it is not acutally the issue at hand (of course I could be wrong).

 I really think Harrison is talking about world-building within the context of the narrative itself. Not that having a detailed world is bad, but that world-building in the writing itself is not a beneficial writing style.  Using the story as an excercise to show off the world is what I consider when he talks about world-buidling in fiction.

In relation to a game, i believe that the introduction of world-building as a DM's narrative techinque would be the real issue.  In this case world-building would be the 'introduction of extraneous and/or tedious detail' during the game as a method of showing off the world.


----------



## Reynard

apoptosis said:
			
		

> As far as games go, I would probably agree that this is correct. But in my opinion while this relates to the issue, it is not acutally the issue at hand (of course I could be wrong).
> 
> I really think Harrison is talking about world-building within the context of the narrative itself. Not that having a detailed world is bad, but that world-building in the writing itself is not a beneficial writing style.  Using the story as an excercise to show off the world is what I consider when he talks about world-buidling in fiction.
> 
> In relation to a game, i believe that the introduction of world-building as a DM's narrative techinque would be the real issue.  In this case world-building would be the 'introduction of extraneous and/or tedious detail' during the game as a method of showing off the world.




After reading his mini-rant a couple of times, I am not sure what he is saying, if anything at all.  If he is saying, "Writers who go on forver about the history of elven tea are boing and nerdish," well, duh.  That doesn't mean some folks don't like that kind fo detail, however.  If he is saying, "Making uo the history of elven tea is useless, boring and nerdish," then I have to vehemently disagree.

Really, i think he made a little rant, didn't think about it or its implications much, and got a bunch of us boring, nerdish clods in an uproar over it.


----------



## Jim Hague

Reynard said:
			
		

> After reading his mini-rant a couple of times, I am not sure what he is saying, if anything at all.  If he is saying, "Writers who go on forver about the history of elven tea are boing and nerdish," well, duh.  That doesn't mean some folks don't like that kind fo detail, however.  If he is saying, "Making uo the history of elven tea is useless, boring and nerdish," then I have to vehemently disagree.
> 
> Really, i think he made a little rant, didn't think about it or its implications much, and got a bunch of us boring, nerdish clods in an uproar over it.




Given his later blog post, he did it purely to stir the hornet's nest in as childish and churlish a manner as possible.  Provocation in order to create thought is one thing, but it's clear his intent wasn't to do that, it was just him screeching 'look at me, aren't I _smart_?!'.  You'd think that someone like him would be a bit more mature.


----------



## Reynard

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> You'd think that someone like him would be a bit more mature.




Why?  We write to get noticed, to make people think, to cause an effect.  Maybe he hasn't published anything recently.  Maybe he needed to *cause* something, so he decided to go with something obvious and controversial.  in other words, maybe he was trolling.

As ashamed as I am to admit it, there have been times when I just felt the need to get some reaction, any reaction to some thought.  After what I consider "good" or "smart" thoughts get ignored, sometimes I go for the easy path and say something stupid, just to geta  reaction.  I would be surprised if any of us that regularly visit and post on the internet haven't done the same thing.

There's something very addictive about message boards, I think.  In fact, I have been trying recently to make myself stop visiting them.  The time I spend on these (and other) boards could be used to do so muchmore.  But here I am, posting on this thread so that the Dungeon/Dragon Piazo thread can grow.


----------



## Mallus

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Provocation in order to create thought is one thing, but it's clear his intent wasn't to do that...



It was to me. 



> ...it was just him screeching 'look at me, aren't I _smart_?!'



No-one posting to this thread was guilty of that. Nope. No sir. (in his defense, his blog post was much shorter than some of the posts here)



> You'd think that someone like him would be a bit more mature.



Or you'd think people on an Internet forum would a little less thin-skinned. Wait, no you wouldn't.

Personally, I think Harrison's post was a great jumping off point for a discussion about the role of the kind of intricate counter-worlds you find in a certain kind of fantastic literature (and I'm as guilty of anyone for not trying to push the thread in that direction). 

Is it enough that they be places to explore in and of themselves, or should they put to a use to a finer --at least a more controlled-- use as tools to explore our (collective) selves?


----------



## Jim Hague

Mallus said:
			
		

> It was to me.




Then you're seeing something I'm not, clearly.  Thanking people who click through his blog for '15 minutes of notoriety' strikes me as attention-hogging (to be relatively polite) of the worst sort.



> Or you'd think people on an Internet forum would a little less thin-skinned. Wait, no you wouldn't.




Gosh, I am so terribly sorry to have said anything mean about some writer you're fond of, to impugn his motives with his own words.  Wait, no, I'm not.  



> Personally, I think Harrison's post was a great jumping off point for a discussion about the role of the kind of intricate counter-worlds you find in a certain kind of fantastic literature (and I'm as guilty of anyone for not trying to push the thread in that direction).
> 
> Is it enough that they be places to explore in and of themselves, or should they put to a use to a finer --at least a more controlled-- use as tools to explore our (collective) selves?




Unfortunately, his post is tainted by the messenger.  I got more out of the link to Vincent's blog posted uphtread than out of Harrison's self-serving little fit.


----------



## danzig138

Kestrel said:
			
		

> My guess though is that if a GM creates something, they are going to want to show it off,



I have no doubt that this problem plagues some GMs. For me, this isn't the case. When I work on world and setting creation, I do so knowing there's a great chance that they players won't encounter a majority of it. Heck, even in a pre-existing setting (Greyhawk), they won't hit a bunch of it. But knowing how the things they don't interact with directly interact with each other helps me to determine how the things the players do interact with will work. 

And yeah, if the players are only able to look at the, what was it, amusement park, and not affect any kind of change, that's a fault of the man in charge of the game.


----------



## Mallus

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Thanking people who click through his blog for '15 minutes of notoriety' strikes me as attention-hogging (to be relatively polite) of the worst sort.



Unlike the other quiet, private people who maintain blogs because they cherish their anonymity? 



> Gosh, I am so terribly sorry to have said anything mean about some writer you're fond of, to impugn his motives with his own words.



I don't mind that you insulted a writer I respect, that's par for the course when my friends and I discus the arts. As is drinking, and sometimes, threats.

What's irritating is people's refusal to get over his manner and see he was saying something potentially interesting. Really, haven't you ever heard writers or artists talk about their work, and the works of their peers? Usually someone gets a table flipped over onto the them... (well, if their name is Clement Greenberg)



> Unfortunately, his post is tainted by the messenger.



Did he shoot your cat or something?



> ..self-serving little fit.



Self-serving fits seem all the rage around here lately. I guess I'm just accustomed to a certain level of bluster and swagger when its comes to discussing literature (or games, for that matter).


----------



## Jim Hague

Mallus said:
			
		

> What's irritating is people's refusal to get over his manner and see he was saying something potentially interesting. Really, haven't you ever heard writers or artists talk about their work, and the works of their peers? Usually someone gets a table flipped over onto the them... (well, if their name is Clement Greenberg)




There's a difference between being provocative to get some ideas going and attention-whoring.  If an allegedly intellgient, talented writer has to stoop to, well, a publicity stunt, I start questioning whether they have anything worthwhile to say, or whether their attitude comes through in their works.  Just for grins, I read the first Virconium book earlier this week, and it seems very much like the latter in Harrison's case.  You stir the pot to get the ingredients mixing, not to show how supposedly well you stir the pot.



> Did he shoot your cat or something?




No, but his being a preening, attention-mongering prat doesn't increase my respect for him.


----------



## Reynard

Mallus said:
			
		

> What's irritating is people's refusal to get over his manner and see he was saying something potentially interesting. Really, haven't you ever heard writers or artists talk about their work, and the works of their peers? Usually someone gets a table flipped over onto the them... (well, if their name is Clement Greenberg)




Well, sure, that's what we want.  If someone is not getting punched in the face by the end of the night, you weren't having a right discussion of the subject at hand.  9To those of you who think I am joking: you're wrong.)  But the problem is that, boiled down, the original post is something controversial, but hardly interesting.  I mean, the writer is either saying that bad writers are bad writers (in which case he is right and not the least bit controversial) or that worldbuilding, as a genral thing, is bad (in which case he's controversial but not the least bit right).

A much better thesis to go with is something like "Aliens in sci fi are pointless because they all represent something human anyway."  That, I think, would make a hell of an interesting and controversial statement, especially if made by a respected sci-fi writer.  It is a wild idea, but one we've all had, and suggests a million things about a million works that exist or are yet to be made.

See, here's the thing.  We ariters are raised to think that to be writers, we also need to be wusses (please import another, much harsher word at the end of that sentence to get the full meaning of  my statement).  Such wasn't true in the past, and is probably a function of modern society in general.  nonetheless, there was a day when it was perfectly acceptable, expected even, for a couple writers sipping whiskey on the Spanish coast to get into fisticuffs over some aspect of the craft.  that day is sadly gone, though I will do my best, sober and otherwise, to bring it back.


----------



## apoptosis

danzig138 said:
			
		

> I have no doubt that this problem plagues some GMs. For me, this isn't the case. When I work on world and setting creation, I do so knowing there's a great chance that they players won't encounter a majority of it. Heck, even in a pre-existing setting (Greyhawk), they won't hit a bunch of it. But knowing how the things they don't interact with directly interact with each other helps me to determine how the things the players do interact with will work.
> 
> And yeah, if the players are only able to look at the, what was it, amusement park, and not affect any kind of change, that's a fault of the man in charge of the game.




What you describe is what I think is an advantage of world-building in a game.  I think world-building outside of the adventure can be effective in allowing your game to have a real living feel to it (other things happening offscreen that can potentially impact the character).

I think one of the problems with world-building in GAMES usually is that the GM is so invested in his world that he designed that he doesnt want it to change. He wants the world to stay the way he made it and the result is that the characters cannot really impact the world.  

I think the problem of world-building in fiction is NOT this problem, but is somewhat related to another world-building issue in a game (though i think it is less of issue in gaming) and this is the info dump that can occur when the GM badly wants to relate his world creations to his players.  

This is the problem that occurs when world-building becomes the point of the narrative in fiction and this is what I felt from the original post, Harrison was warning against (with a lot of hyperbole)

I agree that the overall point is that boring writing is bad (an obvious statement that is made when any specific fiction writing technique is critiqued).  But Harrison is specifically saying that writers should focus on the story and not the world. World-building as a focus of a story is boring and there are a number fantasy writers who fall into this trap.


----------



## Abisashi

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> You stir the pot to get the ingredients mixing, not to show how supposedly well you stir the pot.




From reading interviews with Harrison, and some of his other blog entries, I think it is clear this is his actual intent, and I don't think he was using excessive wording to voice his moderate opinion - he really, truly hates worldbuilding. As an example, see bolded text (and note that you are apparently naive).



			
				http://uzwi.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/licensed-settings/ said:
			
		

> January 18th, 2007
> Readers who think my article “What It Might Be Like to Live in Viriconium” has something to do with licensed settings have, I suspect wilfully, missed its point. I don’t care one way or another if people invent, sell or play games based on fictional “worlds”, though I don’t quite see why they bother. What I care about is the naive idea that a world exists on which a game may be based. When you engage with a novel, it is an engagement with words. What you engage is not a world but the motives of the author, mediated by some more or less effective technical tricks (actually, even that is a faint hope you both have, a shared lie, an over-dignified description of an ungainly struggle with the text’s promises). Something like this holds for every medium–cinema, theatre, dance, games & telling stories in the dark when you are eight years old–up to and including the built environment, which simply isn’t there in the same sense as the natural one, & exists, literally, to “tame” the real. & there are always “the successive phases of the image”, too, I suppose, the fourth of which reduces readers, writers, game-players and mall rats alike to the status of solipsists masturbating in separate darkened rooms.
> 
> The Viriconium stories, as the article says, were written to: emphasise the various problems involved when fiction begins to lay claim to the quality of being a “secondary reality”; make difficult a naive or domesticated reading of the text; *& maybe shake the fantasy reader’s confidence in very the idea of the constructability of worlds*. I wouldn’t try that again, nor would I write anything like “What It Might Be Like to Live in Viriconium”, now 11 years old & showing its age. The water needs diverting much further upstream.




This isn't the most representative quote, but I don't want to spend too much time looking.


----------



## FireLance

Reynard said:
			
		

> Really, i think he made a little rant, didn't think about it or its implications much, and got a bunch of us boring, nerdish clods in an uproar over it.



I, personally, do not care who he is or what his intentions are. However, the vehement, almost fanatical, responses of some of the posters in this thread make me think that he's on to something.


----------



## Mallus

Celebrim said:
			
		

> ... like the previously mentioned story by Joyce, 'The Death'.



It's "The Dead", as in: "His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead."

Wait, you were just playing with me, weren't you? 



> But, you can have all sorts of atmospherics and details that are unrelated to world building and which weren't created by a world building creative process and where just thrown in on a whim of the author's creativity without much apparent thought as to what they imply.  (China Meiville, I'm looking at you.)



I find that 'what they imply' doesn't always matter, sometimes exotica is enough (see, I don't necessarily agree w/Harrison, I just found what he said intriguing). Tales of 'darkest Africa' for a culture that's already lit the real Africa up, found it not to our liking, and shut the light.



> (Incidently, this is precisely why Star Trek is a horrible example of 'world building', because with the exception of Klingon language, almost nothing in the 'story' was created by a world building process.  Hense, all the various inconsistancies, retconns, unresolvable contridictions, abandoned story elements, and so forth.)



And yet for all that Star Trek (and the Federation) is well-loved by an enormous fanbase. Kinda like LotR.


----------



## Mallus

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> I read the first Virconium book earlier this week, and it seems very much like the latter in Harrison's case.



I'm not sure what you mean by that (but at least you've read one of his books so we can have a proper discussion).

The Viriconium stories are odd. They're not straight fantasy or science fiction, or rather, they are to start with and then stray into Calvino territory. It's like he's trying to work through what his imaginary city means to him, what he can use it for, whether or not writing it a valid literary goal. He's not trying to make a single place, rather he keeps recasting it in different roles. It's a _writerly_ piece, about process. It's not going to satisfy you if you're looking for a "solid" alternate world to spend time in.

What did you think of it? 



> No, but his being a preening, attention-mongering prat doesn't increase my respect for him.



He did shoot your cat. My condolences.


----------



## Mallus

Reynard said:
			
		

> If someone is not getting punched in the face by the end of the night, you weren't having a right discussion of the subject at hand.



That's the spirit!



> But the problem is that, boiled down, the original post is something controversial, but hardly interesting.



Hey, a honest disagreement about the content of his post. We can't have that.

When I read the words 'great clomping foot of nerdism', I didn't feel anger, I felt _recognition_. I recalled the days when my perfect book had both a glossary and a map. It goes without saying it was set in the far future or in the time of  the elves (thus I loved both Dune and LotR). I had a passion for the minutiae of made-up _things_ and _places_. This is what I looked for in literature. It was somewhat later I discovered most people don't...

I'm very interested in figuring out why what appeals to the boy still appeals to the man. Why does the mere mention of the 'Holtzmann suspensor-nullification effect' or 'Minas Morgul' bring me pleasure? Is it simply the promise of a thrilling world of wonder? One that's somehow improved by extensive mapping, by survey, by the kind of atomizing that would seem to demystify it. What the Hell is going on? What's the allure of of BS science (spice gas, tetrion particles, wave-motion guns), constellations full of faux stars, and highly-detailed systems of magic (another important criteria I looked for). 

It  starts to look like a toybox full of autism. 

Harrison comes out swinging and says 'this is a waste of time'. Part of me agrees. It's the reduction of the fantastic --which ought to be chock full of myth, fear, primary process badthink-- to fetishism. Tell me something about the human condition, or the expanse of human conception. Don't putter around drawing out the sewer map of Hobbiton. 

And yet I'd probably _buy_ the sewer map of Hobbiton. (or at least the latest Star Trek Technical Manual). It's a conundrum, hence my interest.

Ok, rant over. I probably shouldn't have been posting while listening to the new NIN album (it's _good_. Quelle suprise!)



> ...there was a day when it was perfectly acceptable, expected even, for a couple writers sipping whiskey on the Spanish coast to get into fisticuffs over some aspect of the craft.



I have plans to drink whiskey tomorrow night with a bunch of my more literary-minded buddies, where I intend to bring up Harrison's blog entry. Maybe they'll be a fight! (I can see the headlines now: Nerd throw-down in South Philly!)



> I will do my best, sober and otherwise, to bring it back.



That's the spirit... err, spirits!


----------



## Hussar

I agree with much of what Mallus is saying here.

Just a point about world building and Star Trek and Star Wars and other serial stories.  Something to not forget is the sheer volume of material we have to work with.  Between all the incarnations of Star Trek, we have what, 1000+ hours of televison shows and movies?  I'd be surprised if it wasn't close to that.

Of course there's a huge amount of detail about the setting.  Even if you only spend 10% of the time developing setting, that still leaves us with over a hundred hours of dedicated world building.  That's a HUGE amount.  It accretes.

But, if you move in a bit closer and look at any given episode, you don't see huge amounts of world building.  Most of the episodes have maybe 5 minutes of exposition detailing the background of this or that element and then get back on with the plot.  Take Klingon's as a good example.  It isn't until well into TNG that we see a Klingon death ritual, despite seeing lots of dead Klingons previously.

Why then?  Because it fit with the plot of showcasing Worf's character.  If the whole Stovokor (sp) and shouting to the sky thing had been introduced somewhere else, it would have been extraneous.  Is it world building?  Yup.  But, it's world building in service to the plot.

Howard has been held up a few times as a world building posterboy.  Yet, that's after the accretion of several short stories (never mind the horde of novels and whatnot that have come after).  Within any given story, you don't see a whole lot of worldbuilding beyond what is needed by the plot.  We don't hear anything about Kush until Conan goes there or meets someone from there.  Again, world building is done in service of the story.

I agree with TheShaman that there is no correlation between world building and beating the players over the head with it.  However, there is a correlation between bad DM's beating their player's over the head with their setting.  In other words, developing a setting is fine, so long as it takes a back seat to the game.  When the DM performs a half hour monologue detailing the history of Elven Tea, it's a bad thing.  ((Yeah, wrongbadfun and all that, but, seriously, could you REALLY see a half hour monologue on Elven Tea as a good thing?  ))


----------



## LostSoul

Hussar said:
			
		

> In other words, developing a setting is fine, so long as it takes a back seat to the game.




What if the game is about exploring the setting?  In that case, intense worldbuilding is probably a good idea.


----------



## Hussar

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What if the game is about exploring the setting?  In that case, intense worldbuilding is probably a good idea.




Really?  Say we're doing a "Deepest, Darkest Africa" sort of campaign where the players are intrepid explorers cutting their way through vast tracts of jungle.  Sounds like a fun campaign to me.

Do we really need massive detail about every animal, plant and monster they meet?  Or can they just meet "Random meat eating carnivore #25" once in a while?  Sure, some parts will need to be expanded, that's simply good gaming.  But, again, it takes a back seat to the action of the game.  A ten page treatise on the cultivation habits of the lizardfolk that the party will meet once is not the makings of a good game.


----------



## Raven Crowking

FireLance said:
			
		

> I, personally, do not care who he is or what his intentions are. However, the vehement, almost fanatical, responses of some of the posters in this thread make me think that he's on to something.





Not unlike the vehement, almost fanatical, responses of some when J. Swift suggested Scottish landlords eat their tenant's babies?  Did that mean that he was onto something?

Or, if I say "3.5 Sucks" and I receive vehement, almost fanatical, responses, does that mean 3.5 _actually_ sucks?  Or does it mean that I am wrong, and a lot of people want to tell me so?

I think the latter is more likely than the former, don't you?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, again, it takes a back seat to the action of the game.  A ten page treatise on the cultivation habits of the lizardfolk that the party will meet once is not the makings of a good game.





Once again, world-building and introducing a monologue of info-dump are not the same thing.  If the question is "Is a monologue of info dump a good idea?" then I imagine that this thread would either be really short, or filled with examples of how people agree that, in general, it is not.

World-building is _development of coherent setting_, nothing more.

Or, let me put it this way, is there _anyone_ on this thread who thinks both that

(1)  World-building is a good thing, and
(2)  Great monologues of info-dump are a good thing?

Is there anyone on this thread who thinks both that 

(1)  World-building is a good thing, and
(2)  World-building is _not_ the development of coherent setting?

Is there anyone on this thread who thinks that great monologues of info-dump are a good thing?

Is there anyone on this thread who thinks that develepment of a coherent setting -- mind you, we're _not_ talking about an _immutable_ setting here -- is a bad thing?

I would imagine that, apart from terminology, there is far less controversy involved here than some might think.


RC


----------



## GlassJaw

I tried to read through this thread but got tired of all the defensive and "utter crap" comments.  Get a grip people.

I think the overall premise is sound, regardless if it's applied to a sci-fi novel or an RPG campaign world.  The best advice I would give someone creating a campaign and world scratch is this:

1.  Only create what you need.
2.  World _outline_, don't world build.

If the players aren't going to be near Enchanted Fairy Forest, why spend any time populating it?  The most you should do is write a _very _short description of it, almost like a placeholder.  

Remember, while they compliment each other, the adventure's the thing, not the setting.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Once more, world-building doesn't mean "intrusion of reams of information in the narrative" -- it means the necessary work to establish the setting that the narrative requires.




It would seem that professional authors disagree with your definition. "Necessary work" would seem to mean "writing." "Worldbuilding" is surrounding the writing with detail the reader never encounters. Even if it never gets onto the page, even if you end up discarding 90% of it...that useless detail is "worldbuilding"  in the words of one professional writer of science fiction. 

In D&D, there *is* an analogue (if there isn't, I wouldn't have expected this thread to go on for 8 pages ). The "necessary work" is entirely what the PC's encounter or are likely to. 

Insofar as the thread is concerned for D&D, "worldbuilding" is composing reams of information that are largely irrelevant to what is happening to the PC's at the time. For instance, detailing Country X's government when the PC's are mired in Country Y.

It is, in fact, focusing on what is a minor detail to the point where it's a big deal. This is the "great clomping foot of nerdism," demanding a place for everything and everything in its place and placing this world up on a pedestal that claims it is worthy of this attention. It is the obsessive attention to detail that places knowledge of this detail as an end in and of itself, with little reason to care about that detail other than obsessive knowledge. Verisimilitude can certainly be maintained in absence of exhaustive detail, and, indeed, usually is. 

What that misses is making the reader (or the players) *care* about it. It becomes a useless blob of intro text, irrelevant to their experience, important only to the creator as an excersize in creating. 

Worldbuilding is unavoidable, it seems. You are always going to create more than you need. By writing triumphing over worldbuilding, the suggestion is that your world bends to the need of the story, or your players (the adventurers), that you avoid writing about the world when it doesn't matter to the group at hand and that whatever you write about the world *becomes* relevant to the group at hand. Worldbuilding is coming up with a government for Country X. Good writing is making that government relevant to the PC's mired in Country Y. Even if it means changing background details about Country X, Country Y, or the intervening Very Big Ocean in the meantime.

It seems to be suggesting the economy of creation. A writer should always be concerned with the story being told over the world it is told in. A DM should always be concerned with the adventures being had over the setting it occurs in. What's going to make this more fun, what's going to give me an interesting scene, a nifty encounter, a breathtaking combat, an epic BBEG? 

I think D&D certainly has different requirements than writing, and the breaking point is going to be different, and that's part of what I was hoping to explore in the thread. I mean, neither the author nor I said "don't do worldbuilding." Just that your desire to make something compelling for your audience should always triumph over your desire to work out the fiddly bits of your pet setting.


----------



## joeandsteve

M John Harrison said:
			
		

> 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 unneccessary 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 neccessary. 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.




Sounds like an admonishment of Tolkien.


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:
			
		

> When the DM performs a half hour monologue detailing the history of Elven Tea, it's a bad thing.  ((Yeah, wrongbadfun and all that, but, seriously, could you REALLY see a half hour monologue on Elven Tea as a good thing?  ))




I see half hour monologues as a bad thing regardless of what they are about.  I can't think of anything so interesting that it justifies the DM lecturing the players for a half-hour.

On the other hand, I can't see why elven tea is so uninteresting that it could not be made the metatext of a half-hour of interesting role-play.  Perhaps I've an elfin culture in part inspired by Japanese culture, and the characters are engaged in a tea ceremony with a respected highly conservative elfin samurii who may just know who is responcible for murdering the geisha and who is behind the plot to kill the emporer but doesn't trust these uncouth human sell-swords and is - somewhat against his will - attracted to the female ranger and who happens to be the sort of person who is insulted by too direct speach.

That might make for an interesting discussion of 'tea', and the more thought that the DM has put into tea ceremonies and the cultures that produce them, the more things of substance the the DM has to use to enrich the conversation.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It would seem that professional authors disagree with your definition.





Well, _one_ does.    



> "Necessary work" would seem to mean "writing." "Worldbuilding" is surrounding the writing with detail the reader never encounters. Even if it never gets onto the page, even if you end up discarding 90% of it...that useless detail is "worldbuilding"  in the words of one professional writer of science fiction.




The term "useless" is prejorative.  

The vast majority of professional writers do not regard working out details as "useless", even if those details never make it onto the page -- they inform what _does_ make it onto the page.  They give the novel more "life" than the average D&D novel....or game, for that matter.

And, of course, many writers -- even the most world-buildingest of them -- make up new details and change old ones during the course of the writing.  To this degree, one could claim that Tolkein followed Mr. H's advice:  He was certainly willing to change details of his background notes when the story of the LotR demanded that he do so.



> Insofar as the thread is concerned for D&D, "worldbuilding" is composing reams of information that are largely irrelevant to what is happening to the PC's at the time. For instance, detailing Country X's government when the PC's are mired in Country Y.






> It seems to be suggesting the economy of creation. A writer should always be concerned with the story being told over the world it is told in. A DM should always be concerned with the adventures being had over the setting it occurs in. What's going to make this more fun, what's going to give me an interesting scene, a nifty encounter, a breathtaking combat, an epic BBEG?




It almost seems as though you are suggesting that a DM use his leisure time in a way that best benefits someone else, regardless of what he enjoys doing himself.  "Why are you worldbuilding, when you could be making me an adventure?"  "Why are you fishing when you could be making me an adventure?"  "Why are you playing ball with the kids when you could be making me an adventure?"

If it doesn't negatively impact the reader of the novel, and if it doesn't negatively impact the players of the game, what business is it of either reader or player how the writer/DM spends his free time?


----------



## Hussar

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I see half hour monologues as a bad thing regardless of what they are about.  I can't think of anything so interesting that it justifies the DM lecturing the players for a half-hour.
> 
> On the other hand, I can't see why elven tea is so uninteresting that it could not be made the metatext of a half-hour of interesting role-play.  Perhaps I've an elfin culture in part inspired by Japanese culture, and the characters are engaged in a tea ceremony with a respected highly conservative elfin samurii who may just know who is responcible for murdering the geisha and who is behind the plot to kill the emporer but doesn't trust these uncouth human sell-swords and is - somewhat against his will - attracted to the female ranger and who happens to be the sort of person who is insulted by too direct speach.
> 
> That might make for an interesting discussion of 'tea', and the more thought that the DM has put into tea ceremonies and the cultures that produce them, the more things of substance the the DM has to use to enrich the conversation.




Ah, but now you've made world building subservient to plot.  You aren't creating the backstory for no reason.  It becomes integral to the story.  This is precisely what Harrison is talking about.  If plot triumphs, then you're golden.  



			
				RC said:
			
		

> Is there anyone on this thread who thinks both that
> 
> (1) World-building is a good thing, and
> (2) World-building is not the development of coherent setting?




I think you've missed an important distinction though.  You do not need to engage in world building to tell a great story.  You may need to to tell a long story, but, that's a different beast.  Short stories are predicated on the idea that you don't need to world build.  It goes back to what I said about Star Trek or Conan.  If you take each story as a complete and separate whole, then there is actually very little world building in any of them.  It's only when taken as an aggregate that you get a larger picture.


----------



## Reynard

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If it doesn't negatively impact the reader of the novel, and if it doesn't negatively impact the players of the game, what business is it of either reader or player how the writer/DM spends his free time?




But, but... if the DM is wasting time outlining the political relationsip between Dragons and Giants, he's not statting a 23rd level kobold fighter/spellthief/rogue/assassin for the PCs to kill and loot.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> I think you've missed an important distinction though.  You do not need to engage in world building to tell a great story.  You may need to to tell a long story, but, that's a different beast.  Short stories are predicated on the idea that you don't need to world build.  It goes back to what I said about Star Trek or Conan.  If you take each story as a complete and separate whole, then there is actually very little world building in any of them.  It's only when taken as an aggregate that you get a larger picture.





And I think that you miss an even more important one -- there is no way to tell exactly how much worldbuilding has occurred in the background by looking at the completed work.  Worldbuilding doesn't have to mean that you see all the details in writing.  However, it is usually evident by a self-consistent, cohesive setting that worldbuilding _has_ occurred, even if it doesn't interupt the flow of the story.

Some people, of course, require more "prep" worldbuilding, while others do more "on the fly" worldbuilding.  Most writers, and most DMs, do some combination of the two, weighted based upon their interests, strengths, and weaknesses.  A writer or DM should always play to his strengths and bulwark his weaknesses, right?    

Howard, BTW, was a worldbuilder in that he did enormous amounts of research, and then wrote stories based off that research.  Not much of that research makes it onto the page, but the _sense_ of that research definitely does.  He also wrote notes for his own use, detailing aspects of his fictional "world history".

In other words, if you are using Conan as your example, you are not demonstrating anything about a lack of worldbuilding -- you are only demonstrating that the result of worldbuilding _doesn't have to be boring_.  Which is something I, for one, agree with.    


RC


----------



## Mallus

joeandsteve said:
			
		

> Sounds like an admonishment of Tolkien.



Hence the anger and self-serving fits...


----------



## Celebrim

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It would seem that professional authors disagree with your definition. "Necessary work" would seem to mean "writing." "Worldbuilding" is surrounding the writing with detail the reader never encounters. Even if it never gets onto the page, even if you end up discarding 90% of it...that useless detail is "worldbuilding"  in the words of one professional writer of science fiction.




You are adding to the text what isn't there.  You might have a good point, but let's not pretend that it comes from anywhere but yourself, because it isn't in the text in question.



> Insofar as the thread is concerned for D&D, "worldbuilding" is composing reams of information that are largely irrelevant to what is happening to the PC's at the time. For instance, detailing Country X's government when the PC's are mired in Country Y.




This is the exact sort of silly statement that I predicted pages and pages ago.  So, "worldbuilding" is only "worldbuilding" if it is irrelevant and useless to the story?  What a conveinent definition of worldbuilding.  If only we could always be so Orwellian, we could prove anything.  If you define something as negative and useless by definition, of course you can 'win' any argument about its usefulness.  But if you are going to do that, don't be surprised if people don't take your argument as seriously as you think it deserves.



> What that misses is making the reader (or the players) *care* about it. It becomes a useless blob of intro text, irrelevant to their experience, important only to the creator as an excersize in creating.




Yes, because we know that noone has ever been intrigued by a story or cared about a story or felt a story to have a powerful emotional impact because the story had world building elements to it.   



> By writing triumphing over worldbuilding, the suggestion is that your world bends to the need of the story...




I don't think that worldbuilding which doesn't bend to the needs of the story or the game is nearly common as you are claiming, but that is hardly the most important point.

The most important point is that if we discussing the essay you wrote just now, rather than the essay that was actually wrote, there would hardly be much contriversy because while you've said things that are quite true and maybe even informative for some people to read (when you haven't been defending the indefensible) you also haven't said anything which anyone is going to disagree with.  Once again, what you are saying is what perhaps should of been said, but it bears no resemblence to what was actually said. 

What was actually said was this:

"Worldbuilding is dull. Worldbuilding literalises the urge to invent. Worldbuilding gives an unneccessary 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 neccessary. 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." - M. John Harrison

That is a bit more strong than the simple platitudes you wish to make of it.  Let me respond to it rather than waste more breath on peoples attempts to read what they want to read rather than what was wrote.

"Worldbuilding is not dull, nor is it unnatural.  Worldbuilding literalizes the urge to create, which is a fundamental a laudatory drive of human nature.  Worldbuilding is a thought experiment in which the author lays the foundation for the story that he wishes to tell and prepares his mind for that creative act.  World building inspires the imagination of the writer and engages the mind of the reader and encourages in the active participation in the shared imaginary space that contains the writers thoughts and musings, because it shows the reader that this mental space is a serious and important one and that thought was put into it and that is worthy of consideration and even study.  Far from numbing the reader's imagination, world building encourages the reader to match the consideration and effort the writer put into the story with consideration and effort of his own, whereas a story which does not have these features discourages the reader from exploring the mental space because it obvious that _what is present is all that is there_ and that beyond those frames is vacuuity of substance or of thought.

While world building is not technically necessary, this does not actually tell us much of anything.  Lots of things that are not technically necessary, such as food to be tasty or stories to be witty or inspirational, are nonetheless desirable at times - such as when we are hungry or when we are reading anything more interesting than a technical manual.  While world building is not technically necessary, many technically proficient writers engage in it for good and sufficient reasons.  Worldbuilding is the great motivation of a writer which is closest to love, especially when it is a survey of the thing that is there - such Joyce's exhuastive detailing of his beloved Dublin or Tolkiens epic paen to medieval literature, Catholocism and the English countryside.  Writers which love things make worlds which reflect the things that they love, because they want to share these things with others.  There is nothing in that which we need demean or fear.  Since when are persons of devotion and scholars of life long study, people whom we must snear at?  Those that would snear at and demean the worldbuilders, reveal more about there own character than they do about the objects of thier scorn.  We should not fear them, because they will never build anything that will long endure, but we should regret thier wasted talents and pity thier need to hate and fear anyone different than themselves."


----------



## Celebrim

Mallus said:
			
		

> Hence the anger and self-serving fits...




It couldn't possibly have to do with the tone of the post we are responding to?  I mean, "angry and self-serving fit" pretty much captures my feelings about the Mr. Harrison's post.


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ah, but now you've made world building subservient to plot.




You don't know that.  You are talking about what motivates me to write or create when you say, "I have made world building subservient to plot."  I might well be writing because of my fascination with the subject matter - say Japanese culture - or as in the case of Neil Stephenson's 'Baroque Cycle', early modern Europe.  Why I'm writing has nothing to do with how skillfully I do it.



> You aren't creating the backstory for no reason.  It becomes integral to the story.  This is precisely what Harrison is talking about.  If plot triumphs, then you're golden.




This is incredibly tiresome, because I'm fighting not what Harrison wrote but what you wish he had wrote.  I think that I'm done with it.  But let me just point out, that I do not think it a given that creating backstory for no reason is a bad thing.  Lots of writers do research and imaginative acts which never enter directly into thier story, and I'm not going to sit here and pompously claim that this is a mark of thier psychological deficiencies, nor do I think I'm going to waste anymore time on people that do.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And I think that you miss an even more important one -- there is no way to tell exactly how much worldbuilding has occurred in the background by looking at the completed work.  Worldbuilding doesn't have to mean that you see all the details in writing.  However, it is usually evident by a self-consistent, cohesive setting that worldbuilding _has_ occurred, even if it doesn't interupt the flow of the story.
> 
> Some people, of course, require more "prep" worldbuilding, while others do more "on the fly" worldbuilding.  Most writers, and most DMs, do some combination of the two, weighted based upon their interests, strengths, and weaknesses.  A writer or DM should always play to his strengths and bulwark his weaknesses, right?
> 
> Howard, BTW, was a worldbuilder in that he did enormous amounts of research, and then wrote stories based off that research.  Not much of that research makes it onto the page, but the _sense_ of that research definitely does.  He also wrote notes for his own use, detailing aspects of his fictional "world history".
> 
> In other words, if you are using Conan as your example, you are not demonstrating anything about a lack of worldbuilding -- you are only demonstrating that the result of worldbuilding _doesn't have to be boring_.  Which is something I, for one, agree with.
> 
> 
> RC




But, look at the article again.  He's talking about worldbuilding _in the text_.



> 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.




Since he's included the reader in his little tirade, then it follows that he is only talking about the finished work.  Since the reader never reads anything that isn't in the text, anything that's not in the text is irrelavent to the reader.  If the writer spends many sleepless nights detailing the growth cycle of elven tea, yet never includes that in the text, even tangentially, then it follows that it isn't what is being talked about here.

Celebrim has accused me and a few others here of playing fast and loose with the definition of world building.  If my definition is unnecessarily narrow, I would argue that his is too broad.  If any act of creating setting is world building, then, well, world building is a completely unnecessary term.  We can just say setting and be done with it.  But, that's not the problem.  World building isn't simply creating setting elements of fictional settings.  World building is creating a setting for itself.  World building is when you attempt to create a setting which is wholely or in part divorced from the plot.

It's when you spend several hundred pages detailing the geneology of characters that don't even appear in the text.  

RC, you've now included simple research into the act of world building.  If I look at a map of Chicago for my Vampire game, does that mean I'm now engaged in world building?  Since when did the creation of every piece of setting become world building?  Does setting=world building only become true because it serves Celebrim's arguement?


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:
			
		

> Celebrim has accused me and a few others here of playing fast and loose with the definition of world building.  If my definition is unnecessarily narrow, I would argue that his is too broad.  If any act of creating setting is world building, then, well, world building is a completely unnecessary term.  We can just say setting and be done with it.  But, that's not the problem.  World building isn't simply creating setting elements of fictional settings.  World building is creating a setting for itself.  World building is when you attempt to create a setting which is wholely or in part divorced from the plot.




I'm trying to break out of this increasingly pointless thread, but one thing gauranteed to tweak me is misrepresenting what I wrote, especially in threads where what I may have actually said is easily lost.  Suffice to say, that my agrument is totally misrepresented here, and encourage anyone who cares - if anyone still does - to go back and read what I actually wrote when I defined world building.  I believe I was quite careful to separate my definition from the claim offered by several others, that world building was the same as creating setting elements.



> RC, you've now included simple research into the act of world building.  If I look at a map of Chicago for my Vampire game, does that mean I'm now engaged in world building?  Since when did the creation of every piece of setting become world building?  Does setting=world building only become true because it serves Celebrim's arguement?




Since when do you need a map of Chicago to tell a story set in Chicago?  Is a map of Chicago strictly necessary to telling a story there, or could we not hand wave the map and tell the story anyway?  Why do you think that you need, or why do you feel a need, to look at a map?  When you answer question honestly, I think you'll come a long way to seeing why my definition of world building is a good one, and Mr. Harrison's rant is so laughable - or would be if it wasn't so serious.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Since he's included the reader in his little tirade, then it follows that he is only talking about the finished work.




Oh, I agree that he is saying that worldbuilding results in a finished work that "numbs the reader’s ability to fulfil their part of the bargain" -- but this doesn't actually require anything specific in the text.  He didn't write "long monologues of detail numb the reader's abilitity to fulfil their part of the bargain" (a statement that I would agree with in a general, if not an absolute, sense).

There is nothing in Mr. H's quote that differentiates it from saying, for example, "The inclusion of self-consistent details numbs the reader’s ability to fulfil their part of the bargain" and, from what I understand about the man's philosophy of writing, this seems more likely to be what he is saying to me.

But, if I were to accept that what he wanted to say was instead "long monologues of detail numb the reader's abilitity to fulfil their part of the bargain", then I will go with the general consensus and agree that he has said nothing controvertial or interesting at all.



> It's when you spend several hundred pages detailing the geneology of characters that don't even appear in the text.




However could you include, in the text, the geneology of characters that don't appear in the text?    



> RC, you've now included simple research into the act of world building.  If I look at a map of Chicago for my Vampire game, does that mean I'm now engaged in world building?  Since when did the creation of every piece of setting become world building?  Does setting=world building only become true because it serves Celebrim's arguement?




I think if you go upthread, you'll see that my position on this is consistent.  Creating the specific details of a setting is worldbuilding.  You could use generic details, but the results would be far less satisfying.  If you then try to take that map and include actual buildings or features of the landscape (statues, whatnot), you are doing even more worldbuilding.

Also, FYI, Howard did _extensive_ research.  One might even say _exhaustive_.  He clearly enjoyed that part of writing.    


RC


----------



## Celebrim

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There is nothing in Mr. H's quote that differentiates it from saying, for example, "The inclusion of self-consistent details numbs the reader’s ability to fulfil their part of the bargain" and, from what I understand about the man's philosophy of writing, this seems more likely to be what he is saying to me.
> 
> But, if I were to accept that what he wanted to say was instead "long monologues of detail numb the reader's abilitity to fulfil their part of the bargain", then I will go with the general consensus and agree that he has said nothing controvertial or interesting at all.




QFT


----------



## papastebu

I've just had a revelation.
World-building is bad, because, where are you going to put it when you're done?
Where are you going to STORE it while you're working on it?
It's a WORLD, for Pete's sake!


----------



## Mallus

Celebrim said:
			
		

> World building inspires the imagination of the writer and engages the mind of the reader and encourages in the active participation in the shared imaginary space that contains the writers thoughts and musings, because it shows the reader that this mental space is a serious and important one and that thought was put into it and that is worthy of consideration and even study.



None of that neccessarily follows. It's a statement of something _you_ (and I, as a matter of fact), enjoy, that isn't shared by the majority of readers (though it is by an overwhelming number of Tolkien readers).

Worldbuilding, in the sense you mean it, engages readers who are looking for that out of literature, much in the same gay pornography engages those who enjoy it, and usually repels those who don't.

Worldbuilding of this kind is _particular_ to the literature of the fantastic. It's a categorically different enterprise from Joyce's or Dickens's, or any writers who's thrown open a window and trying to puzzle out what's _outside_ and their relationship to it.



> Far from numbing the reader's imagination, world building encourages the reader to match the consideration and effort the writer put into the story with consideration and effort of his own



Only if the reader cares to do so. If they're only in for "human drama", or, say for a more fetishistic engagment with genre tropes ("I like books with spaceman and dinosaurs!"), then all that careful considered worldcrafting amounts to a hill of beans, err words.



> ...whereas a story which does not have these features discourages the reader from exploring the mental space because it obvious that _what is present is all that is there_ and that beyond those frames is vacuuity of substance or of thought.



And clearly, the longer the poem is, the better. 

It's like you've inverted the old addage about stories being like icebergs; only the tip is visible while the bulk lies unseen beneth the water. You prefer icebergs that have been hauled onto the land and dumped in your lap. Which is cool. I guess. 



> - such Joyce's exhuastive detailing of his beloved Dublin



But there's more going on there. It's not just a tourist map of Dublin, its also a map of Western civ. 



> or Tolkiens epic paen to medieval literature, Catholocism and the English countryside.



And there's decidely less going on here. There's so much missing from Middle Earth, so much basic human drama, human nature,so much of _this_ world... while that doesn't diminish it as a triumph of the imagination, it places it in a whole other category than Ulysses, or the plays of Shakespeare, or even Grey's Anatomy, for Pete's sake. 

Gah... I'm going in circles.

I find pleasure in the result of that kind of worldbuilding.

Harrison doesn't think it's a worthwhile use of the novel.

I don't agree, but I do note that its a very specific kind of enjoyment I get from immersing myself in the minutiae present  of genre fiction. While the though of a whaling treatise bores me to tears, I'll gladly learn the name of the various Gundam units, or elf runes, or the weapon systems used by the Federation and it's enemies. I'm curious as to why? It's not rightly, _fiction_. It's related to it, but outside... like Tolkien's hobbit toast-buttering songs.


----------



## Celebrim

Gah.  It's a shame that this thread is so interesting.  Moth to the flame and all... 



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> None of that neccessarily follows. It's a statement of something _you_ (and I, as a matter of fact), enjoy, that isn't shared by the majority of readers (though it is by an overwhelming number of Tolkien readers).




I find your appeals to populist arguments very self-serving, because you have in this thread inclined to decry popularity as a test of fitness when it suits your purpose and adopt an elitist stance on what is worthy literature.  But never mind that, just what block of readers are you claiming is larger than Tolkien readers?  Harry Potter readers?  Where are this great majority of readers that doesn't include people who don't enjoy what I refer to in my statement?  It's not like I'm talking about small minorities of the readership here.



> Worldbuilding, in the sense you mean it, engages readers who are looking for that out of literature, much in the same gay pornography engages those who enjoy it, and usually repels those who don't.




LOL LOL.  I don't know who should be more offended by that, but it rather reminds me of Mr. Harrison's finale of 'World builders are like George Bush!' and its just as funny. 



> Worldbuilding of this kind is _particular_ to the literature of the fantastic.




No it is not.  It is more evident in speculative fiction, which Guy Gabriel Kay has pointed out in writing more eloquent than mine, is not that descriptive of a term since fiction is by its very nature speculative.  But what it is really particular to is 'illusionism', which I what I call the desire of the writer to create the sense in the reader that the fiction is true on some level and not merely fiction (there may be some more widespread accepted term, and if so I'd be happy to hear it).  



> It's a categorically different enterprise from Joyce's or Dickens's, or any writers who's thrown open a window and trying to puzzle out what's _outside_ and their relationship to it.




First of all, not only do I disagree that it is a categorically different enterprise, but Mr. Harrison's essay does appear to regard the two enterprises as being different - which is entirely what you would expect of a writer who is ranting against illusionism in general and not the use of the fantastic in fiction.  And of course, this is what you'd expect of a writer who has used the fantastic to write novels exploring and attacking illusionism.

And for that matter, aren't modernists more noted for throwing open the window and trying to puzzle out what's _inside_ and thier relationship to it?  Do you seriously think that Tolkien is not trying to puzzle out his relationship to what is outside him?  I baffled by that perspective.



> Only if the reader cares to do so.




Well, yes.   



> It's like you've inverted the old addage about stories being like icebergs; only the tip is visible while the bulk lies unseen beneth the water. You prefer icebergs that have been hauled onto the land and dumped in your lap.




I believe that I in fact said the opposite.  A story without world building is like an iceberg which is entirely floating on the surface.  Everything to be seen is seen.



> But there's more going on there. It's not just a tourist map of Dublin, its also a map of Western civ.




And the Lord of the Rings isn't?  And for that matter, the claim that its not merely a map of Dublin but also of Western civilization is supposed to convince me less world building is involved?



> And there's decidely less going on here. There's so much missing from Middle Earth, so much basic human drama...




LOL.  Oh, dear.  I hold a quite different opinion.  Much of what you praise as human drama, strikes me as characters being dragged around doing things merely to serve the needs of the story, and not because it seems like something people are likely to do.  Which is why, to bring them back up, the characters in the Great Gatsby seem so shallow and hollow and difficult to relate to to me.  They have to be in order to serve the writers needs, which is to create a paticular bit of illusionism regarding what it is like to have been in aristocratic rural NY in the 1920's - even though we can feel fairly certain that it really wouldn't have been like that because real life is seldom so like a story.  To use a modern example of this sort of 'human drama', in the 'Gillmore Girls' Lorelai, Luke, and Chris don't have these tempetuous break ups because the characters are real people acting in realistic ways (although the authors do alot of world building and other sorts of illusion making to create that appearance), but rather they do these things because it suits the needs of a romantic TV comedy series that its main characters never fully resolve the sexual tension between them.  Like clockwork, as the seasons change so do the characters, and they don't say and do stupid things because people say and do stupid things (although people do) but because they need to have some excuse to break the characters.  And this is typical 'human drama' stories, because in them, if people are honest and don't act preciptiously and speak to each other with consideration then you don't have a story.  You don't have conflict, so you can't have a story.  But rarely do these conflicts ever strike home to me, but rather they always seem as contrived as an Oscar Wilde play - which incidently I'd rather watch than most so called 'human dramas'.



> I don't agree, but I do note that its a very specific kind of enjoyment I get from immersing myself in the minutiae present  of genre fiction. While the though of a whaling treatise bores me to tears, I'll gladly learn the name of the various Gundam units, or elf runes, or the weapon systems used by the Federation and it's enemies.




It's funny, but I don't.  I'm courious as to why you think that is all there is to see?  



> I'm curious as to why? It's not rightly, _fiction_. It's related to it, but outside... like Tolkien's hobbit toast-buttering songs.




A phrase you keep tiresomely using, even though said songs don't in fact exist and those Hobbit songs which do exist and are not disguised exposition, take up no more than about 2-3 pages of the whole work.  Besides which, you'll get no complaints from me criticizing the quality of Tolkien's poetry, although its worth pointing out that most of his poetry is in fact disguised English folks songs right down to the tune.


----------



## Mallus

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I find your appeals to populist arguments very self-serving, because you have in this thread inclined to decry popularity as a test of fitness when it suits your purpose and adopt an elitist stance on what is worthy literature.



Me, self-serving? Never...

I wasn't making a populist appeal, just an observation based on my experiences as a reader and cultural observer (I get to call myself that, I used to subscribe to the New Yorker  ).

Fiction that involves meticulously-detailed, wholly imaginary worlds is in the minority. It's a niche, outside the bounds of 'mainstream realism'. Ergo, quite a lot of readers are looking for something else out of fiction.

And I've strenously tried to avoid elitism in my posts --unlike _some_ people. Basically, all I've said with regards to literary merit was the Gatsby is concise, LotR is not, different works have different goals, methods, and thus resulting pleasures. And that Harrison's comments are more widely applicable than you claimed. Which, curiously enough, aren't value judgments.



> I don't know who should be more offended by that...



I should be offended. You implied I wasn't funny!

Semi-seriously though, I know quite a few straight people, including the friend who I co-created my current game world with, not to mention my lovely wife, who'd gladly read gay pornography, but couldn't be forced into finishing _Fellowship of the Ring_, or _Dune_.



> But what it is really particular to is 'illusionism', which I what I call the desire of the writer to create the sense in the reader that the fiction is true on some level and not merely fiction



It's not just a matter of trying to creative a convincing fictional space --the 'fictive dream' -- it's a matter of how you go about doing it. Maybe it's best to think of Harrisons as attacking a specific methodology common in F/SF



> First of all, not only do I disagree that it is a categorically different enterprise



Why? How can chronicling Dublin _not_ be inherently different from, say, Minas Tirinth?



> And of course, this is what you'd expect of a writer who has used the fantastic to write novels exploring and attacking illusionism.



So your research includes actually _reading_ Mr. Harrison's books?



> Do you seriously think that Tolkien is not trying to puzzle out his relationship to what is outside him?



In an word, yes. Or if he is, he's doing so in a way that shuts me, as the reader, out. All I can see is the fantastic castle he's pulled out of his toychest. It's lovely, but it looks an awful lot like a retreat from the world around him, particularly the messy, dirty world of adult relationships (contrast this with the fantasies of Shakespeare). 




> A story without world building is like an iceberg which is entirely floating on the surface.



So long as the 'world-building' remains submerged and off the written page, I can agree with you. 



> Much of what you praise as human drama, strikes me as characters being dragged around doing things merely to serve the needs of the story...



What do you consider good human drama, aside from LotR? 



> They have to be in order to serve the writers needs, which is to create a paticular bit of illusionism regarding what it is like to have been in aristocratic rural NY in the 1920's - even though we can feel fairly certain that it really wouldn't have been like that because real life is seldom so like a story.



I can't for the life of me see your point here. We should eschew attempts at mimetic realism?  



> But rarely do these conflicts ever strike home to me, but rather they always seem as contrived as an Oscar Wilde play - which incidently I'd rather watch than most so called 'human dramas'.



Any storytelling mode has its limitations. Can you think of one that doesn't? Sure, TV dramas are contrieved. That doesn't mean that can't offer moments of meaningful drama. The enjoyment of any narrative form is predicated, in part, on looking past the obvious mechanisms flaiing about making it work. News flash: upset people don't really _sing_ like they do in an opera.

BTW, I'm quite fond of Wilde, his embrace of the patently fake is exhilirating. 



> I'm courious as to why you think that is all there is to see?



I never said such minutiae was all there was to see, I said those kinds of things fascinated me.



> A phrase you keep tiresomely using...



It amuses me to no end. 



> ...take up no more than about 2-3 pages of the whole work.



I demand a recount!

(I'm going out now to have a proper talk about books. At a bar, with a copious amount of gin and finger pointing)


----------



## LostSoul

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really?  Say we're doing a "Deepest, Darkest Africa" sort of campaign where the players are intrepid explorers cutting their way through vast tracts of jungle.  Sounds like a fun campaign to me.
> 
> Do we really need massive detail about every animal, plant and monster they meet?  Or can they just meet "Random meat eating carnivore #25" once in a while?  Sure, some parts will need to be expanded, that's simply good gaming.  But, again, it takes a back seat to the action of the game.  A ten page treatise on the cultivation habits of the lizardfolk that the party will meet once is not the makings of a good game.




What if the people playing the game are interested in the fictional world - exploring different aspects of it, and how characters from that world would react to the things they find?  If the people are into that kind of thing, then I think worldbuilding is good.  The people playing would need to do some worldbuilding - of aspects that are important to them to discover in the game - in order to have fun (I think).


----------



## Celebrim

Mallus said:
			
		

> Me, self-serving? Never...




LOL.  Normally at this point in a thread's life, I'm inclined to exit stage left and shut up.  I'm still inclined to do so, and my 'better judgement' is telling me I'm a fool for still posting.  Perhaps the reason I'm still posting is that the people seem to be much less stupid than the sort I'm normally going around in circles with.



> I wasn't making a populist appeal, just an observation based on my experiences as a reader and cultural observer (I get to call myself that, I used to subscribe to the New Yorker  ).




LOL.



> It's a niche, outside the bounds of 'mainstream realism'. Ergo, quite a lot of readers are looking for something else out of fiction.




My impression is that what you call 'mainstream realism' is not very mainstream.  Mainstream is more likely to be bodice rippers than literary realism.



> I should be offended. You implied I wasn't funny!




I only implied that you were less funny than Harrison.  But you are more deserving of a laugh, because you come off as far less of an ass.



> Why? How can chronicling Dublin _not_ be inherently different from, say, Minas Tirinth?




Well, other than the one big difference that you and I would be inclined to say that Dublin is real (though, in point of fact, I've never been there), the process need not be inherently different.  Supposing I wanted to write a novel in 1950's Los Angeles.  Well, 1950's Los Angeles no more exists than does Minas Tirith.  I can't go to either one and produce it.  I have to create a simulation of either one if it is to get to the page.  And for that matter, I can't put the real Dublin or Los Angeles of today on the page either.  It's still also a simulation of the real thing.



> So your research includes actually _reading_ Mr. Harrison's books?




(Again) No, but it does include reading what the man says about his works and self.  I'd queue up one of his works, but the word of mouth thus far hasn't been very good.  Maybe when I next get down to the library and can't find anything else.



> In an word, yes. Or if he is, he's doing so in a way that shuts me, as the reader, out. All I can see is the fantastic castle he's pulled out of his toychest. It's lovely, but it looks an awful lot like a retreat from the world around him, particularly the messy, dirty world of adult relationships (contrast this with the fantasies of Shakespeare).




Well, I agree its a retreat from messy dirtiness in its own way, as he's something of a Luddite, but it isn't a retreat from adult relationships or any of thier messiness.  With that I can't agree.  I see a whole lot of adults acting with alot of adult responcibility and carrying alot of adult concerns.  That is, unless you define adult relationships as inherently disfunctional and define adult as infantile (which seems typical of 'drama'), in which case I can kinda maybe see your point.



> What do you consider good human drama, aside from LotR?




Now that is a very good question, as I generally dislike the sort of thing that passes for 'human drama' and don't generally think of what I like in those terms.  Tragedy.  Sure.  Comedy.  Sure.  But drama?   I usually think of drama as being a story in which there is nothing more at stake than something petty, usually solely because of the character's pettyness, and that the author rather than making light of our folly or madness as humans seems to be taking the whole thing far too seriously as if that sort of behavior was a thing to be considered normal or even laudatory.  Drama is comedy without the punch line or wit.  You mention Shakespeare, whom I like very much.  Is he drama?  If so, I like Shakespeare.  Perhaps it is best just to list a few authors greatly I admire and let you decide if there is anything that meets your definition of drama in that: Hugo, Twain, Steinbeck, Jane Austen, Silverburg, Iain M. Banks, Tim O'Brian, Dickens, Kipling, Faulkner, Wolfe, Steven Pressfield.  Expanding out to movies, I like very much Casablanca, The Sound of Music, Chariots of Fire, Sense and Sensibility, and The Incredibles.  I'm not sure if there is any drama in that either.



> We should eschew attempts at mimetic realism?




No, I believe that that was Harrison's point so far as I could understand it.  Incidently, where Mr. Harrison and I may agree is that we should eschew the illusion of realism of a certain sort as a standard for judging the literary merit of a work.  



> That doesn't mean that can't offer moments of meaningful drama.




I didn't say that they didn't.  I pretty clearly implied that I watched Gillmore girls at least on occassion and found something of merit there (jumped the shark several seasons ago though).  I just implied that I find them at least no less fantastic, nor more relevant to my life, and no more realistic than Lord of the Rings.   



> (I'm going out now to have a proper talk about books. At a bar, with a copious amount of gin and finger pointing)




That sounds like a very good plan, though I generally drink whiskey rather than gin.


----------



## Hussar

Just a thought about Conan and world building.

One of the stock descriptions of Conan is the last son of Atlantis.  (or something to that effect.)  It's a great line, properly mythic that turns Conan from just a big barbarian to something of a superhero.  Yet, throughout the Conan stories, Atlantis is never explored.  No information is given about Atlantis.  It is left entirely to the reader to gain meaning  from the line.  In other words, the work hasn't been done for the reader.

If Howard was a world builder, we would have at least a few paragraphs detailing the history of the rise and eventual fall of Atlantis.  We'd have a few bits about Conan's ancestors and how they relate to Atlantis.  But we don't.  The whole bit is reduced to a line or two and left to the reader.

I believe that Celebrim would call this world building since it is creating setting elements that don't directly relate to the plot.  I would not.  I call it creating setting elements.  How can it be world building if you are never actually building the world?  ((Appologies to C if I'm still getting his point wrong - I honestly did think this was what you meant))

I cannot possibly be the only reader of Tolkien who skips large numbers of paragraphs to avoid going to sleep.  I couldn't possibly care less about the culinary habits of hobbits.  I love LOTR and The Hobbit because they are really damn good stories.  Or, to put it another way, I love them _despite_ the world building elements in them.  And I don't think I'm alone in this.  

Fantasy lit is littered with ubiquitous trilogies that could be chopped down to a single book if authors would stop filling them with superflous setting elements in an attempt to show the world how incredibly clever they are.  I adore Tad Williams, I really do.  But, as I've gotten older, I realize how incredibly boring the Dragonbone Chair series is.  It's filled with filler.  Read Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard and tell me that world building is a good thing.   

Contrast Tad Williams with Steven Erikson.  Both write very long winded series of books.  But, where Tad Williams devotes paragraph after paragraph detailing setting elements, Erikson's books read like Robert Howard - full of action with sparse, but meaningful detail.  

I used to adore those world building books.  Dragonlance, Williams, Anne MacCaffery, Anne Rice just to name a few.  Now, my tastes run to much more focused writing and usually much shorter fiction.  Give me short stories over 10000 page multivolume novels pretty much any time.

The little screed on the first page of this thread pretty much nails on the head why, for me.  I have so little interest in seeing how smart some writer thinks he is anymore.  Exploring yet another setting with unpronounceable names and half arsed history does not appeal to me anymore.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:
			
		

> I cannot possibly be the only reader of Tolkien who skips large numbers of paragraphs to avoid going to sleep.  I couldn't possibly care less about the culinary habits of hobbits.  I love LOTR and The Hobbit because they are really damn good stories.  Or, to put it another way, I love them _despite_ the world building elements in them.  And I don't think I'm alone in this.




Just because you aren't alone in thinking something, doesn't make you right.  or, more to the point, it doesn't mean the opposing view(s) are wrong.  Being bored by Tolkien isn't wrong, and is only indicative of a preference.  But that doesn't mean worldbuilding is bad and should be abolished or that the Lord of the Rings is ruined because Tolkien built his world in its pages.  Quite the opposite, actually.

Ultimately, the guy quoted is some hack who spouted off his unfounded opinion on his personal blog.  It wasn't an essay in Locus or some academic journal for literary genre fiction.  Had it been, he wouldn't have been a hack, he wouldn't have been spouting off and his opinion wouldn't have been unfounded.  As it stands though, the statement has about much weight as me saying it -- which, is to say, none.


----------



## rounser

> Just because you aren't alone in thinking something, doesn't make you right.



I think it makes him right insofar as a movie or game is concerned.  Like a movie, there is less time available to play a game than to read a novel, so Peter Jackson was very wise in sticking to the story and cleaving away all extraneous stuff like songs and historical anecdotes.  Apart from explanations and flashbacks directly serving the story, the only place where the depth of Middle Earth's history appears is in the look of the movie, uniforms, architecture and the like.

"Don't bore us, get to the chorus" applies to movies just as much as it does to RPGs.  Novels have more luxury of exposition that neither of these other formats can afford.  The flawed attitude of D&D as a "sim-fantasy novel" is far too entrenched in the game's culture to alter at this stage in the game's history, though, because of decades of pretending otherwise.  Extend this to worldbuilding being a sub par use of time even when novel-writing, and it becomes yet more an invalid use of time for purposes of running a D&D game when compared to adventure prep and keyed status quo encounter areas.


----------



## Hussar

Reynard said:
			
		

> Just because you aren't alone in thinking something, doesn't make you right.  or, more to the point, it doesn't mean the opposing view(s) are wrong.  Being bored by Tolkien isn't wrong, and is only indicative of a preference.  But that doesn't mean worldbuilding is bad and should be abolished or that the Lord of the Rings is ruined because Tolkien built his world in its pages.  Quite the opposite, actually.
> 
> Ultimately, the guy quoted is some hack who spouted off his unfounded opinion on his personal blog.  It wasn't an essay in Locus or some academic journal for literary genre fiction.  Had it been, he wouldn't have been a hack, he wouldn't have been spouting off and his opinion wouldn't have been unfounded.  As it stands though, the statement has about much weight as me saying it -- which, is to say, none.




M John Harrison is hardly "some hack".  This guy is a well respected author and winner of numerous literary awards for his fiction.  When authors like Iain Banks, Clive Barker and Catherine Kerr write good things about him, he's not just some random voice.  Just because you don't like what he says, doesn't make him a hack with unfounded opinions.

You're right though, skipping world building parts is a sign of personal preference.  However, if you were to strip all of the extraneous world building elements out of the LOTR and focus on character, plot and setting, you'd have a novel about the length of The Hobbit.  Would it be worse than LOTR?  I don't think so.  I think it would be a heck of a lot better.

I know that people have enshrined Tolkien as the second coming among writers, but, honestly, it does a real disservice to the genre to positively stake out claims that novels without significant world building are bad, bland, boring or any of the other perjorative statements made in this thread.  Numerous novels and stories don't engage in significant world building and are very, very good.  Conan is, IMO, a prime example.  While I know that RC disagrees and sees significant world building within the text, I don't think so.  So much of Hyboria is glossed over and most of the setting elements are left to the reader.  

Here's another example from Conan.  Think of one of the most famous cities in the Conan stories - Shadrizar.  Shadrizar the wicked.  The wicked city.  Not once is it detailed in the stories.  Beyond Shadrizar the Wicked, we know nothing about this city.  IIRC, it isn't even marked on the maps.  It is left entirely to the reader to fill in the blanks and, as readers, we have done so.

Is mentioning Shadrizar without any detail world building?  Not IMO.  It's simply a setting device - a means of telling the reader that the stories take place Somewhere Else.  The same is true for the details RC listed about Tatooine in Star Wars ANH.  None of the elements are explored in the movie.  Heck, we know nothing about the Hutt, other than a name and the fact that Solo owes him money, by the end of SW ANH.  Who or what is a Hutt?  We are never told within the story.  Even by the end of the original trilogy, all we know about the Hutt is that they are bad guys that look like slugs.  Crime lords?  Nope, that comes later in later novels.  Incredibly powerful group?  Nothing in the movies tells us that.  Heck, is Hutt a race or a title?  The movies are silent.  Again, it's left to the audience to determine.

While it's not true that every book that engages in world building is bad. That is, of course, not true.  However, there are a large number of bad fantasy and SF novels that engage in excessive world building.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:
			
		

> M John Harrison is hardly "some hack".  This guy is a well respected author and winner of numerous literary awards for his fiction.  When authors like Iain Banks, Clive Barker and Catherine Kerr write good things about him, he's not just some random voice.  Just because you don't like what he says, doesn't make him a hack with unfounded opinions.




Sorry -- I din't make myself clear.  It was an unfounded opinion from some hack, simply by virtue of it being a (very short) personal blog entry.  Had Harrison extolled on the subject in an appropriate venue -- Locus or a literary magazine, for example -- it would be at least worth considering.  As it stands, though, it's some dude's blog.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Being bored by Tolkien isn't wrong, and is only indicative of a preference.




And the thing that "Mr. H" seems to be pointing out is that those who prefer all this detail are great clomping nerds. Which is fine if that's the only audience you're interested in appealing to. And if your players are all happy being great clomping nerds who are in love with your imagination, I'm not sure that the advice to cut down on worldbuilding is really all that relevant.


----------



## rounser

> It was an unfounded opinion from some hack, simply by virtue of it being a (very short) personal blog entry.



Attacking the media used, coupled with ad hominem attacks on the author are a convenient resort if you don't like the message and cannot otherwise successfully dispute it, I suppose.


----------



## Reynard

rounser said:
			
		

> Attacking the media used, coupled with ad hominem attacks on the author are a convenient resort if you don't like the message and cannot otherwise successfully dispute it, I suppose.




Oh, please.  I am not attacking anyone.  Point me to one -- just one -- personal blog that is expected to be treated like a professional space.  harrison had a thought and shared it on his blog in a very short, not particularly well written little rant.  Had the guy bothered to do it as a 5000 word article on a literary/spec-fic site, I would have read it happily and, even if I didn't agree with it, taken it for what it was -- a well thought out thesis on the nature of literature.  As it is, I take it for what it is -- a not very well thought out, not very well written rant about a subject close to the writer's heart.  So he doesn't like nerds. Yippee.


----------



## rounser

> happy being great clomping nerds who are in love with your imagination



I suspect that it's got more to do with the DM being in love with their own imagination, and their own world.  Who loves making maps, and creating empires that never were?  I know I do.  I wouldn't confuse this with game prep i.e. hard yards spent making adventures, though, _unless_ it's setting prep at the encounter level, which PCs can actually interact with.  Too much time spent on wannabe fantasy writer waffle and too little on opportunities to kill things and take their stuff, with setting detail drawn up as necessary to actually support _that_.

It seems to me that Paizo's adventure paths serve as a large nail in the coffin of the argument that "the world building matters", because they're so easily ported from FR to Eberron to GH.  That should tell you something very important about how redundant most worldbuilding is, and about the amount of effort required to write just the adventure components of a fully fleshed out campaign.


----------



## rounser

> Oh, please. I am not attacking anyone. Point me to one -- just one -- personal blog that is expected to be treated like a professional space.



I don't have to; I was just pointing out that you're shooting the idea down for spurious reasons, like the fact that it's come from a blog, rather than disputing it's merit directly.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Oh, please. I am not attacking anyone. Point me to one -- just one -- personal blog that is expected to be treated like a professional space. harrison had a thought and shared it on his blog in a very short, not particularly well written little rant. Had the guy bothered to do it as a 5000 word article on a literary/spec-fic site, I would have read it happily and, even if I didn't agree with it, taken it for what it was -- a well thought out thesis on the nature of literature. As it is, I take it for what it is -- a not very well thought out, not very well written rant about a subject close to the writer's heart. So he doesn't like nerds. Yippee.




Let's try this again:

*ADDRESS THE MESSAGE, NOT THE SPEAKER*

This is a thread discussing worldbuilding in D&D as seen through the critical lens of a professional builder of imaginary worlds. He's got at least enough cred to spark that discussion. If you don't accept that premise, don't post in the thread, please.


----------



## Hussar

rounser said:
			
		

> *snip*
> Paizo's adventure paths serve as a final nail in the coffin of the argument that "the world matters", because they're so easily ported from FR to Eberron to GH.  That should tell you something very important about how redundant most worldbuilding is, and about the amount of effort required to write just the adventure components of a fully fleshed out campaign.




Ooo, that stings.  

I think I can see where the breakdown in communication is coming from though and it's in the basic definitions we're working from.  Celebrim and I believe RC are working from the position that world building is any setting element which is created that doesn't directly impact the plot.  Again, I'm sorry if that's wrong and please correct me if I am.  That's the position that I think they are taking.

For me, and I believe a few others, world building is just that - building a world.  It's not a throwaway line buried in the middle of dialogue.  It's the attempt to create an entire working world complete with history, society and whatnot. 

 Talking about Andorian Brandy in Star Trek is not world building.  The only things we really know are that it's strongly alchoholic, it's made by blue guys with funny antennae and it's difficult to get.  At no time are we told anything about what is actually in it, how it's made, how it's distributed, or anything else about it.  From a story perspective, the only function it serves is to tell us that in the future, you have to go to space to get a good drink.  

If we were to use world building with Andorian Brandy, we'd know all the extra details about it.  History, what it tastes like, how it's made, what it's made of, etc.  Just like in a Tom Clancy novel we are told the exact methods for creating a bomb in a spectacular show of technoporn.  CSI works much the same way.  There is very little plot or story in any given CSI episode.  Most of the show is technoporn.  Granted, it's very popular, but, certainly lacking in any sort of character development or, I don't know, actual story.  I mean, the last one I watched had them figure out how one guy used his Battle Bot to whack his competitor.  That's scraping the bottom of the barrel.

CSI is popular, but, would anyone here say that it's popular because of the riveting story?  Porn is popular too, but that doesn't make it good.  Setting development in service to the plot is good, IMO.  Setting development for the sake of developing a setting is bad.  It's stageporn.


----------



## rounser

> For me, and I believe a few others, world building is just that - building a world. It's not a throwaway line buried in the middle of dialogue. It's the attempt to create an entire working world complete with history, society and whatnot.



Which is, as many have noted in this thread, a massive waste of time for purposes of actually running a D&D game or writing a novel.  That's what this thread is about.  In the words of Wolfgang Baur:


> Most DMs and designers hate to hear it, but much of the time lavished on history and background is wasted energy. Players never find out who dug the tomb, how the wizard was betrayed by her apprentice, or why the assassin guild changed sides and disappeared. Working on backstory doesn't improve the gameplay experience for anyone but the bards and scholars obsessed with legends or lore. Unless it connects directly to action in the current timeframe (and the PCs have a way of learning it), skip the involved history. Save that for sourcebooks.
> 
> This is not to say cut it all. Details of which faction can be turned against another, which guard might take a bribe, or what the villain ultimately plans to do if the party doesn't stop him are all appropriate. Make sure your backstory is recent and relevant; avoid anything that starts "Thousands of years ago..."



Dungeoncraft and the author quoted by the OP fill in further blanks that amount to "don't even bother with the sourcebooks".  I'm inclined to agree, don't prepare more macro-level setting material than you have to when there's far better ways to spend finite time, effort and focus (like on adventures, or encounter level "bottom-up" setting development), and worldbuilding is a massive violation of these very sensible principles.  Worldbuilding as an end in it's own right is fine and fun, but I don't think it should be given the title of game prep except in a wishful thinking sense.


----------



## FireLance

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not unlike the vehement, almost fanatical, responses of some when J. Swift suggested Scottish landlords eat their tenant's babies?  Did that mean that he was onto something?
> 
> Or, if I say "3.5 Sucks" and I receive vehement, almost fanatical, responses, does that mean 3.5 _actually_ sucks?  Or does it mean that I am wrong, and a lot of people want to tell me so?
> 
> I think the latter is more likely than the former, don't you?



Your first example doesn't really help, because the implication is that he is on to something when he says that worldbuilding is bad. 

As for your second example, it just means that a lot of people think you are wrong. However, if they start attacking you instead of your opinion, a third party may wonder why they are being so defensive. After all, no religious figures were mocked, and no illegal acts were alleged.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Hussar said:
			
		

> Celebrim and I believe RC are working from the position that world building is any setting element which is created that doesn't directly impact the plot.




I think that's far too broad of a definition, and certainly doesn't seem to be what Harrison is talking about. Worldbuilding insofar as Harrison is using the word seems to mean "developing setting elements for the purposes of developing setting elements." There's reasons for those elements to exist other than plot (character development, verisimilitude, what have you), but they all have to do ultimately with telling the story. They're not just developed for the sake of building the world. When they loose that purpose, they become "worldbuilding," that the goal is to catalogue a fictional imaginary place and not to play a game or tell a story.



> CSI is popular, but, would anyone here say that it's popular because of the riveting story? Porn is popular too, but that doesn't make it good. Setting development in service to the plot is good, IMO. Setting development for the sake of developing a setting is bad. It's stageporn.




Not bad. And like I posted above, if all you're trying to do is entertain great clomping nerds, I'm not sure the advise is that relevant, since nerds do love that stuff.  And, unlike writing, D&D is not trying to attain some creative pinnacle of art, it's just trying to have some friends have fun. 

To extend the analogy, porn works for what it does, and that's all it really sets out to do. It's good at it's purpose, but it's purpose isn't to create high art, it's to titillate the viewers. Similarly, I don't think D&D's purpose is to manifest the next great work of literature, it's to amuse some friends on a Saturday night.

I think that's really where Harrison's criticism reaches it's breaking point for relevance to D&D. And it perhaps goes a certain extent to showing why D&D novels so often are literary stinkbombs.


----------



## Reynard

rounser said:
			
		

> Which is, as many have noted in this thread, a massive waste of time for purposes of actually running a D&D game or writing a novel.  That's what this thread is about.




I shudder to imagine what sort of novels you think are "good".


----------



## rounser

> I shudder to imagine what sort of novels you think are "good".



As indeed you should.  Shudder in your boots...in your boots I say!  (Bwahahahaha)


----------



## Darth Shoju

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And the thing that "Mr. H" seems to be pointing out is that those who prefer all this detail are great clomping nerds. Which is fine if that's the only audience you're interested in appealing to. And if your players are all happy being great clomping nerds who are in love with your imagination, I'm not sure that the advice to cut down on worldbuilding is really all that relevant.






			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Let's try this again:
> 
> *ADDRESS THE MESSAGE, NOT THE SPEAKER*
> 
> This is a thread discussing worldbuilding in D&D as seen through the critical lens of a professional builder of imaginary worlds. He's got at least enough cred to spark that discussion. If you don't accept that premise, don't post in the thread, please.




It's tough not to go after "Mr. H" when people keep bringing up the "great clomping nerds" bit. I've got news for him: the majority of the world likely thinks him a great clomping nerd regardless of what he thinks of "world building". And those same people would likely read the first few posts of this thread (if they could be convinced to come here in the first place) and then roll their eyes and call us all losers. I'm not saying they would be right, but let's keep this in perspective and cut all the nerd-on-nerd hate, ok?


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> I cannot possibly be the only reader of Tolkien who skips large numbers of paragraphs to avoid going to sleep.  I couldn't possibly care less about the culinary habits of hobbits.  I love LOTR and The Hobbit because they are really damn good stories.  Or, to put it another way, I love them _despite_ the world building elements in them.  And I don't think I'm alone in this.




Probably not, but I don't see how that proves your point.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Fantasy lit is littered with ubiquitous trilogies that could be chopped down to a single book if authors would stop filling them with superflous setting elements in an attempt to show the world how incredibly clever they are.  I adore Tad Williams, I really do.  But, as I've gotten older, I realize how incredibly boring the Dragonbone Chair series is.  It's filled with filler.  Read Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard and tell me that world building is a good thing.




So because Hubbard can't write decent setting detail it makes it a bad thing?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Contrast Tad Williams with Steven Erikson.  Both write very long winded series of books.  But, where Tad Williams devotes paragraph after paragraph detailing setting elements, Erikson's books read like Robert Howard - full of action with sparse, but meaningful detail.




Meaningful to you perhaps. Frankly The Dragonbone Chair trilogy is one of my favourite fantasy series of all time. I enjoy the setting development and can guarantee it wouldn't have had the same impact on me without it (although I will concede that it is too slow at the beginning).  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I have so little interest in seeing how smart some writer thinks he is anymore.  Exploring yet another setting with unpronounceable names and half arsed history does not appeal to me anymore.




Honestly I pretty much agree with the idea that when designing an adventure/writing a story you need to prioritize the adventure/story itself over the world building. I get that. But saying it the way you did above devalues your opinion to me and makes it really hard for me to agree with you. 

I guess I just don't understand what the debate is here. If someone enjoys fleshing out their setting in their own time, why is that a bad thing? As long as they design an enjoyable adventure and know how to get down to business when doing so what bloody difference does it make? I'll have to admit to skipping large chunks of this thread, but is anyone really advocating the reverse?


----------



## Psion

Another angle on this:

As a GM, world building is crucial to me. Not just because it supports play, but because it's the ground in which I stake my emotional investment in the setting.

The less time I invest in the setting, the less I care about it, the less of that comes through when running the game, the less fun the game is.


Back to the context of speculative fiction:

Tolkien's getting waved around a lot, but let me pull up another example. Peter Hamilton is a current SF author who has a penchant for lavish, detailed worlds. I find the depth with which he relays his setting as a pure pleasure. If feel more involved with the setting, and knowing the setting better frames the action in my mind.


----------



## Abisashi

Psion said:
			
		

> Peter Hamilton is a current SF author who has a penchant for lavish, detailed worlds. I find the depth with which he relays his setting as a pure pleasure. If feel more involved with the setting, and knowing the setting better frames the action in my mind.





I just looked up Hamilton on Wikipedia, and, after reading the synopsis of Fallen Dragon, ordered it on Amazon. Thanks for the recomendation (intentional or not)!


----------



## The Shaman

rounser said:
			
		

> It seems to me that Paizo's adventure paths serve as a large nail in the coffin of the argument that "the world building matters", because they're so easily ported from FR to Eberron to GH.  That should tell you something very important about how redundant most worldbuilding is, and about the amount of effort required to write just the adventure components of a fully fleshed out campaign.



Uh, sorry, but no - this ignores the fact that all bog-standard _D&D_ games begin with quite a catalog of shared assumptions, which gives adventure portability home-field advantage.

My 3.0 setting did not have dragons. How easily would "Age of Worms" drop into my game?

World-building may be used to expand upon a setting (i.e., my aforementioned star system detailing), or it may be used to create something that deviates from some to many of the core assumptions inherent in the default setting details.


----------



## The Shaman

rounser said:
			
		

> Worldbuilding as an end in it's own right is fine and fun, but I don't think it should be given the title of game prep except in a wishful thinking sense.



I disagree.

Going back to my _Traveller_ example, working out the details of the star systems inspired literally dozens of ideas for challenges that I didn't have before I started. Building the worlds helped me to visualize what the players might encounter and why, which translates directly into the experience of playing the game.


----------



## rounser

> My 3.0 setting did not have dragons. How easily would "Age of Worms" drop into my game?



This is exactly the cart-before-the-horse traditional way of doing things, IMO.  It's my view that thinking this way is back to front, that the adventure needs should be finalised first (or at least conceived of roughly in advance), and the setting created to suit those needs.  

Adventure should trump setting if running a good D&D campaign is your objective, IMO, because plainly adventure is simply much more important to gameplay than setting.  I know that this attitude is heresy for a lot of those engaged in this thread, but it makes a lot more sense than the traditional approach of setting uber alles.


----------



## rounser

> Going back to my Traveller example, working out the details of the star systems inspired literally dozens of ideas for challenges that I didn't have before I started. Building the worlds helped me to visualize what the players might encounter and why, which translates directly into the experience of playing the game.



It also straitjackets the types of adventures that can take place.  If you put the question "what adventures do I want to run in this campaign" first and foremost, and brainstorm, you should have a heap of cool ideas that you otherwise wouldn't even consider because they don't fit the setting you've arbitrarily decided to use.  For example, you might come up with:

Gladiatorial games where the monsters escape and run amok
Egyptianesque necropolis full of undead
Dolmen gate network used by shadow druids
A flying citadel of avariel bandits

...but you may not even consider these ideas in the "campaign world first" approach because your world doesn't have cultures with gladiators nor egyptianesque undead, nor avariel or dolmens scattered around the countryside for the shadow druids.  Or at least, not all in the same area.  You could make a decision to make the campaign world flexible, and put them all in the same area, but it's no longer serving much of a purpose if you have to break it's themes to run the adventures you'd like.

Notice also, that the adventures have _inspired the campaign world_, perhaps moreso than if you'd done it the other way around, so the converse of your defense of the "worldbuild first, shoehorn in adventures second" approach is also valid.


----------



## Abisashi

rounser said:
			
		

> It also straitjackets the types of adventures that can take place.  If you put the question "what adventures do I want to run in this campaign" first and foremost, and brainstorm, you should have a heap of cool ideas that you otherwise wouldn't even consider because they don't fit the setting you've arbitrarily decided to use.




This assumes that he will be more creative if he has no restrictions. My understanding is that the opposite is true - restriction breeds creativity.

Edit: If necessary, he can always go back and modify the setting a bit if his setup leads him to an idea that doesn't quite fit.


----------



## rounser

> This assumes that he will be more creative if he has no restrictions. My understanding is that the opposite is true - restriction breeds creativity.



That sword cuts both ways.  If your setting is restricted by the needs of the adventures, then maybe you'll get a better setting in the end because it'll be more creative because it's restricted by adventure needs, as well it should be.  

Setting is just the board that the game is played on, it shouldn't define _what the game is_.  It's as ridiculous as building stage props, and then going "hmm, what script will fit with these props I've come up with" instead of custom building the props you actually need, as the script calls for them.  And with the "adventures first" approach, you get a lot more control over the campaign arc, because you're not slaved to merely what is possible within the arbitrary parameters defined by worldbuilding.


----------



## Abisashi

rounser said:
			
		

> That sword cuts both ways.  If your setting is restricted by the needs of the adventures, then maybe you'll get a better setting in the end because it'll be more creative because it's restricted by adventure needs, as well it should be.




You certainly could - but if the primary goal is to have cool adventures, this isn't that exciting.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Setting is just the board that the game is played on, it shouldn't define _what the game is_.  It's as ridiculous as building stage props, and then going "hmm, what script will fit with these props I've come up with" instead of custom building the props you actually need, as the script calls for them.




I disagree that that would be ridiculous - I think you might come up with unique ideas that you wouldn't normally think of.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> And with the "adventures first" approach, you get a lot more control over the campaign arc, because you're not slaved to merely what is possible within the arbitrary parameters defined by worldbuilding.




Most worldbuilding still leaves a lot of room for adventure design, and again, the arbitrary parameters may create much more interesting adventures than you would normally come up with.

Certainly, one could create an overly-constrained world, but that doesn't mean worldbuilding is always bad. The same goes for being completely inflexible or bludgeoning the players over the head with the setting.


----------



## Mishihari Lord

rounser said:
			
		

> That sword cuts both ways.  If your setting is restricted by the needs of the adventures, then maybe you'll get a better setting in the end because it'll be more creative because it's restricted by adventure needs, as well it should be.
> 
> Setting is just the board that the game is played on, it shouldn't define _what the game is_.  It's as ridiculous as building stage props, and then going "hmm, what script will fit with these props I've come up with" instead of custom building the props you actually need, as the script calls for them.  And with the "adventures first" approach, you get a lot more control over the campaign arc, because you're not slaved to merely what is possible within the arbitrary parameters defined by worldbuilding.




The approach you're advocating is entirely too much work.  I'd like to build my setting once and then use it for a whole bunch of adventures.  Building a world for every adventure is impractical, and changing the setting for every adventure damages verisimilitude.  Besides, as someone already stated, restrictions encourage creativity.  Given a setting, I can come up with all sorts of adventures that I would never have thought of without the context of a given setting.  So what if some ideas I have don't fit the setting?  Good adventure ideas are cheap:  you can come up with dozens in just a few minutes.


----------



## rounser

> You certainly could - but if the primary goal is to have cool adventures, this isn't that exciting.



You guys are the ones enamored with setting.  I'll go with the freewheeling, serve up what the adventures need setting over your straitjacket any day.


> I think you might come up with unique ideas that you wouldn't normally think of.



No, you'd normally think of them because your way is the traditional way.  By throwing off the shackles of setting you'd come up with "unique ideas you wouldn't normally think of", because you'd otherwise be only framing ideas in terms of the setting.  As usual.


> The approach you're advocating is entirely too much work. I'd like to build my setting once and then use it for a whole bunch of adventures. Building a world for every adventure is impractical, and changing the setting for every adventure damages verisimilitude.



Then you're doing entirely too much worldbuilding than is needed to support a D&D campaign; refer to earlier in this thread.

As far as work goes, an entire campaign's worth of adventures, written up, should dwarf the setting notes required.  If it's the other way around for you, I suspect that your priorities perhaps need to be reviewed.


> Besides, as someone already stated, restrictions encourage creativity.



This is an argument from last resort; I've stated already that it goes nowhere, because the converse is also true - a setting restricted by adventure needs will be embiggened by your logic, and I know how much importance you guys place on setting.


> Good adventure ideas are cheap: you can come up with dozens in just a few minutes.



Ideas in general are cheap; it's the following through that counts, and it's much harder to write a good adventure than good setting material.  I could also say that setting ideas are cheap.  Why is your world so precious to you?  You don't "play" a world, you "play" an adventure and a campaign arc.  Why are your priorities set that way?  I suspect the answer is, "because worldbuilding is fun" and "because that's the way it's always been done".


----------



## Imaro

Decided to take a break from the Dungeon/Dragon wars annd get back to this thread. 



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> You guys are the ones enamored with setting.  I'll go with the freewheeling, serve up what the adventures need setting over your straitjacket any day.




See and I think this is totally a matter of prefrence.  I'll bring up another media as an example...videogames.  Don't know if anyones ever played the Jade Empire rpg, but alot of it's appeal is the world.  It is a pseudo-chinese based rpg and exploring said world is just as fun as going through the actual "main quests".  In fact probably moreso because I wasn't that familiar with the cultural assumptions(as far as fantasy goes) associated with it's genre,



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> No, you'd normally think of them because your way is the traditional way.  By throwing off the shackles of setting you'd come up with "unique ideas you wouldn't normally think of", because you'd otherwise be only framing ideas in terms of the setting.  As usual.




Who said a "unique" idea is a good one.  A child in 1st grade can write a story full of wild adventure,and unique ideas but is it good?  Throwing adventure after adventure together on a piece of paper with unrestrained "creativity" doesn't always make a game good.  



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Then you're doing entirely too much worldbuilding than is needed to support a D&D campaign; refer to earlier in this thread.




In your oppinion. How can you claim what is needed if you really aren't railroading your characters?



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> As far as work goes, an entire campaign's worth of adventures, written up, should dwarf the setting notes required.  If it's the other way around for you, I suspect that your priorities perhaps need to be reviewed.




How can you state what someone's priorities should be in designing their game.  Why should adventure notes( and adventure lasting 1-2 sessions) be more exspansive than a world, somewhere  that you're playing for months or even years in?  I think a DM/GM not doing worldbuilding is one that will sooner or later be ill-prepared for a tangent, question, etc.  
Yeah you could just make it up...but there's always the chance some detail your players pick up on will be inconsistent...or it could even establish something(without much forethought) that could have ramifications later in your game that weren't apparent when you ad-hoced the idea.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> This is an argument from last resort; I've stated already that it goes nowhere, because the converse is also true - a setting restricted by adventure needs will be embiggened by your logic, and I know how much importance you guys place on setting.




What about the fact that a "setting" can help to keep a GM focused and consistent within a creative framework.  Adventures don't do that.  This was sort of the design ideology of 1st ed. AD&D...wild(oftentimes silly and non-sensical) adventures, unrestrained in their creatiivity.  This was great when I was younger, but sorry as a player and GM nowI want a little more versimilitude than this provides.  



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Ideas in general are cheap; it's the following through that counts, and it's much harder to write a good adventure than good setting material.  I could also say that setting ideas are cheap.  Why is your world so precious to you?  You don't "play" a world, you "play" an adventure and a campaign arc.  Why are your priorities set that way?  I suspect the answer is, "because worldbuilding is fun" and "because that's the way it's always been done".




I would beg to differ here, I play in a world for much longer than I'll play in any single adventure.  I thin world building structures a GM's design of adventures so you don't get jarring contradictions.  Ex.  We're playing in a roman-esque game of political intrigue, devastating wars and social manipulation.  That week the GM sees "Killer Clowns from Outer Space" and decides to create an adventure based on these beings attacking the empire.  Unless we've already established we're playing D&D Toon or something...Yeah it might be creative but it's jarring, inconsistent, and will have ramifications later in the campaign.  On the other hand if he sticks to the "setting" he's created this type of thing is much less likely to happen.


----------



## Psion

Abisashi said:
			
		

> I just looked up Hamilton on Wikipedia, and, after reading the synopsis of Fallen Dragon, ordered it on Amazon. Thanks for the recomendation (intentional or not)!




Cool. That's not one I've read yet. Though now that you've drawn my attention to it, I may. 

I had read the Night's Dawn stuff a while back and was looking at reading his Commonwealth saga after I finish some Niven and Alastair Reynolds books I just got.


----------



## The Shaman

rounser said:
			
		

> This is exactly the cart-before-the-horse traditional way of doing things, IMO.  It's my view that thinking this way is back to front, that the adventure needs should be finalised first (or at least conceived of roughly in advance), and the setting created to suit those needs.
> 
> Adventure should trump setting if running a good D&D campaign is your objective, IMO, because plainly adventure is simply much more important to gameplay than setting.  I know that this attitude is heresy for a lot of those engaged in this thread, but it makes a lot more sense than the traditional approach of setting uber alles.



*rounser*, you're ramping up the hyperbole a bit, don't you think?

I think I see part of the disconnet here. You seem to think that if one engages in more extensive world-building, that somehow adventures aren't considered until the end - speaking for myself, that's completely off the mark. I consider player characters, classes/careers/professions (as appropriate to the rules system), sites, encounters, monsters and other opponents, and adventure arcs (depending on the campaign) as I'm building the world.

Let me reference our _Traveller_ game once again. The _Traveller_ universe contains a wide variety of aliens, and the Judges Guild sectors where our game is set add several more. I wanted the players to be able to choose from many potential sophonts as characters, and I wanted many options for non-player characters as well. As I was constructing the mainworlds and star systems, I found ways to include many different alien races, providing the players with options for their characters and developing an internal logic as to why this little corner of the Imperium is so diverse.

(The players also have the option of coming from somewhere else in the Imperium or even beyond the borders, but because three of the five players had never played _Traveller_ before, one goal was to make their characters "locals," so that they could have contacts and be our "resident experts" as an advantage - the _Traveller_ universe is really big and tends to be a bit overwhelming to n00bs, so this was a way of compensating and getting them into the setting quickly by giving each of them a manageable chunk to call their own.)

Encounters were also considered during world-building (worlds-building, in this case). The game starts off with the four adventurers (one character is introduced later) crewing a small free trader - their immediate priority is to make enough credits to keep their ship flying more-or-less intact while avoid the perils of pirates, trade wars, and bureaucrats. That means that encounters needed to include customs officials, naval officers, pirates and privateers, hijackers, rival traders, smugglers, brokers and merchants, patrons, and so on, and would take place anywhere on planet or in space. In order to make some of these encounters work, it was necessary to give the players reasons explore beyond the mainworlds, so that meant giving some stars companions, working out systems with multiple habitable worlds, developing outposts in outer orbits, placing planetoid belts with mining operations, and so on. And then there were potential encounter sites that had nothing to do with core premise of the campaign, such as Ancient ruins, uncharted brown dwarfs, hidden supply caches, a huge mostly-mothballed space station, and many others, that could still work their way in through patrons or other encounters, or the players simply wanting to explore a bit.

It was planning the physical realm that proved so inspiring as I worked out the whys and wherefores of the different worlds. The planets Upsikeria and Zaleris have almost identical physical stats, but the former is an industrial world with a population in the billions and the latter is home to just a few thousand residents - why? Because "cursed" Zaleris is ringed by the debris of a shattered moon that makes a huge swath of the planet uninhabitable due to meteor strikes. That little bit of world-building opened up several potential encounters - a distress call from a damaged trader caught in the ring zone, playing a very dangerous game of cat-and-mouse with a patrol ship or a pirate, _et cetera_.

And then there are cultures, distinct to each world, which provide fodder for intrigue, political maneuvering, espionage, comedic misunderstanding and pratfalls, and so on.

World-building for me is as much about providing player and referee options as it is setting boundaries. I think about encounters and adventures as I world-build so that I have all the options I want available, including leaving a few areas vaguely defined so that I can insert new ideas later, and providing the players with depth and breadth to explore and pursue their character goals.

The idea that world-building automatically ignores adventure planning is wildly off the mark - in my experience, and in my practice, the exact opposite is true.


----------



## Infernal Teddy

Okay, question from the other side - are there any good books on world building out there?


----------



## Psion

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Okay, question from the other side - are there any good books on world building out there?




That's a bit of a broad question. Most of the resources I have in this vein are specific in context.

My favorite world building books are for SF games and/or novels. My preferred references in this vein are:

D&D/Fantasy:
World Builder's Guide Book (oop, but is available through reseller
Fantasy Hero for hero 4e or 5e

SF/Future:
GURPS Space
GURPS Traveller First In (OOP and somewhat hard to find)
World Builder's Handbook (for Traveller by DGP; hard to find)
World Building by Stephen Gillet (for SF authors, see here)


----------



## Greg K

Psion said:
			
		

> D&D/Fantasy:
> World Builder's Guide Book (oop, but is available through reseller
> Fantasy Hero for hero 4e or 5e



I like ICE's Rolemaster Character/Campaign Law and their Rolemaster RMSS/FRP GM Law


----------



## Abisashi

rounser said:
			
		

> You guys are the ones enamored with setting.  I'll go with the freewheeling, serve up what the adventures need setting over your straitjacket any day.




I think you misunderstand my position; like you, I think the adventures are what matter. I differ in that I think world-building actually leads to better adventures.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> As far as work goes, an entire campaign's worth of adventures, written up, should dwarf the setting notes required. If it's the other way around for you, I suspect that your priorities perhaps need to be reviewed.




I'm not sure this should always be the case. Regardless, I don't think a 1,000 page essay is necessary to achieve good worldbuilding. I think after a while the returns from world-building do diminish - but they don't start at zero.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just a thought about Conan and world building.
> 
> One of the stock descriptions of Conan is the last son of Atlantis.  (or something to that effect.)  It's a great line, properly mythic that turns Conan from just a big barbarian to something of a superhero.  Yet, throughout the Conan stories, Atlantis is never explored.  No information is given about Atlantis.  It is left entirely to the reader to gain meaning  from the line.  In other words, the work hasn't been done for the reader.




Um....Actually, King Kull and the Atlantis mythos appeared in Howard's writing before Conan did, and would have been familiar to his readers at the time the stories were published.  Indeed, we have a good deal more than "a few paragraphs detailing the history of the rise and eventual fall of Atlantis".  We know about Conan's ancestors and how they relate to Atlantis.  And his descendents.  If this is your line of reasoning, I hope you will therefore acknowledge Howard among the ranks of worldbuilders.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Here's another example from Conan.  Think of one of the most famous cities in the Conan stories - Shadrizar.  Shadrizar the wicked.  The wicked city.  Not once is it detailed in the stories.  Beyond Shadrizar the Wicked, we know nothing about this city.  IIRC, it isn't even marked on the maps.  It is left entirely to the reader to fill in the blanks and, as readers, we have done so.
> 
> Is mentioning Shadrizar without any detail world building?  Not IMO.  It's simply a setting device - a means of telling the reader that the stories take place Somewhere Else.  The same is true for the details RC listed about Tatooine in Star Wars ANH.  None of the elements are explored in the movie.





So, is it a setting device (rather than worldbuilding) when it _ties into the plot_, or is is a setting device (rather than worldbuilding) _when it does not_?

It seems you want it both ways.  If an author details something and makes it integral to the work, then it is "setting" and not worldbuilding, but when an author fails to detail something and make it integral to the work, then it is "setting" and not worldbuilding.

Perhaps the chunks of Tolkein you skipped prevented you from seeing how the details were tied into the plot, and hence, by your criteria, Tolkein wasn't a worldbuilder?

Color me confused here.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> You guys are the ones enamored with setting.  I'll go with the freewheeling, serve up what the adventures need setting over your straitjacket any day.





Designing setting before adventure allows the players to choose what they are interested from a plethora of choices.  I'll go with the freewheeling, allow the players to choose their own adventure needs over your straightjacket any day.

I mean, we are talking _adventure paths_, right?  The term itself is almost a definition of the world "railroad".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Out of curiosity, does anyone think that this sort of worldbuilding is bad:



			
				paizo.com said:
			
		

> In the first Pathfinder blog post I mentioned how we needed to build a new region to set Rise of the Runelords in. In fact, it's more complicated than that. We actually had to create TWO regions. The first of these is Varisia, the realm in which the new Adventure Path takes place. The other is Thassilon, the ancient empire that once sprawled across much of this corner of the world. An empire that was, at its height, ruled by seven powerful wizards known as Runelords.
> 
> Thassilon was a sprawling empire that covered an area about as large as the western half of the United States. The Runelords were maniacal arcanists who used magic to fuel their own decadent vices. They forged alliances with dragons and enslaved giants by using secrets of rune and glyph magic stolen from the aboleths. With their enslaved giant armies, the wizards of Thassilon built massive tombs, enormous magical constructs, and staggering monuments that survive today, mute testimonies of a mysterious age long past. Yet as all evil empires must, Thassilon fell. The reason for this fall remains a mystery, but as the end drew near, the seven Runelords retreated into the depths of their greatest monuments, entombing themselves with orders for their minions to release them later to reclaim their empire. Alas, Thassilon's minions were enslaved or slaughtered. No one was left to waken them, and so the wizard kings of Thassilon slumbered for countless ages. Virtues of Rule, Sins of Magic
> 
> At Thassilon's dawn, the Runelords held that wealth, fertility, honest pride, abundance, eager striving, righteous anger, and well-deserved rest were the seven virtues of rule—rewards that one could enjoy for being in a position of power. But the Runelords soon abandoned the positive aspects of these traits, instead embracing greed, lust, boastful pride, gluttony, envy, wrath, and sloth as the rewards of rule. Today, long after the fall of Thassilon, the original seven virtues are held as the great mortal sins, although only a few scholars who have studied ancient Thassilon know of their true sources.
> 
> The Runelords' magic was closely tied to these seven categories, to such an extent that they developed their own schools of magic. All of the Runelords were specialist wizards. They recognized seven schools of magic (lumping divination magic into the universal school), and each school was associated with one of the seven sins. A Thassilonian wizard selected one sin when he became a specialist, and that determined his prohibited schools, as detailed below.




Note also



> *Cities and Regions:* One of the strongest selling points of Pathfinder, in my mind, is that it gives you literally EVERYTHING you need to run a campaign. While we of course encourage people to adapt the Adventure Path to their own homebrew campaign worlds—some of us at the office are doing the same thing—we also think it's important to make the setting itself as compelling as the plot. In Rise of the Runelords alone, we have three extensive city write-ups detailing cities that the PCs will visit in the course of their travels—Sandpoint, Magnimar, and Xin-Shalast. These aren't just town stat blocks—these are massive affairs filled with locations, NPCs, backstory, encounters, and maps of surpassing intricacy and beauty. (You'd think I was exaggerating, but when Wes Schneider brought in the map he'd drawn of the city of Magnimar, site of the second adventure, I would have sworn he'd traced it off of Google Maps... there was simply too much detail. When asked how he managed it, he shrugged and replied, "latent obsessive-compulsive tendencies, I suppose.") In addition, we'll also have a large-scale map of the entire region of Varisia, in which Rise of the Runelords takes place, with write-ups for dozens of locations that simultaneously help flesh out the world and give you instant story starters for additional adventures. (I don't know about you, but I'm always a huge fan of provocative regional maps that give you just enough flavor to get your mind going, then turn you loose.)
> 
> *Ecological Write-ups:* Designing a new setting and working under the OGL means that we have the opportunity to introduce new monsters and re-imagine classic ones. (If you want a taste of where we're headed, scroll down to the last blog post on the goblins in our world.) In Rise of the Runelords, we plan to reveal our vision for stone giants and dragons in depth, taking things beyond a mere MM entry and showing you their society, their beliefs, their insides... in short, everything that makes them tick. Because while a good illustration can make a monster intriguing, it's how they think (and how you play them) that makes them great adversaries.
> 
> *Gods and Demons:* Similar to my feelings on monsters, I think that gods and demons (somewhat interchangeable terms in our world) are the most fun when they have engaging stories. Several times in each Adventure Path, we'll pick one of the gods or demons from our campaign setting and give you an in-depth look at everything about them, from their story and stats to their worshippers and heralds. For the first path, that'll be Desna, Song of the Spheres and patron of gypsies, and Lamashtu, the Goddess of Monstrous Birth.




and



> *History:* I'm sure that by now you're probably getting the general gist of the Pathfinder ideology, but the history of a game world is just as important—and potentially inspiring—as it's geography. A chance for us (not to mention some of the biggest names in the RPG business) to shade in the historical background of our world? Yes, please!




Anything but bland, and I will note that thus far EN Worlders seem fairly intrigued and/or excited by the material thus far.  For those who point to the Adventure Paths as the anathema of worldbuilding, may I introduce you to the work of those same people when the shackles are off.     

For more, see http://paizo.com/pathfinder/blog

Is this "wrongbadfun" world-building?


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Is this "wrongbadfun" world-building?




In that some of it only appeals to great, clomping nerds? Not much. It seems like every bit of history there is designed to influence the play at the table, so it will affect all players. It's Harrison's "Triumph of writing over worldbuilding." 

You've got the setting information: "an old evil empire based its magic on seven deadly sins and virtues." One assumes that the PC's will be exploring this old evil empire and the reasons for its fall, so this isn't information for the sake of information. The cities and towns come with "provocative regional maps that give you just enough flavor to get your mind going, then turn you loose," so that's directly relevant in play. 

The monster ecologies help play the role better: "Because while a good illustration can make a monster intriguing, it's how they think (and how you play them) that makes them great adversaries."

The gods might tread the territory a bit, but even that has a focus on "their story and stats to their worshippers and heralds," meaning that you're going to be able to do things like describe the dress a bit better.

It all seems like it serves a direct purpose at the table.



> It all started with Erik Mona building up an enormous T-shaped map over the course of several sheets of graph paper. What he ended up with was several continents; way too much room for a single campaign. So I chose one relatively small (small as in "about the size of California") section of his map and started filling in the blanks. At the same time, the rest of the Pathfinder team—F. Wesley Schneider and James Sutter—and I began to work out the plotline for the inaugural Adventure Path: Rise of the Runelords. To a certain extent, the shape of this new region was dictated by the plot we came up with: we needed a mountain range to rival the Himalayas, a vast cliff face stretching hundreds of miles, and remnants from an ancient empire.




The worldbuilding that Harrison is talking about would have filled in the detail on all the continents. The plot would have been dictated by the setting, rather than the plot dictating the setting. 

*That* is wasted effort and irrelevant at the table and entirely obsessive cataloging.

If you see it's effects in play, it seems to fit the mold of the triumph of game over worldbuilding.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Um....Actually, King Kull and the Atlantis mythos appeared in Howard's writing before Conan did, and would have been familiar to his readers at the time the stories were published.  Indeed, we have a good deal more than "a few paragraphs detailing the history of the rise and eventual fall of Atlantis".  We know about Conan's ancestors and how they relate to Atlantis.  And his descendents.  If this is your line of reasoning, I hope you will therefore acknowledge Howard among the ranks of worldbuilders.




You are now presuming that all readers of Conan will have read Kull?  That elements introduced IN ANOTHER STORY count as world building within the current one?  Just because they happen to be by the same author?  Sorry, doesn't work that way.

No, I don't want it both ways.  Elements of setting which are throwaway lines without any further explanation are not world building.  They are simply a setting device to make the setting "not here".  You do realize that there are more than one device allowed by writers?  That it is possible to use more than a single device within a text?

You want to add research done that doesn't even appear in the text as world building.  So, if I have Wheaties this morning instead of Frosted Flakes, does that become world building?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> You are now presuming that all readers of Conan will have read Kull?




Hardly.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  Not all worldbuilding makes it into the work, although the work itself is informed by the worldbuilding.  You said Howard didn't say word one about Atlantis, or Conan's ancestry; I demonstrated that he had done the work _even if it never appeared in Conan_.

This is similar, in fact, to Tolkein developing a history of his "world" even if it never appeared in LotR (later published in _The Silmarilion_) still counts as worldbuilding re: Middle Earth.

Again, you seem to view worldbuilding as only that which appears in the text, but that doesn't have anything to do with the text.  That is, quite simply, not the standard definition.  In fact, by your definition, (EDIT:  And, apparently, KM's, as the work moved from plot to setting rather than the other way around) _Tolkein_ wasn't a worldbuilder....a proposition that most people would, I think, find absurd.

My definition of worldbuilding is "Creation of setting details that move the setting from the generic to the specific".  

If you are arguing that "bad worldbuilding is bad" than that is tautologically true.  If you are arguing that "paragraphs of text that have nothing to do with the story at hand are bad" then I would again agree, with the caveat that we came to some agreement as to what "nothing to do with the story at hand" means.    

Easy to agree with, but (or therefore) neither very interesting, nor very controvertial.    

Apparently, while you don't accept my definition, you don't find "Creation of setting details that move the setting from the generic to the specific" bad, either.  So, again, no controversy, and easy to agree with.

IOW, this argument is at least 90% terminology (what does "worldbuilding" mean?), perhaps 4% disagreement, and 6% people just liking to argue.    

Those interested in what worldbuilding means might enjoy this:  http://www.wisetome.com/node/3



> World Building is an art where a World Builder designs more than one element that exists only within the world that is being built. The extent of how consistent it is depends on the Builder in the same way as any artist chooses to put effort into his work of art. An artist may choose to draw only the outlines and not the rest features, and only exaggerate the anomalies in the face of a person – then it becomes a caricature. Or the artist may choose to put in the perspective and the details of the light and shadow, like Michael Angelo’s works. Similarly, a World Builder may choose to detail only that much into the World, as much as is required out of it.




Those interested in worldbuilding can find some links here:   http://users.tkk.fi/~vesanto/world.build.html


----------



## The Shaman

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The plot would have been dictated by the setting, rather than the plot dictating the setting.



Could you cite an actual published example, not a hypothetical, of a setting that dictates plot?


----------



## Raven Crowking

*Robert E. Howard's Hyboria*

I know it's a wiki, and therefore suspect, but this might be of some interest in terms of whether or not Howard constructed his world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyborian_Age

Again, the recent re-release of Howard's works contains notes & essays by Howard, and are worth tracking down (IMHO, at least).

RC


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> IOW, this argument is at least 90% terminology (what does "worldbuilding" mean?), perhaps 4% disagreement, and 6% people just liking to argue.
> 
> Those interested in what worldbuilding means might enjoy this:  http://www.wisetome.com/node/3
> 
> 
> 
> Those interested in worldbuilding can find some links here:   http://users.tkk.fi/~vesanto/world.build.html




Dammit, stop being so reasonable.   

Semantics are so much fun though.


----------



## howandwhy99

*Constrained setting vs. railroading adventures*

I have to agree with Rounser and Harrison.  If you are telling a story, then the most important part of that story is the plot.  However, if you are playing a game, pretty much any RPG, than plotlines have no place at all.  No one can plot out a game of poker, chess, basketball, or D&D.  That's railroading and is antithetical to the actual definition of a game.  IMO, this seems to be the disconnect as Rounser and Harrison are telling stories, while everyone else is running games.

I disagree with the idea that constrained settings are good for creating adventures.  A well-defined locale gives a GM fodder to play it as the Players explore, but completely defined worlds must necessarily restrict options.  To create something means to not create something else.  Most GMs I know leave spaces open in the world where other elements can be added.  You only need the world to exist to the edge of the PC's perceivable horizon.  The blank space beyond that could conceivably be anything the DM desires or the Players suggest (a few days before the session preferably).  A world like Forgotten Realms is nearly complete.  There is no room north of Cormyr for an ancient desert empire.  Sure you can put one in, but than you are playing a homebrew world and not a world known to the players.

The difference between Known and Unknown worlds should probably be explained.  Here's my idea.  Known worlds are known to both the players and their characters.  The players pretending they don't know the world gets dull really fast. The entire reason the players are playing in that world is because it is known to them and they want to use that knowledge to play within it.  Known worlds are published settings.  They can come from any medium and often show up as licensed settings.  Players want to play in Forgotten Realms, Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, LotR, and Hyboria because they know them.  That's the point.

As an aside, this is why playing in known worlds has always been a game and not a story.  No one I know who plays RPGs bought a licensed setting so they could "play the story".  Yes, it happens in the DL adventures, but few and far between are the games were the original story characters are played through the original plotline.  RPGs are bought to play in the world, not follow the story.  Presumably books or movies are whatnot already exist for this.

Unknown worlds are worlds that are unknown to both the players and their characters.  The point here is exploration of the setting.  Parts become known as they explore, but no canon is ever involved - only consistency.  Unknown worlds do not need to be complete and attempting to do so beforehand is probably too much of a hassle.  Why detail countries weeks away when the PCs may never go there?  By not being overbuilt, unknown setting continually allow for whatever expansion can be dreamed up.  There are no constraints except the creator's imagination.  

Both types of gameworlds are fun to play in, if for different reasons, and each has their strengths and weaknesses.  Unknown worlds allow that pervasive "sense of wonder" and extension, while known worlds are generally complete and include player buy-in beforehand.  Unknown worlds must typically be medieval or low-tech, while known worlds are the only ones possible for knowledge-collecting, communications-spanning, modern settings.  Neither is "bad", however, as being in the setting is the point of playing the game.


----------



## howandwhy99

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Could you cite an actual published example, not a hypothetical, of a setting that dictates plot?



Most hard sci-fi especially early stuff was simply a plot about "what ifs".  H. G. Wells' stuff were good stories, but they could never be what they were without time machines and invisibility potions.  That may be too situational in truth, but situation is dictated by environment IMO.  

Horror stories are also like this.  The original Alien movie.  Aliens hibernate on an alien planet.  Human explorers discover them.  The rest is survival of the fittest.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Another note for those who would claim that creating setting and worldbuilding are not the same thing, here's how this thread starts:



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

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




Obviously, when the implications become clear, some would like to divorce setting from worldbuilding, but this clearly wasn't the case when this thread began.


----------



## The Shaman

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Most hard sci-fi especially early stuff was simply a plot about "what ifs". . .



I was referring specifcally to a roleplaying game setting - my bad for not making that clear, *h&w99*.







			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> If you are telling a story, then the most important part of that story is the plot.  However, if you are playing a game, pretty much any RPG, than plotlines have no place at all.  No one can plot out a game of poker, chess, basketball, or D&D.  That's railroading and is antithetical to the actual definition of a game.  IMO, this seems to be the disconnect as Rounser and Harrison are telling stories, while everyone else is running games.



Some people enjoy carefully assembled plots as part of their adventures - that's not my personal preference, though, as either a player or referee, so in general I agree with the sentiment here.







			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I disagree with the idea that constrained settings are good for creating adventures.  A well-defined locale gives a GM fodder to play it as the Players explore, but completely defined worlds must necessarily restrict options.  To create something means to not create something else.



To read this and other posts like it, it seems that some believe that gamers are infinitely creative if they're just given a blank slate.

My experience tells me that most players fall back on pretty routine schticks, often based on rules system constraints. For all the talk of how 3e gives characters nearly unlimited options, what I see in actual play is that most players, with a few exceptions, tend to create characters to the system, gaming the game as it were. They may be "creatively" combining elements, but they are still working within constraints.

With respect to referees, my experience is that some of the most "creative" referees I've encountered were also the ones with whom I enjoyed playing least. Creativity without consistency or some identifiable internal logic is brutal for players who need to make some sense of the world in order to make reasonable, meaningful choices for their characters. Referees who know what's beyond the horizon tend to make life much easier for players than those who are just making stuff up as they go, even if the latter refs write it down and expand on it later - in my experience the prepared referee who's spent some time on setting prep beyond what's in front of the adventurers' noses are better able to adapt to players exercising their creativity by going in an unanticipated direction.

The "infinitely creative referee" who can adapt to whatever the players do on-the-fly, who can make up a bill of fare full of exotic dishes and the styles of dress of traders from foreign lands at the drop of a hat and keep it all straight a month later, is a myth, a strawman, exceptional beyond reasonable measure. Most refs in my experience tend to fall back on familiar schticks as well when faced with the unexpected from their players, leading to a pretty homogenous (and, for me, dull) environment pretty quickly.







			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Most GMs I know leave spaces open in the world where other elements can be added.  You only need the world to exist to the edge of the PC's perceivable horizon.  The blank space beyond that could conceivably be anything the DM desires or the Players suggest *(a few days before the session preferably)*.



(Emphasis added.)

Leaving aside that contradiction, as a player I don't want to "suggest" what our characters will encounter - that takes me out of the game very quickly. Some players enjoy that - I'm not one of them. When I want to indulge in world-building, I put on the daddy-pants and sit behind the screen instead.

The idea that in order for the referee to run an exciting game there must be blank spots on the map just doesn't hold up. As I noted earlier, by planning for a variety of encounters (my personal preference to plot-heavy adventures) during world-building, I don't need a blank space in which to insert a "desert" in the middle of the game - I've got a desert, probably more than one actually, and the players can go explore it at their leisure.


----------



## maddman75

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Rounser and Harrison.  If you are telling a story, then the most important part of that story is the plot.  However, if you are playing a game, pretty much any RPG, than plotlines have no place at all.  No one can plot out a game of poker, chess, basketball, or D&D.  That's railroading and is antithetical to the actual definition of a game.  IMO, this seems to be the disconnect as Rounser and Harrison are telling stories, while everyone else is running games.




Disagree.  The idea that a game with a plot is railroading is fallacious.  All 'plot' means is 'what happens'.  Any game where something happens has a plot.  The difference in a railroaded or freeform game is whether the plot is determined in advance or dynamically at the table.  RPGs are not chess or basketball, what makes them different is that the result of the game is a narrative.


----------



## Raven Crowking

maddman75 said:
			
		

> Disagree.  The idea that a game with a plot is railroading is fallacious.  All 'plot' means is 'what happens'.  Any game where something happens has a plot.  The difference in a railroaded or freeform game is whether the plot is determined in advance or dynamically at the table.  RPGs are not chess or basketball, what makes them different is that the result of the game is a narrative.





While I agree with you in principle, I don't think that the distinction you are drawing here actually answers the point.  H&w99's post suggests (to me, at least) that there is a clear difference between having a wide setting that PCs interact with, where the plot is created through those interactions, and one in which the predetermined plot limits what interactions are possible.

Most DM's, IMHO & IME, fall somewhere between those two extremes....as, apparently, will _Pathfinder_.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Another reason for a strong setting occurs in this thread:  http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3473742&postcount=11



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> On a side note, we ran some test groups and prototype roleplaying classes in our store, and found that the main difference between a group that was hack and slay style of play and roleplaying style of play was whether or not the characters had backgrounds, motives and goals. When a character is disconnected from the setting and its only goal is power and wealth, then you get kill the monster, take his treasure etc. When you tell the player that as they return to their village it is burning, many of the villagers are dead and they find their father' dead ran through with a spear. Searching through bodies, many are missing, with their younger sister is among them. You notice the warbanner of the evil empire to the east amongst the bloodshed and ruin. What are you going to do? This sort of set up and giving personal goals to a character is key to providing a framework to build heroic storytelling upon. D&D does not build this in or teach this to their DMs.


----------



## howandwhy99

The Shaman said:
			
		

> To read this and other posts like it, it seems that some believe that gamers are infinitely creative if they're just given a blank slate.



I'm talking about DMs here who are the ones who create the worlds.  I don't think they are constrained by empty space.  And with the amount of material in existence to borrow from, their is no lack of inspiration.



> My experience tells me that most players fall back on pretty routine schticks, often based on rules system constraints. For all the talk of how 3e gives characters nearly unlimited options, what I see in actual play is that most players, with a few exceptions, tend to create characters to the system, gaming the game as it were. They may be "creatively" combining elements, but they are still working within constraints.



That's more a game problem than a player one.  It's become more and more prevalent as editions have changed for money making businesses.



> With respect to referees, my experience is that some of the most "creative" referees I've encountered were also the ones with whom I enjoyed playing least. Creativity without consistency or some identifiable internal logic is brutal for players who need to make some sense of the world in order to make reasonable, meaningful choices for their characters. Referees who know what's beyond the horizon tend to make life much easier for players than those who are just making stuff up as they go, even if the latter refs write it down and expand on it later - in my experience the prepared referee who's spent some time on setting prep beyond what's in front of the adventurers' noses are better able to adapt to players exercising their creativity by going in an unanticipated direction.
> 
> The "infinitely creative referee" who can adapt to whatever the players do on-the-fly, who can make up a bill of fare full of exotic dishes and the styles of dress of traders from foreign lands at the drop of a hat and keep it all straight a month later, is a myth, a strawman, exceptional beyond reasonable measure. Most refs in my experience tend to fall back on familiar schticks as well when faced with the unexpected from their players, leading to a pretty homogenous (and, for me, dull) environment pretty quickly.(Emphasis added.)



I gotta agree with you.  Exploration IS trying to make sense of the world.  There's little point otherwise except to be astonished.  When I said "the edge of perceivable horizon", I meant what you are expressing here.  Complete histories and cultures are not necessarily needed, but sketches of them certainly are.  They can then be filled in without contradictions if and when the PCs go there.  There is no going "off-track" nor on-the-fly play.  I believe this is possible without overbuilding the world.



> Leaving aside that contradiction, as a player I don't want to "suggest" what our characters will encounter - that takes me out of the game very quickly. Some players enjoy that - I'm not one of them. When I want to indulge in world-building, I put on the daddy-pants and sit behind the screen instead.
> 
> The idea that in order for the referee to run an exciting game there must be blank spots on the map just doesn't hold up. As I noted earlier, by planning for a variety of encounters (my personal preference to plot-heavy adventures) during world-building, I don't need a blank space in which to insert a "desert" in the middle of the game - I've got a desert, probably more than one actually, and the players can go explore it at their leisure.



I don't think we are at odds here.  Do you create Forgotten Realms levels of preparation prior to beginning a game?  I doubt it.  Is every continent fully described?  Every alternate dimension?  Every existent plane?  There are bounds to what needs to be created before sessions begin.  I don't think leaving open areas in your setting is a bad because it allows constant creation.

The player suggestions are really just a house rule option for greater flexibility.  If a player suggests "can we have I3-I5?" I know I can place them in the world.  Then it is only left up to them to search for it.  It isn't meant to be overly permissive.  Only responsive to the players' desires.  And then only to a minor extent.  I do agree it could get out of hand, but it's the DMs call on what is in that world in any event, right?


----------



## howandwhy99

maddman75 said:
			
		

> Disagree.  The idea that a game with a plot is railroading is fallacious.  All 'plot' means is 'what happens'.  Any game where something happens has a plot.  The difference in a railroaded or freeform game is whether the plot is determined in advance or dynamically at the table.  RPGs are not chess or basketball, what makes them different is that the result of the game is a narrative.



I disagree too.  The result of every kind of game is a narrative.  Chess or basketball.  You can find them in the sports columns.  To me, it sounds like Rounser is predetermining a plot here and I'm saying "if you DM like that, than you are right.  Setting is secondary".  I'm not disagreeing with him.  

I do understand that there are story-games where the point of the game is to create a narrative to tell afterward.  If that's what people want, cool.  I just don't understand how approaching it like a game is necessary to them.  It seems the actual living-in-the-world is ignored over being able to have a good story to tell later.  If I wanted to jointly create a story, my group would sit down and write one out.  There's a lot of money to be made in this actually.  And we wouldn't be constrained by arbitrary rules like temporal linearity, randomness, and other things normally only used for simulation.  YMMV.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Could you cite an actual published example, not a hypothetical, of a setting that dictates plot?




I guess every setting does to a certain extent. I can't tell a gothic political thriller about vampires in Dark Sun, and a tale of intrigue aboard intercontinental magical mass transit would be slightly out of place in Greyhawk. I'd have trouble talking about Caribbean pirates in Planescape, and a story of a pop star and her entourage facing cutthroat record labels wouldn't work too well coming out of Hyperborea.


----------



## rounser

> I mean, we are talking adventure paths, right? The term itself is almost a definition of the world "railroad".



I'm not promoting the adventure path format as an ideal model of campaign play.  I'd suggest that if you jettison a lot of the time usually squandered on worldbuilding, you could come up with a less railroaded campaign arc.

The adventure path does serve to show the massive amount of work inherent in just doing a totally railroaded campaign from 1-20, let alone a matrix format where the PCs have some meaningful player choice.  And still DMs fiddle while Rome burns, spending time on ephemera like elven migrations of a thousand years ago, rather than an abandoned elven home which the PCs can explore in the here and now.


----------



## Ourph

rounser said:
			
		

> I'd suggest that if you jettison a lot of the time usually squandered on worldbuilding, you could come up with a less railroaded campaign arc.




It seems to me that the less railroaded the campaign is, the more important pre-game development of the setting (i.e. - worldbuilding) becomes.  If the PCs decide to go to spot X and the DM doesn't know anything about spot X other than the name, he's still engaged in worldbuilding, but he's doing it on the fly, during the game, from the ground up, without the benefit of forethought and editing.  Whereas if he's put in some work on developing spot X before the game he may still be improvising, but it's likely he has at least given himself some tools to work with to make his task easier during the hectic pace of the game.  I fail to see the downside of that.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Unsurprisingly, I concur with Ourph.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> t seems to me that the less railroaded the campaign is, the more important pre-game development of the setting (i.e. - worldbuilding) becomes.




I feel this is untrue. Even heavily railroaded games have extensive world development in some cases, detailing the history of Kingdom X (that PC's never learn) and the ecology of Monster Z (which is never relevant to the play). Heck, the original complaint was about worldbuilding in fiction, which is probably one of the harshest railroads there is.

It is also true that worldbuilding becomes railroading at a certain point -- it limits the PC's options in the scenario. They can't go to Thorpton because the Ocean of Sessler is in the way and the shipbuilder's union is on strike so no ships are sailling. They can't be elves because elves don't exist in the world. Etc. 

And open-sandbox games can be even better without much worldbuilding or pre-game prep. It makes it so that even if the PC's spend all day shopping at the market, you can inject some drama and tension on the fly, rather than relying on there being some proactive element in the party that night (as a for instance).

So railroading has no inherent effect on worldbuilding.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Another reason for a strong setting occurs in this thread:  http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3473742&postcount=11




You don't need a strong setting in order to create characters with backgrounds, motives, and goals.  You could create a very character-centered game just by detailing the backgrounds, motives, and goals of the PCs and a few NPCs and leave the setting to be developed in play.


----------



## Hussar

LostSoul said:
			
		

> You don't need a strong setting in order to create characters with backgrounds, motives, and goals.  You could create a very character-centered game just by detailing the backgrounds, motives, and goals of the PCs and a few NPCs and leave the setting to be developed in play.




I prefer this method myself actually.  I'm tired of players handing me three page backstories for a 1st level character.  Backstory is what you get looking back on your 7th level character, not first.  Unfortunately, I seem to be a minority in this position and I've had DM's flat out tell me to that the character I created was boring because I didn't detail a huge background.

On the whole railroad vs free play issue.  Worldbuilding has very little to do with either one really, IMO.  Dragonlance had a huge backstory, lots of world building, massive history, and was a locked in railroad from about the second module.  The existence of "over there" doesn't preclude railroading, nor does having a pre-made campaign arc necessarily force railroading.


----------



## The Shaman

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I guess every setting does to a certain extent. I can't tell a gothic political thriller about vampires in Dark Sun, and a tale of intrigue aboard intercontinental magical mass transit would be slightly out of place in Greyhawk. I'd have trouble talking about Caribbean pirates in Planescape, and a story of a pop star and her entourage facing cutthroat record labels wouldn't work too well coming out of Hyperborea.



Now you're conflating genre elements with plot. Again, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

Taking the last one as an example, a troupe of performers at odds with a cruel patron and his henchmen is entirely reasonable for a _Conan_ game, so that plot, with the correct genre trappings, is perfectly at home in the setting.

Now back to the original question: name a published RPG setting that dictates plot, please.


----------



## The Shaman

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm tired of players handing me three page backstories for a 1st level character.  Backstory is what you get looking back on your 7th level character, not first.  Unfortunately, I seem to be a minority in this position and I've had DM's flat out tell me to that the character I created was boring because I didn't detail a huge background.



Monday, April 23, 2007, 1834 PDT: *Hussar* and *The Shaman* agree on something.

One for the archives, my friends, one for the archives.


----------



## Wayside

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Now back to the original question: name a published RPG setting that dictates plot, please.



People have been arguing about metaplot--in Dragonlance, in Forgotten Realms, in the World of Darkness--for as long as I can remember. So there are, at the least, a lot of folks who think that some published RPG settings do in fact dictate plot. These people may not be _entirely _ right, but metaplot does foreclose _some _ options; it _is _ a constraint. A setting _can _ make certain stories impossible, and maybe enable stories that, up to that point, had been possible nowhere else (and that, of course, would be the ultimate justification for world building).

But the thing is, say you disagree with that assumption: all you've done is confirm Harrison's point. If setting really is irrelevant to plot, if the same plot can be reproduced in more or less any setting whatever, then setting, beyond what plot demands, is wasted energy as far as plot is concerned, and subjecting your reader to too much world building would fall under the rubric of "I’ve suffered for my art, now it’s your turn."


----------



## LostSoul

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Now back to the original question: name a published RPG setting that dictates plot, please.




You could never do Hamlet in the Forgotten Realms.

edit: Not that that is a bad thing, it's just an example of how the setting can dictate the plot.


----------



## Set

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And the thing that "Mr. H" seems to be pointing out is that those who prefer all this detail are great clomping nerds. Which is fine if that's the only audience you're interested in appealing to. And if your players are all happy being great clomping nerds who are in love with your imagination, I'm not sure that the advice to cut down on worldbuilding is really all that relevant.




Yup.  The Forgotten Realms would not exist, nor would Eberron (or Greyhawk, or Kara-Tur, or Zakhara, or Krynn, or Sigil, or the Diamond Throne), if we weren't all pretty much great clomping nerds.  Harrison can bite me.

I love all of these settings, and Ed Greenwood and Keith Baker's 'clomping nerdism' keeps me coming back with their details about newspaper events in the City of Towers, or inns of the Realms that my players adventurers might curl up in after a hard day of killing orcs.

So, I've seen some lists of sci-fi / fantasy authors who do extensive world-building;
J.R.R. Tolkein
Peter Hamilton
Raymond Feist (& Janny Wurts, his occasional co-conspirator)
Isaac Asimov
R.A. Salvatore
Tracy Hickman & Margaret Weis
Larry Niven
Timothy Zahn
Robert Jordan (who, IMO, is a rare example of Harrison being right, and author who overuses world-building to the detriment of the story)

I'd love to hear more world-builders that I may have missed in my collection.

And I'd like to see a similar list of sci-fi / fantasy authors who fit Harrison's minimalist story-driven mold.

I wonder if Vernor Vinge might count as such an author?  His stories always sit in some fuzzily-defined area and seen to make no sense, with stuff happening pretty much randomly and characters having no apparent background traits or cultural ties.  I had considered it to be some sort of trippy drug thing, but it's possible that this is what Harrison would consider a 'triumph of pure storytelling' without any sort of meaningful setting or coherent design.


For gaming purposes, I've heard good things about a Magical Medieval Society, but, frankly, I didn't care for it in the slightest
http://enworld.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=711

The 2e AD&D World-Builders Guidebook by Richard Baker was pretty neat, and had some great campaign-inspiring ideas.

Stephen Gilletts World-Building is pretty thorough, but not useful, IMO, for a gamer.  It's for sci-fi writers who want to get the science right, mostly.  Robert L Forward had something of the sort, IIRC, but I really didn't care for it at all.




			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> You don't need a strong setting in order to create characters with backgrounds, motives, and goals. *You could create a very character-centered game just by detailing the backgrounds, motives, and goals of the PCs and a few NPCs and leave the setting to be developed in play.*




Sure, you *could* do this.  But does that make it wrong *not* to do this?

Does it make the GM who simply doesn't improvise on the fly that well, and prefers to have the questions answered *before* they are asked than 'make stuff up' an inadequate GM?

Should he not play D&D, for not being able to meet your standards of instantaneous creativity under pressure?

Who gets to decide who is 'good enough' to GM?  Certainly not Harrison.  I'd likely hate to game with the man, since I enjoy having characters who are connected to the world that they are playing in.  I don't want to play, 'Uh, Bob, the elf.  I guess there are elfs somewhere.  You have a bow?  Okay, elfs like bows.  No, I don't know where elfs come from, if they have cities, if you have a family, and it doesn't matter.  Just make crap up, like from that Complete Elves Book.  Decide that you don't sleep, and you can telepathically bond with life-mates, and that your singing makes human bards weep.  I don't care, why should you?  Fine, say that elves ride dragons and have space ships and come from the planet Vulcan.'

Looking at the successes of settings with lots of detail (Realms, Eberron), as compared to those which have gone undeveloped (Greyhawk), or of fantasy novelists who engage in world-building (Jordan, Tolkein, Hamilton) versus those who don't (Harrison?), it seems that the market has spoken.

Harrison may be a sad panda that his methodology doesn't seem to be as profitable, but that's one of the problems with fiction.  If the reader can't envision and *connect* to the characters, scenes and environment that you are portraying, they aren't going to be affected by your writing.  Unlike a GM, a writer can't go back and explain something.  If I find all of the characters to be faceless non-entities who seem to have appeared from whole cloth at the beginning of the tale, I'm really not gonna shed any tears for them throughout the story, since the writer himself didn't think they were that interesting.  Why should I fill in the blanks he was not interested in writing?  I'm not being paid to make the story interesting or the setting rich or the characters compellingly fleshed-out.  I'm paying to read it, it should already be interesting!


----------



## Hussar

> Yup. The Forgotten Realms would not exist, nor would Eberron (or Greyhawk, or Kara-Tur, or Zakhara, or Krynn, or Sigil, or the Diamond Throne), if we weren't all pretty much great clomping nerds. Harrison can bite me.
> 
> I love all of these settings, and Ed Greenwood and Keith Baker's 'clomping nerdism' keeps me coming back with their details about newspaper events in the City of Towers, or inns of the Realms that my players adventurers might curl up in after a hard day of killing orcs.




Yet, how many people complain about how published settings are so over detailed that they cannot fit their own ideas into them?  How many people refuse to buy anything from a given setting for exactly that reason?  Why do generic modules sell far better than setting modules?  

If detailed setting made for better gaming, wouldn't everyone be on board with published settings?  Wouldn't generic modules, or gaming books in general take a back seat to setting dependent ones?



> Who gets to decide who is 'good enough' to GM? Certainly not Harrison. I'd likely hate to game with the man, since I enjoy having characters who are connected to the world that they are playing in. I don't want to play, 'Uh, Bob, the elf. I guess there are elfs somewhere. You have a bow? Okay, elfs like bows. No, I don't know where elfs come from, if they have cities, if you have a family, and it doesn't matter. Just make crap up, like from that Complete Elves Book. Decide that you don't sleep, and you can telepathically bond with life-mates, and that your singing makes human bards weep. I don't care, why should you? Fine, say that elves ride dragons and have space ships and come from the planet Vulcan.'




But, that's not what he's saying.  Again, adding details to a character isn't world building.  Those details are used immedietely in the game.  Or in the book. 

People are getting all bent out of shape because they think that Harrison is saying that setting should never be developed.  That's not it at all.  He's taking a fairly stock line, "Too much setting is bad", rephrasing it in a very antagonistic way and people are jumping all over it.  

It's perfectly fine to give your elf a bit of backstory.  But, if you write up a six page back story to your elf and then NEVER refer to it in game, that's completely wasted effort.  I've seen that from player after player.  They come to me with backstories and then expect me, as DM, to make the rest of the party care about it.  Sorry, not going to happen.  If your backstory involves you rescuing your kidnapped sister, then you better start bringing it up in game.  The player should be the one to make his backstory relavent, not the DM.  If the player can't be bothered to refer to his backstory, then I certainly can't.

And, it works both ways.  If the DM details out a six page treatise on Elven tea ceremonies and we never meet an elf, that's wasted effort.  Or rather, I, as the player, couldn't care less.  

Yes, it's a pretty obvious point.  Don't do more work than you have to.  It's been stated many times by better designers than me.  I refuse to buy setting books anymore for the simple fact that setting books mean more work for me as the DM and, IME, the players couldn't care less.  

Right now, I'm playing in an Eberron campaign.  It's fun.  But, it's not fun because of the setting, it's fun because the adventures are exciting, the DM is great and the other players are good.  The DM is good about bringing up enough backstory to lend verisimilitude, but hasn't been bashing our brains out with it.

One complaint I have about the Savage Tide AP, is how much Greyhawk stuff is in it.  I know next to nothing about the setting, yet, major elements of the modules assume a certain level of setting knowledge, such as background on the Scarlet Brotherhood.  I couldn't care less about them.  They don't really feature directly in the modules and they are only really there as an easter egg to Greyhawk fans as far as I can tell.  So, I ejected the details and carried on.

Once upon a time, when gaming, our games had almost no setting.  Look at Keep on the Borderlands.  There's a mini-setting that's skeletal, yet is one of the most enduring modules ever published.  Isle of Dread fits in too.  Although IoD does present a fair bit about Mystara as well, the actual module doesn't really tie into that at all.  Other than some very bare bones details about the natives, that's it.  

Is Harrison saying that every story should be like Waiting for Godot?  No, of course not.  That woudl be stupid.  But, every story, and I believe every campaign, should put plot (or adventure if you prefer) far ahead of setting.  Introduce enough setting to set your campaign in a place that is "not here", but, don't presume that your players will care about Elven tea ceremonies.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yet, how many people complain about how published settings are so over detailed that they cannot fit their own ideas into them?  How many people refuse to buy anything from a given setting for exactly that reason?  Why do generic modules sell far better than setting modules?




I don't know, how many? I know I own far more modules for published settings than I do generic ones. But I'm certainly not going to argue that generic adventures aren't useful.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If detailed setting made for better gaming, wouldn't everyone be on board with published settings?  Wouldn't generic modules, or gaming books in general take a back seat to setting dependent ones?




If generic is the way to go, why have there been so many settings published over the  years? Maybe it is as much a matter of taste as anything to do with one being better than the other.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> People are getting all bent out of shape because they think that Harrison is saying that setting should never be developed.  That's not it at all.  He's taking a fairly stock line, "Too much setting is bad", rephrasing it in a very antagonistic way and people are jumping all over it.




How much is too much? If the plot/story/adventure was hindered in favour of the setting then I'd say there was too much attention paid to worldbuilding. However, if the story/adventure didn't suffer, then I have a hard time seeing however much worldbuilding was done as bad.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> It's perfectly fine to give your elf a bit of backstory.  But, if you write up a six page back story to your elf and then NEVER refer to it in game, that's completely wasted effort.




Why? Did it stop the player from making the character somehow? As long as said player rolled up their character correctly and enjoyed writing a long character history, I don't see it as wasted (as long as that player is fine with their history not coming into play if they don't promote it). 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I refuse to buy setting books anymore for the simple fact that setting books mean more work for me as the DM and, IME, the players couldn't care less.




Interesting. For me they mean less work. The degree to which the players care is up to the individual I suppose. 

I guess largely we agree, I just dislike the liberal use of the term "wasted effort".


----------



## Darth Shoju

LostSoul said:
			
		

> You could never do Hamlet in the Forgotten Realms.
> 
> edit: Not that that is a bad thing, it's just an example of how the setting can dictate the plot.




Forgive me if I'm missing something (it's been a while since I read Hamlet), but why couldn't you do it in FR?


----------



## The Green Adam

I must say I disagree with Shaman to some extent. Specifically this statement...

*The "infinitely creative referee" who can adapt to whatever the players do on-the-fly, who can make up a bill of fare full of exotic dishes and the styles of dress of traders from foreign lands at the drop of a hat and keep it all straight a month later, is a myth, a strawman, exceptional beyond reasonable measure. Most refs in my experience tend to fall back on familiar schticks as well when faced with the unexpected from their players, leading to a pretty homogenous (and, for me, dull) environment pretty quickly.(Emphasis added.) * 

This year I celebrate my 30th year gaming and if I fell back on familiar schticks at this point, none of my players, who travel the vast distances they do, would play at our table. What I tend to do is establish certain parameters of my own to maintain consistancy and then ad-lib nearly everything after that. I love it when players do the unexpected and thank goodness my group (some members having been with me for over 15 years) can still stun me with their innovative approaches to the situations they face. 

Granted I am well aware my group is atypical. We have older players, several women and D&D is not one of our staples. But I'll be damned if my players ever walk into a space port bar and I can't name the bar, come up with colorful patrons and start an adventure based on what they do there in a moments notice. As a matter of fact, I don't really design adventures. I outline ideas I'm interested in exploring and then place the players on a world and see what they want to do. Without some predetermined elements (notes on the planet, it's major cities, it's people, etc.) this wouldn't work, but I don't find it exceptional beyond measure. 

Case in point...A group of PCs were in a firefight after being double-crossed by their employers. Concerned they were loosing, the lead PC gathered the group. made a break for the spaceport, got in their ship and left the planet (and the adventure). They hadn't gotten their money, cleared their names or completed other 'adventure goals'. Once far enough away and ready to 'jump to lightspeed', I asked where they wanted to go.

"Where can we go?" they asked. 
"Anywhere your ship can reach on the fuel you have." I replied. 

Looking at a quick map that had about 6 or 7 planets, one player suggested I couldn't possibly have a set up on all 7 worlds. They seemed to pick one world at random and I said great and went from there. I did not have a set up for each world but I did have an idea of what the ruling power in the region was, the kind of aliens there and the theme or feel of the campaign. Presto! Ideas flood in.

Maybe this is why fantasy never appealed to me. The worldbuilding element is often done in a fashion that is far to rigid for me. Funny that scifi worlds are generalized and worlds of myth and magic are often defined in exacting detail.  

AD


----------



## Darth Shoju

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And open-sandbox games can be even better without much worldbuilding or pre-game prep. It makes it so that even if the PC's spend all day shopping at the market, you can inject some drama and tension on the fly, rather than relying on there being some proactive element in the party that night (as a for instance).
> 
> So railroading has no inherent effect on worldbuilding.




So what about running a game in Eberron would stop me from making a trip to the market interesting?


----------



## Darth Shoju

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I guess every setting does to a certain extent. I can't tell a gothic political thriller about vampires in Dark Sun, and a tale of intrigue aboard intercontinental magical mass transit would be slightly out of place in Greyhawk. I'd have trouble talking about Caribbean pirates in Planescape, and a story of a pop star and her entourage facing cutthroat record labels wouldn't work too well coming out of Hyperborea.




Are any of these limitations bad in some way?


----------



## Set

> But, if you write up a six page back story to your elf and then NEVER refer to it in game, that's completely wasted effort.




Well, there's were we fall away from each other.

I write poetry.

I never 'use it' for anything.  Ever.  It's not really a usable thing.  But I derive enjoyment from the act of creating, and occasionally other people enjoy it as well, I've been told.

But hey, one man's 'wasted effort' is, to me, what makes human beings different from worker ants.  We sometimes create things out of the sheer joy of creating.

I'll be over here wasting my life.


----------



## LostSoul

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Forgive me if I'm missing something (it's been a while since I read Hamlet), but why couldn't you do it in FR?




They'd just True Res the King.  Hamlet wouldn't have anything to cry about.

You could do Hamlet in a lower-powered world, but that's not FR.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Are any of these limitations bad in some way?




Not necessarily. They're, y'know, *limiting*, and that itself can be a bad thing in many numerous ways, but it isn't always and doesn't have to be, especially if a group just doesn't care if they're always telling the same type of story at the table. 

But they are settings that tell you what kinds of stories you can tell in them, which can lead to obsessive cataloging and information-worship that Harrison is criticizing. He is, very vocally, saying that you should not care more about a setting than you do a story. So if your setting doesn't support the story your group wants to create, you should change it or destroy it for the sake of the game. That if no one but you cares about your elven tea ceremonies, it's selfish narcissism to develop these tea ceremonies as campaign elements. 

Where fiction and D&D dramatically differ on the issue, I think, is that D&D works okay as selfish narcissism, as long as everyone's needs are met. D&D players tend to be great clomping nerds who worship trivial information, so if that's fun, do it.  Fiction needs to appeal to a much wider audience than your weekend D&D session, and what's fun for a group of six might not be fun for an audience of millions. 



			
				The Green Adam said:
			
		

> The "infinitely creative referee" who can adapt to whatever the players do on-the-fly, who can make up a bill of fare full of exotic dishes and the styles of dress of traders from foreign lands at the drop of a hat and keep it all straight a month later, is a myth, a strawman, exceptional beyond reasonable measure. Most refs in my experience tend to fall back on familiar schticks as well when faced with the unexpected from their players, leading to a pretty homogenous (and, for me, dull) environment pretty quickly.(Emphasis added.)




I don't know where The Shaman posted that, but I'm with you, Green Adam. Improv is not an elusive skill, and it's a skill one can develop with practice. This DM isn't mythical, he's actually very common, and all good DMs share a certain amount of this skill (which can be nurtured into a more significant amount with the right desire and practice).


----------



## Hussar

Set said:
			
		

> Well, there's were we fall away from each other.
> 
> I write poetry.
> 
> I never 'use it' for anything.  Ever.  It's not really a usable thing.  But I derive enjoyment from the act of creating, and occasionally other people enjoy it as well, I've been told.
> 
> But hey, one man's 'wasted effort' is, to me, what makes human beings different from worker ants.  We sometimes create things out of the sheer joy of creating.
> 
> I'll be over here wasting my life.




And that's fine.  You are creating for an audience of one.  Do whatever makes you happy.

A writer, OTOH, has to be aware that his works are intended for a larger audience.  A player or DM as well.  Sure, it's fine to write up a six page backstory for your character, but, if it never comes up in play, who cares?  You just forced the DM to read it, which he may not want to do for one.  

I've actually had players complain that I hadn't wrapped my adventures around their backstories.  My response is invariably to ask how they expected me to do so when they themselves have made no effort to make their backstories important.  When a player hands me a backstory longer than a paragraph, I don't even usually read it anymore.  I have better things to do than plow through fan fiction.  That may seem cold, but, I've made it abundantly clear that character motivations are the player's job, not mine.  I have adventures that I intend to run - usually more than a few with plenty of hooks to motivate the players in one direction or another.  

What I'm not going to do is rewrite my entire evening's plans to accommodate a single player.

Really, and I think RC and I agree on this point, the problem is one of scale.  There's nothing wrong with spending hours and hours on world building in and of itself.  However, if the adventure suffers because the DM spent that time detailing trivia rather than focusing on the adventure, then it is wasted time.  If the rest of the players are snoring in the corner because someone wants to have special treatment based on their five page fanfic, that's a problem.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> However, if the adventure suffers because the DM spent that time detailing trivia rather than focusing on the adventure, then it is wasted time




Or, as Harrison (almost) puts it: he's being a great clomping nerd who is doing the PC's job for them and filling in needless detail because he is obsessive about his imaginary world and is completely ignoring the reason the players are tolerating his imaginary world to begin with: it amuses them to do so.


----------



## EditorBFG

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Or, as Harrison (almost) puts it: he's being a great clomping nerd who is doing the PC's job for them and filling in needless detail because he is obsessive about his imaginary world...



Well, there is a difference between spending your free time working on the stuff outside the next adventure's map, which is a fine way to spend one's time if the person is so inclined, and spending time at the gaming table telling the PCs world info. Only the second is in any way the same thing Harrison is talking about.

With all due respect, while I appreciate your sentiment, I do think you've done Harrison's article a disservice by applying it to RPG's, and GM prep-work specifically, rather than fiction or storytelling, which is clearly the intent.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It is also true that worldbuilding becomes railroading at a certain point -- it limits the PC's options in the scenario. They can't go to Thorpton because the Ocean of Sessler is in the way and the shipbuilder's union is on strike so no ships are sailling. They can't be elves because elves don't exist in the world. Etc.




I think you conflate context with railroading.

Your example about elves is no more railroading than claiming that you cannot play a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle in Greyhawk.  Your example about Thorpton certainly means that the most obvious, easy solution to reaching the PC's desire is out of bounds, but it is certainly not a hard limit.  They could try to hire a scab, buy a ship, end the strike, buy a teleport, etc., etc.  

Using the term "railroading" for things like this makes it meaningless, IMHO.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> I prefer this method myself actually.  I'm tired of players handing me three page backstories for a 1st level character.  Backstory is what you get looking back on your 7th level character, not first.  Unfortunately, I seem to be a minority in this position and I've had DM's flat out tell me to that the character I created was boring because I didn't detail a huge background.





I actually agree with this.  It is far easier to for myself (at least) to play off one or two strong hooks than reams of material, either as a DM or a player.  However, it is easier to pick a few strong hooks (IMHO) if you understand the setting than if you don't.

I think that we sometimes underestimate just how much the tropes of D&D constitute a shared world-building background.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, adding details to a character isn't world building.  Those details are used immedietely in the game.  Or in the book.




And Tolkein didn't world-build, either, because all of his work was either used in the book, or doesn't appear in the book.

Where did this definition of world-building come from, anyway?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Once upon a time, when gaming, our games had almost no setting.  Look at Keep on the Borderlands.  There's a mini-setting that's skeletal, yet is one of the most enduring modules ever published.




And, yet, it is a setting that has some keen details that have crept into many campaigns (and other modules) over the years, such as Bree-Yark, the black-and-red stone of the evil temple, and the bugbear/catnip connection.

Sure, a lot of the Keep was a blank slate to help the DM to fit it into the type of world he wanted to create, but there was also a fine selection of DM advice in that module, and that advice didn't say "keep the Keep blank".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. They're, y'know, *limiting*, and that itself can be a bad thing in many numerous ways, but it isn't always and doesn't have to be, especially if a group just doesn't care if they're always telling the same type of story at the table.





If playing within the context of a setting forces you to always tell the same type of story at the table, I pity you, man.


----------



## Rolzup

Whatever works for an individual GM is fine -- I've personally found that exhaustive world-building is largely a wasted effort, and actually much prefer for interested PCs to do some building of their own.  I like for *them* to tell *me* about their character's homeland, for example.

Not everyone is into that, of course, and that's fine.  But for those who are, it helps them get involved in the game and the world.

But, see, you gotta be realistic.  I wrote up a very short background for my current game...three pages, the last of which was just important NPCs.  That was a year ago, and since then I've found that only two of the players read the whole thing.

My own wife, I might add, was not one of them....

And hell, I've been guilty of the same thing.  A game that I was in briefly started out with a 22 page PDF that detail the history of the world and the current political setup.  I skimmed it.  Just couldn't hold my interest, I'm afraid.

Short, sweet, and simple is the best way to hold player interest, I've found.  Work with the cliches, either by using them or defying them.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> A writer, OTOH, has to be aware that his works are intended for a larger audience.  A player or DM as well.  Sure, it's fine to write up a six page backstory for your character, but, if it never comes up in play, who cares?  You just forced the DM to read it, which he may not want to do for one.




If you're not going to use anything that doesn't come up in play, why are you forced to read those six pages?  I would say that, otherwise, your methodology is perfectly valid.  If a player wants you to use the hooks (s)he provides, then it is up to that player to make sure that they are understood to be important to that character.  Likewise, if the DM wants the PCs to take something seriously, (s)he had to demonstrate that it is taken seriously in the world.



> Really, and I think RC and I agree on this point, the problem is one of scale.




We do, but I don't agree with your narrow definition of worldbuilding as a prejorative that does but doesn't make it into the narrative.  



> There's nothing wrong with spending hours and hours on world building in and of itself.  However, if the adventure suffers because the DM spent that time detailing trivia rather than focusing on the adventure, then it is wasted time.  If the rest of the players are snoring in the corner because someone wants to have special treatment based on their five page fanfic, that's a problem.




I have mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, I don't think that the DM is obligated to run a game.  On the other hand, if you're going to run a game, why would you not want to run the best game that you can?  This is one area where I think that market forces are the great equalizer -- if your game sucks, you're probably sitting home alone.  

I do believe that, in the social contract of my groups at least, players are obligated to share time (though not equal time) for hooks based on various character backgrounds.  Frankly, the game is more enjoyable (IMHO, at least) when the characters have things that they care about besides just the next level, or gold piece, or magic item.  OTOH, some character backgrounds are just attempts to usurp the game from the rest of the group.

As an example of the latter, imagine that you're trying to run a 7th Sea campaign, and one player wants to play a warforged ninja.  He even comes up with an encapsulated backstory to explain why he's a warforged ninja in a 7th Sea setting.  Pretty soon, the rest of the players are snoring in the corner because the DM has to constantly deal with the logical reactions of characters in 7th Sea to the "special" character.

I feel your pain, man.


----------



## Raven Crowking

So, is this an example of too much or too little worldbuilding?

IYHO, of course.


----------



## Rolzup

To be entirely blunt?

I'd print out the first two and keep them as references, to refer to as needed.  They're short; I'd read them, but I'd be unlikely to retain much.

(My memory is weird that way.  I've got the entire run of Bloom County memorized, but I have to rack my brains to remember my wife's birthday.)

The longer one, I would skim for the bits relevant to my character concept.  Again, I'd print it out and keep it close to hand so that I could look things up when needed, but there's simply no way the details would stick with me unless they saw a lot of use in play.

If it were a book?  Sure, I'd read the whole thing.  I mean, if I liked your style and the plot held my interest.  But for a game, I just don't want to do that.


----------



## The Shaman

Wayside said:
			
		

> People have been arguing about metaplot--in Dragonlance, in Forgotten Realms, in the World of Darkness--for as long as I can remember. So there are, at the least, a lot of folks who think that some published RPG settings do in fact dictate plot. These people may not be _entirely _ right, but metaplot does foreclose _some _ options; it _is _ a constraint. A setting _can _ make certain stories impossible, and maybe enable stories that, up to that point, had been possible nowhere else (and that, of course, would be the ultimate justification for world building).



"Metaplot" is still plot, not setting: one can ignore it, or take it as a snapshot in time to use as a starting point from which to diverge from that timeline.

_Traveller_ is a example of this: the metaplot that began in 1979 saw the Third Imperium wage a war against the Zhodani along the spinward frontier, break apart during the Rebellion, regress under the effects of Virus, and now the rise of the Fourth Imperium as the star systems of Charted Space struggle toward recovery - we've also seen two historical eras brought to the table as well, the Interstellar Wars of the First and Second Imperiums and the founding of the Third following the Long Night. (And there's also a diverging campaign setting in which the Rebellion never occurs, and the Third Imperium continues undimmed.) There's a tremendous amount of history from which to draw, multiple points on that timeline in which to game - and no limitations whatsoever if a referee chooses to diverge from that history at any point.

In our _Traveller_ game, we began in 1101, and no decision has been made on whether or not we're going to follow the metaplot with respect to the Rebellion, should we reach 1116 in the course of play.

If the referee and the players do want to stay close to a canon metaplot, then you're correct that metaplot changes to the setting may constrain some of their in-game plot choices. The same is true of referee and player generated changes to the setting in any game, however - if the players fail to stop the BBEG from unleashing her ultimate weapon, then the game may suddenly become post-apocalyptic . . .







			
				Wayside said:
			
		

> But the thing is, say you disagree with that assumption: all you've done is confirm Harrison's point. If setting really is irrelevant to plot, if the same plot can be reproduced in more or less any setting whatever, then setting, beyond what plot demands, is wasted energy as far as plot is concerned, and subjecting your reader to too much world building would fall under the rubric of "I’ve suffered for my art, now it’s your turn."



This assumes that all settings and all plots are equally engaging - I think we can agree that's not necessarily the case.

A thoughtful post, *Wayside*.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Rolzup said:
			
		

> To be entirely blunt?




Of course.    What's the value of an opinion if you aren't blunt.



> I'd print out the first two and keep them as references, to refer to as needed.  They're short; I'd read them, but I'd be unlikely to retain much.




Nor would you really need to.



> The longer one, I would skim for the bits relevant to my character concept.  Again, I'd print it out and keep it close to hand so that I could look things up when needed, but there's simply no way the details would stick with me unless they saw a lot of use in play.




That's entirely the way that they were meant to be used.  And, in fact, entirely the way that they _were used_ IMC by the majority of players.  Some stuff to help generate character hooks, and some world-based flavour.

RC


----------



## The Shaman

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yet, how many people complain about how published settings are so over detailed that they cannot fit their own ideas into them?  How many people refuse to buy anything from a given setting for exactly that reason?  Why do generic modules sell far better than setting modules?
> 
> If detailed setting made for better gaming, wouldn't everyone be on board with published settings?  Wouldn't generic modules, or gaming books in general take a back seat to setting dependent ones?



Because many referees create their own settings? Because generic modules require less work to drop into a setting than one written for a specific setting?







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Is Harrison saying that every story should be like Waiting for Godot?



Bonus points for the Beckett reference.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> But, every story, and I believe every campaign, should put plot (or adventure if you prefer) far ahead of setting.



And for games that have neither plot nor prescribed adventures . . . ?







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Introduce enough setting to set your campaign in a place that is "not here", but, don't presume that your players will care about Elven tea ceremonies.



Has this really been a serious problem for anyone? I mean, this seems like a total strawman, an invented problem to make a point.

What's your "elven tea ceremony" story, *Hussar*? What world-building detail specifically did your referee introduce into the game that brought the whole thing to a crashing halt?


----------



## The Shaman

The Green Adam said:
			
		

> *snip*



As noted upthread, I have played and refereed _Traveller_ the same way - my experience is that the game is richer when the prep goes in ahead of time. YMMV.







			
				The Green Adam said:
			
		

> Funny that scifi worlds are generalized and worlds of myth and magic are often defined in exacting detail.



I've noticed the same thing, and frankly I think that it's a weakness of some sci-fi authors and gamers.


----------



## Hussar

> And for games that have neither plot nor prescribed adventures . .




All games have prescribed adventures.  Even if it only consists of random encounter tables, they are all prescribed.  Even if the details are created as you go, you still have to create the adventure before the players can play in it.  It doesn't matter if the details were created a week ago or five minutes, all adventure creation occurs beforehand.  Always.



> Has this really been a serious problem for anyone? I mean, this seems like a total strawman, an invented problem to make a point.




How about DMPC's?  NPC's created by the DM to further the setting - to show off the setting that is - that are far more powerful than the PC's and completely immune to the PC's actions.  There's a pretty good example of a DM's worldbuilding heavily impacting upon the game.  When the DM's setting elements are completing the adventure, and acting as stars of the game, I would say that there can be a problem with DM's being too much in love with their own work.


----------



## Greg K

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think you conflate context with railroading.
> 
> Your example about elves is no more railroading than claiming that you cannot play a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle in Greyhawk.  Your example about Thorpton certainly means that the most obvious, easy solution to reaching the PC's desire is out of bounds, but it is certainly not a hard limit.  They could try to hire a scab, buy a ship, end the strike, buy a teleport, etc., etc.
> 
> Using the term "railroading" for things like this makes it meaningless, IMHO.





Well, RC just saved me a lot of time. I am in complete agreement.


----------



## The Shaman

Hussar said:
			
		

> All games have prescribed adventures.  Even if it only consists of random encounter tables, they are all prescribed.  Even if the details are created as you go, you still have to create the adventure before the players can play in it.  It doesn't matter if the details were created a week ago or five minutes, all adventure creation occurs beforehand.  Always.



Random encounter tables are the same thing as a prescribed adventures now? That's an interesting conflation of ideas. Taking a page from the *Midget*'s playbook, *Hussar*?







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> How about DMPC's?  NPC's created by the DM to further the setting - to show off the setting that is - that are far more powerful than the PC's and completely immune to the PC's actions.  There's a pretty good example of a DM's worldbuilding heavily impacting upon the game.  When the DM's setting elements are completing the adventure, and acting as stars of the game, I would say that there can be a problem with DM's being too much in love with their own work.



And this is a problem that results from *world-building*?

No, uh-uh, sorry, but I gotta call horse manure on that one. That's bad refereeing which has nothing specifcially to do with world-building.

So, no actual examples of "elven tea ceremonies," *Hussar*? Color me not surprised.


----------



## Ourph

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I feel this is untrue. Even heavily railroaded games have extensive world development in some cases, detailing the history of Kingdom X (that PC's never learn) and the ecology of Monster Z (which is never relevant to the play). Heck, the original complaint was about worldbuilding in fiction, which is probably one of the harshest railroads there is.




I think you misunderstood my point.  I never said heavily railroaded games can't also be heavily worldbuilt.



> It is also true that worldbuilding becomes railroading at a certain point -- it limits the PC's options in the scenario. They can't go to Thorpton because the Ocean of Sessler is in the way and the shipbuilder's union is on strike so no ships are sailling. They can't be elves because elves don't exist in the world. Etc.




They can't walk two feet to the left because the dungeon has walls.    
Don't you think that point of view is a little restrictive?  By your definition of worldbuilding, the DM defining any information about the setting is railroading because it limits the PCs in some ways.  There can't really be a useful discussion when you define everything in absolutes.



> And open-sandbox games can be even better without much worldbuilding or pre-game prep. It makes it so that even if the PC's spend all day shopping at the market, you can inject some drama and tension on the fly, rather than relying on there being some proactive element in the party that night (as a for instance).




Are you really suggesting the game would be better if the DM came to the game knowing no more about the setting than the players?


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Your example about elves is no more railroading than claiming that you cannot play a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle in Greyhawk. Your example about Thorpton certainly means that the most obvious, easy solution to reaching the PC's desire is out of bounds, but it is certainly not a hard limit. They could try to hire a scab, buy a ship, end the strike, buy a teleport, etc., etc.




I really don't buy that a particular race is necessarily breaking of an entire genre. Elves have been fleet-footed nomads, undead-worshiping near-necromancers, and immortal Fair Folk, depending on the context of the world. Whereas TMNT and Greyhawk are obviously trying for different ends, "elf" doesn't imply any particular world context.

But even laying that aside, it's still saying "you must run on these tracks and you are forbidden to go where I do not allow you." It's saying it at character generation rather than in actual play, but it's the same limiting of options to run down a small selection of possible tracks. Again, not that that's a necessarily negative thing.

As for Thorpton, I probably didn't go far enough in the description. If the DM won't let you cross the Ocean of Sessler (whatever the PC's try to do), he's wearing a conductor's hat. He's saying "stay on track, don't jump away to another continent." If he lets you cross the ocean with ADVENTURE, then you're right, it's probably not railroading. 



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Are you really suggesting the game would be better if the DM came to the game knowing no more about the setting than the players?




Not that it would be, just that it could be, depending on the usual factors (namely, DM and player preference for it). In the same way that massive detailed info-worship is fun for some DM's and players, the opposite (I don't know until I make it up, my only rule is that I can't contradict myself) is fun for others. I've seen it work. I've worked it myself. You don't need to know anything about the setting. Indeed, it can even work when the players know *more* about the setting than the DM. Tell them to develop their homeland, their village, their nation, why they are the race and class that they are, tell them to think of a reason to work together, to meet, and just get used to saying "yes" and pushing the buttons the players made with the problem-causing ways of every DM out there. 

Might not be your style, o'course, but that's okay. It's just showing that preliminary DM setting detail is not always a requisite component for a good game of D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Greg K said:
			
		

> Well, RC just saved me a lot of time. I am in complete agreement.





Sorry.


----------



## Greg K

Hussar said:
			
		

> How about DMPC's?  NPC's created by the DM to further the setting - to show off the setting that is - that are far more powerful than the PC's and completely immune to the PC's actions.  There's a pretty good example of a DM's worldbuilding heavily impacting upon the game.




Nice try, but no dice. DMPCS are not a concept limited to world builders or furthering the setting.  It actually has nothing to with world builders. It is commonly used to refer to an NPC that the DM runs as a personal PC in his or her own game and, as can be found over at the WOTC boards, can be found in any approach.
Now, as for NPCs overshadowing  the pcs, that is just bad DMing.  Its okay to have people in the world whom are on par or more powerful  than PCs. However, in the end, the characters are the heroes.


----------



## Raven Crowking

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Color me not surprised.




I am so pleased to have introduced a phrase to our common lexicon.


----------



## gizmo33

blog said:
			
		

> This gives us a clue to the psychological type of the worldbuilder & the worldbuilder’s victim, & makes us very afraid.




Since Mr. Harrison's writing is obviously motivated by his weird obsessions, why would he begrudge others theirs?  So what if someone (like Tolkien) has a hobby of world-building, and it inspires him to write?  Or someone else sketches out a campaign world and it gives him a good idea for an adventure, or inspires him to want to allow his friends to play some game based on it?  

Since we're all going to have opinions about what each other should be doing with their time, here's mine:  Mr. Harrison should go to whatever place he finds his muse (screaming at traffic from his porch, maybe) and write a best-selling novel.

What is the "pscychological type" of the person who uses the word "us" when they mean "me"?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I really don't buy that a particular race is necessarily breaking of an entire genre. Elves have been fleet-footed nomads, undead-worshiping near-necromancers, and immortal Fair Folk, depending on the context of the world. Whereas TMNT and Greyhawk are obviously trying for different ends, "elf" doesn't imply any particular world context.




Are you saying that you cannot conceive of a world where elves wouldn't be a good fit?  What happened to all that awesomeness in your brain?  And, frankly, your claim about railroading would be apply as much if the DM said "elves are undead-worshiping near-necromancers" as it would be in the case of "elves are non-existent".  The problem is that any expansion upon the root premise, at all, demonstrates its falsehood.

Railroading is a specific _type_ of limitation; it is not any limitation whatsoever.

RC


----------



## Greg K

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Railroading is a specific _type_ of limitation; it is not any limitation whatsoever.




Once more, I am in complete agreement.  I don't see the railroading. There are still many possible choices of character and there is nothing inherently limiting the direction that the players take in there adventures..  And, even if the racial choice was limited to human and there were no spellcasters, I still wouldn't consider it railroading.


----------



## LostSoul

Let's say that you are playing D&D because you want to create a cool story with your pals.

If your worldbuilding notes get in the way of a really cool, dramatic event or action, then worldbuilding is not serving your needs.


----------



## Set

> And that's fine.  You are creating for an audience of one.  Do whatever makes you happy.




Save for the bit about mentioning specifically that it also is enjoyed by other people, I have been told, by those who've read what I've published.  So yeah, other than you being wrong, again, sure.

If I create a three page backstory for my Vampire character, *then* I'm writing for an audience of one.  No one who has GMd for me has ever read my character's backstories, nor do I even hand them over, although I do usually note that I've worked up a background and stuff and it's not just a collection of min-maxed stats and a half-finished equipment list that will miraculously develop during play to include anything we suddenly need...

It's on me to bring up if some background thing may be relevant.  "Ooh, my character grew up on a farm, can I make a Knowledge (nature) check to try and figure out if the cows are just sick, or being 'poisoned by gremlins' like the farmers claim?"

It's *my* job to bring my character to life with that evil 'role-playing' thing that is so roundly derided by some.  It's the GM's job to bring the setting to life.

You're conflating the two, and bringing in needy attention-hog drama-queen players who want you to read their sixteen page bio and integrate all of their background stuff into the campaign with the rest of us marginally sane people.  If I'm willing to concede Robert Jordans as an example of Harrison being right (world-building detracting from storytelling), it would only be courteous for you to not drag crazy people into it as proof of concept.


----------



## Ourph

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Let's say that you are playing D&D because you want to create a cool story with your pals.
> 
> If your worldbuilding notes get in the way of a really cool, dramatic event or action, then worldbuilding is not serving your needs.




If this were what the blog entry cited in the original post were actually saying, this thread would be less than a page long.


----------



## LostSoul

Ourph said:
			
		

> If this were what the blog entry cited in the original post were actually saying, this thread would be less than a page long.




 Yeah, we could keep discussing that, or we could use the blog post as a springboard to talk about the role of worldbuilding in D&D.  I think that's more interesting.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Let's say that you are playing D&D because you want to create a cool story with your pals.
> 
> If your worldbuilding notes get in the way of a really cool, dramatic event or action, then worldbuilding is not serving your needs.




Agreed.

But it is conversely true that if your worldbuilding notes help to devise a really cool, dramatic event or action, or to build up player expectations when they get to a place they have long heard of, or to build up player excitement when they defeat the BBEG who _they have been hearing about since day one_, then worldbuilding _*is*_ serving your needs.

Worldbuilding that serves your needs = good.
Worldbuilding that neither serves nor hampers your needs = neutral
Worldbuilding that hampers your need = evil.  Get your pitchforks.


----------



## LostSoul

Yeah, good point!

My only question is, how do you make sure you get the good stuff and keep away from the bad?


----------



## Ourph

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Yeah, good point!
> 
> My only question is, how do you make sure you get the good stuff and keep away from the bad?




Don't be afraid to throw away something you've created previously if you find that it's not working for you?


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Yeah, good point!
> 
> My only question is, how do you make sure you get the good stuff and keep away from the bad?




I would agree with Ourph, and add "Pay attention to your players."  They will let you know what interests them, and what does not.  IOW, if you follow the practices of good DMing, your world building will be an asset.  If not, not.    

RC


----------



## Imaro

Ourph said:
			
		

> Don't be afraid to throw away something you've created previously if you find that it's not working for you?




QFT.  It seems as if those opposing worldbuilding feel it has to be a static, all or nothing thing.  In my experience if I see a way to make something tie into the actual gameplay or characters more, I go hith it and revise my setting.  On the other hand I feel certain ground rules in the beginning help player creativity and focus, especially in designing their characters.  Cause No, I don't want any TMNT, Transformers, or laser-toting cyborgs in my fantasy campaign.  Well maybe a Teenage Mutant Ninja Tortle, maybe...


----------



## gizmo33

LostSoul said:
			
		

> My only question is, how do you make sure you get the good stuff and keep away from the bad?




By writing down only the good stuff.    

Unless of course you're not of infinite god-like intelligence (like the blogger is), and you don't know what the good stuff is right away, in which case the exercise of writing stuff down might jog other ideas or inspire other ideas that you actually use for adventures or stories.  Or you might come back to it later and find a way to make it interesting.

Then again, if one is sufficiently afraid to write anything down or do anything without Harrison's permission, it's better to ask him for good ideas.


----------



## rounser

> Don't be afraid to throw away something you've created previously if you find that it's not working for you?



Only this doesn't happen, because you've already invested way too much time, effort and creative energy in the Empire of Gzork-Grunk and it's army of giant psionic rabbits.  Too bad, the adventure will have to cleave to the "realities" of Gzork-Grunk, and the players complaining that the concept is silly will have to suck it or find a new campaign...because by this stage you're far too emotionally invested in this part of your world to part with it.

In other words, your statement is theoretical, and not really what happens in reality IME.  It's a pity - if only DMs could be convinced to tie their egos and sense of creative accomplishment to the campaign adventure arc and not the world, then D&D would be a whole lot better I think.  

I mean, let's face it - it's almost unheard of for DMs to come to the players and say, "I've created all the adventures of this campaign arc" with the setting an afterthought, rather than "we're going to play in my new homebrew world", with the adventures an afterthought.  But no, egoes and energies are tied to the worldbuilding, first and foremost, and to the detriment of the meat of the game - the actual adventure.


----------



## Ourph

rounser said:
			
		

> In other words, your statement is theoretical, and not really what happens in reality IME.  It's a pity - if only DMs could be convinced to tie their egos and sense of creative accomplishment to the campaign adventure arc and not the world, then D&D would be a whole lot better I think.




I was answering a specific question asked by LostSoul.  He can choose to take or leave my advice, but that's all I was.... advice.

BTW - I do take my own advice, so that's one in the non-theoretical column.


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As an example of the latter, imagine that you're trying to run a 7th Sea campaign, and one player wants to play a warforged ninja.  He even comes up with an encapsulated backstory to explain why he's a warforged ninja in a 7th Sea setting.  Pretty soon, the rest of the players are snoring in the corner because the DM has to constantly deal with the logical reactions of characters in 7th Sea to the "special" character.



As a side track on this sidetrack, I would not have this happening in my game. Not that I wouldn't allow a warforged ninja in a 7th Sea setting, but if I agreed to it, I would be introducing warforged (and ninja) into the setting. Not a lot of them, and the PCs might never actually meet another, but all but the most parochial npcs would understand basicly what he was and there would be no constant snoring. 

If the player is suggesting a warforged specifly BECAUSE he wants to be completely unique and strange and have ever encounter start with 10 minutes of "I get to explain myself (again)" the player gets a breif lesson in ensemble storytelling and another character sheet.   

(full disclosure, I have designed strange and "unique" characters, as a way to try to get *any* screen time in a group heavily dominated by one or two strong personalities, but I have tried to put it behind me as lessons of my misspent youth.   )


----------



## rounser

> I was answering a specific question asked by LostSoul. He can choose to take or leave my advice, but that's all I was.... advice.



Oh, I see....so I suppose that now you're going to tell off Imaro for QFT'ing your advice, or is it only okay to comment on your advice when the comment's in agreement with it? 


> BTW - I do take my own advice, so that's one in the non-theoretical column.



That would be why you've phrased the original comment as if it were a question, as if it's the first time it's occurred to you, then?  In any case, as I've suggested earlier, if a DM does a lot of worldbuilding (as many do), the chances of said DM altering or disposing of a major part of the setting after the fact is pretty remote.  They're far too creatively invested in the setting as is, by that stage, and it's easier to compromise the needs of the adventure to meet the needs of the setting, if much thought is paid to the adventure at all.


----------



## Ourph

rounser said:
			
		

> Oh, I see....so I suppose that now you're going to tell off Imaro for QFT'ing your advice, or is it only okay to comment on your advice when the comment's in agreement with it?




You were responding to my post as if I were saying "The world is perfect because everybody makes this choice", which isn't the case.  It seems to me that you don't disagree with the comment, you just think not enough people are taking my advice (which is something I'm in total agreement with   ).



> That would be why you've phrased the original comment as if it were a question, as if it's the first time it's occurred to you, then?




No, I phrased it as a question because I wasn't sure if that was the type of advice LostSoul was looking for.

:edit to add:

The truth is, I'm about exactly the opposite of what you are describing as a worldbuilding GM.  I have stacks of legal pads in my office at home with setting stuff that I've written for my Warhammer campaign (either original stuff or modifications of official setting material) and only about 10% of it ever gets the "two week approval".  "Two week approval" means I put it aside and look at it two weeks later.  With 90% of it I reread it and say something along the lines of "What was I thinking?  This is drivel.  There's no way this is making it into the campaign!".  It's never occured to me that the 90% is "wasted effort".  Without the 90% bad stuff that gets written, the 10% that's good wouldn't exist.  Plus the 90% bad isn't ALL bad.  Sometimes good a idea is just badly executed.  Rewriting is as important as writing for a good author/DM.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> I mean, let's face it - it's almost unheard of for DMs to come to the players and say, "I've created all the adventures of this campaign arc" with the setting an afterthought, rather than "we're going to play in my new homebrew world", with the adventures an afterthought.  But no, egoes and energies are tied to the worldbuilding, first and foremost, and to the detriment of the meat of the game - the actual adventure.





Of course.  When he started writing the adventures, perforce, he had to write setting elements to act as the stage for those adventures.  And he probably didn't want his players to scream "railroad"!


----------



## rounser

> Of course. When he started writing the adventures, perforce, he had to write setting elements to act as the stage for those adventures. And he probably didn't want his players to scream "railroad"!



Couple of comments:

*1)* Most DMs tend to write world first, adventures second.  If that's not the case, then the timbre of this thread has changed dramatically, because that's what seems to have been implied for the last 12 pages.  And that's what we see again and again on EnWorld threads - "here's the new world I'm designing".

Why?  Because worldbuilding is fun and rewarding.  Writing adventures is too much like hard work, whereas writing about races and empires that never were are not only involves game design tweaks to stamp your trademark on D&D (fun) and is epic in scope (ego), but work up enthusiasm for what the campaign might be like, one day (daydreaming).  

The fact that the DM probably  never gets around to writing the stuff that would actually make the rubber meet the road (the adventures) is overlooked by wishful thinking generated by the enthusiasm that worldbuilding can provide.

*2)* Railroading is extremely common, as hinted at by the post on the last page about PCs having free rein to visit the planet they like, and the confusion that generated.  Like putting worldbuilding first and foremost, it's a bad habit that seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

Why?  Because writing a campaign with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed is a massive amount of work, even if you railroad it from start to finish.  So that leaves two approaches - the unrailroaded improvised adventure which often falls into cliche or "beige" predictability with a lack of meaningful detail, or the "here's tonight's adventure" railroad.  The other option (crossed t's and dotted i's, matrix campaign arc format) is way too much work with or without worldbuilding, so these two approaches are how DMs generally seem to get by IME.

If you have created campaigns with a matrix format (i.e. unrailroaded) with the level of detail of a published module, then that makes you a rare bird indeed.  The usual compromise is either to worldbuild in detail and run improvised adventures from a few notes, or to run a self-prepared or published module that is fully written up and railroad the PCs into it.  

I think that the heavy worldbuilding, improvised adventures approach is flawed, and that the self-indulgent and dubiously useful worldbuild-in-detail bit can be to a large degree removed, with more attention and effort applied to those scanty adventure notes....or if taking the "here's tonight's adventure" approach, lessen the time spent on worldbuilding so that there's time to present more than one hook and adventure for the night's play.


----------



## howandwhy99

I like to start with the original Dungeoncraft's 60x60 mile bottom-up, plus top-down approach.  Keep on the borderlands being a good example.  Pretty much anything could be dropped in that wilderness, appended to the caves, included in the keep after the game has started.  Of course, this shouldn't happen after the players have explored a particular area unless the addition is a result of others in the world.  But such space does allow flexibility; flexibility a completed world generally doesn't include.  The Forgotten Realms as a setting is a good example.  It is a Known world by my own terms, so being complete isn't a problem.  Having a "completed" unknown world isn't really one either.  My main point is, while worldbuilding is absolutely necessary to run a plotless game, constraints do exist in completed worlds simply because new creations are difficult to add.  Something always exists rather than blank canvas.  Alterations are an exception of course, but why then spend time detailing something only to change it before it's seen?



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> I think that the heavy worldbuilding, improvised adventures approach is flawed, and that the self-indulgent and dubiously useful worldbuild-in-detail bit can be to a large degree removed, with more attention and effort applied to those scanty adventure notes....or if taking the "here's tonight's adventure" approach, lessen the time spent on worldbuilding so that there's time to present more than one hook and adventure for the night's play.



Rounser, railroading has been extremely common only since 2nd edition.  Before that worlds were created first, adventures not at all.  They were modules then.  I'm actually fine with adventure plots being created moment to moment - as long as only the PC players are doing it.  It isn't "on the fly" or improvised when the PCs arrive.  There is never a plot created by the DM ever.


----------



## rounser

> Rounser, railroading has been extremely common only since 2nd edition.



I've seen little change in D&D gaming style since 1st and OD&D.  It's been either railroad your way through something prescribed like Temple of Elemental Evil or a homebrewed adventure equivalent, or improvise your way over a map through off-the-cuff adventure based at best on on some scribbled notes.  There's varying shades of grey between these two extremes, but that seems to be the meat of it.  

The latter is a lot harder to do well than the former, seemingly, because unless your DM is a master of improvisation the result is likely to be either a rather "beige" boring game where you can predict that the goblin lair you've just stumbled across is just going to be huts around a campfire, or a completely unhinged, stream-of-conciousness game where the goblins are in the middle of summoning (flip flip) Orcus at the time you arrive and the chief's guard have (flip flip flip) wands of wonder, and a magic wishing fountain is in one of the huts.  And the chief has bat wings, and is riding his pet otyugh.  Roll for initiative.

That's extreme examples, but the boring improv game or wacky improv game seems to be typical results. (3E seems to encourage much more of the former than the latter simply because it's much more complex, so I won't be surprised if recent players of the game haven't run into it and don't know what I'm referring to).  To be clear, I'm not really a fan of boring improv _or_ wacky improv, I'm just suggesting that they exist as play styles.


> I'm actually fine with adventure plots being created moment to moment - as long as only the PC players are doing it. It isn't "on the fly" or improvised when the PCs arrive. There is never a plot created by the DM ever.



I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.


----------



## I'm A Banana

ronseur said:
			
		

> In other words, your statement is theoretical, and not really what happens in reality IME. It's a pity - if only DMs could be convinced to tie their egos and sense of creative accomplishment to the campaign adventure arc and not the world, then D&D would be a whole lot better I think.
> 
> I mean, let's face it - it's almost unheard of for DMs to come to the players and say, "I've created all the adventures of this campaign arc" with the setting an afterthought, rather than "we're going to play in my new homebrew world", with the adventures an afterthought. But no, egoes and energies are tied to the worldbuilding, first and foremost, and to the detriment of the meat of the game - the actual adventure.




And this gets at Harrison's deeper point about the frightening psychology of people so invested in info-worship. Which, yeah, is over-stated to make a point, but is can be seen in the reality that many DMs would rather kick a few players out than change the world in response to what the group wanted.

My world (my game) is sacred. You are not. Cleave to my world or go home.

That's pretty much the exact same thing that writers who pump in too much worldbuilding are saying to their readers: I will tell you how it is, you will follow along, my world is sacred, read about it or you can't get to the fun adventure. 

I'm 90% positive that's a bad thing in literature, but probably only 40% likely to say that it's still an inherently bad thing in D&D. Cuz, after all, there's a lot of people who play D&D who are in it for the express purpose of info-worship, and a lot of them are DMs, so being a great clomping nerd about their world is a lot of fun for them, and most of the time, helps to shore up the game. It can still go horrirbly wrong, but it seems to do so significantly less in D&D than in literature.

If I have to read a paragraph about elven tea ceremonies in a novel, I skip ahead (you know, like when I had skipped anything about Tom Bombadil or the Barrow Wights or that scene with Galadriel and the elves, or anything having to do with Aragorn's ancestry in LotR, because it didn't matter). If I read the same paragraph in a game book, I imagine the PC's being invited to an elven tea ceremony where they must successfully navigate a foreign culture's many pitfalls to avoid irking the elven king and provoking the entire elven armada to unleash their powerful magical doomsday device. 

However, I do think that the notion that good D&D games require hours or years of world prep needs to be crucified in short order.  And that if no one is in the mood for a political game of cat and elf-mouse, the elven tea ceremony scene gets to be shelved in favor of something else. And that big blocks of irrelevant world history don't necessarily make a setting any better by themselves.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> But it is conversely true that if your worldbuilding notes help to devise a really cool, dramatic event or action, or to build up player expectations when they get to a place they have long heard of, or to build up player excitement when they defeat the BBEG who _they have been hearing about since day one_, then worldbuilding _*is*_ serving your needs.
> 
> Worldbuilding that serves your needs = good.
> Worldbuilding that neither serves nor hampers your needs = neutral
> Worldbuilding that hampers your need = evil.  Get your pitchforks.




I can agree with this.  The trick, as LostSoul points out, is figuring out what goes with what.

And, as Rounser points out, DM's can get very, very tied to their campaigns.  Take the reaction to the Warforged Ninja.  You can get around RC's problems pretty quickly.  First, ninja's have disguise as a class skill meaning that it may actually never come up after the first time.  Second, it's no different than having a Druid with an animal companion in the party - yet I don't see threads screaming about how someon wants to play a druid.  Third, it will really depend on the campaign.  If it's high adventure on the seas with lots of combat, then it likely won't be a problem whatsoever.  If it's a deep intrigue game, it might be more problematic, but, not necessarily.

But, because DM's get so fixated on what their campaigns should look like (ie. emotionally tied to world building) they cannot imagine any flexibility to accomodate ideas.

The Shaman mentioned that his campaign world had no dragons, thus he couldn't run Age of Worms.  Never mind that dragons only feature in two or three of the modules, how hard is it really to change dragon to some sort of creature that does fit?  I mean, come on, out of the thousands of monsters out there, not one single critter can fill in the Dragon encounter?

Yet, he closes off the possibility completely.  "There are no dragons in my world.  I cannot run this adventure in my world" is a perfect example of six page elven tea ceremonies.


----------



## Hussar

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> Rounser, railroading has been extremely common only since 2nd edition.  Before that worlds were created first, adventures not at all.  They were modules then.  I'm actually fine with adventure plots being created moment to moment - as long as only the PC players are doing it.  It isn't "on the fly" or improvised when the PCs arrive.  There is never a plot created by the DM ever.




Sorry, ballocks.  Not true.

Dragonlance were 1e adventures.  

The adventure that was included in the old Basic book had level locked doors.  

The Slavers would actually raise dead dead PC's to adventure in A4.  (not even death can get you off those rails)

Railroading has most certainly occured in all editions.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, because DM's get so fixated on what their campaigns should look like (ie. emotionally tied to world building) they cannot imagine any flexibility to accomodate ideas.




...hmm...

"Because DM's get so fixated on what their story should be like (ie: emotionally tied to plot) they cannot imagine any flexibility to accommodate ideas."

"Context," meet "Railroad." "Pot," meet "Kettle."

Tomayto, Tomahto.



> Yet, he closes off the possibility completely. "There are no dragons in my world. I cannot run this adventure in my world" is a perfect example of six page elven tea ceremonies.




Very nice. That's quite blatantly world-building getting in the way of running an adventure, of a certain limit to creativity.

Of course, I'm still only about 40% sure that it might be a problem. Or, at least, it's only a problem if someone really wants to play in Age of Worms, but the DM of this dragon-less world forbids it absolutely and won't let someone else run it.

Which, I'm guessing, doesn't happen that often.

I'd also say that railroading (in moderation) isn't necessarily a problem, either. A lot of these aren't problems within well-functioning groups, though they might be in cross-group pollination.


----------



## Hussar

I was asked for examples of Elven Tea ceremonies.  While I admit I don't have that particular one on hand, I do recall a few others.

One DM had decided that plate mail was unavailable in the campaign.  Not because you couldn't buy it here, but because it hadn't been invented yet.  She had a certain veiw of Medieval technologies.  When I pointed out to her that plate armor predated chain mail by centuries, and that my priest with Armorer NonWeapon Proficiency should probably be able to make the armor, even if we couldn't buy it, she refused.  Her idea was that plate armor, because it had a better AC, must have been invented later.  Even when I showed her an encyclopedia and proved her wrong, she still would not back down.

Now, here's an example, and a fairly minor one, that caused all sorts of fuss at the table (which, honestly, I could have handled better myself :/ ) all because someone had become enamored to her campaign concept.


----------



## rounser

> "Because DM's get so fixated on what their story should be like (ie: emotionally tied to plot) they cannot imagine any flexibility to accommodate ideas."
> 
> "Context," meet "Railroad." "Pot," meet "Kettle."



These are not equivalent, because the game's about the adventure, not the setting.  They do not have equal footing, because "the play's the thing".  The inability of some to see this is part of the fundamental reasons why this thread exists in the first place.  If they _are_ equivalent to you, then *you're the kind of person that the blogwriter is talking about.*

*YES*, the setting _should_ cleave to the needs of the adventure!  Of course it should, it's just a backdrop to the action, and the action is the adventures.  Strip it back to the bedrock and rebuild it to support the structure of the adventures, if needed, because that's _all_ it's a foundation for!  Unless supporting the Great American Fantasy Novel (someday) is in the wings, which is another D&D worldbuilding malady entirely...

It's even implied in the word "setting" - a "setting" for what, exactly?  Setting-worship in it's own right?  Bowing down at the altar of the DM's clever worldbuilding?  Seemingly so!


----------



## Hussar

If you want a good example of World Building Gone Bad (TM), take a look at DM of the Rings

There's pretty much exactly what Harrison is talking about.

KM, I'm a little confused.  Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?


----------



## The Shaman

Hussar said:
			
		

> The Shaman mentioned that his campaign world had no dragons, thus he couldn't run Age of Worms.



*Hussar*, that is not what I said.

Here's what I actually wrote (post 352):







			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> My 3.0 setting did not have dragons. How easily would "Age of Worms" drop into my game?



In thread after thread you repeatedly misquote me, other posters, rules, adventures, and literature - I want to believe that you're not maliciously attempting to misrepresent and mislead, so I have to ask, do you have some sort of learning disability as it relates to the written word?


----------



## Hussar

> Originally Posted by rounser
> It seems to me that Paizo's adventure paths serve as a large nail in the coffin of the argument that "the world building matters", because they're so easily ported from FR to Eberron to GH. That should tell you something very important about how redundant most worldbuilding is, and about the amount of effort required to write just the adventure components of a fully fleshed out campaign.
> Uh, sorry, but no - this ignores the fact that all bog-standard D&D games begin with quite a catalog of shared assumptions, which gives adventure portability home-field advantage.
> 
> My 3.0 setting did not have dragons. How easily would "Age of Worms" drop into my game?




So, you refute Rounser by emphatically stating that your setting deviates from bog standard assumptions and then ask how easily Age of Worms would drop into your game and then assume that everyone thinks that, what, it would be easy to drop it into your game?

If you cannot state what you mean, then perhaps a writing course would be helpful?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ...hmm...
> 
> "Because DM's get so fixated on what their story should be like (ie: emotionally tied to plot) they cannot imagine any flexibility to accommodate ideas."
> 
> "Context," meet "Railroad." "Pot," meet "Kettle."
> 
> Tomayto, Tomahto.





KM, stop saying things that make sense.  I'm not supposed to be agreeing with you!

Rounser and Hussar, I'm glad that I haven't had anything near your "luck of the draw" with the game.  I haven't actually seen a raging egomaniacal DM yet.  I tend to think that's just an Internet myth.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> One DM had decided that plate mail was unavailable in the campaign.




Sorry, but this is a player problem, not a DM problem.  The DM is allowed to decide that something is not available in her campaign.

Please see the entry on "player entitlement".


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> These are not equivalent, because the game's about the adventure, not the setting.  They do not have equal footing, because "the play's the thing".  The inability of some to see this is part of the fundamental reasons why this thread exists in the first place.  If they _are_ equivalent to you, then *you're the kind of person that the blogwriter is talking about.*




So, if your players enjoy exploring the world presented to them, this is wrongbadfun?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> If you want a good example of World Building Gone Bad (TM), take a look at DM of the Rings





Three notes:

(1)  This isn't an example of _bad_; it's an example of _funny as hell_.

(2)  Second, I will note that 90% of the jokes are about _the DM following a prescribed plot_ and/or adventure that removes potential rewards.  There is the DM-NPC thing with Gandalf, but that's not a worldbuilding issue -- as has been demonstrated amply already.

(3)  By your definition of world-building, Tolkein didn't world-build, so it would be difficult to use this as an example in any event.    

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, you refute Rounser by emphatically stating that your setting deviates from bog standard assumptions and then ask how easily Age of Worms would drop into your game and then assume that everyone thinks that, what, it would be easy to drop it into your game?
> 
> If you cannot state what you mean, then perhaps a writing course would be helpful?





It seems relatively clear to me that The Shaman is saying (in these diverse posts):

(1)  There are standard world-building assumptions in D&D that people tend to use, whether or not they recognize them for what they are.

(2)  One of these elements is dragons.

(3)  AoW uses Dragotha, and therefore takes place in a world with dragons.

(4)  If your world doesn't have dragons, you will have to change parts of the adventure to meet non-standard world-building assumptions.

(5)  That doesn't mean it is impossible to do, as rounser's post suggests.

Also, I would add, that not being able to play Precanned Adventure #6 has nothing to do with the _creativity_ of anyone at the table.  Plonking down a precanned requires, and demonstrates, no special creativity.


RC


----------



## Imaro

rounser said:
			
		

> These are not equivalent, because the game's about the adventure, not the setting.  They do not have equal footing, because "the play's the thing".  The inability of some to see this is part of the fundamental reasons why this thread exists in the first place.  If they _are_ equivalent to you, then *you're the kind of person that the blogwriter is talking about.*
> 
> *YES*, the setting _should_ cleave to the needs of the adventure!  Of course it should, it's just a backdrop to the action, and the action is the adventures.  Strip it back to the bedrock and rebuild it to support the structure of the adventures, if needed, because that's _all_ it's a foundation for!  Unless supporting the Great American Fantasy Novel (someday) is in the wings, which is another D&D worldbuilding malady entirely...
> 
> It's even implied in the word "setting" - a "setting" for what, exactly?  Setting-worship in it's own right?  Bowing down at the altar of the DM's clever worldbuilding?  Seemingly so!




Actually I believe the game should be about one's players.  Depending on their prefrences then either "setting" or "adventures" should be the main focus of your work.  The "setting" should cleave to the needs of the group, both GM and players to create a balance.  The action is whatever aspect of the game your PC's enjoy.  IMHO I have seen a boring setting ruin a game as quickly as an ill-made adventure.

What about "sense of wonder", are you telling me no GM can make a world that's fascinating enough in it's own right that the players will be interested in it?  I've seen certain players seek out and remember parts of a world's structure, history, etc.  that have bearing on their characters, this was originally suppose to be the purpose of PrC's in a way, to both flesh out your world and give PC's a meaningful way to interact in it.

I notice alot of people posting about "world-building" limiting creativity, well I have a question...don't the rules limit creativity as well.  Their built upon assumptions, like the fact that a 1st level fighter can't shoot laser beams out his eyes(You're limiting my creativity) or that a wizard casts only a certain amount of spells(but I want a wizard to cast all his spells at least 3x a day, cause that's my concept).  My point is in any game w/rules their is an inherent limit on creativity, unless you throw the rules out...and then you aren't playing that particular game anymore.  I believe in the same way a player has a right to make the character he wants within the confines of the rules, the GM has a right to create the setting.  Should player prefrence and playstyles be considered? Certainly, but I would hope a GM is doing that already.  In the same way that a player creates a character to facilitate the type of role he wants to play, a GM should build their world to facilitate the moods, themes and types of adventures he wants to run.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> *1)* Most DMs tend to write world first, adventures second.  If that's not the case, then the timbre of this thread has changed dramatically, because that's what seems to have been implied for the last 12 pages.  And that's what we see again and again on EnWorld threads - "here's the new world I'm designing".




I'm not sure about this, and I certainly don't buy that adventure design isn't rewarding.

When I'm considering a new campaign world, often I start with the types of encounters I'd like to include, including the idea of "Who is the main villian?" and "Why?"  Then I start doing outlines to allow me to have a sense of the world that I am creating.  When I began my current game, the documents I appended earlier were the sum of non-specific setting that I did, plus a few rules add-ons, like "Totem Spirits of the Lakashi" which were designed to increase PC options.

The next thing that I did was devise an initial "shakedown" adventure -- something that would allow play to begin fast, and that would give the PCs something to do while they learned a little about the world about them.  This adventure included:

(1)  Role-playing encounters (including one with a green hag).
(2)  Non-SRD and SRD monsters.
(3)  Cultists, and a thing summoned by the cultists.
(4)  Wilderness and Cavern encounters.
(5)  A "side trek" while travelling.
(6)  Both monetary and social rewards.  (Social rewards tie back into the world.)
(7)  A big set-piece battle taking place over several related areas.
(8)  Hooks to additional areas that the PCs might be interested in.  The "hooks" at this point lead to areas that are outlined, but not fully fleshed out.  I know what's there, but I don't write stat blocks and boxed text until there is some indication that the hook is on the immediate horizon.
(9)  Lots of details about the world around them.  And by "details" I don't mean half-hour discussions of elven tea ceremonies.  I mean things like _briefly_ describing the land they are travelling through, using specifics instead of generals ("turnips" instead of "vegetables", for instance), and implying relationships beyond the PC interactions (the ogre burying his dead wife, his son lying wounded inside the ruined tower).

I have since gone on to include many additional world-building details, most of these either performing one of two functions (or both):

(1)  Adding to PC options
(2)  Adding to the range of encounter locations/options

In addition, all world-building is to add depth of meaning to encounters, characters, and locations, so that something discovered in the first adventure is actually relevant to something discovered later on.  IOW, there are rewards built into adventuring in the world that aren't immediately apparent, but increase a sense of connection when they are realized.

I call that "good design".

Of course, one should keep in mind that there are DM types, just as there are player types, and not every DM type is appropriate for every player type.  

RC


----------



## Greg K

rounser said:
			
		

> I mean, let's face it - it's almost unheard of for DMs to come to the players and say, "I've created all the adventures of this campaign arc" with the setting an afterthought, rather than "we're going to play in my new homebrew world", with the adventures an afterthought..



Now maybe it is me, but creating all the adventures of the campaign arc ahead of time sounds to me like a railroad in the making.  It sounds like you are already predeterminng the exact direction that the players are going.

As for desigining the world first, there are several reason why I do this:
1) to design a setting that I am interested in running.  I will not run something in which I have no interest.

2) Predetermining the countries, races, cultures, deities gives the players choices that have meaning to the setting and that the available choices are  known at character generation. Furthermore, along with the addition of small bits of current and ancient history, the predetermined information also provides possible character hooks (e.g., potential enemies, rivals, or goals) should the players choose to use them.  

3) having predetermined the world building stuff allows me to better run a game off the cuff when the PCs go in those unexpected directions that make perfect sense from the player's point of view. 

And as for world build railroading, my players:

1.  have complete freedom of where they go in the world, provided that they a) know of the places existance and b) have the means to get there.  

2. Are free to make changes via in-game actions. For example, if a strike at the docks is preventing them from sailing for some destination, they will find a solution (e.g., help the people reach a solution or stealing the ship). Then, there are more large scale changes such as the time when they decided to "play diplomat" and started a civil war, because they made promises upon which they lacked the power to make good-although the promises were made in good faith.


----------



## Ourph

rounser said:
			
		

> Most DMs tend to write world first, adventures second.




I would agree with that.  The vast majority of the time where the PCs are in the world and what that part of the world is like significantly informs what kind of adventures will happen (i.e. - who the PCs will be killing and what kind of stuff they will be looting from them).  In my experience, players expect and enjoy it when their choices about where to be in the setting have an actual bearing on their experiences in the game.


----------



## howandwhy99

rounser said:
			
		

> I've seen little change in D&D gaming style since 1st and OD&D.  It's been either railroad your way through something prescribed like Temple of Elemental Evil or a homebrewed adventure equivalent, or improvise your way over a map through off-the-cuff adventure based at best on on some scribbled notes.  There's varying shades of grey between these two extremes, but that seems to be the meat of it.
> 
> The latter is a lot harder to do well than the former, seemingly, because unless your DM is a master of improvisation the result is likely to be either a rather "beige" boring game where you can predict that the goblin lair you've just stumbled across is just going to be huts around a campfire, or a completely unhinged, stream-of-conciousness game where the goblins are in the middle of summoning (flip flip) Orcus at the time you arrive and the chief's guard have (flip flip flip) wands of wonder, and a magic wishing fountain is in one of the huts.  And the chief has bat wings, and is riding his pet otyugh.  Roll for initiative.
> 
> That's extreme examples, but the boring improv game or wacky improv game seems to be typical results. (3E seems to encourage much more of the former than the latter simply because it's much more complex, so I won't be surprised if recent players of the game haven't run into it and don't know what I'm referring to).  To be clear, I'm not really a fan of boring improv _or_ wacky improv, I'm just suggesting that they exist as play styles.



Is there a prescribed plotline for the PCs in ToEE?  I must admit, I didn't see one.  It's more than a locale though, it is a module.  It does requires giving life to the NPCs within, but it is hardly an uninformed area.  IMO it's not even close to a railroad.  If it is the only locale in your world, than maybe you are right.  But it certainly doesn't need to be.  

I must say, I'm not sure what you mean by the improv styles you list.  As my setting is full of adventure on all sides, I am running the material on hand.  Perhaps playing NPCs might be considered improv, but than what are the PCs doing?  That NPC roleplaying comes from the same type of material as the Players: background, stats, and personality..


> I'm actually fine with adventure plots being created moment to moment - as long as only the PC players are doing it. It isn't "on the fly" or improvised when the PCs arrive. There is never a plot created by the DM ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.
Click to expand...


Let me throw out all the terminology typically used for books and narratives.  RPGs have no need of them.  It is not "setting", it is World.  It is not "character", it is Person.  When I say the "plot" is created moment to moment I mean the players are Planning and taking Action.  I never Plan for them.  I don't assume they are taking any action whatsoever.  They are in control 100%.  There is no "plot" to find.  They create it as simply as you and I do by living in the real world.


----------



## howandwhy99

Hussar said:
			
		

> Railroading has most certainly occured in all editions.



Not to such prevalance as to today.  Sure, tournament adventures are railroading adventures.  And yes, Necromancer and Goodman Games have some nonlinear, module-type adventures too for 3.5.  Life isn't exclusive.  But I've already agreed that setting isn't really necessary for tournament adventures.  You're expected to explore the Slave Pits, than the world is hardly necessary.  Campaign-style play, however, is completely different.  



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> These are not equivalent, because the game's about the adventure, not the setting. They do not have equal footing, because "the play's the thing". The inability of some to see this is part of the fundamental reasons why this thread exists in the first place. If they are equivalent to you, then you're the kind of person that the blogwriter is talking about.



I agree with you here.  The game is about the adventure.  It sounds like though, you are planning your characters actions and than creating setting around those plans and I am creating settings and allowing the players to create the plans.  IMO, one is telling a story, the other is make-believe.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I notice alot of people posting about "world-building" limiting creativity, well I have a question...don't the rules limit creativity as well. Their built upon assumptions, like the fact that a 1st level fighter can't shoot laser beams out his eyes(You're limiting my creativity) or that a wizard casts only a certain amount of spells(but I want a wizard to cast all his spells at least 3x a day, cause that's my concept). My point is in any game w/rules their is an inherent limit on creativity, unless you throw the rules out...and then you aren't playing that particular game anymore. I believe in the same way a player has a right to make the character he wants within the confines of the rules, the GM has a right to create the setting. Should player prefrence and playstyles be considered? Certainly, but I would hope a GM is doing that already. In the same way that a player creates a character to facilitate the type of role he wants to play, a GM should build their world to facilitate the moods, themes and types of adventures he wants to run.



I talked about "complete" worlds limiting creativity.  And to be honest it really isn't all that limiting.  It only limits further creation of the world since it's already done.  

I agree the rules limit creativity too, but it's always been up to the DM to change the rules to allow new types of characters.  You could create a class where fighters shoot laser beams and wizards cast more often.  It's simply balancing them within the system already in place.  The implied setting that D&D has carried since the beginning is merely a baseline.  Groups could play Traveler with the rules if they wanted to.  It will take some prep.  I agree with you here the DM is final arbiter of rules and setting.


----------



## Hussar

> Is there a prescribed plotline for the PCs in ToEE? I must admit, I didn't see one. It's more than a locale though, it is a module. It does requires giving life to the NPCs within, but it is hardly an uninformed area. IMO it's not even close to a railroad. If it is the only locale in your world, than maybe you are right. But it certainly doesn't need to be




You're right.  ToEE isn't a railroad.  How about Dragonlance?  Or the fact that dead PC's get raised by their enemies in the Slavelords modules?  Are these not examples of railroading from 1e?  Are all earlier edition modules railroads?  Most certainly not.  Are all later edition modules railroads?  Most certainly not.  This is not edition specific.



> It seems relatively clear to me that The Shaman is saying (in these diverse posts):
> 
> (1) There are standard world-building assumptions in D&D that people tend to use, whether or not they recognize them for what they are.
> 
> (2) One of these elements is dragons.
> 
> (3) AoW uses Dragotha, and therefore takes place in a world with dragons.
> 
> (4) If your world doesn't have dragons, you will have to change parts of the adventure to meet non-standard world-building assumptions.
> 
> (5) That doesn't mean it is impossible to do, as rounser's post suggests.
> 
> Also, I would add, that not being able to play Precanned Adventure #6 has nothing to do with the creativity of anyone at the table. Plonking down a precanned requires, and demonstrates, no special creativity.




But, taken in context, its pretty clear that The Shaman is saying that by deviating from standard D&D assumptions, it becomes more and more difficult to move adventures from one setting to another.  I disagree.  Filing the serial numbers off of a setting to use a module is rarely very difficult.  Thus, setting is fairly irrelevant.

Or, to put it another way, if your setting is so tightly wound that changing minor cosmetic elements causes it to fall apart, you resemble what Harrison is talking about.

Take the Warforged Ninja bit again.  7th Sea is set in a fairly advanced setting with fantasy elements, I think.  How difficult would it be to add a slight bit of steampunk and say that warforged, or at least constructs, exist in the setting?  Not very.  Since the general population accepts dwarves and elves, saying that they don't reach for their torches and pitchforks when the warforged comes into town isn't much of a stretch.  Yet, you continiously refuse to even entertain the idea of loosening the grip on the setting canon to allow the player to play what he wants.

In other words, setting has become more important than game.

You call the no platemail a player entitlement issue.  I suppose that anytime the player wants anything that the DM doesn't is a case for player entitlement.  The problem is, a minor change in setting would allow the player (me) to get what he wants.  I wasn't asking the DM to completely rewrite her campaign.  I wasn't asking for massive amounts of rework or even retconning of existing campaign canon, since it had never come up before.  I was asking to be allowed to use the rules that existed in the core books.  If that's player entitlement, well, sign me up.

Take another example.  One DM I played with changed the rules for spell research in 2e to reduce the chances by about 99% or so.  Instead of having about a 25% chance of success (I honestly forget the actual chances) it was down to about 1%.  Now, these changes were brought in because he felt that named spells should be restricted to powerful wizards.  Low level wizards should never have named spells.  

As it happened, he instituted these changes after I had already spent time in game amassing a library and labratory for spell creation.  So, all the effort I had put into creating my "mad scientist" type character went straight down the toilet.  All because he had a certain campaign element fixed in his mind and that was more important than my character.

Or, as another example, look at all the problems with paladins.  A large number of these problems boil down to the DM having differing ideas of what a paladin is than the player does.  Instead of the DM sitting down and thinking about how the paladin character would work in the adventure, he decides that paladins must be a certain way and any deviation from that is met with loss of status.  Again, the DM's setting triumphs over the game.

Does this mean that world building is always bad?  Nope.  But, it does mean that when world building is placed over player wishes and the needs of the campaign, that it is bad.


----------



## Ourph

Hussar said:
			
		

> Does this mean that world building is always bad?  Nope.  But, it does mean that when world building is placed over player wishes and the needs of the campaign, that it is bad.




It seems to me that your examples aren't really about worldbuilding they are about houserules.  The worldbuilding aspect may get thrown in as a secondary justification, but it seems to me that the platemail, the spell restrictions, the Paladin's code stuff are primarily modifications to the system, not the setting.


----------



## Hussar

Well there is a question.  Where does system end and setting begin?  If I make dwarves 9 feet tall, is that a setting or system change?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, taken in context, its pretty clear that The Shaman is saying that by deviating from standard D&D assumptions, it becomes more and more difficult to move adventures from one setting to another.  I disagree.  Filing the serial numbers off of a setting to use a module is rarely very difficult.  Thus, setting is fairly irrelevant.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, if your setting is so tightly wound that changing minor cosmetic elements causes it to fall apart, you resemble what Harrison is talking about.




This same thing can be said for advetures.  If there's no dragons, how hard is it to find something else with an appropriate CR that fits?  Thus setting is perserved and adventure continues.




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Take the Warforged Ninja bit again.  7th Sea is set in a fairly advanced setting with fantasy elements, I think.  How difficult would it be to add a slight bit of steampunk and say that warforged, or at least constructs, exist in the setting?  Not very.  Since the general population accepts dwarves and elves, saying that they don't reach for their torches and pitchforks when the warforged comes into town isn't much of a stretch.  Yet, you continiously refuse to even entertain the idea of loosening the grip on the setting canon to allow the player to play what he wants.
> 
> In other words, setting has become more important than game.




No, its a social contract as in, We all agreed to play a certain game, with a certain feel.  The game isn't about one player it's about the group as a whole and if a player can't modify his concept slightly to fit within certain parameters why should a DM be expected to modify his world?  It's give and take on both ends.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> You call the no platemail a player entitlement issue.  I suppose that anytime the player wants anything that the DM doesn't is a case for player entitlement.  The problem is, a minor change in setting would allow the player (me) to get what he wants.  I wasn't asking the DM to completely rewrite her campaign.  I wasn't asking for massive amounts of rework or even retconning of existing campaign canon, since it had never come up before.  I was asking to be allowed to use the rules that existed in the core books.  If that's player entitlement, well, sign me up.




Perhaps all that "adventure design" the DM worked on was created for PC's with low armor classes and thus since it was the most important thing, she used setting built around it to enforce that.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Take another example.  One DM I played with changed the rules for spell research in 2e to reduce the chances by about 99% or so.  Instead of having about a 25% chance of success (I honestly forget the actual chances) it was down to about 1%.  Now, these changes were brought in because he felt that named spells should be restricted to powerful wizards.  Low level wizards should never have named spells.
> 
> As it happened, he instituted these changes after I had already spent time in game amassing a library and labratory for spell creation.  So, all the effort I had put into creating my "mad scientist" type character went straight down the toilet.  All because he had a certain campaign element fixed in his mind and that was more important than my character.




It sounds like this wasn't an element he decided beforehand, but something spawned from that spontaneous creation many are harping on.  If it had been established and immutable before, you would have known and not wasted your time.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Or, as another example, look at all the problems with paladins.  A large number of these problems boil down to the DM having differing ideas of what a paladin is than the player does.  Instead of the DM sitting down and thinking about how the paladin character would work in the adventure, he decides that paladins must be a certain way and any deviation from that is met with loss of status.  Again, the DM's setting triumphs over the game.
> 
> Does this mean that world building is always bad?  Nope.  But, it does mean that when world building is placed over player wishes and the needs of the campaign, that it is bad.




Actually the player and DM should be hashing out the paladins code together.  All of these seem like problems that don't stem directly from worldbuilding, but DM vs. Player issues.  I don't see how detailed worldbuilding necessarily instituted any of these problems.


----------



## Recidivism

Imaro said:
			
		

> This same thing can be said for advetures.  If there's no dragons, how hard is it to find something else with an appropriate CR that fits?  Thus setting is perserved and adventure continues.
> 
> ...
> 
> No, its a social contract as in, We all agreed to play a certain game, with a certain feel.  The game isn't about one player it's about the group as a whole and if a player can't modify his concept slightly to fit within certain parameters why should a DM be expected to modify his world?  It's give and take on both ends.




Agreed. To me much of this sounds like sour grapes and axe grinding on a target-of-the-week. Pretty much it boils down to this: "Worldbuilding was bad in these instances because I felt like these choices were unreasonable." Not everyone is going to draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable at the same place. C'est la vie.


----------



## Ourph

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well there is a question.  Where does system end and setting begin?  If I make dwarves 9 feet tall, is that a setting or system change?




There are things that are both.  Changing the height of dwarves is both if it makes dwarves size Large instead of Medium.  If they are still Medium creatures I'd say it's setting only.

Telling the players they can't ride their horses to the City of Shamalam because it's on an island is pure setting.

Telling the players they can't ride horses to the City of Shamalam because they haven't taken the feat _Ride Horse to Shamalam_ is pure system.

Telling a player they can't buy platemail because it doesn't exist in the setting is a mixture of both, but IME most of those types of decisions are made because of concerns the DM has with the system and the setting element is a justification that's supposed to maintain verisimilitude rather than being the underlying reason.  The DM doesn't want players to have access to the best armor (system concerns) so he configures his view of the setting to conform to his new houserule.

I'm not saying that your examples aren't legitimate as part of the discussion (yeah, it's frustrating to have a DM give you a really lame setting excuse for their really lame houserule) just that we shouldn't be conflating lame houserules with lame worldbuilding wholesale.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> Take the Warforged Ninja bit again.  7th Sea is set in a fairly advanced setting with fantasy elements, I think.  How difficult would it be to add a slight bit of steampunk and say that warforged, or at least constructs, exist in the setting?  Not very.  Since the general population accepts dwarves and elves, saying that they don't reach for their torches and pitchforks when the warforged comes into town isn't much of a stretch.  Yet, you continiously refuse to even entertain the idea of loosening the grip on the setting canon to allow the player to play what he wants.
> 
> In other words, setting has become more important than game.




Cool. Can I play a Care Bear in your campaign? 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Instead of the DM sitting down and thinking about how the paladin character would work in the adventure...




Interesting. Do we decide how the paladin works before *each* new adventure? If it is different than the last adventure, do we change the character to suit the new adventure? Would that be an example of your adventure being more important than the character?

Honestly I've kind of lost what the discussion is here. As far as I can tell, no one here is placing worldbuilding as more important than developing the adventure. Some people do seem to be saying they like to establish the setting elements before writing the adventure and others are claiming that is restrictive to player options and options for adventure. So I guess my question is, are those people advocating a complete kitchen-sink setting where everything goes? Is there any continuity/consistency in these settings? If so, aren't you defining the setting with each adventure you play? (for example, if you play an adventure featuring dragons heavily, doesn't that stop you from playing one where they are an extinct race later? Or if one adventure takes place on an airship, then are you ruling out adventures that would be ruined by the use of such a vessel?)

I guess I just don't know what the "ideal" is here. How can you play a game that doesn't restrict options without sacrificing coherency?


----------



## FireLance

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> I guess I just don't know what the "ideal" is here. How can you play a game that doesn't restrict options without sacrificing coherency?



Here's how I'd deal with it. I have a rather modular approach to worldbuilding. If I want to introduce an element (such as shadar-kai dread necromancers), then shadar-kai and dread necromancers will exist in the world, and I will find a way to work them in. If a player wants to be a warforged ninja, warforged and ninjas will exist in the world and I'll work out how they fit in, too. If the player wants his character to be the only warforged and the only ninja in the world, I can deal with that too (unless I have other plans, in which case, I'll tell the player that he's the only warforged ninja in the world... as far as he knows ), but the player will have to detail how the PC came to be, or I'll just make up something simple. 

Playing a care bear is another matter, because it's a non-standard race. Unless the player can come up with a decent set of rules for a care bear character (meaning, I agree that it's balanced), I'll just propose adapting something similar for the mechanics: for example, using the Ewok or halfing race as a base, and taking levels in the bard class.

In other words, coherence is something that is worked out after all the character variables are finalized, not before. If nobody is interested in playing a spellscale, and I am not planning to have spellscales in my adventure, there is no reason for spellscales to exist in the world. Should I or the players change our minds later, we can find some way to work them back in. The PC (or NPC) could even be the first spellscale to exist in the world.


----------



## howandwhy99

I agree in full with Firelance above.

Let the players' imaginations run free.  Let them invest in their characters.  

I do say, in the case of Care Bears, outlandish, out-of-genre proposals should really be passed before the whole group, but why limit your game unnecessarily?  

This reminds me of our OD&D game.  When I rolled up a Cleric I asked what Gods were available.  Diaglo says, "Anything".  I was a bit taken back by that.  I suggested a bunch of stuff including Sifl and Olly the sock puppets and he agreed to all of them.  It's just like real life.  People can worship whatever they choose.  I could have picked my PCs' left hand.   Would it have been "the dominant religion in the world"?  Probably not, but this is an unknown world, so it goes to say I couldn't know that beforehand.   Perhaps it could be true.  But then I'd likely lose my hand in short order.   Fun is fun.


----------



## Aaron L

I enjoy worldbuilding.  My friends who play in my world also enjoy the worldbuilding I have done and the detailed setting I have crafted.

I think that adventures should be tailored to fit into the setting they are _set_ in.  An adventure set in the Forgotten Realms should be different than an adventure set in Greyhawk, and an Eberron adventure should be different than a Dark Sun adventure.  I think that adventures that are generic enough to be placed in any setting will be inherently boring _because_ they are so generic and lack the background and history of a setting to anchor them.  

I think that PCs should be tailored to fit into a setting and it's cultures and history.  I don't think a setting should be altered to fit the PCs.  Making allowances for special characters is OK, but when every character is an oddball that doesn't fit the setting than the game becomes ridiculous and not enjoyable to me.  Setting is almost a character in it's own right to me; every setting has it's own flavor and style that enriches it, or at least they should, in my opinion.  When a game is set in a featureless world where any idea imaginable is allowed it becomes a chaotic mish-mash that doesn't appeal to me in the least.    

I think that building and detailing a world will free a DM from the need to have adventures written in advance, and the very idea of having adventures written in advance is railroading in it's purest form; how do you know what the PCs are going to do and where they are going to be well enough to have adventures pre-planned unless you railroad them onto a set path?  Having a well detailed world allows a DM to let the PCs go where they want and do what they want because every location is already in place and detailed, just waiting for the PCs to go there, while having pre-set adventures means that the PCs MUST be at the location of the adventure, or that the adventure is so generic that it can be placed anywhere (which would mean it is a dull and shallow adventure, to me.)  


Look at it this way: which episodes of a TV series, lets say the X-Files, are more interesting; the "setting" episodes, which explored the Conspiracy and the history of Mulder and the aliens, or the "Monster of the Week" episodes, which were one-shot stand-alone episodes that had little to no impact on the story-arc of the series?  

Or, even more basically, which shows are more interesting; shows like Lost and Babylon 5, which have an unfolding plot in a detailed setting, or serialized shows like Seinfeld and most of Star Trek,  in which episodes could essentially be viewed in any order and there is little to no plot development throughout the series?     

It's entirely a matter of taste which kind you like, but I vastly prefer the shows with a rich background and unfolding plot; the same way I vastly prefer games that integrate with their setting and have a rich an detailed backstory.

The blog post was nothing more than a statement of personal preference using snarky language, but it then went on to insult anyone who doesn't follow his personal preference by calling them boring, plodding nerds.  This reduced it to a meaningless rant.  I can just as easily say that anyone who doesn't share my preferences in gaming or fiction is a drooling imbecile, but I wont, because I recognize and respect that different people have different tastes, and there is no objective way to say which is better.  

However, I can say that people who call others names for not sharing their personal idiosyncrasies are juvenile.


----------



## Hussar

I agree with Firelance as well.


----------



## Hussar

> I think that adventures should be tailored to fit into the setting they are set in. An adventure set in the Forgotten Realms should be different than an adventure set in Greyhawk, and an Eberron adventure should be different than a Dark Sun adventure. I think that adventures that are generic enough to be placed in any setting will be inherently boring because they are so generic and lack the background and history of a setting to anchor them.




Looking at the list of the most popular modules of all time, I would say that many disagree with this point.


----------



## Aaron L

Hussar said:
			
		

> Looking at the list of the most popular modules of all time, I would say that many disagree with this point.





Not surprisingly, I really dislike modules and can't stand either running or playing them.  I like my adventures tailored to the characters and their histories.

I don't think this is a widely held opinion, but it is _my_ opinion; the fact that this opinion is shared with everyone I game with just means that I game with people who have similar preferences.


----------



## howandwhy99

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I think that adventures should be tailored to fit into the setting they are _set_ in.  An adventure set in the Forgotten Realms should be different than an adventure set in Greyhawk, and an Eberron adventure should be different than a Dark Sun adventure.  I think that adventures that are generic enough to be placed in any setting will be inherently boring _because_ they are so generic and lack the background and history of a setting to anchor them.



I agree with you, but IIRC most DMs run homebrew settings.  If publishers are going to sell to them, they need to try and appeal to as many as possible.  Hence the generic D&D setting.  I think a lot of the pieces of published adventures can be modified into most D&D settings.  That's what modules are for: to be modified.



> I think that PCs should be tailored to fit into a setting and it's cultures and history.  I don't think a setting should be altered to fit the PCs.  Making allowances for special characters is OK, but when every character is an oddball that doesn't fit the setting than the game becomes ridiculous and not enjoyable to me.  Setting is almost a character in it's own right to me; every setting has it's own flavor and style that enriches it, or at least they should, in my opinion.  When a game is set in a featureless world where any idea imaginable is allowed it becomes a chaotic mish-mash that doesn't appeal to me in the least.



In my view I'm not altering the setting to allow for outlandish PCs.  I'm working with the players' ideas to modify them and fit them into the world.  D&D is pretty upfront about the baselines of its standard setting. The standard races, classes, spells, and items all typically have a place in most settings.  Eberron tried very hard to keep every single thing and yet alter each in some way.  Similarly, sticking to setting and including odd PC proposals can be done too.  If the players all want oddball characters, that's their decision.  They know the status quo going in.  If you run a known world though, they already know what's expected.  Adding Carebears to LotR isn't going to work.


----------



## FireLance

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I think that adventures should be tailored to fit into the setting they are _set_ in.  An adventure set in the Forgotten Realms should be different than an adventure set in Greyhawk, and an Eberron adventure should be different than a Dark Sun adventure.  I think that adventures that are generic enough to be placed in any setting will be inherently boring _because_ they are so generic and lack the background and history of a setting to anchor them.



Okay, this sparked off a minor insight (at least for me). I think the key issue here is: who's the star of the adventure? If the PCs are the stars, whichever campaign world they happen to be adventuring in is largely irrelevant, and the details can be changed without significantly affecting the flow of the adventure. Does it matter if the paladin serves Torm, Hieroneous, or Dol Arrah? Does it matter whether the adventurers are based in Sharn, Waterdeep, Greyhawk or Tyr? If the PCs are the stars, the answer is no.

If the world is the star, or one of the stars (it's not all or nothing - there can be varying degrees of importance), then the setting elements matter and are important. That's not just another epic-level wizard; he's Mordenkainen. That's no ordinary scimitar-wielding drow ranger; he's Drizzt Do'Urden. That's not just another magic-blasted wasteland; it's the Mournlands. Players can enjoy this kind of world, too. An established, detailed and well-known campaign setting (whether published or homebrewed) offers the advantages of familiarity to the players. It also helps break down the barrier between character knowledge and player knowledge, which in turn helps the player to immerse himself into his character's role and view the world from his perspective.

A secondary thought along these lines is that setting plays roles of varying importance in books, movies and other stories as well. For example, the story of Romeo and Juliet does not suffer (much) whether it's set in medieval Verona, modern-day Verona Beach, or whether the conflict is between two noble families or two rival street gangs. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a story like The Mummy or The Mummy Returns that does not involve Egyptian elements in some manner because of the strong association that mummies have with Egypt.


----------



## Darth Shoju

FireLance said:
			
		

> If the world is the star, or one of the stars (it's not all or nothing - there can be varying degrees of importance), then the setting elements matter and are important. That's not just another epic-level wizard; he's Mordenkainen. That's no ordinary scimitar-wielding drow ranger; he's Drizzt Do'Urden. That's not just another magic-blasted wasteland; it's the Mournlands. Players can enjoy this kind of world, too. An established, detailed and well-known campaign setting (whether published or homebrewed) offers the advantages of familiarity to the players. It also helps break down the barrier between character knowledge and player knowledge, which in turn helps the player to immerse himself into his character's role and view the world from his perspective.
> 
> A secondary thought along these lines is that setting plays roles of varying importance in books, movies and other stories as well. For example, the story of Romeo and Juliet does not suffer (much) whether it's set in medieval Verona, modern-day Verona Beach, or whether the conflict is between two noble families or two rival street gangs. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a story like The Mummy or The Mummy Returns that does not involve Egyptian elements in some manner because of the strong association that mummies have with Egypt.




But I thought limiting options was bad? If we are playing a "Mummy Returns" type adventure we can't do Red Hand of Doom with the same characters. Isn't that a problem?


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> I agree with Firelance as well.






			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> What I'm not going to do is rewrite my entire evening's plans to accommodate a single player.




Why not? *Firelance* was willing to change things to make it so I was the only Warforged Ninja in the world (but possibly secretly make it so I'm not).


----------



## Darth Shoju

FireLance said:
			
		

> Playing a care bear is another matter, because it's a non-standard race. Unless the player can come up with a decent set of rules for a care bear character (meaning, I agree that it's balanced), I'll just propose adapting something similar for the mechanics: for example, using the Ewok or halfing race as a base, and taking levels in the bard class.




What is a standard race? Do warforged count as standard? Is the sky the limit for characters as long as I can come up with rules for it?


----------



## FireLance

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> But I thought limiting options was bad? If we are playing a "Mummy Returns" type adventure we can't do Red Hand of Doom with the same characters. Isn't that a problem?



I don't see any problem (and I don't see how my post relates to limiting options, either). Adaptation is the key. The easiest is probably to covert the "Mummy Returns" characters to D&D analogues (Rick, Evie and Jonathan map rather nicely to the fighter, adept and rogue archetypes). It would be more difficult to convert the monsters in RHOD to something that could exist in a pulp setting with Egyptian elements, but it could be done, too. Porting the "Mummy Returns" characters directly into a RHOD adventure is probably the most difficult, but it could still work in a "fish out of water"/"modern characters in magical setting" way.


----------



## Imaro

FireLance said:
			
		

> Okay, this sparked off a minor insight (at least for me). I think the key issue here is: who's the star of the adventure? If the PCs are the stars, whichever campaign world they happen to be adventuring in is largely irrelevant, and the details can be changed without significantly affecting the flow of the adventure. Does it matter if the paladin serves Torm, Hieroneous, or Dol Arrah? Does it matter whether the adventurers are based in Sharn, Waterdeep, Greyhawk or Tyr? If the PCs are the stars, the answer is no.
> 
> If the world is the star, or one of the stars (it's not all or nothing - there can be varying degrees of importance), then the setting elements matter and are important. That's not just another epic-level wizard; he's Mordenkainen. That's no ordinary scimitar-wielding drow ranger; he's Drizzt Do'Urden. That's not just another magic-blasted wasteland; it's the Mournlands. Players can enjoy this kind of world, too. An established, detailed and well-known campaign setting (whether published or homebrewed) offers the advantages of familiarity to the players. It also helps break down the barrier between character knowledge and player knowledge, which in turn helps the player to immerse himself into his character's role and view the world from his perspective.
> 
> A secondary thought along these lines is that setting plays roles of varying importance in books, movies and other stories as well. For example, the story of Romeo and Juliet does not suffer (much) whether it's set in medieval Verona, modern-day Verona Beach, or whether the conflict is between two noble families or two rival street gangs. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a story like The Mummy or The Mummy Returns that does not involve Egyptian elements in some manner because of the strong association that mummies have with Egypt.




I think one important piece you might be overlooking is...what if the players want to play in a specific world because of that worlds trappings.  If we all want to play a gritty survivalist game of Dark Sun and one out of six players decides to play a "care bear"  should the atmosphere and mood of game everyone else expected and want be sacrificed for this player?  What if it was two out of the six?  At what point should it be a consensus thing where someone whether it be DM or a player has to make a sacrifice?


----------



## FireLance

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Why not? *Firelance* was willing to change things to make it so I was the only Warforged Ninja in the world (but possibly secretly make it so I'm not).



To be fair, there is a question of reaction time. If the player had been telling me he wanted to play a generic dwarf fighter, and showed up on the day of the game with a warforged ninja, I'd be rather annoyed, too.


----------



## FireLance

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> What is a standard race? Do warforged count as standard? Is the sky the limit for characters as long as I can come up with rules for it?



It would vary from DM to DM, but to me "standard" generally means "WotC material", so warforged count as standard. I have problems with a few things, mostly stuff that I dislike for mechanical reasons or for the way they affect game play (like the frenzied berserker), but changing the flavor is usually not a problem (I'd eveb allow a Lawful Good warlock that channels the power of the Silver Flame).

I'm also okay with player created material, as long as I have time to review it beforehand and I think it's balanced.


----------



## FireLance

Imaro said:
			
		

> I think one important piece you might be overlooking is...what if the players want to play in a specific world because of that worlds trappings.  If we all want to play a gritty survivalist game of Dark Sun and one out of six players decides to play a "care bear"  should the atmosphere and mood of game everyone else expected and want be sacrificed for this player?  What if it was two out of the six?  At what point should it be a consensus thing where someone whether it be DM or a player has to make a sacrifice?



If the players want to play in a world because of the world's trappings, that comes under the general point of the world being one of the stars.

As for the other issue, a playstyle preference problem is broader than just whatever setting you choose to play in. It could be the assassin in a good-aligned party, the power gamer in a group of method actors, or the rogue that steals from the other PCs. If your gaming group can't come to an agreement that everyone is happy (or at least, not _un_happy) with, then it's probably best that you don't play together.


----------



## Aaron L

FireLance said:
			
		

> Okay, this sparked off a minor insight (at least for me). I think the key issue here is: who's the star of the adventure? If the PCs are the stars, whichever campaign world they happen to be adventuring in is largely irrelevant, and the details can be changed without significantly affecting the flow of the adventure. Does it matter if the paladin serves Torm, Hieroneous, or Dol Arrah? Does it matter whether the adventurers are based in Sharn, Waterdeep, Greyhawk or Tyr? If the PCs are the stars, the answer is no.
> 
> If the world is the star, or one of the stars (it's not all or nothing - there can be varying degrees of importance), then the setting elements matter and are important. That's not just another epic-level wizard; he's Mordenkainen. That's no ordinary scimitar-wielding drow ranger; he's Drizzt Do'Urden. That's not just another magic-blasted wasteland; it's the Mournlands. Players can enjoy this kind of world, too. An established, detailed and well-known campaign setting (whether published or homebrewed) offers the advantages of familiarity to the players. It also helps break down the barrier between character knowledge and player knowledge, which in turn helps the player to immerse himself into his character's role and view the world from his perspective.
> 
> A secondary thought along these lines is that setting plays roles of varying importance in books, movies and other stories as well. For example, the story of Romeo and Juliet does not suffer (much) whether it's set in medieval Verona, modern-day Verona Beach, or whether the conflict is between two noble families or two rival street gangs. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a story like The Mummy or The Mummy Returns that does not involve Egyptian elements in some manner because of the strong association that mummies have with Egypt.





That's exactly what I'm talking about, the world being one of the stars... not one of the leads, but an important background character.  I think that an Elven Fighter/Wizard from the Forgotten Realms should be different than an Elven Fighter/Wizard from Greyhawk, and that the world they live and adventure in should be reflected in the characters. 

A band of adventurers in the Forgotten Realms should reflect the feel of the Realms, have more of a high fantasy, slightly whimsical, epic flair, perhaps seeking to rid the world of evil or restore the lost glory of ancient kingdoms, and have a grand name like the Company of the Crescent Blade (to use a name from my last Reams campaign) complete with a charter from Cormyr; while a party of adventurers in Greyhawk should have a different feel: more of a treasure seeker, mercenary attitude... professional adventurers with a hard edge, looting tombs and subduing dragons to sell in the market in the City of Greyhawk.  A classic old school D&D "kick in the door and kick some ass" attitude.        

I think that the world or setting the PCs are in should have a heavy influence on the characters, the cultures that characters come from should be reflected in the PCs personality.  Setting as a secondary star in a game is an excellent way to put it.  The PCs should be the focus, but I think the setting should be almost as significant.      


I usually run my homebrew setting, but the same idea applies there, too.  I have lots of background setting material, and I make sure everyone knows the attitude and feel of my world.  When I DM I let everyone know from the beginning that my world has a certain feel and characters that don't fit won't be allowed, but I also let everyone know that we can play in any other setting they want if they want to play things that wouldn't fit in my setting.  I  enforce the flavor of my setting, but I don't force people to play in it if they don't want to.  


But so far, for everyone I game with, when I run a game they know it will be in my world, and they expect it, and I only run when they ask me to, so they know and accept what they're getting into.  It's the same way with all of them, too: everyone in my gaming group DMs and has their own setting, complete with it's own flavor and attitude.  A group from my setting  of Alterra would seem out of place in my friends homebrew setting of Camathria, and a party from either of those worlds would seem out of place in the Realms, just because of character attitudes, personalities and expectations.  For us, every world comes with it's own set of expectations, and that's the way we like it.  Every setting has it's own personality, and stripping that away robs the game of a lot of it's flavor for us.


----------



## Hussar

> A secondary thought along these lines is that setting plays roles of varying importance in books, movies and other stories as well. For example, the story of Romeo and Juliet does not suffer (much) whether it's set in medieval Verona, modern-day Verona Beach, or whether the conflict is between two noble families or two rival street gangs. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a story like The Mummy or The Mummy Returns that does not involve Egyptian elements in some manner because of the strong association that mummies have with Egypt.




I dunno.  What is the basic plot of The Mummy?  Adventurers awaken an ancient evil and must battle that evil to send it back down.  It's not like that plot hasn't been done a whole bunch of times.  If you were enamoured with mummies in particular, there are a number of cultures which had mummies of different forms.  You could also go with natural mummification processes that have been perverted by ancient evil.  

I really don't think that too many stories can't be retold in a different setting.  It's only when setting becomes a star that it becomes difficult.



			
				DarthSoju said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Hussar
> What I'm not going to do is rewrite my entire evening's plans to accommodate a single player.
> 
> 
> Why not? *Firelance* was willing to change things to make it so I was the only Warforged Ninja in the world (but possibly secretly make it so I'm not).




Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could be.  I don't presume to tell the DM that he or she has to trash tonights adventure because of my character.  I do presume to tell the DM that changing a couple of paragraphs in his setting bible will let me play the character I want to play.

In other words, and i mentioned this in the other thread were the warforged ninja was brought up, if there are solid mechanical reasons for the DM to say no, i have no problems.  If you are runnign a campaign where disease and lack of food are a real issue, then my taking a warforged would bypass all of that.  I would not expect the DM to allow me to do that.  However, if the only reason the DM is saying no is because his view of his setting bible is so fixed that he is incapable of change, then I will have to pass.  Sorry, as a player, I want to be the star of the show.  An ensemble cast, sure, but, one that doesn't play second fiddle to Gandalf in every scene.


----------



## Priest_Sidran

What would be more helpful than simply quoting some non entity science fiction author who few people have heard about, is to have some one who actually had relevent material give us some ideas about World building. Ed Greenwood, or Gygax, or Keith Baker for instance...

Something Else I would like to see (around here) is a DM's help forum which allows DM's to ask questions from other DM's about how to do things better. I for one am good at World Building in great detail, but when it comes to drawing a dungeon I get cold feet, and a case of the DM's Shuffles (as I call it, perhaps a Creativity block would be a better way of calling it.)  I can run a dungeon, I just can't draw a dungeon. Two pennies worth of thoughts from other DM's would be a nice help around these parts.



WORDS FOR HUSSAR

AS a rule I will not allow things that are outside of my "Setting Bible". I have gotten tired of pandering to players who want this or that character type for their character, even though It is firmly outside of what I have put in print as allowable or not allowable. At some point a DM has to set his foot down and tell players NO, or else they run over him rough shod. Subjects like Can I play this or that race, or is this class allowable in this form are a constant, and while I am a flexible DM, I am tired of having the atmosphere of my world changed every time a new campaign starts, simply because a player would be more happy outside the context of allowable races/classes/feats, etc.  The phrase give them an Inch, and they take a mile is a familiar one to me, and very applicable to this topic. My players are on average a manageable lot, but that doesn't mean that I should allow them to play things which they know they shouldn't be asking me to play. 

Some DM's I have played under will not allow anything other than the PHB, Others are every book counts BUT..., and then my type of DM grants a list of allowable stuff, and a few restrictions such as no EL above 0, or in my case No Monks (without a good reason why their a monk), No Rangers w/ spells, etc. I have an idea about my world that I am not going to change so a player can play a character they want simply because they want it. I will however make exceptions for players who spend the time to give me a valid reason why I should allow them to play a restricted, or limited race or class. In addition I have supplied my players with numerous home brew races, classes, equipment, feats, etc which they are capable of taking any time they want, and I did this as a way of circling around my restrictions (in a manner of speaking anyway), as well as to fill out my worlds flavor.

So to end my wordy rant, all issues in which a DM says no should be taken as Mechanical issues. If a DM is fixed on his "setting bible" then it is something that is important to him, and thus constitutes mechanical reasons.  Just because a Base ball player thinks that he should allowed to be able to run from 1st to 3rd and bypass 2nd all together doesn't mean that the ref should would allow it, neither would a Ref allow the same player to insist on a Basket ball, or a 4th base. Its the same for any DM who says no to a player in regards to character concept vs. world design. 

I learned this very early when I made the mistake of allowing a character to play a half dragon pc in a world that originally had little to no dragons. The actions of the character, and the party as a whole influenced the world around them in a way that was harmful to my world concept. Since then I have limited players away from things that are restricted, or limited in my Setting, so that they will not influence the world in such a dramatic way in the future. This includes the removal of the Half-orc as a player race (replaced by Giant from Arcana Unearthed), the lack of characters to learn Draconic (secret language), and the limitation of players seeking to play as dwarves (who are a dying race in my world)


----------



## Hussar

> I have an idea about my world that I am not going to change so a player can play a character they want simply because they want it.




This pretty much gets right to the heart of my point.  _I_ am not going to change _my_ world.  IOW, the DM's world and NOT the player's world.  How realistic is it to expect players to engage in a role play setting in which they have no input?


----------



## Priest_Sidran

My players do have an input, as a matter of fact 50% of all of the world building that has been done in the setting was done by them outside of the gaming session. It is MY world however, and I keep a strict direction of what goes into it, and what sticks around. If I did not do that the world would have little coesion and thus would seem like a ball of chaos which did not have realistic laws and orders.  As the DM I am in effect the Laws of Nature for the world. Simply because a player wants something to be added for the benefit of his upcoming character doesn't mean that I have to open up the world to that new thing. Consistancy is the key issue when coming up with new additions to a world. I listen to my players wants, and I decide which I am going to allow and which I am not. The game is not a democracy as far as the world goes, its a Tyrany, and one that the players (at least mine appreciate). Sometimes we butt heads but 90% of the time they listen to my answer and respect it as the DM's final say. 

Warforged for instance would never be allowed in my world, and neither would 65% of Eberron's source material. I simply have a world that functions differently than Eberron and adding the material would be a determent to my world rather than a healthy and enjoyable addition. 

Not to mention as a DM, and primarly only a DM I have no creative leanings outside of NPC's world details, and the occasional area map. The world is my child, and the players are just characters who interact with it, and perhaps influence it with their actions. That doesn't help the world go around any faster.

And like I said I will allow something if a player spends the requisite amount of time it takes to process his reason why something should be added.  I should not have to pander to a person who is not willing to spend the time it takes to get approval for a world changing request, its not fair to me, or to the world that I have spent so much time working on.  

What does end up happening is that I do Revisions of the world and during that process its a free for all open season for my players to request anything that they want. Only a few trickle in when this occurs, and for the most part they simply leave it to me to understand what they want vs. what they need to continue being happy players.

The World (My World) is a key part in the story elements of the adventures my players go through, many have played in this same world from their first session to now, and have immersed themselves in the world, many know the layout of the land, and have favorite places whether its Elustre, or the Jhansari Stretch. Players remember characters from previous games, and feel a familiarity with cities in which previous characters have lived. One player has even played through several generations of the same family. The world is a key feature in my DMing repertoire, and as such I keep a creative hold on what my players pump into it. As such I might put off some people, and for that I do not appologize, I don't feel the need to.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> This pretty much gets right to the heart of my point.  _I_ am not going to change _my_ world.  IOW, the DM's world and NOT the player's world.  How realistic is it to expect players to engage in a role play setting in which they have no input?





I don't know about you, but I tend to use the same world repeatedly with different groups of players, and different groups of characters with the same players.  Changing the world affects more than the people sitting at the table at one time.

Others have replied to some of what you wrote earlier, so I won't both much, except to say that, if you agree that the DM can place _mechanical_ restrictions because wood and metal don't exist, but don't agree that the DM can place _mechanical_ restrictions because plate mail doesn't exist, I have a very hard time with seeing a consistency to your viewpoint.

Moreover, on many threads related to player entitlement, I am fairly certain that you have argued that the DM has the right to restrict the ruleset in play, including the core ruleset.  Correct me if I am wrong.  Suddenly, the DM doesn't have that right.  Would it be fair of me to disregard your previous posts on this issue, and believe that you agree player entitlement is a factor in the game as it exists today?

At the end of the day, though, you are right when you say that it is "my" world.  I own it.  I have all the files and printouts.  The amount to which it is the players world is based on their investment and in-game decisions.....which is, IMHO, as it should be.


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Or, even more basically, which shows are more interesting; shows like Lost and Babylon 5, which have an unfolding plot in a detailed setting, or serialized shows like Seinfeld and most of Star Trek, in which episodes could essentially be viewed in any order and there is little to no plot development throughout the series?
> 
> It's entirely a matter of taste which kind you like, but I vastly prefer the shows with a rich background and unfolding plot; the same way I vastly prefer games that integrate with their setting and have a rich an detailed backstory.




I think the thing is that liking one doesn't mean you can't like the other. And it also means you can dislike one or the other.

I like the X-files *both* for it's Monster-of-the-Week episodes, and for it's conspiracy theory metaplot. I like Seinfeld well enough, but sometimes the wordplay just gets obnoxious. I like Lost pretty well, too, but am liking it less and less as it reaches ridiculous heights of absurdity. 

In my D&D campaigns, the worlds are generally consistent for a season, but disposable after that season. A really good season might have a sequel or a repeat, but focus on a slightly different element.


----------



## Greg K

Hussar said:
			
		

> This pretty much gets right to the heart of my point.  _I_ am not going to change _my_ world.  IOW, the DM's world and NOT the player's world.  How realistic is it to expect players to engage in a role play setting in which they have no input?




I'd say it depends on the player. Until two members of our group moved cross country, our group had four rotating dms out of six members. Each of us had our own world in the sense that we individualy designed the setting-well two actually ran "canned" worlds.  I ran the type of setting that you are arguing against.  I predetermined the culture, available races, deities, etc.- no exceptions like warforged ninja or planetouched or were-whatever. Yet, I'd gather the game that I ran was the most popular as, whenever, somebody else was running the other players were asking me when I would be running again.  Even, recently when I took a year off to spend with my ill father, I still have players mentioning that they can't wait for my campaign to resume.

What seemed to make the difference?

1.  They liked was that the characters were built around the setting's cultures rather than the other way around. They liked that when they narrowed their character's home region to a specific area, I could answer questions about the culture, classes, important npcs, organizations, current events, etc.- elements that they could use in developing their character including areas where and why their character might have deviated from the cultural norm.  Based off of the information provided, the found thier own hooks to make them care and built them into the character background.  

2.  The setting might limit certain character choices/options during character generation, but in play its about the characters.  
a. Periodically, there are sessions that are all or mostly all about RP and individual character is brought to the to the foreground.   The Knight returning home to find his fiancee engaged to his rival and moves being made against his holdings (his border party was found dead and nobody had heard from him in over a year), the druid returning home and  being considered for improved rank in the order.  The Paladin getting a lead to finding his missing sister.

b. The players  know that their characters have a lot of freedom within the setting and the choices they make determines the direction that the campaign takes.  I might have a metaplot in mind, but the players are not requried to follow it.  After every session, they are asked where they are going next. This decision impacts what I prepare next and, even then, they sometimes make a last minute change in which case the game becomes more of an improv session. For example, the time that the group decided to try and get the sexually repressed druid "laid".


----------



## Dead Scribe

World-building is a pretty solipsistic activity.  Most authors, and for that matter most DMs, are not really world-builders--not the kind that this guy is talking about.  World-building is not just fleshing out a setting; that's a standard part of any kind of story-telling.  World-building is what happens when the activity of defining the world overrides telling stories within that world.  It's what Tolkien did; to Tolkien, writing novels was simply an outgrowth of having this world that he spent nearly his entire life building.

World-building might be an enjoyable act to some, like Tolkien, and there is nothing wrong with that; however, it is not particularly useful or helpful for others.  It's counterproductive to storytelling and to gaming--no one should have to redefine the rules of the game just to play.  It's why pre-existing settings are out there; to provide context for the players.  If one is trying to create a good game or a good story, then the setting has to be subordinate to the needs of those ends.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Dead Scribe said:
			
		

> It's what Tolkien did; to Tolkien, writing novels was simply an outgrowth of having this world that he spent nearly his entire life building.




This is a common belief, but the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that.  LotR began due to his publisher's demand for a sequel to _The Hobbit_.  The plot needs of the story forced him to revise the earlier work.  He actually started a sequel to the LotR, taking place in the 4th Age, because his publisher demanded more.  Eventually, this got scrapped (because he thought it hurt the LotR to have the Shadow re-emerge), and work got underway to publish his notes on Middle Earth.

Unfortunately, Tolkein didn't live long enough to rework this material into something truly great.

The order of events would be:

(1)  The Hobbit.
(2)  Request from publisher/fans for "More concerning Hobbits".
(3)  A failed attempt to write another Bilbo story.
(4)  The basic idea for the LotR plot.
(5)  Beginning of the creation of a world background for Middle Earth.
(6)  LotR...a long writing process that, judging from what the man wrote about it, demonstrates that he suffered the same doubts and problems as any other writer of a major work.  Doing this required revision of the background material frequently to fit the setting to the needs of the plot.
(7)  Publisher wants another Hobbit book.
(8)  Tolkein starts the Return of the Shadow, then abandons it.
(9)  Tolkein starts to work up The Silmarilion.
(10)  Tolkein dies, leaving it for others to publish without sufficient polish.


RC


EDIT:  People talk about Tolkein as a worldbuilder, but his genius for plotting was at least the equal of his genius for worldbuilding.  The plot of LotR is _dense_, and many "inconsequential" details actually have plot relevance.  Every time I read it I find plot connections that I missed previously.


----------



## Dead Scribe

Yes yes, that is a more or less accurate timeline, but it leaves off an important detail--that Tolkien was creating the linguistic and mythological background that would someday be turned into the Silmarillion many years before the Hobbit was ever published.

It's these linguistic and mythological experiments that were Tolkien's lifelong passion; not storytelling.  It was a curious obsession that he worked on for his own reasons, rather than to create something for other people.  And that was my point.

Most people have neither the brilliance, nor the compulsion, nor the time to _really_ create worlds.  And that's probably a good thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Dead Scribe said:
			
		

> It's these linguistic and mythological experiments that were Tolkien's lifelong passion; not storytelling.  It was a curious obsession that he worked on for his own reasons, rather than to create something for other people.  And that was my point.





Well, both I think.  

Not everything he wrote was about Middle Earth, and his interest in language did not exist in isolation.


----------



## howandwhy99

D&D has a proscribed setting.  It's anything goes, build as you go.  The best argument I can think of for build-as-you-go is the creation methods used for many settings already in print.  Forgotten Realms started with the Cormyr crescent.  Increased to the Moonsea Crescent.  And just kept accreting more and more.  The players roamed and the setting grew.  IMO, that's a homebrew.  All those Monster Manual creatures running about in a cultural mishmash?  It isn't the inexplicable, kitchen-sink setting more than that the creators played their PCs all across pop mythology.  Practically everything in D&D has no right to be in the same setting.  Mythological Greek creatures next to vampires next to fairies next to Baba Yaga is an incoherent setting.  At least by traditional standards.  

To me, D&D is supposed to be a mishmash.  It's supposed to be a constant accretion of "What do you think would be cool now?" setting creation.  Rationales are created organically.  Leaving space and not filling in every white area on the globe, in history, on the Gods list, and "what is magic?" allows this too.  Just look at the original Blackmoor map.  It's thick in some areas, thin in others.  

The absolutism of setting is a restriction.  It can be enabling, but, as I've said before, it works best as a known setting, a licensed setting.  Playing an unalterable, unknown homebrew requires a list of options instead of the imagination challenging "What do you want to be?"

With all that, I still do agree players can "Carebear a setting".  It is a friendly game in the end after all.



			
				Priest_Sidran said:
			
		

> I learned this very early when I made the mistake of allowing a character to play a half dragon pc in a world that originally had little to no dragons. The actions of the character, and the party as a whole influenced the world around them in a way that was harmful to my world concept. Since then I have limited players away from things that are restricted, or limited in my Setting, so that they will not influence the world in such a dramatic way in the future. This includes the removal of the Half-orc as a player race (replaced by Giant from Arcana Unearthed), the lack of characters to learn Draconic (secret language), and the limitation of players seeking to play as dwarves (who are a dying race in my world)



See, to me, this is one of the points of being in a setting.  To "influence the world in a dramatic way".  I understand it was inimicable to your conception of the setting and I'd rather not have my own homebrews "Carebeared" by players.  I guess it's where you draw the line.  How open is a DM to originality from PC proposals?  A closed setting cannot, by definition, handle all things.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> EDIT: People talk about Tolkein as a worldbuilder, but his genius for plotting was at least the equal of his genius for worldbuilding. The plot of LotR is dense, and many "inconsequential" details actually have plot relevance. Every time I read it I find plot connections that I missed previously.




Aye, but that's just his strength as a storyteller showing through. I could say the same thing about Fooly Cooly, and I can watch the whole thing in the time it would take me to read the first half of FotR.

Most of the time, his storytelling triumphed his worldbuilding, but there's plenty of time when that's not true and the story plods along or stops in mid-adventure for him to introduce some inconsequential side-gibberish. His storytelling pulled it out eventually, but he'd still spend time playing around with Tom Bombadil (for instance) instead of getting on with it. 

The first time through LotR, I skipped everything that wasn't about Frodo and Sam. I figured, "This doesn't really matter. They're running interference. I don't care about any of these characters. They're not the ones saving the world." 

I missed some interesting stuff, but I wouldn't say I missed anything of key importance for the plot.


----------



## Aaron L

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is a common belief, but the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that.  LotR began due to his publisher's demand for a sequel to _The Hobbit_.  The plot needs of the story forced him to revise the earlier work.  He actually started a sequel to the LotR, taking place in the 4th Age, because his publisher demanded more.  Eventually, this got scrapped (because he thought it hurt the LotR to have the Shadow re-emerge), and work got underway to publish his notes on Middle Earth.
> 
> Unfortunately, Tolkein didn't live long enough to rework this material into something truly great.
> 
> The order of events would be:
> 
> (1)  The Hobbit.
> (2)  Request from publisher/fans for "More concerning Hobbits".
> (3)  A failed attempt to write another Bilbo story.
> (4)  The basic idea for the LotR plot.
> (5)  Beginning of the creation of a world background for Middle Earth.
> (6)  LotR...a long writing process that, judging from what the man wrote about it, demonstrates that he suffered the same doubts and problems as any other writer of a major work.  Doing this required revision of the background material frequently to fit the setting to the needs of the plot.
> (7)  Publisher wants another Hobbit book.
> (8)  Tolkein starts the Return of the Shadow, then abandons it.
> (9)  Tolkein starts to work up The Silmarilion.
> (10)  Tolkein dies, leaving it for others to publish without sufficient polish.
> 
> 
> RC
> 
> 
> EDIT:  People talk about Tolkein as a worldbuilder, but his genius for plotting was at least the equal of his genius for worldbuilding.  The plot of LotR is _dense_, and many "inconsequential" details actually have plot relevance.  Every time I read it I find plot connections that I missed previously.






Actually, everything I have read about Tolkien has said that what became the Silmaillion began as scribbled notes and stories stretching all the way back to WWI.


----------



## rounser

> It's why pre-existing settings are out there; to provide context for the players. If one is trying to create a good game or a good story, then the setting has to be subordinate to the needs of those ends.



The traditional balance is back-to-front IMO, though.  Traditionally, D&D is 32 page modules and 256+ page settings.  I think we're slowly waking up to the idea of 32 page settings and 256+ page modules....e.g. whatever you may think of the railroading, Thunder Rift + Age of Worms results in a _lot_ more game straight out of the gates than FRCS + Sunless Citadel, and a much, much higher "hit rate" of actually visiting the areas written about.  

The same thinking could also be applied to homebrew worldbuilding (as opposed to campaign arc building), where the lion's share of the effort is likewise IMO traditionally in the wrong area, just like published wordcounts.  In fact, the huge setting, small module might be a reflection of designers - like homebrew DMs - wanting to go "straight to dessert" (ego-stroking worldbuilding) before they've created the main meal (nitty gritty adventure design).


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I missed some interesting stuff, but I wouldn't say I missed anything of key importance for the plot.





Depends upon how you limit the definition of "plot".  IMHO, Tolkein wasn't attempting a straightforward plot in the way that he had with The Hobbit.  LotR is an "interweave" where there are several stories ongoing, all at the same time, and all impacting the main plot.  The more you skip, the less the ramifications of the main plot make sense, and the shallower the work as a whole becomes.

As an example, there's a bit of discussion in the bar at the beginning of LotR, where Sam says that his cousin saw a tree walking.  This relates to the story of the Ents in Fangorn Forest, where they are searching for the Entwives, who would like country like the Shire.  But Sam isn't there; only Merry and Pippen, so the Ents never learn what Sam could tell them.  A sort of mini-tradgedy story within LotR.



			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> Actually, everything I have read about Tolkien has said that what became the Silmaillion began as scribbled notes and stories stretching all the way back to WWI.




One merely has to read The Hobbit to see how Tolkein's views of Middle Earth changed between that work and LotR.  In the original version of The Hobbit, Gollum _gave_ Bilbo the Ring.  That the Necromancer was Sauron was a retcon....a brilliant one, but a retcon nonetheless.  Or one could read The Father Christmas Letters for an idea of what Tolkein's early languages were like.  It might be true that he had created scattered hints of what would later become The Silmarilion, but it is far more likely that he used his disparate projects to create a single cohesive background only when he began actual work on LotR.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I tend to use the same world repeatedly with different groups of players, and different groups of characters with the same players.  Changing the world affects more than the people sitting at the table at one time.
> 
> Others have replied to some of what you wrote earlier, so I won't both much, except to say that, if you agree that the DM can place _mechanical_ restrictions because wood and metal don't exist, but don't agree that the DM can place _mechanical_ restrictions because plate mail doesn't exist, I have a very hard time with seeing a consistency to your viewpoint.




I was asked for examples where a DM's love of a setting got in the way of fun.  I provided examples.  Apparently, that isn't good enough.  If the setting was cave man days, then I could instantly grasp why there would be no plate mail.  However, given that the setting HAD all the elements of early Renaissance technology, complete with crossbows (the weapon specifically designed to defeat plate mail), I am left with the assumption that the DM is passing off lame house rules as setting flavour.  



> Moreover, on many threads related to player entitlement, I am fairly certain that you have argued that the DM has the right to restrict the ruleset in play, including the core ruleset.  Correct me if I am wrong.  Suddenly, the DM doesn't have that right.  Would it be fair of me to disregard your previous posts on this issue, and believe that you agree player entitlement is a factor in the game as it exists today?




Why is it so important to you and to others what I have posted in other threads?  Is it not possible to discuss what I have said here without bringing up past discussions?  Should I be forced to now go through and edit every post I make to make sure that every post I make is completely in accordance to how you interpret my past posts?

In other words, could we keep the discussion on THIS discussion please.



> At the end of the day, though, you are right when you say that it is "my" world.  I own it.  I have all the files and printouts.  The amount to which it is the players world is based on their investment and in-game decisions.....which is, IMHO, as it should be.
> 
> 
> RC




And that's fine, for you.  The fact that your players come back seems to jive with that idea.  My point isn't that you should NEVER say no.  I've never said that.  My point is that there is an apparent double standard.

When a player asks for an element which differs from the DM's setting bible, he's accused of all sorts of things, from entitlement issues, to not being creative, to being disruptive and not playing well with others.

When a DM refuses to change an element of his setting bible, he gets a big old pat on the back for preserving his vision against the slathering hordes of entitlement minded players out there.  It almost seems like the fact that someone sits in the DM's chair automatically confers the idea of infallibility.  In the examples I gave, you brush them off, despite any knowledge beyond what I've said.  These issues bothered me as a player.  But, the DM is ALWAYS RIGHT.

My point is, sorry, no that's not true.  Sometimes the DM's ideas blow.  Sometime's the players ideas suck.  However, a DM should never place his campaign bible up on some sort of pedastal and never change it to accomodate a player.

Something that I have realized in this thread though is a new form of Godwinning.  Any mention of Tolkien automatically ends all possible lines of communication as any criticism, no matter how valid or invalid, will lead to automatic dismissal by those who believe that the Professor is the second coming to literature.

On another note:



			
				Rounser said:
			
		

> The traditional balance is back-to-front IMO, though. Traditionally, D&D is 32 page modules and 256+ page settings. I think we're slowly waking up to the idea of 32 page settings and 256+ page modules....e.g. whatever you may think of the railroading, Thunder Rift + Age of Worms results in a lot more game straight out of the gates than FRCS + Sunless Citadel, and a much, much higher "hit rate" of actually visiting the areas written about.
> 
> The same thinking could also be applied to homebrew worldbuilding (as opposed to campaign arc building), where the lion's share of the effort is likewise IMO traditionally in the wrong area, just like published wordcounts. In fact, the huge setting, small module might be a reflection of designers - like homebrew DMs - wanting to go "straight to dessert" (ego-stroking worldbuilding) before they've created the main meal (nitty gritty adventure design).




QFT


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> I was asked for examples where a DM's love of a setting got in the way of fun.  I provided examples.  Apparently, that isn't good enough.  If the setting was cave man days, then I could instantly grasp why there would be no plate mail.  However, given that the setting HAD all the elements of early Renaissance technology, complete with crossbows (the weapon specifically designed to defeat plate mail), I am left with the assumption that the DM is passing off lame house rules as setting flavour.




Couldn't it also be that, in this setting, the crossbow was designed for another purpose?  For example, to penetrate the hides of some monsters?   



> Why is it so important to you and to others what I have posted in other threads?  Is it not possible to discuss what I have said here without bringing up past discussions?  Should I be forced to now go through and edit every post I make to make sure that every post I make is completely in accordance to how you interpret my past posts?




It is only important in terms of determining how well thought out a position might be.  If I hold mutually exclusive opinions, it is relevant to the discussion that I do so.  Either I am misguided, or I am not honest with myself, or something else is going on.

In fact, it is exactly this sort of thinking that led me to determine that KM was right that the DMG, at least, should be written for the lowest common denominator.  I was, in effect, arguing that the game should be written to a higher standard, while at the same time arguing that Rule 0 should be more explicit (read "lowest common denominator").  The expectations are mutually contradictory, and I had to choose between them if I was going to be able to contribute seriously to a discussion of either topic.



> And that's fine, for you.  The fact that your players come back seems to jive with that idea.  My point isn't that you should NEVER say no.  I've never said that.  My point is that there is an apparent double standard.
> 
> When a player asks for an element which differs from the DM's setting bible, he's accused of all sorts of things, from entitlement issues, to not being creative, to being disruptive and not playing well with others.
> 
> When a DM refuses to change an element of his setting bible, he gets a big old pat on the back for preserving his vision against the slathering hordes of entitlement minded players out there.  It almost seems like the fact that someone sits in the DM's chair automatically confers the idea of infallibility.  In the examples I gave, you brush them off, despite any knowledge beyond what I've said.  These issues bothered me as a player.  But, the DM is ALWAYS RIGHT.




Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you understood what you were saying, and that you were being accurate in what you said.  The examples you gave had to do with theme and, as I define it, world-building (though not world-building as you have defined it earlier).  However, surely you knew that whatever examples you provided would be examined to determine whether or not worldbuilding was actually the cause of the problem?

The plate mail example is perfect.  It is either a DM problem, due to the DM's ideas blowing and putting her bible up on a pedastal, or it is a player problem, due to a player not being willing to grant the DM reasonable leeway to describe the world.

The evidence we have been presented with is

(1)  We have one player arguing about it, and attempting to get around it.
(2)  That player, in the post where he reports the example, admits that he didn't handle it well.
(3)  That player claims that he expects that anything in the Core Rules should be available to the PCs as the source of his complaint.
(4)  That player claims elsewhere that it is all right for DMs to disallow things from the Core Rules.

Any sort of standard of "reasonableness" is going to conclude that this is an example of a player problem.  This doesn't preclude DM problems existing -- I am sure that we all know that they do -- but the existence of DM problems doesn't make worldbuilding the _cause_ of those problems, any more than the ruleset is the _cause_ of player problems.

I'm pretty sure that most people here accept that there can be worldbuilding that is handled badly, and that there can be worldbuilding that causes problems.  Some idiot even went so far as to call it "evil" and suggest getting the pitchforks.   Moreover, many people suggested that the setting should have grey areas, and that the DM should be open to change _if appropriate_, even on the pro-worldbuilding side.

The thing is, though, that the DM does the majority of the work, and is not obligated to change that work.  Nor are you obligated to play.  That doesn't mean that some DMs don't blow.  Or that some players don't suck.  Nor does it mean that DMs who blow wouldn't be better DMs (and presumably happier) if they learned how not to blow.  I think that's something we can all agree on.



> Something that I have realized in this thread though is a new form of Godwinning.  Any mention of Tolkien automatically ends all possible lines of communication as any criticism, no matter how valid or invalid, will lead to automatic dismissal by those who believe that the Professor is the second coming to literature.




Or they might desire accuracy.

Your definition of worldbuilding, IMHO, precludes Tolkein, which makes it rather useless as a definition of worldbuilding, again IMHO.  That seems relevant to me.  Whether or not Tolkein's worldbuilding damaged the plot, given the nature of this discussion, is also relevant.

If you wanted to discuss Tolkein's using themes and ideas from various sources, you would soon realize that I don't hold Tolkein as the second coming of literature.  That was Lord Dunsany.    


RC


----------



## Hussar

Ok, once more I shall define worldbuilding in this thread.

Worldbuilding:  I define worldbuilding as an endevour to create an entire world, separate and distinct from the needs of plot or, in the case of gaming, adventure.

Thus, by my definition, Tolkien would most certainly be guilty of worldbuilding.  The fact that you can excise large swaths from the text (as evinced by the movies) and still have a damn good story shows that.  Howard doesn't do a whole lot of world building since much of what he writes about directly affects the text.  Shadizar, while never exactly detailed, is used as an example of the lack of morals in Hyboria, just as an example.



> Couldn't it also be that, in this setting, the crossbow was designed for another purpose? For example, to penetrate the hides of some monsters?




In other words, no matter what I say, I lose.  You keep moving the goalposts.  Yes, it could have been.  But it wasn't.  There are a lot of things that could have been true, but weren't.  The DM in question was so enamoured by her campaign setting and had decided that plate mail was not going to be in that setting, that she was incapbable of changing.  To me, that is a failure in world building.

You cannot possibly envisage a scenario where the Warforged Ninja fits in a 7th Sea campaign, despite all evidence to the contrary.  To you, the setting of 7th Sea triumphs over all considerations.  No matter what I say, you will simply continue to move the goalposts.



> The thing is, though, that the DM does the majority of the work, and is not obligated to change that work. Nor are you obligated to play. That doesn't mean that some DMs don't blow. Or that some players don't suck. Nor does it mean that DMs who blow wouldn't be better DMs (and presumably happier) if they learned how not to blow. I think that's something we can all agree on.




So, because the DM has spent hours on creating crap, my only options are to either put up with crap or walk?  In no situation should the player complain about the situation and attempt to change the DM's mind?  The DM here is elevated to infallible being, in whose world I should feel priveleged to participate?  Ballocks.

If DM's were as concerned about their adventures as they were about their settings, I think we would see a lot fewer threads talking about how bad a DM someone is.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Depends upon how you limit the definition of "plot". IMHO, Tolkein wasn't attempting a straightforward plot in the way that he had with The Hobbit. LotR is an "interweave" where there are several stories ongoing, all at the same time, and all impacting the main plot. The more you skip, the less the ramifications of the main plot make sense, and the shallower the work as a whole becomes.
> 
> As an example, there's a bit of discussion in the bar at the beginning of LotR, where Sam says that his cousin saw a tree walking. This relates to the story of the Ents in Fangorn Forest, where they are searching for the Entwives, who would like country like the Shire. But Sam isn't there; only Merry and Pippen, so the Ents never learn what Sam could tell them. A sort of mini-tradgedy story within LotR.




O'course, none of that has to do with two plucky midgets on their merry way to drop some jewelry into a mountain. Ents? Doesn't really matter what they do, because if Sam and Frodo fail, everyone is doomed, and if Sam and Frodo succeed, everyone is saved. 

Now, I realize that Tolkein was telling three stories at once, but it's also true he didn't give me any reason to give half a concern for Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas, and what they did didn't matter to me. They were superfluous, and, even at age 8, I had better things to do than read about characters who didn't really matter. For me, they got in the way of the main story of LotR: eternal evil faced by little faery men.

Of course, as I went back and read them at age 9, I saw how the adventures complimented each other and that he was truly telling the story of an age, not just two hobbits on a rock climbing expedition, but there is something to the fact that I don't even, to this day, really care about his age.


----------



## Set

> O'course, none of that has to do with two plucky midgets on their merry way to drop some jewelry into a mountain.  Ents?  Doesn't really matter what they do, because if Sam and Frodo fail, everyone is doomed, and if Sam and Frodo succeed, everyone is saved.




So in a D&D adventure, the only story that matters is that of the character who gets the death-blow?  Every other character is superfluous and a waste of time (as well as all of the encounters leading up to the BBEG encounter), since Bob's character got the kill / broke the macguffin?

Sounds kinda dull.

Call me old-fashioned, but I like an adventure that has more to it than a single room with a large box that reads, "Contents, one Minotaur.  Insert sword for 762 exp.  Then go home."


----------



## Hussar

Set said:
			
		

> So in a D&D adventure, the only story that matters is that of the character who gets the death-blow?  Every other character is superfluous and a waste of time (as well as all of the encounters leading up to the BBEG encounter), since Bob's character got the kill / broke the macguffin?
> 
> Sounds kinda dull.
> 
> Call me old-fashioned, but I like an adventure that has more to it than a single room with a large box that reads, "Contents, one Minotaur.  Insert sword for 762 exp.  Then go home."




That's taking it a tad far though dontcha think?  He's not saying that the party that is involved with defeating the BBEG is superfluous.  Sam isn't superfluous even though he doesn't directly chuck the jewelry into the fire.  However, there are some characters in LOTR that could be cut out without a single hiccup in the story.  **cough Tom Bombadil cough**

Call me a bad player, but, elements in the game which have no impact upon my character or my group don't matter to me.  If something is happening in the campaign world that in no way affects me or those around me, I couldn't care less.  I don't play D&D to be a side character.  I play to be one of the heroes.  And, in most stories, the action focuses on the heroes.

In other news...

It looks like the folks at WOTC may have been eavesdropping on this thread.  Check out the latest Save my game


----------



## Storm Raven

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> O'course, none of that has to do with two plucky midgets on their merry way to drop some jewelry into a mountain. Ents? Doesn't really matter what they do, because if Sam and Frodo fail, everyone is doomed, and if Sam and Frodo succeed, everyone is saved.




I'd say that when you read _LotR_ at eight and nine, you missed an important point. Even though Sam and Frodo succeed _the ents, elves, and dwarves are still doomed_. And the elves, ents, and dwarves knew this to be true before Frodo and Sam set out on their journey. To be sure they are not enslaved and tortured in Sauron's dungeons, but their world is ending, their time is past. _That's_ why Sam's inability to mention the tree his cousin saw walking is a tragedy - yes they defeated the BBEG in the story, but the ents remain doomed by circumstance.

Defeating Sauron, for the elves, dwarves, ents, and so on of Middle-Earth, wasn't a choice between "Good" and "Bad", it was a choice between "Bad" and "Less Bad". In many other stories told by lesser fantasy authors, it is all roses and candy after the BBEG is defeated, but in Tolkien's world, it isn't. That is a big part of why _LotR_ continues to resonate fifty plus years after its publication, and the various imitators have had little impact of note.

(Of course, you also neglect the point that without the various contributions of the ents, elves, Rohirrim and so on in the other parts of the story, Sauron would have been free to focus more attention on internal security, and Frodo and Sam would not have succeeded. Which makes all of the other work instrumental to the success of the efforts to get the ring to Oroduin).


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, there are some characters in LOTR that could be cut out without a single hiccup in the story.  **cough Tom Bombadil cough**




Once more, I'm going to pass on your definition of world building and your inconsistant application of it so as to suit the point you are trying to prove, whatever it is.  

I am however something of an expert in Tolkien lore, and its interesting that Tolkien basically agrees with you.  He put Tom Bombadil in for his own amusement (and his children's), and not because he's necessary to the story.  When it came time for JRRT to write a screen play of his work, he cut Tom and almost everything that didn't have to do with hobbits - including all of the Helm's Deep story arc. 

But that doesn't mean that Tom Bombadil isn't good for the story simply because he isn't essential to it.  Stories don't have to be written like or judged like computer code, where everything is as stripped down and utilitarian as possible.  And the absence of the Old Forest story arc does create some problems, chief of which is that Frodo has less time to spend as a traditional hero before being overly burdened by the ring.  Frodo only get a few moments of traditional glory where we can see his quality, and one of those is the challenge of the Barrow Wight.  One of the many flaws in the movie adaptation of the story is that Frodo spends far too much time cringing in fear and pain, and not nearly enough time showing his courage.  We don't get to see Frodo stand up to the Barrow Wight, or the Pale King, or the Nine at the ford, and so forth as he did in the book.  Facing the Barrow Wight may not be essential to the story, but it is important to knowing Frodo for who he is before he is thrust into an entirely impossible situation.  It is important to developing respect and empathy for Frodo.  And Frodo's interaction with Tom in general is yet another case of a really mighty being treating Frodo as a peer or near peer, which is also important to knowing Frodo.

Likewise, losing the Tom Bombadil story arc effects the larger story in other subtle ways.  The importance of Merry's sword on the Pelannor Fields is lost to us if we have not had it introduced to us.  As a personification of the fading untainted natural world, many important themes of the story would be diminished without him - for example its subtheme of environmentalism.  A Tom serves an important narrative role in the story, in that he is one of the chief vehicles for exposition about one of the stories main villains - the Witch King of Angmar.  Because of this, without Tom, Eowyn is diminished, because we would care less about her mighty act of valor if we knew less about the Witch King. 

In short, we certainly can do without Tom Bombadil, who is probably the most extraneous secondary character in the story.  But we would find it almost impossible to do a 'clean lift' of the character, and even if we could the story would not necessarily be improved thereby.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, once more I shall define worldbuilding in this thread.
> 
> Worldbuilding:  I define worldbuilding as an endevour to create an entire world, separate and distinct from the needs of plot or, in the case of gaming, adventure.
> 
> Thus, by my definition, Tolkien would most certainly be guilty of worldbuilding.  The fact that you can excise large swaths from the text (as evinced by the movies) and still have a damn good story shows that.  Howard doesn't do a whole lot of world building since much of what he writes about directly affects the text.  Shadizar, while never exactly detailed, is used as an example of the lack of morals in Hyboria, just as an example.




The films, however, tell a story that differs in many cases from the story that Tolkein told.  I can tell a good story using only part of any given movie, film, or book -- that doesn't mean that the parts I do not use to tell _my_ story are not necessary to tell the story of _the original creator_.



> In other words, no matter what I say, I lose.  You keep moving the goalposts.   Yes, it could have been.  But it wasn't.  There are a lot of things that could have been true, but weren't.  The DM in question was so enamoured by her campaign setting and had decided that plate mail was not going to be in that setting, that she was incapbable of changing.  To me, that is a failure in world building.




How is this different than saying that a campaign setting doesn't have wood or metal, therefore there can be no warforged?  IOW, it isn't _me_ whose moving the goalposts.  It's me pointing out the inconsistency in how those goalposts are used.

Here's an example of bad worldbuilding that is a DM problem:  The DM creates a world in which only one adventure is possible; if the players decide not to follow that adventure, there is nothing for them to do.  Here is another example:  The DM creates a 60-page document of information on the world and tells the players to read it because it is important to the setting; little if anything in the document ever sees play.  Third example:  The world doesn't make enough sense for the PCs to navigate with any confidence, as when a paladin has his paladinhood revoked for not murdering goblin children, and the DM has never before mentioned this take on "Lawful Good".  Final example:  The DM tells the players that they are going to play in a Conaneque game; when the players show up characters in hand, the DM tells them there are no humans in the setting, and they should have made wizards.



> You cannot possibly envisage a scenario where the Warforged Ninja fits in a 7th Sea campaign, despite all evidence to the contrary.  To you, the setting of 7th Sea triumphs over all considerations.  No matter what I say, you will simply continue to move the goalposts.




Sure I can.  I even said I could.  Most easily, I could see this as a unique antagonist because the reactions of the PCs would be appropriate reactions for the campaign setting.  I might also consider, if it was a new world, that warforged and ninjas become regular character options, available to all PCs.  Or I might devise a feat, Unique Character, that allows this sort of thing.....I think you might recall from a previous thread that in my home game I did exactly that.



> So, because the DM has spent hours on creating crap, my only options are to either put up with crap or walk?




Of course not.  You could try to change the DM's mind (but the DM isn't obligated to have you as a player, either).  You have to decide where the balance is.  You could also offer to run your own game.

But 

(1)  "There is no plate mail in this world" isn't crap, and arguing with the DM in this case is juvenile, and

(2)  If your DM's ideas are crap, his inclusion of your brilliant (or equally crappy) ideas isn't going to save the game.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> In other news...
> 
> It looks like the folks at WOTC may have been eavesdropping on this thread.  Check out the latest Save my game





Well, I suppose we wouldn't expect WotC to say

"Of course you're right.  Life's too short to play games you're not enjoying.  One wonders why they'd make a new group, instead of just starting a new game within the old group though.  Were they willing to let you play in their dragon game?  Are you sure these people are your friends?  You could probably find new players in your area, or on various Internet sites.  Good luck!"


----------



## LostSoul

I find myself shocked - shocked!  - that I've come around from agreeing with the quote and now I'm on RC's side.  This has been an interesting thread that has challenged some of my assumptions about how I personally like to play.  Nice.

I'm not sure how worldbuilding applies to games where players can create setting content on the fly (using mechanics like Circles in Burning Wheel).  That might be for another thread.


----------



## Hussar

> The films, however, tell a story that differs in many cases from the story that Tolkein told. I can tell a good story using only part of any given movie, film, or book -- that doesn't mean that the parts I do not use to tell my story are not necessary to tell the story of the original creator.




But, why would you want to?  If you can remove an element completely from a story, that element shouldn't be there.  I know that Celebrim disagrees with me on this, but, from a story writing POV, that's pretty much true.  

Celebrim insists on bringing up Tolkien's intentions time and again.  Author intentions don't matter.  They never do.  It doesn't matter what the author intends, it only matters how the text is interpreted.  If you can use the text to back up a given interpretation, then that interpretation is equally as valid as the author's.  If, as my second year poetry prof did, you interpret The Red Wheelbarrow as a poem about sex and can tie that into the text, it's every bit as valid as any other interpretation.

Granted, you can disagree with the interpretation.  But that doesn't make it invalid.

I have repeatedly stated that I consider world building to be an attempt to create an entire functioning world distinct and separate from the plot.  I don't see how I have really been inconsistent in that.

I find Celebrim's and RC's interpretation far too broad to be useful.  All stories require a setting.  That's a given.  Many stories will have a rich setting that draws the reader into the story.  None of that is world building.  World building is when you go beyond what is required by the plot and begin detailing extraneous elements like Hobbit Toast songs.  

I mentioned looking at a map of Chicago to fact check the story I'm writing that's set in Chicago and was told that that is world building.  I disagree.  Adding in factual information to the story is not world building.  It's no different than heading to a museum to find the actual weights of swords and including that information in the story, when it actually adds to the plot.  In Rob Roy, there was a great line about how one sword was so much better than another due to weight.  Is that world building?  IMO, no.  That's simply getting things right.

It would be world building to spend significant time discussing the various weights of swords that don't actually appear in the story.

In The Thirteenth Warrior, when one of the Viking's offers the main character a drink of mead, the main guy (I'm so good with names) says that he can't drink the product of grapes.  The viking replies that it's made with honey.  Is that detail world building?  No, it directly links to plot and character.  If the viking character had gone into detail about the process of how mead is made, THAT would be world building.


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:
			
		

> Celebrim insists on bringing up Tolkien's intentions time and again.  Author intentions don't matter.  They never do.  It doesn't matter what the author intends, it only matters how the text is interpreted.




How the text is interpreted is irrelevant.  Because we are not digital computers, the words are not completely inflexible, but niether are thier meanings completely fluid.  The text means something, and what you wish to have it mean doesn't really matter.  



> If you can use the text to back up a given interpretation, then that interpretation is equally as valid as the author's.




No, it isn't.  And the obvious counterexample to that is that for this text here that you and I are writing, the author's intentions are far more important than the readers interpretations if what we want to do is understand what is written.  If we just want to run off on our own thing without listening, then sure, any interpretation is valid.  But then, in forgoing in belief in communication, we have also foregone any real ability to communicate.



> Granted, you can disagree with the interpretation.  But that doesn't make it invalid.




My belief in something will never make it valid or invalid.  Nor does my agreement or disagreement make something invalid.  It is either invalid or valid distinct from what you or I think of it.  Everyone may be entitled to thier own opinion, but there opinion can still be completely wrong.



> I have repeatedly stated that I consider world building to be an attempt to create an entire functioning world distinct and separate from the plot.  I don't see how I have really been inconsistent in that.




In two ways.  First, in your insistance on the word 'entire', which is a useless straw man modifier since no writer, not even Tolkien, has ever created an entire world, much less a functioning one.  All world builders have boundaries to thier creation, and you are willing to recognize this except when it doesn't suit your need to make a straw man argument.   And secondly, in your insistance that what makes it world building is it being separate and distinct from the plot, which is another straw man since no one that is writing fiction actually does world building which is wholly distinct and separate from the plot.  The inconsistancy in the application of this will be apparant latter when you discuss using maps, but it also humorously comes up again in again with your creation of straw men about things appearing in the text that aren't actually in the text.

Try this definition: "World building is an attempt to create an internally consistant fictional world."  See how much less easy it is to knock down the argument when you don't set up a strawman?  



> I find Celebrim's and RC's interpretation far too broad to be useful.




You've repeatedly shown no sign of having read or understood my definition.  I'd encourage you to go back and read it again.



> All stories require a setting.  That's a given.  Many stories will have a rich setting that draws the reader into the story.  None of that is world building.




Agreed.



> World building is when you go beyond what is required by the plot and begin detailing extraneous elements like Hobbit Toast songs.




How does that follow?  Don't you see how big of a leap you've taken?  How easy it must be to prove something is a negative when you make it a negative by definition!



> I mentioned looking at a map of Chicago to fact check the story I'm writing that's set in Chicago and was told that that is world building.  I disagree.  Adding in factual information to the story is not world building...




That depends on how that information was arrived at.  As I said before, a map of Chicago is not at all necessary to creating a narrative set in Chicago.  Constructing your narrative while consulting a map is very much the same act as world building; the only difference is that your fictional city of Chicago which you are constructing through the narrative devices you will employ is based off - to some extent or another - the real city of Chicago, so you don't have to take that first step of create the maps or the history of Chicago.  (You do however have to take other similar steps, since no snapshot of anywhere is complete.)  You then have to consult and use and interpret these external to the story devices to decide which aspect of that map or history you wish to include in your narrative and, applying your judgement as a story teller, how.

But don't decieve yourself into thinking that you need the map to tell the story, or even that you need to add factual information about Chicago to the story, or that in collecting and consulting maps you are doing something fundamentally different from the author of speculative fiction that draws thier own.  Slightly different, sure, but not fundamentally different because to be fundamentally different, it would have to be the real city of Chicago which is on the page and that's impossible because the real city is 3D and the medium of literature is merely words on paper.



> ...Is that world building?  IMO, no.  That's simply getting things right.




Which is precisely what world building is about.  World building is about getting things right.  If you don't care about getting things right, and if you are happy to have internal (or external) inconsistancies in your narrative, then by all means avoid wasting time with world building.  But if you do want to get things write, you will have to spend some time imagining in your head in great detail what life is like in the place of your setting - whether it be 1950's Los Angeles or an entirely invented place of your own devicing.  If it is an entirely invented place, then you can take that first step of making the maps and writing the histories _so that you can get things right_.  And in my opinion, this mental excercise is one that rewards the author with a richer and more interesting story, even if the details of the world building excercise are opaque to the eventual reader.



> It would be world building to spend significant time discussing the various weights of swords that don't actually appear in the story.




LOL.  You seem immune to your own irony.  Is the sword in the story or not?

Better yet, is the world building something that takes place in the story or outside of it?  For example, the vast majority of Tolkien's world building never shows up anywhere in the novel 'Lord of the Rings' or even in the appendixes that were added later.  So, is it only world building if it shows up in the story, and if it is, what do you call that stuff that happened outside of the story?


----------



## was

I disrespectfully disagree with this author's opinion.


----------



## Greg K

Hussar said:
			
		

> I find Celebrim's and RC's interpretation far too broad to be useful.  All stories require a setting.  That's a given.  Many stories will have a rich setting that draws the reader into the story.  None of that is world building.  World building is when you go beyond what is required by the plot and begin detailing extraneous elements like Hobbit Toast songs.




I'm going to disagree. In my opinion, if you create a fictional world/setting like Middle Earth, The Star Wars Galaxy, a cyberpunk environment, or even Buffy's Sunnyvale, you are world building as soon as you present the environment(s) and other  elements (creatures, technology, etc.). It doesn't matter whether the setting is large scale (e.g. the Galaxy ) or a smaller scale (e.g., Dresden's Chicago (?) or Buffy's Sunnyvale).  The Shire and hobbits do not exist in our world. Neither do Tattoine, Wookies, Sand people, Ewoks or Jedi.  The same goes for the supernatural elements of Buffy or Dreseden .  Those elements do exist in their respective settings and therefore tell us something the world in which they exist whether entirely created out of the author's head or based on our own world with the addition of the supernatural.


----------



## Hussar

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Try this definition: "World building is an attempt to create an internally consistant fictional world." See how much less easy it is to knock down the argument when you don't set up a strawman?




How is that different from creating setting?  All settings should be internally consistent.  If I turned left to go to the throne room in Chapter 2, I should turn left to go to the throne room in Chapter 5, unless, of course, there is a good reason why that isn't true. 

Consistency in setting is not world building.  It's simply developing setting.  We both agree that every story requires a setting.  That setting will be detailed, to a greater or lesser degree in every story.  

To me, where setting leaves off and world building begins is when you begin detailing setting elements that are not linked to the plot.

In other words, world building is a negative term.  That's been my point all the way along.  It's not about straw man arguements.  I simply think that the term "world building" describes an act which is not necessarily a good thing for most stories.



> Better yet, is the world building something that takes place in the story or outside of it? For example, the vast majority of Tolkien's world building never shows up anywhere in the novel 'Lord of the Rings' or even in the appendixes that were added later. So, is it only world building if it shows up in the story, and if it is, what do you call that stuff that happened outside of the story




In the story.  I've always maintained that.  I couldn't care less what happens outside of the text.  It's completely irrelavent and totally irrelavent to what Harrison is talking about as well.  If you want to write treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies in your own time, knock yourself out.  However, when that gets whacked into the story, for no reason other than to simply showcase how creative the writer is, that's a bad thing.



> I'm going to disagree. In my opinion, if you create a fictional world/setting like Middle Earth, The Star Wars Galaxy, a cyberpunk environment, or even Buffy's Sunnyvale, you are world building as soon as you present the environment(s) and other elements (creatures, technology, etc.).




So, you can only world build in fictional settings?  It is not possible to engage in world building in real world settings?  I would point to a rather large swath of romantic literature that would disagree.  As well as Tom Clancy.  Dan Brown.  Umberto Eco. Just to name a few.

Plus, I disagree with the idea that any attempt to create setting becomes world building.  RC defines world building as taking the setting from generic to specific.  But, all setting details do that.  If I set my story in Chicago vs A City, I've gone from generic to specific, but, I wouldn't say that I've done any world building.

To sum up:

I disagree with the stance that world building is simply an attempt to create an internally consistent setting.  That's not world building, that's just good writing.  If I'm being accused of making the word sound bad by definition, how is this not doing the same thing from the other side?

I disagree with the stance that world building is any element which adds to setting.  That's not world building.  That's just setting.  We don't need a specific term for that, we already have one - setting.

World building, in my mind at least, is a very specific act.  It is where you attempt (for all the truth that you can never really succeed) to create an entire setting.  All of it.  As much detail as you can possibly add.  Tolkien himself complained that he needed more space in The Lord of the Rings.  Do you really think he was going to add more plot?  

((And, yes, I see the irony in that last statement. ))


----------



## Aaron L

Hussar said:
			
		

> How is that different from creating setting?  All settings should be internally consistent.  If I turned left to go to the throne room in Chapter 2, I should turn left to go to the throne room in Chapter 5, unless, of course, there is a good reason why that isn't true.
> 
> Consistency in setting is not world building.  It's simply developing setting.  We both agree that every story requires a setting.  That setting will be detailed, to a greater or lesser degree in every story.
> 
> To me, where setting leaves off and world building begins is when you begin detailing setting elements that are not linked to the plot.
> 
> In other words, world building is a negative term.  That's been my point all the way along.  It's not about straw man arguements.  I simply think that the term "world building" describes an act which is not necessarily a good thing for most stories.
> 
> 
> 
> In the story.  I've always maintained that.  I couldn't care less what happens outside of the text.  It's completely irrelavent and totally irrelavent to what Harrison is talking about as well.  If you want to write treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies in your own time, knock yourself out.  However, when that gets whacked into the story, for no reason other than to simply showcase how creative the writer is, that's a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you can only world build in fictional settings?  It is not possible to engage in world building in real world settings?  I would point to a rather large swath of romantic literature that would disagree.  As well as Tom Clancy.  Dan Brown.  Umberto Eco. Just to name a few.
> 
> Plus, I disagree with the idea that any attempt to create setting becomes world building.  RC defines world building as taking the setting from generic to specific.  But, all setting details do that.  If I set my story in Chicago vs A City, I've gone from generic to specific, but, I wouldn't say that I've done any world building.
> 
> To sum up:
> 
> I disagree with the stance that world building is simply an attempt to create an internally consistent setting.  That's not world building, that's just good writing.  If I'm being accused of making the word sound bad by definition, how is this not doing the same thing from the other side?
> 
> I disagree with the stance that world building is any element which adds to setting.  That's not world building.  That's just setting.  We don't need a specific term for that, we already have one - setting.
> 
> World building, in my mind at least, is a very specific act.  It is where you attempt (for all the truth that you can never really succeed) to create an entire setting.  All of it.  As much detail as you can possibly add.  Tolkien himself complained that he needed more space in The Lord of the Rings.  Do you really think he was going to add more plot?
> 
> ((And, yes, I see the irony in that last statement. ))






How limited our world must be, if all that matters to you is what you can immediately see, hear or touch, and that the only thing that matters in a story is what happens on stage at any given moment.


----------



## Hussar

Aaron L said:
			
		

> How limited our world must be, if all that matters to you is what you can immediately see, hear or touch, and that the only thing that matters in a story is what happens on stage at any given moment.




WOW.  I've been accused of strawman arguements, but, hey, guys, even mine are this bad.  Just because I take a post structuralist view of literature, my world view is now skewed and I'm incapable of being imaginative?  How's that for ad hominem attacks?

My point, in case you missed it the first time, is that when deconstructing a text, only the text itself really matters.  What research the author did before or after the writing of the book is irrelevant when discussing the text.  This is pretty basic English 20 stuff and should come as no surprise to anyone here.  

That I happened to look at a map of Chicago while writing my story set in Chicago so that I placed an important landmark on the right street is not really pertinent to the text itself.  All that matters, when discussing the text, is what's in the text itself.  That Howard did extensive research into various subjects doesn't really matter since that research barely enters into the text.  Hyboria is created mostly whole cloth with inspirations drawn from research.  That's fine.  But, I, as the reader, don't have to have any knowledge of his research in order to understand the text.

You've pretty much hit it on the head.  In a story, the ONLY thing that matters is the text.  In an RPG, the ONLY thing that matters are things that directly impact upon the players.  When extraneous information is added, for no other reason than to show off how creative the writer is, that's a BAD THING.  Countless very poor fantasy novels have used Tolkien as an excuse to bash readers over the head with masses of extraneous detail that could be excised from the text without losing a single beat.


----------



## Greg K

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, you can only world build in fictional settings?  It is not possible to engage in world building in real world settings?  I would point to a rather large swath of romantic literature that would disagree.  As well as Tom Clancy.  Dan Brown.  Umberto Eco. Just to name a few.
> ))




As to whether you can world build in a setting using the real world, yes you can.  However, as you were referring to Tolkein, I decided to focus on fantasy and science fiction/fantasy since part of this debate has referred to world building vs setting building in rpgs.


----------



## Hussar

But numerous RPG's are set in the "real world".  WOD for one.  

Personally, I really do think that bringing Tolkien into this is akin to Godwinning.  No matter what criticism or interpretation is made, you will get those who have enshrined the Professor in his proper place in Valhalla and will brook no maligning of the great man.  

We've talked about Star Wars and world building.  For the moment, just stick with the original 3 movies.  By the end of Return of the Jedi, what do we know about Chewbacca?  Pretty much nothing.  We don't know how he came to be with Han, we don't know anything about his world or his background.  He's pretty much a complete cipher despite being in nearly every scene in the movie.

The same can actually be said for nearly every character.  Han, Lando, the droids, we know next to nothing about them even after three movies.  In a world building story, we would have detailed stories relating their history and the cultures from which they came.  None of it would actually be needed for the plot as shown by three pretty good movies.

Oblique referrences to elements that don't factor into the story are not world building.  They're just setting.  Until you actually start detailing those referrences, you aren't really doing any world building, just making up words.  Ewoks have been mentioned.  What do we know about Ewoks and Endor by the end of Return of the Jedi?

They're short, furry, say "zub zub" and are pretty primitive.  That's about it.  That's all we need to know.  We don't need a backstory, or a history lesson, or anything else.  That's all superfluous to the plot.  We have cute furries in need of help.  Ok, next scene.

While I agree that the Buffyverse is well detailed, again, that's through accretion more than world building.  9 (10?) seasons of an hourly show means that you have hundreds of hours of details.  Even if they only mention a couple of elements in each show, that will add up to quite a bit in the end.  But, still, in each show, setting is not the focus of the episode.  The setting, if it gets referred to at all, simply ties into how to kill the next demon/vampire/whatever.  Heck, it's not until almost the very final episode that we learn how the Slayer came into existence.  Several years of episodes and not once do they tell us how Slayers started.  In a world building exercise, that would be the FIRST thing they would tell us.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:
			
		

> Personally, I really do think that bringing Tolkien into this is akin to Godwinning.  No matter what criticism or interpretation is made, you will get those who have enshrined the Professor in his proper place in Valhalla and will brook no maligning of the great man.




At the very least, it is pretty much gauranteed to derail the discussion into talking about Tolkien at the expense of whatever the actual subject matter is.  See my thread on Dragonlance for a great example of me making the horrible mistake of making Tolkien seem like an important part of the subject. 



> We've talked about Star Wars and world building.  For the moment, just stick with the original 3 movies.  By the end of Return of the Jedi, what do we know about Chewbacca?  ... The same can actually be said for nearly every character.




True enough.  I guess "world building" in the context that we're discussing it here, especially in fiction, *is* secondary to story.  I don't necessarily agree in relationship to gaming, though.



> Oblique referrences to elements that don't factor into the story are not world building.  They're just setting.




Also true.  However, using a pre-established setting -- whether it is one the GM made up or has used for years or decades of gaming, or a published one -- allows for those "oblique references" during play, and has the added benefit of making them consistent and interlinked.  The "world building" work done outside of the game *can* be a drain on the GM's time to create adventures, and the opposite is true.  I know, because I have suffered from both sides of the equation.  I want to make up some world stuff, but I have got an adventure to prepare, so i don't make up the world stuff and then it becomes important because the players apparently hate me; I detail a bunch of world stuff because I think I know how the players are going to go about the adventure, and, bam, they still hate me and I am underprepared.

If only being a GM could be a full time job with full time pay and benefits.


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:
			
		

> How is that different from creating setting?  All settings should be internally consistent.




Wait a minute.  Would Mr. Harrison agree with that statement?  My take on Mr. Harrison's rant is precisely that settings don't need to be internally consistant, and based on the reviews of his story cycles, he doesn't create settings that are internally consistant.

Now, for the irony.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> How is that different from creating setting?  All settings should be internally consistent...I take a post structuralist view of literature...




Maybe you should review your definition of post-structuralist.



> To me, where setting leaves off and world building begins is when you begin detailing setting elements that are not linked to the plot.




No.  The difference between setting and world-building is that setting is created exclusively through narrative devices, that is to say you create setting by writing a story.  World building can employ narrative devices, but it differs in setting in that it is not limited to narrative devices and involves mental activities which are external to writing a story - say drawing a map - but which are designed to inform the authors choices within the context of the story.



> In other words, world building is a negative term.




Well, at least I've got you to admit it.



> I simply think that the term "world building" describes an act which is not necessarily a good thing for most stories.




Wait, 'not necessarily'?  If it is not necessarily a good thing, then it is 'not necessarily' a bad thing either, in which case it cannot be a negative term by definition.



> I've always maintained that.  I couldn't care less what happens outside of the text.  It's completely irrelavent and totally irrelavent to what Harrison is talking about as well.  If you want to write treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies in your own time, knock yourself out.  However, when that gets whacked into the story, _for no reason other than to simply showcase how creative the writer is_, that's a bad thing.



 - emphasis mine

Once again, notice how you have to include a negative descriptor in order to prove your negative definition?  What if the notes I've made and the time I've spent imagining Elven Tea Ceremonies gets put into the story for reasons other than 'simply to showcase how creative the writer is'?   Is now suddenly the very same mental act in the past, namely making notes about and imagining elven tea ceremonies, alchemically transformed into something other than worldbuilding by something that I've done in the future?   _Now, that is post-structuralist!_  And very very silly.



> I disagree with the stance that world building is simply an attempt to create an internally consistent setting.  That's not world building, that's just good writing.




But, isn't the point that Mr. Harrison disagrees.



> If I'm being accused of making the word sound bad by definition, how is this not doing the same thing from the other side?




Because I'm making no value judgement about world building.  I didn't say world building was necessary.  I didn't say world building was bad or good.  I merely indicated that if your goal was to create a detailed and consistant setting, that world building was a useful tool in that regard.



> I disagree with the stance that world building is any element which adds to setting.




Actually, I do too.  That could be part of your confusion, as RC and myself have different definitions.



> World building, in my mind at least, is a very specific act.  It is where you attempt (for all the truth that you can never really succeed) to create an entire setting.  All of it.  As much detail as you can possibly add.




Your definition is so narrow that it defines an act that never takes place.



> Tolkien himself complained that he needed more space in The Lord of the Rings.  Do you really think he was going to add more plot?




Actually, yes I do.  In particular, I think he wanted to expand more on the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen (a story modeled after his own romance with his wife), which is within the story covered by only a few short scenes.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Even though Sam and Frodo succeed the ents, elves, and dwarves are still doomed. And the elves, ents, and dwarves knew this to be true before Frodo and Sam set out on their journey. To be sure they are not enslaved and tortured in Sauron's dungeons, but their world is ending, their time is past. That's why Sam's inability to mention the tree his cousin saw walking is a tragedy - yes they defeated the BBEG in the story, but the ents remain doomed by circumstance.




Well, I did neglect to mention that, but, really, I didn't care much about what happened to all those fantasy critters anyway. I didn't care about the world. I cared about the characters (and only some of them). Tolkien's worldbuilding was only good for those who got fascinated by the setting itself instead of/along with the story told within it. And I think Mr. Harrison is making the point, in part, that most people don't care about the setting itself, they just care about the stories told within it (but if your story is good, as Tolkein's was, you can get people excited about the setting, too). 

I certainly buy that a lot of folks who play D&D are the kind of folks who get very excited about setting itself, though.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, why would you want to?  If you can remove an element completely from a story, that element shouldn't be there.




There isn't a single element from any story ever published in any form that cannot be removed.  The criteria would have to be, if you can remove a story element and doing so _makes the story stronger_ then the element shouldn't be there.  And, frankly, I hope you wouldn't seriously claim that the PJ film was stronger than the written LotR.



> I have repeatedly stated that I consider world building to be an attempt to create an entire functioning world distinct and separate from the plot.  I don't see how I have really been inconsistent in that.




If that is your definition, then Tolkein isn't a worldbuilder.  He made no attempt to create an "entire functioning world distinct and seperate from the plot".  I would actually be surprised to see all that many examples of your definition of "worldbuilding" in print outside of gaming resources.



> World building is when you go beyond what is required by the plot and begin detailing extraneous elements like Hobbit Toast songs.




Out of curiosity, do you have to "go beyond what is required by the plot" (for example, reference a map of Chicago while using that city as a setting, or include a song sung in a bar), or do you have to "attempt to create an entire functioning world distinct and seperate from the plot"?

BTW, I hope that answers your question about inconsistency.  



> In The Thirteenth Warrior, when one of the Viking's offers the main character a drink of mead, the main guy (I'm so good with names) says that he can't drink the product of grapes.  The viking replies that it's made with honey.  Is that detail world building?  No, it directly links to plot and character.  If the viking character had gone into detail about the process of how mead is made, THAT would be world building.




How does it link into the plot?  What relevance does mead have to the plot at all?  Would the plot have been harmed if the guy hadn't been offered a drink of mead?  

Again, I hope that answers your question about inconsistency.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How does it link into the plot?  What relevance does mead have to the plot at all?  Would the plot have been harmed if the guy hadn't been offered a drink of mead?




It's not about plot, but that scene is there to show how the outsider is starting to become one of the gang.  Thematically it's important to the movie.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:
			
		

> It's not about plot, but that scene is there to show how the outsider is starting to become one of the gang.  Thematically it's important to the movie.





I know that -- I am suggesting that Hussar's definition of "worldbuilding" changes based upon his subjective enjoyment of particular worldbuilding details.  If I remember correctly, that scene was _added_ to the film version, and doesn't appear in _Eaters of the Dead_, the book the film was based on.


----------



## Graf

I loved the original link. I've met a lot of DM who should follow the implicit advice (I.e. stop wasting your time and the players time making up random tedious stuff so you can boss people around by saying "no you cant do that because my world blah blah blah").

I find it amazing that people pull up Tolkien in this. As a weak writer in a nacient genre he's a classic example of where DMs can go wrong (LotR, the Silmarillion) and later develop their own storytelling style (the Hobbit).

I have seen one DM who couldn't seem to create much of a world at all and more than 10 who would over-create to compensate for psychological issues and try to ensure that they were in total command of the game and the players.
Telling a story is really hard. Saying "my world has no dragons"? Less so.


----------



## ssampier

> The short answer is no. You weren't wrong. You were right. You evidently did not want to play with players being full dragons (though, somewhat surprisingly, you were fine with them being half-dragons), so you said no. I have said time and again that the DM is one of the players, is part of the gaming group, and that your enjoyment of the game is just as important as anyone else's.
> 
> But the longer answer is that, despite being right, you're now without a game, so what was the cost of being right? Being a gamer means you have a relationship with your fellow players. It's not like a quick board game or card game where you can drop in at the table, play for a few minutes, and then skip out. What distinguishes D&D (and RPGs in general) from other kinds of games is the long, drawn-out interaction with other people.




I can't say I disagree with that. It's a fine line DMs have to walk when creating a shared experience. I think the original poster probably could have met his players half-way on this issue (prehaps the half-dragon was his concession?). Sometimes, though, you have to go with your gut.

Thanks for posting this. It made me think.



> Originally Posted by Hussar
> In other news...
> 
> It looks like the folks at WOTC may have been eavesdropping on this thread. Check out the latest Save my game


----------



## Storm Raven

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, I did neglect to mention that, but, really, I didn't care much about what happened to all those fantasy critters anyway. I didn't care about the world. I cared about the characters (and only some of them).




But that isn't a failure of storytelling vis a vis worldbuilding. The fact that you didn't (at the time you read it when your age was counted in single digits) seem to understand part of the story, or simply didn't care for some of the characters doesn't mean that their presence in the narrative is worldbuilding. It means that you didn't like their part of the plot. Because their story was critically important to the story of _LotR_ - in many ways I'd suggest that the failing of elves, ents, dwarves and the rest of the "old world" was the _real_ story of _LotR_ - the hobbits heading off to Mount Doom was just window dressing for that.


----------



## rounser

> Because their story was critically important to the story of LotR - in many ways I'd suggest that the failing of elves, ents, dwarves and the rest of the "old world" was the real story of LotR - the hobbits heading off to Mount Doom was just window dressing for that.



In the same way that the LOTR is really all about Gollum.  No, wait, it's all about Aragorn...and Saruman.  That works too.  Officially it's about Sauron, thus the title...even though we never even see him.  

Hold on...this sounds like the kind of nonsensical rhetorical thinking that arts academics indulge in.  Tolkien didn't invent the Villain and the McGuffin - their places in the story are well established.  The story is not _about_ them except in the crosseyed sense that the story is also all about a whole bunch of arbitrary other inanimate objects, characters and concepts as well.

You can spin it however you want, but the LOTR is *about* the Fellowship of the Ring and their journey.  For our purposes, if it were a D&D game, that's what it'd be about, because all the adventures would be made with them in mind.  Frodo & Co is where the rubber of the narrative meets the road, and pretending otherwise is academically fashionable, but mostly useless.

Speaking of Tolkien, isn't the Silmarillion mostly an exercise in worldbuilding, and a book often "abandoned in disgust"?  And didn't the movies suffer very little by jettisoning most of the worldbuilding stuff both narrated by characters and pursued in asides, and perhaps even improve on the book?  I thought so - The Twin Towers I found a dull book which dragged, whereas the movie propelled the plot forward by eschewing worldbuilding ephemera.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> Speaking of Tolkien, isn't the Silmarillion mostly an exercise in worldbuilding, and a book often "abandoned in disgust"?  And didn't the movies suffer very little by jettisoning most of the worldbuilding stuff both narrated by characters and pursued in asides, and perhaps even improve on the book?  I thought so - The Twin Towers I found a dull book which dragged, whereas the movie propelled the plot forward by eschewing worldbuilding ephemera.





The Silmarilion as presented was never intended by Tolkein for publication.

The movies didn't eschew worldbuilding; they eschewed a large part of the plot and made questionable changes to the plot.  And, yes, the films are far weaker (though require less attention span) than the books.


RC


----------



## rounser

> And, yes, the films are far weaker (though require less attention span) than the books.



Not what I meant - IMO the movies are a lot stronger in terms of telling a story than the books.  They have to be; they have very limited time to get to the point.  D&D lies somewhere in the middle, but I'd err towards the movie philosophy as the more wise of the two approaches, unless you're running a Worldbuilding Appreciation Society under the guise of a D&D game. 

Last time I checked, the books keep getting diverted into songs and asides about the past out of the mouths of the characters, which occasionally add to atmosphere, but mostly at the expense of advancing the story (resulting in the drag referred to above).  Tolkien may be a sacred cow, but he's quite self indulgent a world builder in this respect IMO...the cuts that Jackson made flattered his work, giving it the good editor it so desperately needed to keep the story from stalling on a regular basis.


----------



## Desdichado

Apropos of nothing; since I'm several days behind in reading this thread and don't even intend to catch up--worldbuilding can often lead to unanticipated plot points.  Here's an example from my own campaign:

The thing in question started as merely an aesthetic.  There was a book I got from my local public library when I was a kid about space--on each page, the left hand side had a bit of white space at the top and a title, then a block of text; the right hand side was a color plate painted by the artist of the book.  It was really a fabulous book that I'd love to find if I could remember the title or author either one.  In any case, there was one picture near the end that showed a peaceful little idyllic landscape at night--little huts off in the distance nestled under some gentle hills with lights in their windows.  The landscape itself was the less than the bottom 1/4 of the picture.  The sky filled the rest, and it was a blue night sky with the gigantic whirlpool of a spiral galaxy filling the picture.  The premise was that this was some star just outside the Milky Way galaxy and you could see it at night filling the sky.  Brilliant, I thought!  So I wanted a similar set-up.

Because my setting isn't strictly fantasy but more of a Weird Tale; i.e. undifferentiated between fantasy, horror and science fiction elements, I actually wanted the astronomy to be reasonably correct.  My first thought was to set the setting on a planet somewhere in the Large Magellanic Cloud--but I decided that I'm not 100% sure that I'd actually get the view I want from there.  I'm also not 100% that the Milky Way has the look I want after all; more recent studies than that which informed the painting in the book have the Milky Way as a barred spiral galaxy with a starburst ring just beyond the bar.  I googled up some Hubble telescope images of similar galaxies and wasn't 100% satisfied.  

See where I'm going so far?  Pretty nerdy worldbuilding stuff so far; no doubt quite beyond the pale of where the OP advises me to spend my time.  In any case; moving on--while googling up those images, I decided I wanted to rotate my computer wallpapers out with pictures of galaxies, and several immediately caught my eye as beautiful, and exactly what I wanted.  M64--"the Black Eye" galaxy for instance, or NGC 4414 or NGC 3370.  So I decided to not worry about making this the Milky Way and just set it somewhere else.  "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away".  How long ago, and how far away?  Well that depends on what galaxy I pick.  If I pick M64, that's something like 12 light years away, so that's how far.  It's also how long--12 million years.  I want the galaxy to look like it does now so if I ever decide to whip up some artwork I can just Photoshop the Hubble image in.

How does all this drive story?  Well, my original intention was to combine this idea with Noah's Ark--humanity had fled Earth during the Flood and arrived in the LMC.  They had not escaped God's notice, though--and since they were not Noah or his family, they shouldn't have been immune from the effects of the Flood.  So God sent a comet or two winging towards their planet to destroy it's ecosystem and make it uninhabitable.  The local gods rose up to protect the planet, but since they were individually much weaker, they could only blunt the effects.  _Some_ water vapor remained on the planet, mostly in underground aquifers, and the atmosphere wasn't blown away after all.  The planet became a harsh, cold desert, but not completely uninhabitable.  This explains the local cultures' religions which demonize the giant galaxy in the sky and fear it, among other things.

However, that wouldn't work if I now was putting it somewhere else and setting it much earlier.  However another astronomical problem presented itself to me--for other reasons, I want the star that the world circles to be an old, faint and weak one; an ancient orange dwarf.  These types of stars are the kind that might be found on the fringes of a galaxy--in the halo or in the ancient globular clusters, for example, and they are somewhat like 12-14 billion years old; nearly as old as the Universe itself.  However, they formed so long ago that litle stellar processing of the raw hydrogen that made up the primeval universe had yet happened.  The concept of their being enough heavy elements and dust to form terrestrial planets is unlikely.

So now, I've got a bit of a problem that my "nerdy" obsession with world-building and making it astronomically plausible have concocted are suggesting all kinds of really cool ideas to me.  
What's this star doing out here in the middle of intergalactic space in the first place?  _Not so hard; I can posit a galactic collision or near miss, or some other gravitational slingshotting effect, and I certainly have enough time since the formation of the star to reasonably make it far enough away from the galaxy that it's now visible in it's entirety in the night sky.  Especially if this was originally a halo star in the first place_.


If it's so implausable for there to be terrestrial planets around a star like this, what's one doing here?  _It's artificial.  It was placed here by some other agent._


Who the heck would do that and why?  _Who else?  Gray aliens.  As for why; some of the reasoning is their own inscrutiable motives, but I do like the concept of a Noah's Ark of sorts--humans have been originally placed here to protect them from some cataclysm._


If this is "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" how do you have humans that are genetically identical (albeit of completely alien ethnic groups) to humans on earth?  _Again with the gray aliens.  The idea that we aren't the product of local evolution after all but instead of the tampering of some extraterrestrial entity is a compelling idea and one that's been floating around in my head as a great conspiracy theory type plot point ever since I heard of Van Danniken's _Chariots of the Gods_ in the first place._


What is the nature of this cataclysm their escaping and what does that have to do with anything?  _The cataclysm was not merely a natural disaster of some kind; it was a malicious entity who wanted to destroy humanity.  And despite the hiding of a remnant of humanity far from the galaxy in a place where it's much harder to find than the proverbial needle in a haystack, this malicious entity has somehow found them again._

So there we go--a high level, campaign finishing plot point has occured to me that wouldn't have if I didn't take the time to engage in some seemingly pointless worldbuilding.  From having a campaign without any defined goals or overarching purpose in mind, I'm now angling towards preparing my PCs to essentially deal with my own version of Galactus at high level when the campaign is ready for it's ultimate climax and end.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> Not what I meant - IMO the movies are a lot stronger in terms of telling a story than the books.




I understand.  IMO, they are not.

Simply because they have limited time to get to the point doesn't mean that it does a better (or stronger) job telling a story.



> IMO...the cuts that Jackson made flattered his work, giving it the good editor it so desperately needed to keep the story from stalling on a regular basis.




And, IMO, not.


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Because their story was critically important to the story of LotR - in many ways I'd suggest that the failing of elves, ents, dwarves and the rest of the "old world" was the real story of LotR - the hobbits heading off to Mount Doom was just window dressing for that.




Here's the thing, though. A story has characters. An "age" isn't a character. It's a setting. Unless you blow the setting up to the relevance of a character (thus blowing it out of proportion to the human element), nothing should be "about" the setting. The elements of a story always involve a person: a person vs. god, a person vs. nature, a person vs. themselves, a person vs. a person. You could maybe try to tell a story about an age through allegory, but allegory frequently results in shallow characters. 

If the story of LotR involves basically no actual characters, that is a severe weakness of the book and a deep criticism of JRR's writing.

Perhaps I give the man too much credit, but I'm willing to believe that the story of LotR is about the Fellowship and, specifically, about how a pair of hobbits walked from the Shire to Mount Doom (encountering all sorts of fantastic places along the way) in order to save the world from an evil that would make its wielder all powerful. It's about humility over hubris, about the triumph of willpower over temptation, and about, ultimately, how all evil destroys itself, how greed is turned back on the greedy, and how a lust for something as empty and soulless as power ultimately robs all life from you, but a friendship, a fellowship, and a companionship, can give you the power to take on anything.

That is, I think, why the story has endured and garnered such popularity, is the strength of that core story. It has persisted *despite* JRR's frequent skipping down obscure-self-referential-lore lane because there is only a small segment of the audience (the great clomping nerd segment. ) that is interested in that. It persists because he tells a very human story about the struggle of two friends in the face of overwhelming terror. Not because he chats about elf poetry.  



> And, IMO, not.




Right. And RC, it strikes me that you're probably one of those who very much enjoys the worldbuilding. And you don't really seem to have any problems with your preference in your groups, so the advice probably isn't very relevant to you, personally. Worldbuilding is part of your fun, and it doesn't interfere with the rest of your group's fun, so no biggie.

But ronseur rather persuasively demonstrates that this passion for worldbuilding isn't always a good thing and, depending upon your group, could seriously bog down what is fun for them in what is only fun for the DM. So, despite the fact that the advice to have story triumph over world building isn't really relevant for you, it could certainly be good advice. It was given in writing, presumably, because in this professional's experience, like in ronseur's (and others who have posted in support of the idea), the general audience doesn't care about world details that aren't directly relevant to the action of the story.

A D&D campaign doesn't get the same exposure as a published book, however. It basically just needs to amuse the people who come to the weekly game (DM included), and so if all those people love to geek out on fantasy worldbuilding, the campaign is accomplishing it's goal of amusing a few people for an evening. Also, if you have no particular story in mind, tinkering around with the setting can sometimes help you see where a story can exist. And because PC's have more freedom than readers, it behooves a DM to prepare more than he will really need, in order to anticipate unexpected moves by the players. Which is why you will need more pointless world-building in a D&D game than in a published book, even if you don't particularly want to do much of it. Generally, the alternative is to poach liberally from published settings in such a circumstance.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Right. And RC, it strikes me that you're probably one of those who very much enjoys the worldbuilding. And you don't really seem to have any problems with your preference in your groups, so the advice probably isn't very relevant to you, personally. Worldbuilding is part of your fun, and it doesn't interfere with the rest of your group's fun, so no biggie.





No...it actively enhances the rest of my group's fun.  Dropping it would be a biggie.

And, I have already agreed that worldbuilding can be used poorly.  I even gave some examples.  However, 90% or more of the "worldbuilding" problems brought up on this thread are either DM or player problems, and are as prevalent without worldbuilding as they are with.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That is, I think, why the story has endured and garnered such popularity, is the strength of that core story. It has persisted *despite* JRR's frequent skipping down obscure-self-referential-lore lane because there is only a small segment of the audience (the great clomping nerd segment. ) that is interested in that. It persists because he tells a very human story about the struggle of two friends in the face of overwhelming terror. Not because he chats about elf poetry.





Of course, the fact that the vast majority of critics and posters who _like_ LotR all tell you that it is _because of these properties_ rather than _despite them_ has no influence on your thinking, right?   

(Not that your characterization of the qualities of LotR is remotely accurate.)


----------



## molonel

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Perhaps I give the man too much credit, but I'm willing to believe that the story of LotR is about the Fellowship and, specifically, about how a pair of hobbits walked from the Shire to Mount Doom (encountering all sorts of fantastic places along the way) in order to save the world from an evil that would make its wielder all powerful. It's about humility over hubris, about the triumph of willpower over temptation, and about, ultimately, how all evil destroys itself, how greed is turned back on the greedy, and how a lust for something as empty and soulless as power ultimately robs all life from you, but a friendship, a fellowship, and a companionship, can give you the power to take on anything. That is, I think, why the story has endured and garnered such popularity, is the strength of that core story. It has persisted *despite* JRR's frequent skipping down obscure-self-referential-lore lane because there is only a small segment of the audience (the great clomping nerd segment. ) that is interested in that. It persists because he tells a very human story about the struggle of two friends in the face of overwhelming terror. Not because he chats about elf poetry.




That was extremely well-written, and very true. Part of the reason the Silmarillion isn't as interesting as the LotR trilogy is because it lacks the humanity and immediacy of the characters. It's all high seriousness and worldbuilding.

The characters in the Silmarillion are more like tiles in a mosaic. Distant, larger than life, mythological.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the story persists and succeeds in SPITE of Tolkien's worldbuilding, but the latter is simply a spice on the main dish. We care about the characters: Gimli's orc-killing contest with Legolas, Gandalf's love of fine pipe tobacco, Sam's cooking pots and spices, Merry and Pippin's foolishness.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But ronseur rather persuasively demonstrates that this passion for worldbuilding isn't always a good thing and, depending upon your group, could seriously bog down what is fun for them in what is only fun for the DM. So, despite the fact that the advice to have story triumph over world building isn't really relevant for you, it could certainly be good advice. It was given in writing, presumably, because in this professional's experience, like in ronseur's (and others who have posted in support of the idea), the general audience doesn't care about world details that aren't directly relevant to the action of the story.




This is simply an anecdote, but my first longterm campaign in 3.X D&D demonstrated to me once and for all the problem with too much worldbuilding. My DM was (and is) a good DM, but I always felt like he was trying to write a campaign world for publication somewhere, and our characters were always getting in his way. He especially didn't like the fact that our characters were anti-heroes, and our plots always failed and bumbled like the Keystone Cops tripping over their own oversized feet. The campaign could have been so much more than it was. It could have been legendary and epic, and instead, in the final equation, it was just ... okay. 

There are people who love worldbuilding first and above-all, but I follow the advice of the screenwriter who, when pressed on the cruising speed of a ship in one of his shows by the sci-fi techno wonks, informed them the ship moved "at the speed of plot."


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> He especially didn't like the fact that our characters were anti-heroes, and our plots always failed and bumbled like the Keystone Cops tripping over their own oversized feet.




What does this have to do with _worldbuilding_?  That the characters are anti-heroes is more _character_ than setting, surely?  That they always failed and bumbled was more _plot_ than setting, surely?

Worldbuilding, regardless of which definition we use, relates to the creation of setting.

Character relates to the creation of both PCs and NPCs.

Plot relates to what the characters do within the setting.

Again, this is just another "example" that doesn't example what it purports to example.

RC


----------



## Celebrim

rounser said:
			
		

> Last time I checked, the books keep getting diverted into songs and asides about the past out of the mouths of the characters, which occasionally add to atmosphere, but mostly at the expense of advancing the story (resulting in the drag referred to above).  Tolkien may be a sacred cow, but he's quite self indulgent a world builder in this respect IMO...the cuts that Jackson made flattered his work, giving it the good editor it so desperately needed to keep the story from stalling on a regular basis.




Its not so much the cuts that Jackson made which are problimatic, but his many additions which _slowed the story down_ (the interlude in PJ's TT were Aragorn falls off some high place and is lost, for example) and his persistant changing of key moments in the story/characterization so as to alter the meaning and intent of the original author (Faramir's kidnapping of the Hobbits is guilty on both counts).  Cuts would be necessary to achieve the running time of a movie series, whether or not they actually flatter the work. In fact, most of the cuts don't actually flatter the work, they simply reduce its depth while vastly reducing the attention span required to follow the work.  This is not the same as making the work better, unless your attention span is to short of follow a major work of fiction that doesn't have alot of naked bodies and violence in it - which would cover a good many people that don't read books for that reason.  PJ's editorial work emphasises the violent conflict in the story, which pays dividends at the box office, but can't possibly be said to flatter the story.  That is, unless you think something like 'Mission Impossible II' is an example of deep and compelling literature, and unless you think reducing the story to something along the lines of another action adventure movie is flattery.

Frankly, PJ's editorial decisions have nothing to do with world-building or not world building.  If you wish to believe that you like PJ's movie better than the book because it had less world building in it, there is nothing I can do to prevent that.  But that doesn't make it so.

I think it would be very easy to demonstrate that the movies do not do a better job of telling the story than the books do.  I think it would be virtually impossible to be able to explain after watching the movies what the story was about.  I think you could recount a number of events, but you'd have a hard time explaining what all these events and narration ammounted to collectively.  Even in specific events, the movie is horribly unclear as to what is actually going on.  For example, I've done casual polls of people who have only seen the movie and not read the book, and the majority of were of the impression that Frodo threw Gollum into the fire.  So it is not at all clear to me that the movie does a better job of telling the story it is supposedly telling.

In my opinion, the only reason that PJ's movies were as successful as they were is the fantastic art direction provided by Alan Lee and John Howe, combined with a general couriousity by the general public to see a movie of this book they'd heard so much about.  The movies are beautiful to look at and are filled with interesting things to look at.  It's not at all clear to me that you can claim that the movies are more successful than the books because they are less reliant on Tolkien's world building.  At best I think you can say that a picture is worth a thousand words, and most people tend to be visual rather than verbal and so prefer a picture to a thousand words.


----------



## Celebrim

*RE: The Silmarillion*

Regards the Silmarillion, it certainly is a dull novel with poor characterization, very little actual dialogue and seemingly endless time spend on geneologies, describing locations, and only a cursory outline of the actual events that take place - broken up by occassional short passages developed in a fuller way.

But this is hardly suprising, since it is little more than a published outline of the story based off Tolkien's world building notes.  It can hardly be claimed to be a finished work or that the style it is written in largely reflects the style that the finished work would have been in - which probably would have been much more like the style of the LotR - particularly in the passages dealing with Aragorn which are written in an somewhat elevated style befitting his nobleness (incidently, these passages generally hold the attention better of younger readers than the less elevated ones dealing with the hobbits, because the passages about the hobbits are much less 'action adventure' stories).

And, one can certainly claim with good reason that the reason the Silmarillion was never finished and is only available in this state was that Tolkien became obssessed with particular aspects of world building which he never felt he got 'right'.  However, these are not 'Hobbit toast buttering songs' or any other such details, but esoteric aspects of the cosmology which Tolkien was theologically unsatisfied with - such as the origin of Orcs.  Interestingly, the whole matter of the origin of Orcs would never have played a huge role in the story - if Tolkien had have solved the problem to his satisfaction it probably would not have added greatly to the text.  Even with the problem solved, there wouldn't have been in the text a large passage explaining the origin of orcs in great detail.  It probably wouldn't have amounted to more than a paragraph.  But it is typical of Tolkien's approach to the work that he would agonize and spend months or years thinking about and crafting individual pages and paragraphs.  This can be said to be a great flaw in a writer - if your goal is to get something finished - but I don't see how it can be said to be a great flaw in the finished works.


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What does this have to do with _worldbuilding_? That the characters are anti-heroes is more _character_ than setting, surely? That they always failed and bumbled was more _plot_ than setting, surely? Worldbuilding, regardless of which definition we use, relates to the creation of setting. Character relates to the creation of both PCs and NPCs. Plot relates to what the characters do within the setting. Again, this is just another "example" that doesn't example what it purports to example.




With all due respect, I've stopped short of saying that my example proves or disproves any particular design philosophy, but I _was_ there, and you weren't.

What did it have to do with worldbuilding?

Our DM's world was heroic in nature. Since our characters were anti-heroes, and eventually evil, we could NOT succeed in his world. The nature of the world was more important. In the showdown between characters and world, the world won. Always. I even expressed this frustration to the DM one time, and he said (with no attempt to conceal or hide his intentions), "Well, it's MY world."

He didn't hammer us with plot. The ways in which we were thwarted often defied logic, probability and common sense. But the underlying assumptions of the world - evil doesn't win - had to be fulfilled. Period.

Worldbuilding is like any other aspect of gaming - rules, emphasis on combat, whatever. You can have too much of a good thing. And when the world is the most important character, the game suffers.

I've watched it happen, and no, the DM was NOT a bad DM. My example proves exactly what I said it does: worldbuilding can unravel a game.


----------



## Desdichado

molonel said:
			
		

> I've watched it happen, and no, the DM was NOT a bad DM. My example proves exactly what I said it does: worldbuilding can unravel a game.



No, that proves exactly nothing of the sort.  Worldbuilding in this context has absolutely nothing to do with high concepts and everything to do with nitpicky details.  The high concept of his world: one of heroic action, was incompatible with your characters.

Worldbuilding--as near as I can tell based on what you've said--hasn't even been brought up yet, and you certainly haven't demonstrated how it had any effect whatsoever on your game.


----------



## molonel

Hobo said:
			
		

> No, that proves exactly nothing of the sort. Worldbuilding in this context has absolutely nothing to do with high concepts and everything to do with nitpicky details. The high concept of his world: one of heroic action, was incompatible with your characters. Worldbuilding--as near as I can tell based on what you've said--hasn't even been brought up yet, and you certainly haven't demonstrated how it had any effect whatsoever on your game.




His world was a museum. Everything had to be just so. The lighting, the history, the interaction. You can call it "high concept" (whatever the heck THAT is), or try and make it sound like plot instead of world, or whatever. But it was a worldbuilding issue, and our characters were always the flies in the ointment. I sometimes wondered why he bothered running a game, and didn't just write a novel or a campaign setting for publication. 

Worlds are not built with nitpicky details. Worldbuilding is just that: building a world. When you obsess about it too much, the nitpicky details become more important than the characters.

So yes, my examples proves exactly what I'm saying. Worldbuilding can unravel a game. All three of the players acknowledged it, and later, so did the DM. If you'd like to claim we didn't understand what was actually going on, and you need to explain it to me, well.

Good luck with that.


----------



## Celebrim

rounser said:
			
		

> Frodo & Co is where the rubber of the narrative meets the road, and pretending otherwise is academically fashionable, but mostly useless.




I agree with that.  As supporting evidence, I would offer that it is exactly what Tolkien said about the work.  As far as JRRT was concerned, the book was about the Hobbits and the story of the Hobbits was about mercy.



> Speaking of Tolkien, isn't the Silmarillion mostly an exercise in worldbuilding, and a book often "abandoned in disgust"?




Yes.  Quite so.  But it _is mostly an exercise in worldbuilding_.  As others have pointed out, an excercise in worldbuilding does not a finished novel make, and the book as published in no way should be thought of as reflecting exactly what Tolkien wanted to do with the work.  For example, the Silmarrilion story fleshed out and made into actual novels, easily encompasses three stories each comparable to the LotR in scale.    



> And didn't the movies suffer very little by jettisoning most of the worldbuilding stuff..




First of all, I don't agree that the movies jettisoned very much worldbuilding stuff at all.  And second of all, whatever the movies did, I don't agree that it didn't suffer much by comparison.  So, to begin with, I think all of your assumptions are flawed.



> both narrated by characters and pursued in asides, and perhaps even improve on the book?




Improve on the book?  You think the movies improved on the book?  Well, I guess you are entitled to your opinion.



> I thought so - The Twin Towers I found a dull book which dragged, whereas the movie propelled the plot forward by eschewing worldbuilding ephemera.




This however is the kind of thing which leads me to completely discount your opinion.  If you had said, "'The Fellowship of the Ring' I found a dull book which dragged, where as the movie propelled the plot forward by eschewing so much exposition about the past.", I might have some sympathy for your position because at least it would have somewhat fit the facts.  I fully agree that 'Fellowship' can be a very slow book, in which maybe as much as a third of the text consists of building up the backstory to the story through various devices - including a lot of songs, poems, and so forth.  It is not a 'tightly' written book, and the author admits to various endulgances for his own amusement, for example the aforementioned Tom B.  

But the thing is, by the time you get to 'The Two Towers' (not Twin, Two, since they are in no way twins), Tolkien has covered his bases and the story begins to move with great haste toward its conclusion.  'The Two Towers' is a lean, mean, book and the only reason it is so 'long' (though much shorter than Fellowship) is that the story Tolkien is now telling after all this set up is so complex.  There is almost no exposition and world building in 'The Two Towers', very few songs break out, and when they do they aren't long elven lays.  We get very brief descriptions of places in order to set the scene, but since there are only a dozen or so places and none of the descriptions amount to more than a page, the entire time spent 'world building' in Two Towers is a tiny fraction of the story by this point.

I tell you what a lot of readers in my experience that have no trouble with 'Fellowship' do get bored with though when they get to Two Towers.  The story itself, and in particular the central story of the book regarding the three Hobbits - Frodo, Sam, and Smeagol/Gollum.  The largest section of 'Two Towers' is an exploration of the relationship between those three characters, and not a lot of exciting battles, monsters, and so forth show up for a comparitively long stretch of chapters as Tolkien starts digging deeply into these characters.  A lot of people that breeze through 'Fellowship' because for all its world building, its got exciting fights and chase scenes and lots of heroics going on, simply bog down in the second half of 'Two Towers'.

On the other hand, a lot of people that give up the story in disgust during 'Fellowship' because of all the exposition and backstory and discussion of whose ancestor did what and who all these seemingly endless characters Tolkien is adding to the story are, once they make it to 'Two Towers', once the whole cast is in place, and Tolkien finally begins advancing the plot apace are swept away by the story which formerly seemed so dull.  My wife for example had this experience.  To her, 'Fellowship' seemed to stretch on forever, and she was bored to tears through Moria (which many people who are bored by Two Towers adore), but once she plowed through that 'boring part' (in her opinion) and got to the meat of the story she hardly put the book down until it was finished.  

And what's really interesting is that it is in Two Towers that PJ makes the editorial decision to add several (four or five actually) new events to the story all of which require extra time on screen to play out, and none of which advance the story in any way.  PJ makes the story in 'Two Towers' less tight, in favor of adding alot of combat scenes and short duration tension to the story and at the expense of alot of character dialogue (about the characters, not setting narration, which as I said plays a small role only in TT).


----------



## Celebrim

molonel said:
			
		

> His world was a museum. Everything had to be just so. The lighting, the history, the interaction. You can call it "high concept" (whatever the heck THAT is), or try and make it sound like plot instead of world, or whatever. But it was a worldbuilding issue, and our characters were always the flies in the ointment. I sometimes wondered why he bothered running a game, and didn't just write a novel or a campaign setting for publication.




I don't see how this is a world-building issue so much as an example of poor DMing.  The problem here isn't that he has a richly detailed world.  The problem is that the DM doesn't want to let the players influence that world, and apparently wants to play the player's characters for them rather than letting the player's play them.  

This problem is certainly a problem, but the problem of DM's who want to play and control the PC's is one that can occur with our without alot of world-building.  It's just so happened that this particular control freak was also a highly detailed world-builder, but he could have just as easily have been the sort that creates a highly detailed adventure path which he then intends to basically narrate to the players because he has all the events already scripted out and doesn't allow the players to actually influence these events.   Whether it is the setting, or the plot, or the fact that the DM is a megalomaniac who wants his NPC's to be the protagonists rather than the PC's, its still a basic problem of rail-roading the players that is entirely independent of whether any world building goes on.

I can see why based on your experience you would confuse world-building with rail-roading the PC's, but I think what you are really upset about is rail-roading and not world-building.  If you drop the assumption that world-building necessarily leads to rail-roading, your complaint goes away.   And I think it should be easy for you to see that if the DM had been willing to allow the players to gain some control over the setting that you can drop that assumption.


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> In the showdown between characters and world, the world won. Always.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> He didn't hammer us with plot. The ways in which we were thwarted often defied logic, probability and common sense. But the underlying assumptions of the world - evil doesn't win - had to be fulfilled. Period.




The above and 



> the DM was NOT a bad DM.




seem incongruous to me.  Why do you say that he was not a bad DM?

(Remember, that I agree that worldbuilding can be damaging to a game, depending upon how it is done.  I am just questioning whether or not this is an example of the same.)


RC


----------



## Baduin

And the funny thing is that M. John Harrison, the source of this whole affair, is very good at worldbuilding. He simply doesn't include a map. 

In Pastel City, the first book of Viriconium, his science fantasy cycle, we have a short introductory backstory, a very interesting city, an enemy in the north, an ancient evil which they awakened, an adventuring party (a fighter, barbarian, rogue, artificier in an exoskeleton, and wizard), interesting quest given by the queen, some plot twists, interesting artifacts (crystal anigrav air-ships, power swords, metal birds) etc.

The second book includes invasion by giant insects from another reality, and things begin be get rather strange.  Other parts of the cycle take place in an alternative Virconiums (even the name of the city changes - eg Uricon etc). All characters are present, but usually as alternative personalities, sometimes very different.


----------



## Desdichado

molonel said:
			
		

> Worlds are not built with nitpicky details. Worldbuilding is just that: building a world. When you obsess about it too much, the nitpicky details become more important than the characters.



Almost 600 posts and counting of trying to define worldbuilding in the context of the quote in question would disagree with you.

If you're talking about worldbuilding in some other sense, your post is a complete non sequiter that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> So yes, my examples proves exactly what I'm saying. Worldbuilding can unravel a game. All three of the players acknowledged it, and later, so did the DM. If you'd like to claim we didn't understand what was actually going on, and you need to explain it to me, well.



I need do nothing of the sort.  You described your problem.  You labelled it as a problem related to worldbuilding.  The problem you described has nothing to do with worldbuilding, despite the label you've given it.  Go on believing what you will about it, and I'll do the same unless you give a radically different description of the issue than you have so far.


----------



## Kahuna Burger

molonel said:
			
		

> Our DM's world was heroic in nature. Since our characters were anti-heroes, and eventually evil, we could NOT succeed in his world.



Tangent - did the DM tell you his campaign was heroic in nature and you for whatever reason decided to be antiheroes anyway, or did you build a standard party for your group and then slowly realize such characters were screwed? (And why did you turn 'eventually evil' if the campaign/setting/plot/world did not accomadate that playstyle?)


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Hobo said:
			
		

> Almost 600 posts and counting of trying to define worldbuilding in the context of the quote in question would disagree with you.
> 
> If you're talking about worldbuilding in some other sense, your post is a complete non sequiter that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.



Admittedly, there have been competing definitions throughout, but I'd define what Molonel is discussing more as campaign than world. Its certainly possible to have a world which by its very nature punishes anti-heroic behavior - we see plenty of the opposite lauded as Grin N Gritty - but since he said the obstacles "often defied logic, probability and common sense" then they clearly weren't built into the world, merely the campaign. A world with those restrictions would be perfectly logical and probable, within its own context. 

For example, "Furies drive you mad for killing your father" is world. "A bumbling investigator somehow figures out that you killed your father so that it isn't rewarded in the game" is Campaign. IMO.


----------



## molonel

Hobo said:
			
		

> Almost 600 posts and counting of trying to define worldbuilding in the context of the quote in question would disagree with you. If you're talking about worldbuilding in some other sense, your post is a complete non sequiter that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. I need do nothing of the sort. You described your problem. You labelled it as a problem related to worldbuilding. The problem you described has nothing to do with worldbuilding, despite the label you've given it. Go on believing what you will about it, and I'll do the same unless you give a radically different description of the issue than you have so far.




Oh my gosh, you're right! I just looked up "D&D worldbuilding" in the OED, and there is only ONE definition, and it's not mine! Bitterness, weeping and gnashing of teeth followed in the wake of this terrible truth I've been denying.

You, my friend, are in dire need of an atomic wedgie.

Worldbuilding, in the context of this thread, means many different things to many different people. You disagree with me. Great. What else is new? But you are not the thread, and you should speak for yourself, because that's really all you're qualified to do. Thanks for trying to shunt me out of the conversation, but I'll stay. And I have a valid point, despite your inability to recognize it as such. It was a worldbuilding problem. You are free to label it anything you like.


----------



## molonel

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Admittedly, there have been competing definitions throughout, but I'd define what Molonel is discussing more as campaign than world. Its certainly possible to have a world which by its very nature punishes anti-heroic behavior - we see plenty of the opposite lauded as Grin N Gritty - but since he said the obstacles "often defied logic, probability and common sense" then they clearly weren't built into the world, merely the campaign. A world with those restrictions would be perfectly logical and probable, within its own context. For example, "Furies drive you mad for killing your father" is world. "A bumbling investigator somehow figures out that you killed your father so that it isn't rewarded in the game" is Campaign. IMO.




Campaign and world are not mutually exclusive terms, and I think you're sharpening your razor to so fine an edge in that particular distinction that you're microshaving the terms to an absurd degree. The obstacles were always there, sensible or not, and what drove them was a world concept that rejected us. The campaign was simply the playing out of his worldbuilding design philosophy.


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> Campaign and world are not mutually exclusive terms, and I think you're sharpening your razor to so fine an edge in that particular distinction that you're microshaving the terms to an absurd degree. The obstacles were always there, sensible or not, and what drove them was a world concept that rejected us. The campaign was simply the playing out of his worldbuilding design philosophy.





Any chance that this DM is on EN World, so that we could gain his perspective?


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Any chance that this DM is on EN World, so that we could gain his perspective?




He shares this perspective, now, and has changed his gaming style accordingly. I know people who are in his campaign right now, and he's made an effort to adapt more of a balance between world-building and character-building.

He's told me so, himself.

It was an acknowledged mistake.


----------



## Desdichado

EDIT:  Nevermind.

Or, in the words of Han Solo--"Boring conversation anyway."


----------



## molonel

Hobo said:
			
		

> Y'know, when a thread goes on for almost 600 posts and you come in and start talking about something that's only marginally related to the 600 posts that have preceded it and the general consensus that seems to have been built up over those 600 posts about terminology, you really don't gain a whole lot by trying to use the word in question in a different way than anyone else so far has done and stick to your guns when I tell you that no, we're actually talking about something different here. I mean, your non sequiter interruption isn't much different than someone with Touret's syndrome showing up and shouting something random.




My friend, if you don't like what I'm writing, and you feel it's so entirely unrelated to your point or anyone else's, then please: stop reading my posts. 

Because chanting "non sequitur" like some obsessed medieval monk, and what's more, MISSPELLING IT over and over again, is neither sexy nor smart. You're like some hot-tempered bombast lecturing at the podium with one of those butt covers from the bathroom stall hanging out the back of your pants.



			
				Hobo said:
			
		

> Oh, sure, you have a valid point in some other conversation on some other topic about how to run a good game. I'm not arguing with that. Or at least you would if you weren't so self-contradictory--"he's a good DM, but he really runs a crappy game." I mean, seriously--WTF?




It's not a contradiction at all, and I never said his game sucked. But it had some deep and serious flaws, especially as a longterm game, that we all learned something from. Including me. Including the DM.



			
				Hobo said:
			
		

> But I can't see how you have any point at all--valid or otherwise--in regards to the topic of this thread. Did you even read the first post, or just respond to the thread title?




Speaking of unrelated content, do you really have nothing better to do than to make sure I don't participate in this conversation?

I mean, truly, is it really this slow of a Monday for you?


----------



## Desdichado

Uh... dude.  That post you responded to--it's not there anymore.

And yeah, today is a slow day for me.  What of it?


----------



## LostSoul

Hobo said:
			
		

> Apropos of nothing; since I'm several days behind in reading this thread and don't even intend to catch up--worldbuilding can often lead to unanticipated plot points.  Here's an example from my own campaign:




Cool stuff, Hobo.


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> He shares this perspective, now, and has changed his gaming style accordingly. I know people who are in his campaign right now, and he's made an effort to adapt more of a balance between world-building and character-building.
> 
> He's told me so, himself.
> 
> It was an acknowledged mistake.





Then I will accept that this was a worldbuilding issue according to whatever definition the two of you were (are) using.  I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more clearly how the two tie together, though, for the purpose of better understanding your viewpoint.

I certainly agree that this sort of thing is a definite problem....one I would quit a game over without a second thought.


----------



## Raven Crowking

As a related aside:

The creating of setting materials that might not see use in the game would seem to include non-linear dungeon layouts, such as those used in many older non-tournament modules, where the PCs wouldn't necessarily have to hit every room (or even every major encounter) in order to get to the "end".  Opposed to this are the linear layouts of tournament modules, where every area had to reasonably be "hit" in order to score properly, and at least some of the early WotC modules, which have fairly linear maps.

(There is an excellent thread analyzing module maps around somewhere; I can try and find a link to it if need be.  I believe that it was started by Mallus, but I could be wrong.....  )

Anyway, I am wondering how anti-worldbuilding people feel about non-linear maps.  Should a map channel you to every possible major encounter?


RC


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Then I will accept that this was a worldbuilding issue according to whatever definition the two of you were (are) using. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more clearly how the two tie together, though, for the purpose of better understanding your viewpoint. I certainly agree that this sort of thing is a definite problem....one I would quit a game over without a second thought.




It was the sort of thing that you'd only see if you gamed with him in the longterm. Up to that point, I think his campaigns had only ever lasted to 10th or 12th level. We took this one up to 21st level, XP by painfully earned XP. The game world he runs is a continuous one where the adventures of his players occur at different points in his world timeline. But the world, as he conceived it, was the iron bar that was always smacking us in the head just as we started to build momentum. The continuity of the world was more important than the role we played in it. Overall, it was a good campaign. I learned a lot. The time spent with friends certainly wasn't wasted. But where it could have been great, it settled for merely okay. There's nothing wrong with a good game, but we had a group of imaginative, dedicated players who WANTED to build an epic saga. I may never have a gaming group like that, again. And to have that sort of opportunity, and frustrate the players so often with so many brick walls that had no other reason for being there other than to keep his world safe was a travesty.

Having learned that lesson, I stepped in as the DM in another game where the DM stepped down. It was a continuous world, and the adventure was a big city adventure. The players quietly told me that they were sick of the stupid city, and running around in it.

Having just acquired Bruce R. Cordell's When the Sky Falls, I nuked the city with a comet. I don't hold anything in the worlds where I run my game as sacred or untouchable.


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Anyway, I am wondering how anti-worldbuilding people feel about non-linear maps. Should a map channel you to every possible major encounter?




I think the World's Largest Dungeon is living proof that extensive mapping doesn't necessarily make an adventure fun.

If players REALLY want to use maps, I can generally find something from an old adventure or 0one's Blueprints on RPGnow.com. But it's been a LONG time since I had players with graph paper graphing every. Five. Foot. Square.

And I haven't missed it, either.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Am I correct in understanding that this DM had worked out the _future continuity_ of his world?  I.e., what would happen, as opposed to what had happened?  Is this roughly the problem?

Or is the problem that he wanted the world to remain static, as-is?  I.e., he tried to prevent the world from evolving in response to PC and NPC actions?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> I think the World's Largest Dungeon is living proof that extensive mapping doesn't necessarily make an adventure fun.




 

(I think that the real problem is that so much of the map is empty.)



> If players REALLY want to use maps, I can generally find something from an old adventure or 0one's Blueprints on RPGnow.com. But it's been a LONG time since I had players with graph paper graphing every. Five. Foot. Square.
> 
> And I haven't missed it, either.




I don't mean having the players map; I mean maps that have multiple avenues that each have their own set of major encounters vs. maps that channel through a single set of major encounters.  IOW, is the implicit player choice of the non-linear type a good trade-off for the extra work?  Or do you consider that extra work a waste?  Conversely, is the explicit lack of choice of a linear map too confining?


----------



## rounser

> Anyway, I am wondering how anti-worldbuilding people feel about non-linear maps. Should a map channel you to every possible major encounter?



Not in my opinion.    

If you're now going to state that heavy worldbuilding is equivalent to such "more dungeon development" (or whatever your encounter level map represents), then don't bother, because we've been over that terrain earlier in this thread.  Worldbuilding offers no guarantee of containing anything which the PCs can actually interact with, whereas an extra encounter-level map area is somewhere they can set foot in and encounter.  By all means, drop much of your worldbuilding time to build better adventures.

Also, don't bother to argue that extra encounters are in fact worldbuilding, because we've been there before as well.  There is a reason why setting bibles are full of macro level stuff (with the exception perhaps of the Wilderlands), and adventures full of encounter level stuff, because those are the domains they encapsulate in the accepted definitions of those terms, borne out by what is published under those headings.


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Am I correct in understanding that this DM had worked out the _future continuity_ of his world? I.e., what would happen, as opposed to what had happened? Is this roughly the problem? Or is the problem that he wanted the world to remain static, as-is? I.e., he tried to prevent the world from evolving in response to PC and NPC actions?




He didn't necessarily have the future continuity worked out ahead of time, but the problem itself was two-fold: the world itself was designed according to certain principles that disagreed with us; and ultimately, his concept of how things should work out in the world was more important than ours.

He was building the world. We weren't. Our efforts to create and effect things were always trumped, always falling apart at the seams, always crumpled. Meanwhile, if we ever wanted to do anything important, we pretty much had to piggyback on an NPC's plans. (Because, God knows, those NEVER failed.)

After 21 levels of this, we took a break for a year and a half. The "climactic" battle was against an enemy we didn't particularly care about, never had anything to do with, unsuccessfully tried to ally ourselves with and didn't give two hoots about beating.

We did one adventure at 35th level where we were finally allowed to trounce the good guys. (Because, of course, even though we were the big evil rising powers in the world, nobody cared and we always ended up fighting other evil villains.) I told the DM, outright, that I would play in the finale on one condition:

We were the main focus of the story. 

If I had the sense that I was just Asmodeus's towel boy, I'd go watch a movie and let him roll the dice for my character, since my decisions and participation obviously weren't required for the game.

The world evolved and changed, but not because of us. Or we would simply be the avenue by which someone else accomplished their plans, or didn't.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't mean having the players map; I mean maps that have multiple avenues that each have their own set of major encounters vs. maps that channel through a single set of major encounters. IOW, is the implicit player choice of the non-linear type a good trade-off for the extra work? Or do you consider that extra work a waste? Conversely, is the explicit lack of choice of a linear map too confining?




I do whatever I have to do in order to (a) maximize fun, and (b) minimize prep time. I listen to play input. Once in a while, I'll throw in a maze and let them map it. Sometimes, it will simply be a scene by scene progression where I handwave the unnecessary parts of the wandering. I might let them wander through a maze, and make intelligence checks to affect working out the maze.


----------



## Celebrim

> Our efforts to create and effect things were always trumped, always falling apart at the seams, always crumpled. Meanwhile, if we ever wanted to do anything important, we pretty much had to piggyback on an NPC's plans. (Because, God knows, those NEVER failed.)




Once again, I don't understand how any of this necessarily says anything about world building in general.  In this particular case, you were rail-roaded ostencibly because of a DM's worldbuilding, but you can't say anything universal about either railroading or worldbuilding based off this experience because they are completely separate concepts.  You can have rail roading without world building and you can have world building without rail roading.


----------



## molonel

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Once again, I don't understand how any of this necessarily says anything about world building in general.




Which would be why I said, "With all due respect, I've stopped short of saying that my example proves or disproves any particular design philosophy" (post #555, page 14).

I think some of you folks are trying a little too hard to make generalizations. Mine was a very particular example, and I've said so two or three times, now, so everyone beating the "That's just your experience!" drum can quiet down, now.

However, my example is a valid example that proves an otherwise pleasing gaming experience can be marred by an undue focus on worldbuilding, just as a game can suffer from an undue emphasis on any other necessary component of gaming: mechanics, combat, even unrelated chatter that supposedly passes for roleplaying.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> In this particular case, you were rail-roaded ostencibly because of a DM's worldbuilding, but you can't say anything universal about either railroading or worldbuilding based off this experience because they are completely separate concepts.




What a delightfully vapid non-point. Is it something in the water, this morning? A bad batch of coffee, perhaps? 

I share an experience where a campaign was heavily marred by a DM more concerned with his worldbuilding than the fun of the game or his players, and several folks feel almost compelled to remind me that my individual experience was just my own personal experience.

Well ... duh. 

This is molonel posting on Enworld, not Jesus reciting the Sermon on the Mount.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> You can have rail roading without world building and you can have world building without rail roading.




And you can also have railroading through worldbuilding. Yes. I know.


----------



## Celebrim

molonel said:
			
		

> ...What a delightfully vapid non-point...




Ok, well in that case, pot-kettle.  

I thought you were trying to make some point with your story.  Silly me.

Anyway, nice story.  I remain completely unconvinced it had anything to do with world building - for example, all your examples seem have to do with story building not world building - but since you apparant aren't trying to make any sort of point, nice story, all the same.


----------



## molonel

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Ok, well in that case, pot-kettle. I thought you were trying to make some point with your story. Silly me. Anyway, nice story. I remain completely unconvinced it had anything to do with world building - for example, all your examples seem have to do with story building not world building - but since you apparant aren't trying to make any sort of point, nice story, all the same.




You know what? I'm here to talk about gaming, today. This whole "Gosh, I thought you were smarter than you never seem to be" and slipping daggers under the table blinkfest is more interesting on a Friday than a Monday.

Have a good day. Since you derive nothing from my posts in this discussion, I suggest you just roll your eyes, and respond to someone with the substance you find lacking.


----------



## Desdichado

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Ok, well in that case, pot-kettle.
> 
> I thought you were trying to make some point with your story.  Silly me.
> 
> Anyway, nice story.  I remain completely unconvinced it had anything to do with world building - for example, all your examples seem have to do with story building not world building - but since you apparant aren't trying to make any sort of point, nice story, all the same.



Yeah, we've already covered this ground.  Molonel is apparently talking about something else than the rest of us, and by golly, he's standing up for his right to pop up in whatever thread he likes and talk about something other than the topic.

I've decided that he's best ignored in this instance.  Maybe he'll find some relevence in some other discussion.


----------



## molonel

Hobo said:
			
		

> Yeah, we've already covered this ground. Molonel is apparently talking about something else than the rest of us, and by golly, he's standing up for his right to pop up in whatever thread he likes and talk about something other than the topic. I've decided that he's best ignored in this instance. Maybe he'll find some relevence in some other discussion.




Must still be a slow Monday. For someone who is quite bothered by my alleged divergence from the topic at hand, you've spent five posts talking it. The topic seems endlessly fascinating to you. 

You're almost as bad as staying on subject as you are at ignoring me.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Y'know, a lot of points had been made that world-building on the micro level that never gets seen at the table is basically a waste of time, but I think molonel's world-building at the other extreme (the macro level that winds up railroading a particular "feel" against the player's motives) can be just as damaging. It's less obvious in the initial instance, because it's very difficult to get this scenario in fiction -- the reader doesn't often rebel against the constraints of the story, if the story is decently written. But players are given a lot more free reign over their character's actions, and they can help influence and affect the campaign in a significant way.

Like the idea that LotR is about the setting, molonel's DM made the game about the setting, not about the characters in it. Ultimately, this springs from the same place: a love of the world so great that the game gets pushed aside. It's the same thing that made the pot-kettle comparison between Railroading and Worldbuilding above: both limit player choice, the things that a player can do to affect the world. 

So that element has been in the concept for a while, even if we've been using the "fiddly bits" aspect of worldbuilding more.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Y'know, a lot of points had been made that world-building on the micro level that never gets seen at the table is basically a waste of time, but I think molonel's world-building at the other extreme (the macro level that winds up railroading a particular "feel" against the player's motives) can be just as damaging.




I can't see any way that micro level world-building that never gets to the table is a waste of time, unless the person doing it doesn't enjoy it.

I can easily see how forcing the PCs to go along with NPC plots if they want to succeed is damaging.  In fact, it was posts like his that made me agree that the DMG should be written for the lowest common denominator....perhaps more so than it is now.

However, that seems more love of your plot than love of your world to me.  If we were in a thread talking about why plotting is bad, or DM PCs are bad, it would seem more relevant.  I can't see how the example actually qualifies as "worldbuilding" based on any of the various definitions that have been floated in this thread, but I can accept that it qualifies according to whatever definition Molonel is using.  I suppose I'd have to see some definition in order to figure it out.    

As far as non-linear maps go, that really is an attempt to understand the other side.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> I can't see any way that micro level world-building that never gets to the table is a waste of time, unless the person doing it doesn't enjoy it.




You're right. "Can be a waste of time" would be a more accurate statement.



> However, that seems more love of your plot than love of your world to me. If we were in a thread talking about why plotting is bad, or DM PCs are bad, it would seem more relevant. I can't see how the example actually qualifies as "worldbuilding" based on any of the various definitions that have been floated in this thread, but I can accept that it qualifies according to whatever definition Molonel is using. I suppose I'd have to see some definition in order to figure it out.




In this case, it doesn't seem like it was about plot, though. The DM seemed to be controlling the *effect the characters had on the setting*. Which is one way of saying "I build the world, you can't have any effect unless you have the effect *I* define for you." Which is about too much worldbuilding, treating the setting as more important than the story (or, in this case, the characters). 

Harrison makes the point that worldbuilding doesn't allow the reader to fulfill his part of the bargain with their own imagination. This seems like that translated into D&D: The PC can't fulfill their part of the bargain of driving the world's events with their own imagination. molonel's party wasn't the star of the show: the DM's setting was.

So just working with the qualities of harmful worldbuilding Harrison outlined, this seems to fit the mold.

As far as non-linear maps go, that really is an attempt to understand the other side.


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> However, that seems more love of your plot than love of your world to me. If we were in a thread talking about why plotting is bad, or DM PCs are bad, it would seem more relevant. I can't see how the example actually qualifies as "worldbuilding" based on any of the various definitions that have been floated in this thread, but I can accept that it qualifies according to whatever definition Molonel is using. I suppose I'd have to see some definition in order to figure it out.




My DM wasn't building plot. He was building his world. It was the exact same sort of fiddly bit development that you guys were talking about, except that instead of merely mapping out all the rooms we never visited, he had cultures and countries and NPCs doing stuff, and we were like a monkey wrench thrown into the cogs. He was always doing damage control. Trying to salvage his world. We joked about it being his "museum" and we were the proverbial bulls in the china shop.

Trying to separate what he did and calling it "plot" or whatever is needless hairsplitting. Ultimately, the problem in his campaign was that he was more concerned for his precious world than he was for the adventure or the characters playing in his game for three years.

He was like a director who spent most of his time working on set design rather than the play itself, or the actors. He almost seemed annoyed by the actors, sometimes.

And that's EXACTLY what the author in the original post was talking about. That's EXACTLY what Tolkien can sometimes be criticized for. The world is not the point, whether it's fiction or D&D. The adventure is the point. The characters are the point. Background is supposed to be just that: background.

That's why what I'm saying - despite Hobo's curiously zealous efforts to claim otherwise - is quite relevant to this discussion. It's the same thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> In this case, it doesn't seem like it was about plot, though. The DM seemed to be controlling the *effect the characters had on the setting*.  Which is one way of saying "I build the world, you can't have any effect unless you have the effect *I* define for you." Which is about too much worldbuilding, treating the setting as more important than the story (or, in this case, the characters).




The effect that the characters have on the setting is determined by plot, of by what they are or are not allowed to do within the plot, though, right?  I understand the idea that the DM proscribed the plot on the basis of being in love with the setting status quo; but it is still a matter of plot being proscribed as I understand it.

Or, I guess another way of saying it is that love of the setting is the motive, but restriction of the plot seems to be the means by which the motive was achieved.



> Harrison makes the point that worldbuilding doesn't allow the reader to fulfill his part of the bargain with their own imagination.




I am assuming that Harrison is talking about the inclusion of details that prevent the reader from "discovering" truths for himself, which would not translate the way that you want it to.  If you've heard the maxim "Show, don't tell", that's the same thing.  No matter how "built" the world is, the narrator doesn't say "Elves are second-hand citizens"; instead he includes details that allow the reader to _realize_ that elves are second-class citizens.  IOW, the use of details rather than dialectic allows the experience of the reader to interact with the prose.  The reader should be enticed to put forth effort for writing to succeed.

(There was actually an article in _Writer's Digest_ on this a few issues back.)

So, I don't think that this is specifically what Harrison is talking about, although I can see the relationship the problem has with world-building.  How the DM in question, running the game in question, cannot be a "bad DM" at that time, though, I'm not sure.  Not allowing the PCs to affect the world is a cardinal sin in my book.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> My DM wasn't building plot. He was building his world. It was the exact same sort of fiddly bit development that you guys were talking about, except that instead of merely mapping out all the rooms we never visited, he had cultures and countries and NPCs doing stuff, and we were like a monkey wrench thrown into the cogs. He was always doing damage control. Trying to salvage his world. We joked about it being his "museum" and we were the proverbial bulls in the china shop.




OK, but using the normal literary terms, what the NPCs are doing isn't worldbuilding; it is plot.  The problem you had, as I understand it, is that your DM, having decided what everything would be, refused to allow you to make changes during play.  Once the stage was set, you had every reason to assume that you could make changes to that setting within whatever means are available to your PCs.

The easiest analogy I can think of is that of a DM who makes a "perfect dungeon" then refuses to allow the PCs to beat the creatures or take the treasures because it destroys his perfect setup.  Were I to claim that this is a problem with dungeon building, rather than with the DM, you would rightly call me on it (I hope).



> He was like a director who spent most of his time working on set design rather than the play itself, or the actors. He almost seemed annoyed by the actors, sometimes.
> 
> And that's EXACTLY what the author in the original post was talking about. That's EXACTLY what Tolkien can sometimes be criticized for.




Well, Tolkien can be criticized for fixing the Superbowl, too.  That doesn't make it true.      Where would you say Tolkien seems annoyed by his "actors"?


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The effect that the characters have on the setting is determined by plot, of by what they are or are not allowed to do within the plot, though, right? I understand the idea that the DM proscribed the plot on the basis of being in love with the setting status quo; but it is still a matter of plot being proscribed as I understand it. Or, I guess another way of saying it is that love of the setting is the motive, but restriction of the plot seems to be the means by which the motive was achieved.




The inability to change the world manifested itself in the plot, but the plot wasn't the reason. It was simply the vehicle of frustration. It wasn't railroading, either, because we could go in any direction we wanted. 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, I don't think that this is specifically what Harrison is talking about, although I can see the relationship the problem has with world-building. How the DM in question, running the game in question, cannot be a "bad DM" at that time, though, I'm not sure. Not allowing the PCs to affect the world is a cardinal sin in my book.




It is a cardinal sin. But all DMs have flaws - I know I do - and this one was his. He taught me a lot about encounter design. He's still the best number cruncher and monster builder I know. He's an extraordinary editor, and he's done work on a PDF, and is currently writing his own. His world was certainly not dull. But, in the end, I kept coming back because it was a way to spend time with my friends, and merely accepted the fact that I could no more change the world itself than I could change the tiles on a board game merely by thinking about it.


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OK, but using the normal literary terms, what the NPCs are doing isn't worldbuilding; it is plot. The problem you had, as I understand it, is that your DM, having decided what everything would be, refused to allow you to make changes during play. Once the stage was set, you had every reason to assume that you could make changes to that setting within whatever means are available to your PCs.




You keep talking about plot as if it were some separate beast from worldbuilding. It's not. What we call "plot" is simply "what's happening in the world." It is an element of worldbuilding.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The easiest analogy I can think of is that of a DM who makes a "perfect dungeon" then refuses to allow the PCs to beat the creatures or take the treasures because it destroys his perfect setup. Were I to claim that this is a problem with dungeon building, rather than with the DM, you would rightly call me on it (I hope).




Any problem involves an individual, and can rightly be ascribed to that individual. What you just described is an example of bad dungeonbuilding, and not merely a problem DM. Or, more expansively, it's bad worldbuilding design and bad game design.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, Tolkien can be criticized for fixing the Superbowl, too.




Damn him! I knew it! That rat bastard cost me $50!



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Where would you say Tolkien seems annoyed by his "actors"?




In the Two Towers, it's generally acknowledged that Tolkien could have been a bit less in love with the world he was describing to us, and picked up the pace rather substantially. There are passages throughout the books where Tolkien does more worldbuilding than character development. Worldbuilding was one of Tolkien's many strengths, but it occasionally got the best of him.


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> You keep talking about plot as if it were some separate beast from worldbuilding. It's not. What we call "plot" is simply "what's happening in the world." It is an element of worldbuilding.




So, is creating the adventure a different beast from worldbuilding, or is creating the adventure an element of worldbuilding?



> Any problem involves an individual, and can rightly be ascribed to that individual. What you just described is an example of bad dungeonbuilding, and not merely a problem DM. Or, more expansively, it's bad worldbuilding design and bad game design.




I would say that the dungeon may be extremely well built, it is what happens after it is built that is at fault.  IOW, if the dungeon was copied by me and run by me, the same problem would not occur.  The problem is not intrinsic to the work, but to the people using the work.



> Damn him! I knew it! That rat bastard cost me $50!




From the grave, too.    

Beware the Lich Tolkein, whose sports fixing knows no bounds!  Mwah! ha! ha! ha!    



> In the Two Towers, it's generally acknowledged that Tolkien could have been a bit less in love with the world he was describing to us, and picked up the pace rather substantially.




By whom?

Can you give me an example from The Two Towers?


RC


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, is creating the adventure a different beast from worldbuilding, or is creating the adventure an element of worldbuilding?




I don't think it's an either/or proposition. You can create a dungeon for a dungeoncrawl that has no connection with anything else, and is it's own little microcosm. Arguably, it is then a sort of "world" but, in my opinion, not really.

But when overarching assumptions and design elements about your world flow into what happens in the dungeon, and the dungeon is part of a larger world, and these elements exist separately and apart from any particular adventure or locale, then it's worldbuilding.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I would say that the dungeon may be extremely well built, it is what happens after it is built that is at fault. IOW, if the dungeon was copied by me and run by me, the same problem would not occur. The problem is not intrinsic to the work, but to the people using the work.




You would run it differently because you wouldn't obey the design principles that dictate a certain result. Worldbuilding isn't just codification. It's the overarching world at large.

For example, I freely admit that there are levels of evil too low for me to address in my adventures. I've encountered those freak gamers who want to do really heinous @#$@# with their characters. I have a female friend who has played with a DM with an actual rape fetish. (I really wish I was kidding.)

I don't allow that. As part of an overarching sense of reality, I will acknowledge that terrible things happen during wars. A medieval adventure fantasy doesn't deny that. But I take a Greek/classical view. Terrible things happen, but they happen offstage, and the players may encounter the results of some of those evils, but I'm not going to go into detail or belabor it.

That's part of my worldbuilding philosophy: where some evils are concerned, don't go there. Because I'm not going to delight in actual descriptions of torture, or sordid sexual occurrences. Someone else might allow those things, but they are running a different world from mine.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> From the grave, too.  Beware the Lich Tolkein, whose sports fixing knows no bounds! Mwah! ha! ha! ha!




He realized that you don't control mankind by forging a ring. He realized you control us by controlling our entertainment! That fiendish villain!



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> By whom? Can you give me an example from The Two Towers?




Am I really the only person who found himself occasionally flipping pages in the Two Towers?


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> Am I really the only person who found himself occasionally flipping pages in the Two Towers?





No....The first couple of times I assaulted the Trilogy, I got no farther than the Fellowship.  It was only later that I developed the fortitude to finish the book.  However, it wasn't due to worldbuilding.....which there is far more of in Fellowship than in Two Towers or Return.


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No....The first couple of times I assaulted the Trilogy, I got no farther than the Fellowship.  It was only later that I developed the fortitude to finish the book.  However, it wasn't due to worldbuilding.....which there is far more of in Fellowship than in Two Towers or Return.




I found myself flipping because the story diverged too much into description rather than pushing the story forward. Long passages of blah blah blah the trees blah blah blah the mountains blah blah and I was finally like "Grrr! What the @#$@ is happening to the characters?"


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> I found myself flipping because the story diverged too much into description rather than pushing the story forward. Long passages of blah blah blah the trees blah blah blah the mountains blah blah and I was finally like "Grrr! What the @#$@ is happening to the characters?"





Well, LotR isn't for everyone. 

OTOH, once I got past that first real reading, my appreciation of the work has increased with each subsequent reading.  If you "get" what Tolkein is saying, there isn't much else out there that delivers quite so well.


RC


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, LotR isn't for everyone.




My appreciation of Tolkien doesn't require that I believe he did everything equally well. I like the Chronicles of Narnia, too, but I realize that Lewis poured on the evangelism and Christian symbolism a little thick, sometimes.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OTOH, once I got past that first real reading, my appreciation of the work has increased with each subsequent reading. If you "get" what Tolkein is saying, there isn't much else out there that delivers quite so well.




I don't think it's a matter of "getting" it so much as developing a tolerance for it. 

Just because you enjoy reading the Bible doesn't mean you can't quietly admit that reading the book of Leviticus is comparable to chewing bubble gum studded with broken glass.


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> I don't think it's a matter of "getting" it so much as developing a tolerance for it.
> 
> Just because you enjoy reading the Bible doesn't mean you can't quietly admit that reading the book of Leviticus is comparable to chewing bubble gum studded with broken glass.





Ah, but there is no part of the work that is comparable to chewing bubble gum studded with broken glass IMHO.  Indeed, my appreciation of how finely crafted LotR is increases almost annually, as I usually reread the book once a year.  I would say that Tolkein did _exactly_ what he wanted to do with this work.....although, of course, that doesn't mean that what Tolkein wanted is going to resonate with _everyone_.


RC


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ah, but there is no part of the work that is comparable to chewing bubble gum studded with broken glass IMHO.  Indeed, my appreciation of how finely crafted LotR is increases almost annually, as I usually reread the book once a year.  I would say that Tolkein did _exactly_ what he wanted to do with this work.....although, of course, that doesn't mean that what Tolkein wanted is going to resonate with _everyone_.




I'm confident he did do exactly what he wanted to do. But he even said, at one point, that he was sometimes more preoccupied with the world behind the story rather than the story itself. He said he would have preferred to write the entire thing in Elvish:

http://www.elvish.org/articles/EASIS.pdf

(That quote, I believe, is from his letters.)

Now, while I'm sure that would have been endlessly fascinating to him as a philological exercise, it would have made a damn poor book for the rest of us unfortunate souls.

Sometimes, he gives in to that temptation, and those are, in my opinion, the weaker parts of his books.


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> Sometimes, he gives in to that temptation, and those are, in my opinion, the weaker parts of his books.





Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Different strokes for different folks.




Sort of. When you're writing a story, you have to take your audience into account unless you are simply writing the book for yourself. C.S. Lewis and the Inklings, particularly with their exercises where they would read their work aloud at the Eagle & the Child, had a very positive influence on Tolkien and his writing. They reminded him that although all that history and linguistic nuance is fascinating, the reason we read fantasy stories is to hear yarns or tales of the heroic. Tolkien openly embraced the term "escapism" to describe his work, and distinguished between the "escapism of the deserter" (or cowardice) and the "escapism of the prisoner" (or the heroism of imagining possible worlds).

Now, where the line is for "sufficient detail" and "mindnumbing distractions" is different for everyone. You are absolutely right about that.

But there is a line, and sometimes Tolkien crosses it in his writings. It's why his translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is so awful, filled with philological quirks like "eek" for also. It's why most of his historical-mythological material is such a mindnumbing chore to read. It's got all sorts of worldbuilding goodness. But the characters are more like mosaics than characters who smoke pipes or blow smoke rings.


----------



## rounser

> So, is creating the adventure a different beast from worldbuilding, or is creating the adventure an element of worldbuilding?



What usually falls under the heading "worldbuilding" - as the term is used outside of this thread - doesn't contain any encounter-level type stuff (borne out by what is published in setting bibles i.e. lots of macro stuff).  

Rare is the DM who starts "worldbuilding" by designing a CR 1 goblin deadfall somewhere on a 10ft grid map -  99.9% would refer to it as designing an adventure.  D&D would probably be a lot more fun if this is where DMs started work, but generally they don't - they start with macro level worldbuilding.  They start with goblin migrations, or deciding that there's a nation of goblins with hobgoblin overlords or something, and the encounter-level deadfall may never get made.


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> But there is a line, and sometimes Tolkien crosses it in his writings. It's why his translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is so awful, filled with philological quirks like "eek" for also.




Again, in your opinion.  Not in mine.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> Rare is the DM who starts "worldbuilding" by designing a CR 1 goblin deadfall somewhere on a 10ft grid map -  99.9% would refer to it as designing an adventure.  D&D would probably be a lot more fun if this is where DMs started work, but generally they don't - they start with macro level worldbuilding.  They start with goblin migrations, or deciding that there's a nation of goblins with hobgoblin overlords or something, and the encounter-level deadfall may never get made.




I can't speak about what the average DM does; if anything, EN World has taught me that there isn't any hard-and-fast rule about that.  What I can do is describe my own method, which I think qualifies as world-building.

My own method is bottom-down, top-up, bottom-down.

I'll start with creating the adventure setting that I want play to begin in.  This might mean a dungeon, wilderness encounter tables, a village, whathaveyou.  As a result of the choices I am making, I will do some top-down work.  I decided I want encounters with tribesmen; who are these tribesmen?  I placed some spider-cultists; who do they worship, and why?

From these questions, I create a short player briefing on the area.  It might include new options based on my decisions (such as the Lakashi tribesmen in my Lakelands, that came from a desire to run a "tribesmen" encounter).  I might create some extra crunchy bits that PCs can play with (Totem Spirits of the Lakashi).  When the PCs decide to go from Long Archer (initial setup) to Selby-by-the-Water, I start the process over again.

When working on the first part, I decided that there were "Lake Monsters" (pleisiosaurs) because I liked the Loch Ness image of them.  When working Selby from rough to ready, I added "leatherwings" (small pteradactyls) that largely take the place of pigeons and seabirds.  This in turn, perforce, makes me think about the place of dinosaurs in my world, and I decided that there are larger, more common reptiles in the warmer south....a detail that piqued the interest of at least a few players.

And so on, and so on.  What is done at the "bottom-up" level drives what is done at the "top-down" level, and vice versa.

I've never actually seen anyone approach worldbuilding in a different way, although I am sure that people do.    


RC


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, in your opinion. Not in mine.




I challenge you to read Tolkien's translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight back-to-back with W.S. Merwin's translation, or John Gardner's (if you can get ahold of it) and tell me honestly that you think the former is honestly a better, more readable translation. Tolkien was a first-rate Gawain scholar. They still use the text and bibliography he and E.V. Gordon put together in graduate seminars (preferably with the 1967 updated bibliography by Norman Dabis), but the only reason his translation is still in print is because, well, it's Tolkien. Not because of the quality of the translation.


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> I challenge you to read Tolkien's translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight back-to-back with W.S. Merwin's translation, or John Gardner's (if you can get ahold of it) and tell me honestly that you think the former is honestly a better, more readable translation. Tolkien was a first-rate Gawain scholar. They still use the text and bibliography he and E.V. Gordon put together in graduate seminars (preferably with the 1967 updated bibliography by Norman Dabis), but the only reason his translation is still in print is because, well, it's Tolkien. Not because of the quality of the translation.





Sure, if you provide the other two translations.

OTOH, I have about six translations of The Epic of Gilgamesh, and a few translations of Beowulf, so I am likely to enjoy multiple translations for different reasons in this case as well.


RC


----------



## molonel

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure, if you provide the other two translations.




They're in the mail. Should arrive any day, now.

Though, honestly, if you're interested, there are these buildings called libraries.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OTOH, I have about six translations of The Epic of Gilgamesh, and a few translations of Beowulf, so I am likely to enjoy multiple translations for different reasons in this case as well.




For Beowulf, I prefer the dual-language edition of Howell D. Chickering for overall quality, but there is no denying that Seamus Heaney's translation is probably the most interesting and poetically solid one out there right now. The prose translations, with near universality, both suck and blow.

John Gardner was working on an interesting translation of Gilgamesh at the time of his death. His translations varied widely in quality, but that one looked like it was working out to be one of the good ones. Akkadian cuneiform, though, is even more unknown to us than Hebrew, Sanskrit, Old English or Latin, and its poetic devices and pronunciation more alien than many other languages, so prose doesn't really lose anything since, poetically, we don't know what we're losing, or what we've lost.

In any case, Tolkien's scholarly work on Sir Gawain was invaluable and ground-breaking. His translation, meh. Having read it a couple of times, I'll never read it again.


----------



## Raven Crowking

molonel said:
			
		

> In any case, Tolkien's scholarly work on Sir Gawain was invaluable and ground-breaking. His translation, meh. Having read it a couple of times, I'll never read it again.




As I said, different strokes for different folks.  Preference is subjective, not objective.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As a related aside:
> 
> The creating of setting materials that might not see use in the game would seem to include non-linear dungeon layouts, such as those used in many older non-tournament modules, where the PCs wouldn't necessarily have to hit every room (or even every major encounter) in order to get to the "end".  Opposed to this are the linear layouts of tournament modules, where every area had to reasonably be "hit" in order to score properly, and at least some of the early WotC modules, which have fairly linear maps.
> 
> (There is an excellent thread analyzing module maps around somewhere; I can try and find a link to it if need be.  I believe that it was started by Mallus, but I could be wrong.....  )
> 
> Anyway, I am wondering how anti-worldbuilding people feel about non-linear maps.  Should a map channel you to every possible major encounter?
> 
> 
> RC




Heh, was on holidays and figured I'd pick this back up.

Non-linear maps are perfectly fine.  The assumption with a non-linear map is that, while not ever area will be visited, there is a valid chance that any area could be visited.  TheShaman's example of 20 different systems for Traveler is a good example of this.  While I know nothing of the mechanics of space travel in Traveler, I'm assuming that there is a chance that the players can visit every detailed area that he has created.

That's not a problem.  That's simply creating setting.  

Now, if he goes ahead, creates all 20 of those worlds and then leads the players around by the nose so that they are forced to visit all 20 of those systems in order that he doesn't waste any of his work, that would be a bad thing.

A very good example of world building as I define it - extraneous information that is separate from the plot - can be found in the Savage Tide AP.  Of the 12 adventures, only the first two take place in the city of Sasserine.  While the PC's are in Sasserine, they will advance from 1st to 4th or 5th level before leaving.  It is assumed that they will not be returning.

In the players guide, Dragon Magazine and in Dungeon Magazine, Sasserine is very finely detailed.  A large amount of space is given over to the ruling families of Sasserine.  However, that information will never have any impact within the context of the adventures.  The PC's are only 5th level at most while in Sasserine.  They simply will have no contact with the ruling powers in the city and the ruling powers in the city will have no real interest in them.

That, to me, is an example of the kind of world building, the "six pages of Elven Tea ceremonies" that I was talking about before.  This information is completely extraneous.  It serves no real purpose within the adventure.  Instead of detailing several power families in Sasserine, we could have had extra adventures, or longer encounter descriptions, or whatever.  Instead, we have backgrounds and histories of people who will almost certainly not feature in the adventure and will never really have a chance to feature.

The problem with world building is not that you are developing setting.  Developing a rich setting is perfectly fine.  The problem is when world building is done for its own benefit.  When setting details are created distinct from the story or the adventures in which they appear, there is a problem.


----------



## rounser

> I can't speak about what the average DM does; if anything, EN World has taught me that there isn't any hard-and-fast rule about that.



I think it's self evident.  Look what people are doing on a thread nearby; a collaborative setting.  When was the last time you saw a collaborative adventure on these boards?  About never, if I recall correctly.  Worldbuilding is fun but mostly useless, adventure design useful but too much like hard work.  

No wonder by default everyone takes the easy option and goes straight to the macro-level, wishy washy worldbuilding dessert, most of the design of which will never see the light of day in-game.  So why not skip a good deal of that dubiously useful self-indulgent timewastery and concentrate on something more important, like adventure design?  That is, if your interest is actually in running a game.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> A very good example of world building as I define it - extraneous information that is separate from the plot - can be found in the Savage Tide AP.  Of the 12 adventures, only the first two take place in the city of Sasserine.  While the PC's are in Sasserine, they will advance from 1st to 4th or 5th level before leaving.  It is assumed that they will not be returning.
> 
> In the players guide, Dragon Magazine and in Dungeon Magazine, Sasserine is very finely detailed.  A large amount of space is given over to the ruling families of Sasserine.  However, that information will never have any impact within the context of the adventures.  The PC's are only 5th level at most while in Sasserine.  They simply will have no contact with the ruling powers in the city and the ruling powers in the city will have no real interest in them.
> 
> That, to me, is an example of the kind of world building, the "six pages of Elven Tea ceremonies" that I was talking about before.  This information is completely extraneous.  It serves no real purpose within the adventure.  Instead of detailing several power families in Sasserine, we could have had extra adventures, or longer encounter descriptions, or whatever.  Instead, we have backgrounds and histories of people who will almost certainly not feature in the adventure and will never really have a chance to feature.




So, if I understand you right, you believe that there is no chance that the PCs will ask about, or petition, the powerful of the city within those two adventures?  

There is no chance that a DM not intending to run the entire AP might want to use the setting information to create adventures of her own (keeping the PCs in Sassarine until 12th level, say)?  (This last is relevant as it increases the value of the magazine to those not interested in APs.)

IOW, the assumption with a non-linear adventure is that, while not ever person will be visited, there is a valid chance that any person could be visited.  If a person particularly captures the DM's or players' imagination, it almost guarantees that the person _will_ feature in the adventure in some way, shape, or form.

(Also, I note that the AP isn't done yet, so we don't know how relevant the material is to the final chapter.)



> The problem with world building is not that you are developing setting.  Developing a rich setting is perfectly fine.  The problem is when world building is done for its own benefit.  When setting details are created distinct from the story or the adventures in which they appear, there is a problem.




Like that map in White Plume Mountain that mentions Dragotha.  Utterly useless to the adventure at hand, and never did anyone any good.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> I think it's self evident.  Look what people are doing on a thread nearby; a collaborative setting.  When was the last time you saw a collaborative adventure on these boards?





When I participated in one, actually.  It was playtested on CM.

Adventure creation tends to be more personal, IME, than setting creation.  Once you get to the nitty gritty details, a unified vision of an area is almost always better than a mish-mash.  Hence, settings are easier to work on as a collaborative process than adventures.

Or, to put it another way, playing the game requires a collaborative process that defines setting over the course of play, between players and DM.  Designing an adventure is generally a solo process because there is a holostic element to the overarching view of the adventure development that doesn't lend itself easily to collaboration.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem with world building is not that you are developing setting.  Developing a rich setting is perfectly fine.  The problem is when world building is done for its own benefit.  When setting details are created distinct from the story or the adventures in which they appear, there is a problem.





See, I suppose that this is where we differ.

I don't believe that the DM's job is to lay out an Adventure Path.  I believe that the DM's job is to lay out potential hooks, and the players decide which hooks to follow.  Like the non-linear map, the assumption is that, while not ever area will be visited, there is a valid chance that any area could be visited.  

If I detail who's in charge of Long Archer (or a module writer details who's in charge of Sasserine), it isn't up to me to decide exactly how important that detail is going to be.  I am not creating a story; I am creating a place in which the PCs can interact to create their own stories.  I supply location, hooks, and events against which they can choose to play or not play; I am not the director.

My method of game prep -- detail the local, outline the horizons, rinse, repeat -- works well for this type of game.  Some of what I do you would no doubt consider worldbuilding.  I consider it presenting options.  

And, frankly, I have little interest in games where the PCs don't get to decide where to go and what to do, either as a player or as a DM.  The idea that the DM picks the order of sections of the WLD is anathema to my style of DMing; let the players hear rumours of what is to come, and let them choose thier own course, says I.



RC


----------



## Imaro

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, if I understand you right, you believe that there is no chance that the PCs will ask about, or petition, the powerful of the city within those two adventures?
> 
> There is no chance that a DM not intending to run the entire AP might want to use the setting information to create adventures of her own (keeping the PCs in Sassarine until 12th level, say)?  (This last is relevant as it increases the value of the magazine to those not interested in APs.)
> 
> IOW, the assumption with a non-linear adventure is that, while not ever person will be visited, there is a valid chance that any person could be visited.  If a person particularly captures the DM's or players' imagination, it almost guarantees that the person _will_ feature in the adventure in some way, shape, or form.
> 
> (Also, I note that the AP isn't done yet, so we don't know how relevant the material is to the final chapter.)




Wow, this is still going...

Just want to say RK, I totally agree with your point here.  From reading Hussar and Rounser's posts I get the impression, and excuse me if this is wrong, that you both either run railroad adventures, or can read your players minds.  I can't see how you know what will and will not be interacted with in a session of gameplay.  It would frustrate me in a session where it went something like this...

DM: There are torn and tattered wanted posters for the bandit Grok strewn throughout the town proclaiming a reward and asking that any interested parties speak mith Mayor Feold.

Me(as a rogue):  I want to find out who the head of the local thieve's guild is and see if I can join.

DM: Uhm...there is no solidified guild for thieve's in this city.

Me: Okay I want to post up at the local taverns and find some prospective "candidates".

DM: Candidates for what?

Me: My thieve's guild I'm starting.

DM:...The reward on the poster is 600gp's

Me: Yeah but once I start my guild I can make more than that through extortion for disposing Grok from numeroushigh-ranking citizens that want him dead.

DM: How about we just stick to this adventure I've spent my time crafting.

Me:...Yeah, ok whatever.


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:
			
		

> Non-linear maps are perfectly fine.  The assumption with a non-linear map is that, while not ever area will be visited, there is a valid chance that any area could be visited.  TheShaman's example of 20 different systems for Traveler is a good example of this.  While I know nothing of the mechanics of space travel in Traveler, I'm assuming that there is a chance that the players can visit every detailed area that he has created.
> 
> That's not a problem.  That's simply creating setting.




I see.  Wait a minute.  No I don't.  If that's not world building, and I mean literally world building, what is? 



> Now, if he goes ahead, creates all 20 of those worlds and then leads the players around by the nose so that they are forced to visit all 20 of those systems in order that he doesn't waste any of his work, that would be a bad thing.




Well, yes, _but it wouldn't be world building_.



> A very good example of world building as I define it...




You know.  I'm not really interested in how you define it.  I was hoping we'd be able to have a conversion about world builiding as it is commonly defined.  

But then again, probably 5 pages back I pointed out that the only way Mr. Harrison's position was defensible is if you defined world building to be negative by definition.  But, if you define something to be negative by definition and say, "This straw man concept I've created which is bad by definition is bad.", you really haven't said anything interesting.



> The problem with world building is not that you are developing setting.  Developing a rich setting is perfectly fine.  The problem is when world building is done for its own benefit.  When setting details are created distinct from the story or the adventures in which they appear, there is a problem.




No.  There is only a problem if the narrator/writer/story teller/game referee 'leads one around by the nose' to the detriment of the story/narrative structure/player free will, and that is an activity that has nothing to do with world building because it occurs after the whole process which is normally defined as world building in the stardard usage of the term is already over.


----------



## shahzadmasih

Hi, this post is very informative; however I would like some specific information. If someone can help me then please send me a private message. Best Regards,


----------



## Raven Crowking

shahzadmasih said:
			
		

> Hi, this post is very informative; however I would like some specific information. If someone can help me then please send me a private message. Best Regards,





Since you don't seem to have private messaging available, why not ask your question here?


----------



## I'm A Banana

Imaro said:
			
		

> From reading Hussar and Rounser's posts I get the impression, and excuse me if this is wrong, that you both either run railroad adventures, or can read your players minds. I can't see how you know what will and will not be interacted with in a session of gameplay. It would frustrate me in a session where it went something like this...




As someone who runs a lot of adventures that are a light touch on the worldbuilding, I can only say that Archetypes Are Your Friend. You don't need to read characters mind's or run a railroad, you just have to think about "what *would* happen if..." slightly more than the players do.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> DM: There are torn and tattered wanted posters for the bandit Grok strewn throughout the town proclaiming a reward and asking that any interested parties speak mith Mayor Feold.
> 
> Me(as a rogue): I want to find out who the head of the local thieve's guild is and see if I can join.
> 
> DM: Uhm...there is no solidified guild for thieve's in this city.




Mistake #1: He said "no." I come from an acting background, I'm very familiar with improv, and one of the core rules of making up a shared something as you go along is "don't contradict what someone else says." You take it and run with it. It's easy to say no. Saying no is lazy. Say yes. 

So the DM might be more like:

DM: Okay, give me a Gather Information check as you go throughout the town asking about this guild. Describe it a bit to me.

Just because you don't have the thieves guild lovingly precrafted doesn't mean you can't create a thieves' guild on the fly that is believable and detailed. 



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I was hoping we'd be able to have a conversion about world builiding as it is commonly defined.
> 
> But then again, probably 5 pages back I pointed out that the only way Mr. Harrison's position was defensible is if you defined world building to be negative by definition. But, if you define something to be negative by definition and say, "This straw man concept I've created which is bad by definition is bad.", you really haven't said anything interesting.




But that's not true. Harrison never said "avoid all worldbuilding." He said that the story must always triumph over worldbuilding. Worldbuilding can be positive, but it must be moderated by the actual need to tell a story. In Harrison's advice to writers, worldbuilding for the sake of worldbuilding is pointless and narcissistic nerding out. 

In D&D, I feel that this remains fairly true, but that pointless and narcissistic nerding out isn't really a problem in a lot of situations, and that to ensure the story flows smoothly, many DMs who lack significant improv skills will need to build their worlds more. 

A little worldbuilding can be a good thing, like puffer fish -- it makes your lips tingle and your heart race. It gives your dish some flavor. But the poison can't be the point. It's still expected to be eaten. Worldbuilding can easily poison an adventure, if you stop working on what you need for that adventure to actually be played.

Ronseur's point that worldbuilding is the "dessert" of adventure design is accurate. Fortunately, in D&D, we're allowed to eat mostly dessert if that's what everyone wants.


----------



## Imaro

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> As someone who runs a lot of adventures that are a light touch on the worldbuilding, I can only say that Archetypes Are Your Friend. You don't need to read characters mind's or run a railroad, you just have to think about "what *would* happen if..." slightly more than the players do.




What archetypes?  One minute we're advocating "freedom of what the player's want to play" and now you're speaking of archetypes.  To have archetypes, selection of PC choices must be limited to some point, and in order to have, IMHO, real archetypes background and context(ie worldbuilding) is necessary.  As far as the thinking about "what if" you can't possibly be able to predict what your players choices are unless you're shaping those choices, in other words railroading.





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Mistake #1: He said "no." I come from an acting background, I'm very familiar with improv, and one of the core rules of making up a shared something as you go along is "don't contradict what someone else says." You take it and run with it. It's easy to say no. Saying no is lazy. Say yes.
> 
> So the DM might be more like:
> 
> DM: Okay, give me a Gather Information check as you go throughout the town asking about this guild. Describe it a bit to me.
> 
> Just because you don't have the thieves guild lovingly precrafted doesn't mean you can't create a thieves' guild on the fly that is believable and detailed.




And now we come to the crux of my argument...You just wasted all that time creating the adventure they aren't going to explore.  Isn't this the same argument used against worldbuilding in previous posts?  Why can't you improv an adventure?  Draw up a dungeon, make a list of creatures from the Monster Manual in said dungeon and a list of treasures in said dungeon...voila improv dungeon.  In fact, just make the monsters and treasures, even the dungeon up as you go along.

IMHO this illustrates the weakness of the improv things argument...anything can be made up on the fly.  With your above statement, all you need to do is show up for a D&D game and make it up.  I personally, as a player, would hate this type of game(for D&D anyway).  There are certain "indie" rpg's like Mortal Coil, or Seven Leagues where the game mechanics,playstyle and advice are geared for this type of play, and if I'm playing that type of game then cool I accept and enjoy it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imaro said:
			
		

> And now we come to the crux of my argument...You just wasted all that time creating the adventure they aren't going to explore.  Isn't this the same argument used against worldbuilding in previous posts?





Ferris Bueller, you're my hero.


----------



## Celebrim

Imaro said:
			
		

> And now we come to the crux of my argument...You just wasted all that time creating the adventure they aren't going to explore.  Isn't this the same argument used against worldbuilding in previous posts?  Why can't you improv an adventure?  Draw up a dungeon, make a list of creatures from the Monster Manual in said dungeon and a list of treasures in said dungeon...voila improv dungeon.  In fact, just make the monsters and treasures, even the dungeon up as you go along.




FTW. 



> I personally, as a player, would hate this type of game(for D&D anyway).




I've been burned so many times by DM's that claim to be able to just wing it, that if I set down to a session and discovered that the DM was entirely winging it, I'd likely never come to a session again.  Being able to create something on the fly is an important DM skill, because you never know exactly where your PC's are going to jump and you can't cover everything.  But I don't care who you are, you can never wing the same level of detail and interest that you can put in with preparation.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Celebrim said:
			
		

> FTW.
> I've been burned so many times by DM's that claim to be able to just wing it, that if I set down to a session and discovered that the DM was entirely winging it, I'd likely never come to a session again.  Being able to create something on the fly is an important DM skill, because you never know exactly where your PC's are going to jump and you can't cover everything.  But I don't care who you are, you can never wing the same level of detail and interest that you can put in with preparation.




I know that this is kinda going in circles but I agree with this, as far as DM's running adventures go. I dont care for improvised adventures that much when I run adventures I try to be very familiar with that path or flow of the adventure as well as the encounter areas. Of course I tend to run pre-written adventures mainly because they actually take less time to prepare than if I were to craft my own from scratch. 

And as far as railroading goes, I really think that posters who use this as a term of derison need to reconsider whether it's use in that fashion is going to lead to a productive discussion. I think I've said this before but every table is different and there's a certain type of contract that needs to be stated with each group or game even before play starts. 

In my case I let my potential players know what I'm going to be running. I let them know at the beginning what ruleset were using and what additional books we'll be using. I let them know that I'll be running a modified pre-written adventure or adventure path. Because I'm using the adventure path does not mean that I don't want input on what their characters are interested in. Even after the game starts, I still ask for input and try to work things in for each character to make the story matter to them. Sometimes we can get sidetracked for a few sessions for someones story or stories, other times their story gets tied directly into the AP. Is that wrong? No. 

I let my players know that I dont run free form games. It really takes too much effort and I dont have the patience anymore. Even with a greatly detailed world in advance, you'll still wind up doing more work than you want to. If the PC's decide that they want to go fight Hobgoblins in the YVelchek, but YVelchek is across the country from where the PC's are and they want to fight Hobgoblins NOW. as a DM do you move the location closer so the PC's can have thier fun? or do you stick to your beloved map / world that you crafted and make the PC's travel? If you change things up are you a bad DM? 

I've already said that ther's nothing wrong with worldbuilding if that's your thing. Personally I think it has more to do with the ego (and this is not a slam) of the DM and their need craft a world more than anything. If it didnt then it would be more of collaborative effort between the DM and the PC's. Which is one of the reasons why I like using the AP's and not using a specific campaign world. I start with a general location and based on the path and the interest of the PC's  we go from there. By the time they reach 10th level or so they are going to have a pretty fleshed out world, or at least the part of the world that is important to them. 

One of my PC's is interested in getting magical tattoos, so in between sessions while I found a suitable mechanic for them I also came up with where he'd be able to find someone to craft said tattoo. Of course I worked it into the AP as one of the people who would be able to tell him where to go is located in one of thier mission objectives. Is that railroading? or is that getting creative when working within certain "constraints". See that's the thing with this part of the discussion and I think that Umbran pointed this out earlier, worldbuilding isnt digital it's analog. There's a range of what people are willing to do. To me I dont see the value of building a WHOLE LOT before hand. I do build SOME before hand but just the area that the PC's are starting in and with an AP most of that is done for you. 

If either side can't accept that there are valid points to both methods then why even discuss this, because right now it seems that this has turned into a "my side is valid and your side is balls" type of discussion.


----------



## Raven Crowking

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> this has turned into a "my side is valid and your side is balls" type of discussion.





Turned into?  Did you read the OP?  Can't you see the thread title?

This was a "my side is valid and your side is balls" type of discussion from the word Go.  It was set up that way.  Even before I posted with an evocative, two word answer.


RC


----------



## Imperialus

I think it's important to strike a ballance between world building and letting it evolve organically.  After all it doesn't matter if you have written a 26 generation royal dynasty out in detail or invented your own language.  No player (I have ever met) is going to have the time or dedication to slog through it.  Sometimes inspiration will hit and you'll end up with something like the 28 page single spaced trestise on dwarven culture that I wrote up a year or so ago but from there you need to use it to inform your game, not hand it out as required reading at the begining of a campaign.  

Players are part of the world too so it's important that you are flexable enough to allow them to mould the world as well.  If a player wants to play a monk, or a hexblade or a more unusual class then it makes sence to create a culture that would produce a monk.  This isn't to say that you nessesarally have to throw open the library and let your players go hog wild creating half dragon, teifling, paladin, hunter of the dead, psions if it doesn't fit but flexibility is nessesary, and makes the campaign richer, more alive, and more fun.  D&D does require some structure however, it's not as freeform as some other RPG's such as Shadowrun but the ability to ballance freedom with structure is cruitial to any good campaign.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> And now we come to the crux of my argument...You just wasted all that time creating the adventure they aren't going to explore. Isn't this the same argument used against worldbuilding in previous posts? Why can't you improv an adventure? Draw up a dungeon, make a list of creatures from the Monster Manual in said dungeon and a list of treasures in said dungeon...voila improv dungeon. In fact, just make the monsters and treasures, even the dungeon up as you go along.




I think you missed the point, namely: you can improv an adventure. And a dungeon. And monsters and treasures. 3e makes this ridiculously simple, actually. And I do. All the time. If I throw a wanted poster at the PC's, I haven't probably developed anything past the fact that the town guard wants a guy enough to hire mercenaries to chase after him. Depending on my feelings at the moment and the archetype of the campaign, he might just be a guilty guy they're looking for (for a party that's a bunch of "sell-swords"), or a victim of political machinations (for a campaign that likes a bit of intrigue), or the agent of the Necromancer King (for one of those epic slay-the-deep-evil campaigns), or any one of a hundred different ideas knocking around my head. 

I didn't create the adventure for the wanted guy any more than I created the adventure for the thieves' guild. 

So in answer to your question, why can't I? The answer is I can. I do. It's not really that hard, and it's a lot of fun for me. 



> What archetypes? One minute we're advocating "freedom of what the player's want to play" and now you're speaking of archetypes. To have archetypes, selection of PC choices must be limited to some point, and in order to have, IMHO, real archetypes background and context(ie worldbuilding) is necessary. As far as the thinking about "what if" you can't possibly be able to predict what your players choices are unless you're shaping those choices, in other words railroading.




Archetypes don't have a background or context, though. The Necromancer King is an archetype: some sort of royalty with  a lot of undead guards. I don't need any background or context to imagine what a Necromancer King looks or acts like. He's in a throne room surrounded by ghouls and he wears a crown made of human hands and platinum. The castle is ruined.

From there, I can build whatever relevant world information I need. The Necromancer King is the king of an ancient empire who never died. Call it "The Empire of Varlerin." He's a lich. He's a True Necromancer from Heroes of Horror. His main weapon is an endless army of zombies, and his more effective weapons are ghouls and wraiths. He's making motions to invade the PC's city.

You don't need to limit character types because all character types are archetypes. Paladins are "Knights in Shining Armor." Druids are "Friends of Nature." Fighters are "Guys who stick the pointy end into the squishy guy." Swashbucklers are "Wannabe Errol Flynns." All those archetypes have a host of world suggestions that come along with them, that can depict how the world is. 

Again, the idea comes from my experience with improv. Again, it hardly requires any work outside of the game itself. I've gotta have a general idea of the archetypes and think of interesting ways for them to interact or be questioned, and it's really not hard. What if the Fighter is set upon by mind-controlled innocents? What if the Paladin has to oust corruption from his own church? What if the Druid becomes an agent of assassination for the Defenders of Nature, a shadowy organization with close ties to the Worgs (and thus the local goblins)?

*The crux of our argument is irrelevant because the conciet that you need to do a lot of work before an adventure for the adventure is false. You only need to do what you want to do.*



> IMHO this illustrates the weakness of the improv things argument...anything can be made up on the fly. With your above statement, all you need to do is show up for a D&D game and make it up. I personally, as a player, would hate this type of game(for D&D anyway). There are certain "indie" rpg's like Mortal Coil, or Seven Leagues where the game mechanics,playstyle and advice are geared for this type of play, and if I'm playing that type of game then cool I accept and enjoy it.




:shrug:

You're welcome to not enjoy the playstype, but it's perfectly valid, perfectly delightful, and perfectly realized. I don't need a page of notes to help me be creative at the table. Not everyone has that talent, but it makes the game a lot more fun for me to not know what's going to happen before it does. 

It's false to assume that games like this lack verisimilitude and depth (not that you are saying that, just that it's a common assumption to make about more improvised games). My necromancer king has an empire, a motif, a motive, and I just spent all the time writing this post thinking that up.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *The crux of our argument is irrelevant because the conciet that you need to do a lot of work before an adventure for the adventure is false. You only need to do what you want to do.*




So, in essence, all prep work is bad.  Am I understanding that properly?

Presumably this also includes the prep work of the players (character creation) and rules design, too.  After all, I can just make up rules on the spot, and you can just decide how strong you are when it comes up in the game.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> So, in essence, all prep work is bad. Am I understanding that properly?




Nope. Just that no prep work is absolutely necessary.

It's only bad if it gets in the way of your group having fun. And some DM's have a lot of fun doing prep work. So for them, it's good. Heck, many DMs need to do at least a bit of prep work before the game just because not all of them are great at improvisation. It's good for these DMs to do whatever prep work they need, because if they didn't do it, the game would be less fun. It can get bad when the prep work becomes the *reason* for the game, if the players don't enjoy it as much as the DM.

D&D is a vehicle for indulging your fantasies, after all. Dessert is delicious to eat. Worldbuilding is fun to do. Harrison just wants writers to eat their main course and treat dessert as dessert. I'm willing to believe that D&D can just be people eating ice cream if that's all they want. 



> After all, I can just make up rules on the spot, and you can just decide how strong you are when it comes up in the game.




DMs do this all the time. It's called "fudging," or "adjudicating" or "setting the DC of a task." They decide on the spot how strong something is, how well you can perform, how effective a given strategy is.

Of course, it's a more than a bit specious to suggest that the basis for all rules *should* be done at the table, but from what I understand a lot of groups do enjoy a lot more free-form rules than D&D provides. I prefer a common baseline, which does require someone to do rules prep work for me, but that's my own desire for interesting system complexity, for a diverse and durable tool for playing adventures. Not everyone likes that, of course.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Harrison just wants writers to eat their main course and treat dessert as dessert.




Somehow I doubt that you have extraordinary qualifications to determine what Harrison wants or does not want, apart from attempting to parse the words he wrote.  And, from what I read, that is not at all what Harrison said.

And I note that you have backed off significantly from the claim that worldbuilding is bad.



> It's false to assume that games like this lack verisimilitude and depth (not that you are saying that, just that it's a common assumption to make about more improvised games).




I don't think it is false at all.  You would have to pass a sort of "Turing test" to make me think otherwise -- you'd have to convince me that you _weren't_ just pulling the game out of your...head...as we played.  And, in my 28 years of gaming, I have never, ever encountered any DM who was capable of even coming close to passing that test.

If you're having fun, that's all well and good.  More power to you.  But the claim that such a game has the same "verisimilitude and depth" as even a casually planned game is, IMHO and IME, completely unsupported.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Somehow I doubt that you have extraordinary qualifications to determine what Harrison wants or does not want, apart from attempting to parse the words he wrote. And, from what I read, that is not at all what Harrison said.




"Storytelling must always triumph over worldbuilding."

If worldbuilding is the dessert and storytelling is the dinner, you must always have dinner *first*, and never make a meal of your ice cream.

It's not that complex of an analogy. 



> And I note that you have backed off significantly from the claim that worldbuilding is bad.




Check out that first post again. I say that Harrison tells you why you don't need to spend hours crafting your campaign setting and ask people to discuss. The title of the thread suggests that woldbuilding can be bad. Why is worldbuilding bad? Because it can get in the way of having fun. Several posts concur with this hypothesis. 

Now, whether that means that you should get rid of all worldbuilding as a DM has been part of the discussion. I don't believe any D&D player should give up what makes D&D fun for them, so if that includes spending hours on your setting, go for it.

However, it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, *required* for a deep, rich setting. 

Worldbuilding is bad because of reasons X, Y, Z. That hardly means that worldbuilding should be wholly abandoned, merely that X, Y, and Z should be watched for when worldbuilding.



> I don't think it is false at all. You would have to pass a sort of "Turing test" to make me think otherwise -- you'd have to convince me that you weren't just pulling the game out of your...head...as we played. And, in my 28 years of gaming, I have never, ever encountered any DM who was capable of even coming close to passing that test.




#1 is that your anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. "Absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence," right?

#2 is that any DM who tries seems thwarted by your preconceived notion that the game shouldn't just be pulled out of someone's head as they played. You are apparently biased against such a DM. It's no wonder you have never found a DM able to meet your demands of absolute deceptive perfection. It's going to be obvious he's pulling it out of his head, because he is. You just have a problem with that.

Which is cool, but you really can't blame the hippopotamus for not wanting to jump through flaming hoops like a trick poodle. They're different beasts. 



> If you're having fun, that's all well and good. More power to you. But the claim that such a game has the same "verisimilitude and depth" as even a casually planned game is, IMHO and IME, completely unsupported.




And, IME, it's supported every week. If you believe I'm not lying to you, that's support that it happens. All you have to do is trust my opinion as a demanding gamer. And if you don't, well, that's certainly no reason for me to believe that all my experiences have been totally wrong and I've been shallow and vague all these times and none of my players were discerning enough to notice and let me know.


----------



## Imaro

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think you missed the point, namely: you can improv an adventure. And a dungeon. And monsters and treasures. 3e makes this ridiculously simple, actually. And I do. All the time. If I throw a wanted poster at the PC's, I haven't probably developed anything past the fact that the town guard wants a guy enough to hire mercenaries to chase after him. Depending on my feelings at the moment and the archetype of the campaign, he might just be a guilty guy they're looking for (for a party that's a bunch of "sell-swords"), or a victim of political machinations (for a campaign that likes a bit of intrigue), or the agent of the Necromancer King (for one of those epic slay-the-deep-evil campaigns), or any one of a hundred different ideas knocking around my head.
> 
> I didn't create the adventure for the wanted guy any more than I created the adventure for the thieves' guild.
> 
> So in answer to your question, why can't I? The answer is I can. I do. It's not really that hard, and it's a lot of fun for me.




Do your players ever loose, do they ever die?  Because if you killed my PC with a "character" totally created in the five seconds before battle started, with no real concrete factors except your guesstimation, then I'm through.  Your telling a story and tricking the PC's into believing their choices have actual meaning...when in fact the results and consequences of their actions are based upon your whims.  IMHO this smacks of writing a novel with the PC's along for the ride





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Archetypes don't have a background or context, though. The Necromancer King is an archetype: some sort of royalty with  a lot of undead guards. I don't need any background or context to imagine what a Necromancer King looks or acts like. He's in a throne room surrounded by ghouls and he wears a crown made of human hands and platinum. The castle is ruined.
> 
> From there, I can build whatever relevant world information I need. The Necromancer King is the king of an ancient empire who never died. Call it "The Empire of Varlerin." He's a lich. He's a True Necromancer from Heroes of Horror. His main weapon is an endless army of zombies, and his more effective weapons are ghouls and wraiths. He's making motions to invade the PC's city.
> 
> You don't need to limit character types because all character types are archetypes. Paladins are "Knights in Shining Armor." Druids are "Friends of Nature." Fighters are "Guys who stick the pointy end into the squishy guy." Swashbucklers are "Wannabe Errol Flynns." All those archetypes have a host of world suggestions that come along with them, that can depict how the world is.
> 
> Again, the idea comes from my experience with improv. Again, it hardly requires any work outside of the game itself. I've gotta have a general idea of the archetypes and think of interesting ways for them to interact or be questioned, and it's really not hard. What if the Fighter is set upon by mind-controlled innocents? What if the Paladin has to oust corruption from his own church? What if the Druid becomes an agent of assassination for the Defenders of Nature, a shadowy organization with close ties to the Worgs (and thus the local goblins)?




With the simple archetype of "Necromancer King" you've establisehed that both feudalism, undead, a way to become undead, magic concerning the dead, there are "greater" and "lesser" forms of undead, certain undead have intelligence, others are slaves to stronger undead, etc. all exist in this campaign world...that's background and context right there.

Another note is that with D&D 3.x's options for variations through multiclassing, numerous base classes, prestige classes, etc.  There really aren't "archetypes per say.  You can require your players conform to some "archetype by describing what it is  they are through these combinations...but again that's background and context.





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *The crux of our argument is irrelevant because the conciet that you need to do a lot of work before an adventure for the adventure is false. You only need to do what you want to do.*
> 
> 
> 
> :shrug:
> 
> You're welcome to not enjoy the playstype, but it's perfectly valid, perfectly delightful, and perfectly realized. I don't need a page of notes to help me be creative at the table. Not everyone has that talent, but it makes the game a lot more fun for me to not know what's going to happen before it does.
> 
> It's false to assume that games like this lack verisimilitude and depth (not that you are saying that, just that it's a common assumption to make about more improvised games). My necromancer king has an empire, a motif, a motive, and I just spent all the time writing this post thinking that up.




First why do you think I don't enjoy more free-form rpg's...I've played quite a few from indie press revolution, so it's wrong to think I don't enjoy that style of play.  

That's not verisimilitude...Just a few questions my players would ask to shatter that real quick.

where is this kingdom of undead we've never heard of, and why haven't we heard about a whole kingdom of undead before??

Where do these "endless" bodies come from?

I could go on with the utter lack of belief just creating this on the fly would cause in my players, but I think the point is made.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't think it is false at all.  You would have to pass a sort of "Turing test" to make me think otherwise -- you'd have to convince me that you _weren't_ just pulling the game out of your...head...as we played.  And, in my 28 years of gaming, I have never, ever encountered any DM who was capable of even coming close to passing that test.




Where else does the world come from if it is not pulled from the DM's head (or the group's, if ya do it that way)?


----------



## LostSoul

Imaro said:
			
		

> Just a few questions my players would ask to shatter that real quick.
> 
> where is this kingdom of undead we've never heard of, and why haven't we heard about a whole kingdom of undead before??
> 
> Where do these "endless" bodies come from?
> 
> I could go on with the utter lack of belief just creating this on the fly would cause in my players, but I think the point is made.




If the players are not the sort to ask those questions, there is no problem.  If all they want is to fight an Necromancer King/hordes of undead, and your world cannot support that, your worldbuilding has made the game less fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> "Storytelling must always triumph over worldbuilding."




"Worldbuilding is dull. Worldbuilding literalises the urge to invent. Worldbuilding gives an unneccessary 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 neccessary. 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."

Nobody describes dessert as "dull".

It's not that complex of an analogy.  It's just not what Harrison was saying.



> The title of the thread suggests that woldbuilding can be bad. Why is worldbuilding bad? Because it can get in the way of having fun. Several posts concur with this hypothesis.




"Why worldbuilding can be bad" =/= "why worldbuilding is bad".

Perhaps you thought it did?    

Similarly, if "worldbuilding _is_ bad because of reasons X, Y, Z", then reasons X, Y, and Z are inherent to worldbuilding, and watching out for them will not help.  If, instead, X, Y, and Z can be problems, then problems X, Y, and Z are not inherent to worldbuilding, may crop up in other things than worldbuilding, and should be watched out for whether worldbuilding or not.

Consequently, while this thread has shown no evidence that worldbuilding is bad because of reasons X, Y, and Z, it certainly gives examples of items X, Y, and Z _that some people associate with worldbuilding_ and that _most people agree cause problems_.



> However, it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, *required* for a deep, rich setting.




Since worldbuilding is, by definition, the creation of a deep, rich setting, I would say that it is.

And, sorry, while I champion your right to play whatever type of game you want, I don't accept your say-so as evidence to the contrary.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Where else does the world come from if it is not pulled from the DM's head (or the group's, if ya do it that way)?




Point to LostSoul.    

However, there is a real difference between something planned and adjusted to meet the needs of planning, and something you are pulling out of your nether regions at the game table.  Every game has stuff pulled out the nether regions, but planning ahead of time gives that stuff context and meaning.  It isn't created in a vaccuum.

This is similar, in many ways, to the difference between a rough draft pounded out at breakneck speed and the completed, editted work that one hopefully sends to the printers.  One may be chock full of good ideas, but it isn't deep and rich.  It is a half-formed Quasimodo begging the readers/players for the sanctuary of not noticing the glaring plot holes and inconsistencies.

Again, all games are like this to some degree, but I believe that games that are Quasimodos to a lesser degree are inherently superior to games that are Quasimodos to a greater degree.  I hold the same contention about books and movies.

YMMV.


----------



## Odhanan

> I don't think it is false at all. You would have to pass a sort of "Turing test" to make me think otherwise -- you'd have to convince me that you weren't just pulling the game out of your...head...as we played. And, in my 28 years of gaming, I have never, ever encountered any DM who was capable of even coming close to passing that test.
> 
> If you're having fun, that's all well and good. More power to you. But the claim that such a game has the same "verisimilitude and depth" as even a casually planned game is, IMHO and IME, completely unsupported.




I gotta say, running a game that I haven't planned at all and make it feel like its believable and consistant, I can do. 

Sounds pretentious I know, but after years and years of playing with friends who make a specialty of coming up with wacky plans and side-treks all the time, not even speaking of dozens and dozens of sessions winging these treks as we go, I feel I'm comfortable with the whole running "as we go" paradigm. 

Now, to be able to do that, you need to have run a LOT of games, I think. It really comes with experience spent running the game and engaging endlessly into acts of world-building that make you "get" how it works from a player's point of view, in-game. So, strictly speaking, you still need world-building to get there. Which is why I agree with your side of the discussion, RC and Co.


----------



## Ourph

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I gotta say, running a game that I haven't planned at all and make it feel like its believable and consistant, I can do.
> 
> Sounds pretentious I know, but after years and years of playing with friends who make a specialty of coming up with wacky plans and side-treks all the time, not even speaking of dozens and dozens of sessions winging these treks as we go, I feel I'm comfortable with the whole running "as we go" paradigm.




Under these circumstances the point that there is a trade-off between time spent worldbuilding and time spent adventure-building seems moot.  If a DM is running a game that's as "off the cuff" as you and Kamikaze Midget are describing it appears that he wouldn't be spending much time at either activity.


----------



## Odhanan

Ourph said:
			
		

> Under these circumstances the point that there is a trade-off between time spent worldbuilding and time spent adventure-building seems moot.  If a DM is running a game that's as "off the cuff" as you and Kamikaze Midget are describing it appears that he wouldn't be spending much time at either activity.



I do think the point is moot to start with, absolutely, precisely because I don't think one can do the other without having spent some time and energy into both activities. Sure, some DMs can run games on the spot and make them feel like they are consistant and believable with all the details that go with them, but it takes some world-building experience to be able to improvise it later on. 

And there... I'm not even speaking of winging game after game on-the-go and still make them feel believable and consistent. It is feasible, but I would count the activity of remembering what was played X sessions ago and make what you make up on the fly feel consistent with these past events a process of world-building of its own. Ergo, you cannot have consistency without world-building.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Odhanan said:
			
		

> And there... I'm not even speaking of winging game after game on-the-go and still make them feel believable and consistant. It is feasible, but I would count the activity of remembering what was played X sessions ago and make what you make up on the fly feel consistant with this past events a process of world-building of its own right. Ergo, you cannot have consistency without world-building.





However, sir, if you are ever in Toronto, I'd be happy to see if you pass my Turing test.


----------



## Odhanan

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> However, sir, if you are ever in Toronto, I'd be happy to see if you pass my Turing test.




Believe me: whenever we get the occasion, I will feel privileged to oblige!


----------



## Imaro

LostSoul said:
			
		

> If the players are not the sort to ask those questions, there is no problem.  If all they want is to fight an Necromancer King/hordes of undead, and your world cannot support that, your worldbuilding has made the game less fun.



Whose to say my world can't?  No one is saying you can't adjust your world...or GASP discuss what type of campaign you and your players want before the game starts so that the world is designed around the tropes you all want to expore.

Oh yeah and this eliminates most of your argument about my world lessening fun, because it will be built to cater to what each player is looking for in a compromise sort of way. 

You know this makes me wonder how an anything goes type of game continues once players begin to conflict on what is fun for them?  Don't you have to make a compromise even when trying  to do whatever for your players.


----------



## rounser

> From reading Hussar and Rounser's posts I get the impression, and excuse me if this is wrong, that you both either run railroad adventures, or can read your players minds. I can't see how you know what will and will not be interacted with in a session of gameplay. It would frustrate me in a session where it went something like this...



You couldn't be further from the mark.  I'm all about dangling multiple hooks in front of the PCs, and having multiple prepared adventure areas available which the PCs can choose from...even hex wilderness with stuff they can "stumble across" at encounter level.  I use Dungeon adventures as a crutch for this, but they're extensively edited down (there's a lot of stuff you can cut out of these).  It's a lot of work, but you can do that if you ditch your precious worldbuilding.


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (Also, I note that the AP isn't done yet, so we don't know how relevant the material is to the final chapter.)



Since many of the adventures contain notes on granting affiliation bonuses for Sasserine organizations, I get the impression that your origens there are meant to remain important to the PCs. I would be unsuprized if to wrap up things (assuming you save the day) you have an opertunity to take highly placed roles back in Sasserine.


----------



## Imaro

rounser said:
			
		

> You couldn't be further from the mark.  I'm all about dangling multiple hooks in front of the PCs, and having multiple prepared adventure areas available which the PCs can choose from...even hex wilderness with stuff they can "stumble across" at encounter level.  I use Dungeon adventures as a crutch for this, but they're extensively edited down (there's a lot of stuff you can cut out of these).  It's a lot of work, but you can do that if you ditch your precious worldbuilding.




But I can generate just as many hooks and adventure sites through world building, and in creating a cohesive whole for these hooks...aren't you in fact worldbuilding?  Or is your campaign world the type where PC's can be exploring a frozen tundra and walk ten feet over into a scorching dessert because it's the adventure that you prepared for tonight?

  Open your eyes to the fact that worldbuilding encompasses adventure design in a more holistic fashion.  I don't see how designing adventures PC's will never experience is any less wasteful than worldbuilding which was a crux of numerous previous posts by you. Please explain this to me, cause it's looking like in order to have a sandbox game, where players can explore what they want "wasted effort"(your words not mine) is necessary on either end of the spectrum.  This in turn means you just prefer a certain way of "wasting your time" in comparison to others.


----------



## Celebrim

rounser said:
			
		

> You couldn't be further from the mark.  I'm all about dangling multiple hooks in front of the PCs, and having multiple prepared adventure areas available which the PCs can choose from...even hex wilderness with stuff they can "stumble across" at encounter level.  I use Dungeon adventures as a crutch for this, but they're extensively edited down (there's a lot of stuff you can cut out of these).  It's a lot of work, but you can do that if you ditch your precious worldbuilding.




I don't know.  It sounds alot like worldbuilding to me.  How can I separate mapping out wilderness areas and filling them with detail and ensuring that there are multiple prepared adventure areas from the normal process of world building, which involves mapping out wilderness areas and filling them with detail and ensuring there are are multiple prepared adventure areas? 

The only possible difference is that the world builder worries about things like realistic river drainage, climate, demographics, ecologies and so forth while he's mapping out those features so that the creation will have the appearance of being logical and consistant.  I'm assuming that at some level you are taking pains to make those hexes you mention mapping out seem logical and consistant?

If so, then I don't see how you can claim it isn't world building.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Imaro said:
			
		

> Do your players ever loose, do they ever die? Because if you killed my PC with a "character" totally created in the five seconds before battle started, with no real concrete factors except your guesstimation, then I'm through. Your telling a story and tricking the PC's into believing their choices have actual meaning...when in fact the results and consequences of their actions are based upon your whims. IMHO this smacks of writing a novel with the PC's along for the ride




How does "creating an adventure on the fly" yield "railroaded into a novel-writing session" in your head? 

Players loose. Players die. It's not a "guestimation" to figure the necromancer king uses ghouls so if you fight the necromancer king you'll fight ghouls, and if the PC's go up against ghouls totally unprepared for the fight, well, it's their funeral (and eventual re-animation) I suppose. 

Choices have actual meaning. You choose to pursue the guy in the WANTED poster, you catch him and maybe gain some cred in the local Town Watch. You choose to advance your thieves' guild, you contest the current Underworld King, go against his henchmen, maybe earn some recruits of your own.

Each path flows from the player's choice.

I mean, I can't very well improvise without a participant player out there throwing me a bone. A line, a motive, a goal, a scene, something...



> With the simple archetype of "Necromancer King" you've establisehed that both feudalism, undead, a way to become undead, magic concerning the dead, there are "greater" and "lesser" forms of undead, certain undead have intelligence, others are slaves to stronger undead, etc. all exist in this campaign world...that's background and context right there.




True, but the Necromancer King came first and suggested all that. The world didn't tell me I needed X, I told the world I needed X, and adapted it to suit my needs. And it was all created with the needs of my players in my head (because it wouldn't be an issue if no one was interested in challenging a possible necromancer-king). And it all came within about 10 minutes. On the fly.

Which was really my point: you don't need to spend hours worldbuilding. 



> Another note is that with D&D 3.x's options for variations through multiclassing, numerous base classes, prestige classes, etc. There really aren't "archetypes per say. You can require your players conform to some "archetype by describing what it is they are through these combinations...but again that's background and context.




Which are all secondary considerations to the Archetype. There's no background and context before the archetype exists.

But really, we're talking about something totally different now than we were, namely that you can improvise all of that and have a perfectly good adventure. You don't need background and context before the game begins, so you don't need to spend hours working on an adventure that never gets played. Archetypes don't limit freedom, because they don't need any background to emerge from -- people will understand their basic background because they've seen it a million times before. It's the core of improv, it's the core of oral storytelling, it's the core of the vast majority of my D&D games: Do what you want, I'll make sense of it, feed it back to you. You react to it, feed it back to me. 

If the crux of your argument is that I'd have to do as much wasted work if I allowed the PC's to pursue their thieves' guild dreams than to pursue the bad guy on the WANTED poster, making me guilty of "too much worldbuilding" unless I "railroad," your argument's crux is weak and unsupported (because I don't have to do any pre-prep work for either), and everything else is tangential. 



> That's not verisimilitude...Just a few questions my players would ask to shatter that real quick.
> 
> where is this kingdom of undead we've never heard of, and why haven't we heard about a whole kingdom of undead before??
> 
> Where do these "endless" bodies come from?
> 
> I could go on with the utter lack of belief just creating this on the fly would cause in my players, but I think the point is made.




#1: Far to the south in a land that was buried underground until this recent wave of earthquakes. 

#2: How many people do you think died in that earthquake? Or were buried beneath the ground before it? Or died in that ancient empire?

That doesn't shatter anything. The questions just feed the beast. There is no point made. There's quite enough verisimilitude to be had with improvisational role-playing. You've played such games yourself, you say, so you know it to be true. You don't need to spend hours developing a setting for it to be rich, detailed, and realistic.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> Nobody describes dessert as "dull".
> 
> It's not that complex of an analogy. It's just not what Harrison was saying.




No, it is. "Dull" is dull for the readers, e.g.: harmful to the reading experience. So the desert analogy would be traced to being harmful for the body. As a for instance.



> "Why worldbuilding can be bad" =/= "why worldbuilding is bad".
> 
> Perhaps you thought it did?




Simple rules of English, old bean: "Why is worldbuidling bad? Worldbuilding is bad because of X."

Why worldbuidling is bad: X.

Just by being bad doesn't also mean it's not good, or that the badness can't be avoided. Desert is bad because it rots your teeth, but if you brush after you eat and don't eat much of it, you can avoid rotting your teeth. Worldbuilding is bad because it can get in the way of actual enjoyment, but if you focus on the storytelling and you sublimate worldbuilding for a greater process, you can still enjoy its many fruits.

Reading Comprehension is a good talent to develop. 



> Since worldbuilding is, by definition, the creation of a deep, rich setting, I would say that it is.
> 
> And, sorry, while I champion your right to play whatever type of game you want, I don't accept your say-so as evidence to the contrary.




:shrug: If you can't believe that someone's experiences with this game are that different from your own, I guess I can't convince ya. 



> However, there is a real difference between something planned and adjusted to meet the needs of planning, and something you are pulling out of your nether regions at the game table. Every game has stuff pulled out the nether regions, but planning ahead of time gives that stuff context and meaning. It isn't created in a vaccuum.




There's no such thing as a complete vacuum, man. There's always inspirational debris floating at the corners of your head. 



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> If a DM is running a game that's as "off the cuff" as you and Kamikaze Midget are describing it appears that he wouldn't be spending much time at either activity.




I think that worldbuilding done during the game is still worldbuilding. Ditto with adventure-building. Where an improvisational game fits in is that it creates things in response to what is going on at the table, rather than before something happens, meaning that "creating something useless" is almost never an issue (because you wouldn't create it until there was a need for it). You're spending time doing it, just not much. I don't bake the cookies before the group tells me what cookies they want, so that way all the cookies get eaten. 



> And there... I'm not even speaking of winging game after game on-the-go and still make them feel believable and consistent. It is feasible, but I would count the activity of remembering what was played X sessions ago and make what you make up on the fly feel consistent with these past events a process of world-building of its own. Ergo, you cannot have consistency without world-building.




Unless I'm a natural talent at world-building so much so that I never really have had to gain any experience with it before leaping into improving it, all I needed was some lessons on how to create improv, which has to do with archetypes. Consistency happens as long as you adhere to what has come before and the overall conceits of your chosen archetypal figures. 

It's a skill, and like any skill, it gets better with practice. But the same is true of DMing in general. 



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Whose to say my world can't? No one is saying you can't adjust your world...or GASP discuss what type of campaign you and your players want before the game starts so that the world is designed around the tropes you all want to expore.




You could say your world can't, but you're really the only one. So if you want it to, it does, and if you don't, it doesn't. And if you don't, but your players *do*, you've made the game less fun. 



> Oh yeah and this eliminates most of your argument about my world lessening fun, because it will be built to cater to what each player is looking for in a compromise sort of way.




Right, but that's only true of they tell you what they want before you spend your hours of development. Which works, but not everyone has that kind of prep time. You can do the same thing without hours of development right at the table itself just as easily.



> You know this makes me wonder how an anything goes type of game continues once players begin to conflict on what is fun for them? Don't you have to make a compromise even when trying to do whatever for your players.




Same thing that happens in any other D&D game: some people get stage time now, some people get stage time later. The cleric doesn't like skulking around about the theives' guild, but we hit them later that night with a divinely ordained mission or something. 

It's not some sort of alien entity from the Far Plane, here. It's just a different way to pretend to be an elf for a few hours: a way that doesn't require me to think about what it's like to be an elf for the days before I get to be an elf.

The game doesn't *need* to be an obsession like that. It can be, if you enjoy it, but it doesn't have to be, if you'd enjoy doing it on the fly more.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, if I understand you right, you believe that there is no chance that the PCs will ask about, or petition, the powerful of the city within those two adventures?
> 
> *snip*
> 
> (Also, I note that the AP isn't done yet, so we don't know how relevant the material is to the final chapter.)
> 
> 
> 
> Like that map in White Plume Mountain that mentions Dragotha.  Utterly useless to the adventure at hand, and never did anyone any good.




Never mind that them modules actually come out and STATE that the PC's will not be returning to Sasserine.

Sure, if you want to make that information relavent, that's fine.  But, that's changing what I said.  You've moved the goalposts.  That information is irrelavent to the setting in which it is presented.  If you change the setting - such as running Sasserine until 12th level, that's fine, but, that's NOT what is presented.  In other words, you've changed the story to fit your setting.

Again, mentioning a single word on a map is NOT world building.  It's setting.  It's creating atmosphere.  However, spending pages detailing Dragotha when there is no chance that the players can visit Dragotha within the confines of the adventure is exactly the kind of thing I'm pointing at.



> And, frankly, I have little interest in games where the PCs don't get to decide where to go and what to do, either as a player or as a DM. The idea that the DM picks the order of sections of the WLD is anathema to my style of DMing; let the players hear rumours of what is to come, and let them choose thier own course, says I.




And, again, this is not what I said.  Detailing elements where the players can go is perfectly fine.  It's better than fine actually, it's great.  However, detailing elements that are completely extraneous to the adventure is not.  So, having the entire WLD to choose from is great.  Detailing what exists outside of the WLD when the players cannot interact with it is not.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> DM: There are torn and tattered wanted posters for the bandit Grok strewn throughout the town proclaiming a reward and asking that any interested parties speak mith Mayor Feold.
> 
> Me(as a rogue): I want to find out who the head of the local thieve's guild is and see if I can join.




Again, non-linear design is NOT world building.  It is perfectly reasonable to detail a thieves guild in a town.  Particularly if your party contains a thief that might want to join a theive's guild.  What is not groovy is detailing each and every member of the thieves guild for the past 100 years, which is what world building is all about.  You need a history to world build after all.  It isn't enough to simply have your 30 member thieves guild - we need what they've stolen, who they've talked to, what their history is - all dating back to day one when the guild was created.

THAT'S world buiding.



			
				KM said:
			
		

> But that's not true. Harrison never said "avoid all worldbuilding." He said that the story must always triumph over worldbuilding. Worldbuilding can be positive, but it must be moderated by the actual need to tell a story. In Harrison's advice to writers, worldbuilding for the sake of worldbuilding is pointless and narcissistic nerding out.




Which is the point I've been making again and again.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> Since worldbuilding is, by definition, the creation of a deep, rich setting, I would say that it is.




No, it isn't.  Just saying that it is doesn't make it so.  The creation of a deep rich setting is simply setting.  We have a perfectly good word - setting.  What do we need a new word in world building?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> If so, then I don't see how you can claim it isn't world building.




Because world building does not equal creating setting.  If I create a setting and the elements are relavent to the adventures within that setting, then that's nothing more than creating setting.  A detailed setting sure, but, still just setting.  World building is not only creating what is necessary for the plot or the adventure.  It's adding in a number of extraneous NPC's that the players will never interact with.  It's adding a population of Svirfneblin to the dungeon 400 years ago, who all vanished completely 305 years ago, leaving no trace.  It's all the extraneous crap that seeds setting book after setting book.

Do we need the complete history of the ruling families of Sasserine in order to run the adventures?  Do we need to know that the harbourmaster lost his older son years ago and his younger one isn't interested in taking the family business?  That's what world building is.  It's adding in all that extraneous detail that has little or nothing to do with the plot.

The first pages of the original Isle of Dread module included what would later become Mystara.  Those countries had absolutely no effect on the module.  None.  The information was entirely extraneous.  That's world building.

Dragon's Monster Ecologies are articles that I've always loved.  I really have.  But, I love them because I'm a clodding nerd, not because they add anything to the game or the adventures that I run.  They are completely unnecessary to run any creature in D&D.  I love the articles, I really do.  But that doesn't mean that they are a complete indulgence on my part.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Hussar, I love you as much as a man can love a digitized message board avatar of another man (so no butt stuff), but I'm going to have to disagree with your definition of worldbuilding.

It seems to me that, as Harrison uses it, worldbuilding *is* the same thing as setting creation.

Which is bad, because it can get in the way of telling a good story.

But it is also good, because it can be used instead to aid the telling of a good story. 

So as long as storytelling triumphs over the "great clomping foot," worldbuilding is positive.

IMHO, for D&D, it can be positive even when storytelling *doesn't* triumph, because sometimes us great clomping nerds just like those bits of fantastic trivia.

And a more improvisational style of DMing doesn't allow worldbuilding to get in the way of the game at all, while using it lightly to aid in the telling of a story. 

So, again, you don't need to spend hours developing a setting (or building a world) to have a rollicking good campaign that has enough verisimilitude and richness to satisfy anyone...

...anyone who isn't a great, clomping nerd about it anyway.


----------



## Celebrim

I'm going to make one last comment on this increasingly silly thread.

I've been in alot of different debates on the internet over the years, and so I often think that I've seen it all.  I've seen enough that I should know better than to think that.

Let's just stop and consider a definition of world building here offered.

We are told that world building is not creating setting.  No, never.  World building and creating setting have nothing to do with each other, or so we are told.  I mean, ignore all the common definitions of world building, they are just merely leading us astray.  Here, I'm going to impart to you the special Gnostic knowledge on world building.  Here is how the argument thus far runs.

You may be thinking that world building is creating details that aren't used.  But, no that can't be the definition either, because we have to craft a straw man definition that isn't so obviously a straw man, if we are to come out of here with some shred of the Emperor's New Clothes covering our dignity.  I mean, clearly, we want to have a detailed setting that allow options for the players, and well that involves the risk that they'll never actually choose those options.  Obviously, having options and a detailed setting are _good_ things, so that those things can't possibly be world building, because we know world building is _bad_.  Hense, those things, being good, can't be world building.  See how logical that is?

So what is world building, you ask?  Well, it must be the creation of information that can never possibly be used!  That's right, its only world building if the information could never actually be used in the course of play!  Well, clearly thats a waste.  Things that by definition never used and unusable are of course of no utility!  Viola for the great definition of world building!

Now, of course, this requires us to introduce the Quantum Law of World Building.  Any sort of mapping, history creation, cosmology, NPCs, culture, dungeons, nations, or anything that you create exists in this fuzzy quantum indeterminancy until such time it is actually used and then by alchemical force, 'Pop' it becomes good setting.  And if it is not used, then its bad world building.  Of course, _merely_ not being used doesn't make it world building.  No, it has to not be used in any alternate universe ever.  Only the truly enlightened prophets of World Building can see into the murky future and bless something as setting.  Those unblessed things, that's world building.  Simple really.  Just ask a prophet.


----------



## LostSoul

In actual play, I like what comes out of worldbuilding in a game like Burning Empires.


----------



## Hussar

> We are told that world building is not creating setting. No, never. World building and creating setting have nothing to do with each other, or so we are told. I mean, ignore all the common definitions of world building, they are just merely leading us astray. Here, I'm going to impart to you the special Gnostic knowledge on world building. Here is how the argument thus far runs.




And you talk about me misquoting.

Where setting leaves off and world building starts is when you move from elements which are required by the plot and those that are extraneous.  They are, of course, linked, but, saying that they are completely divorced is not what I've been saying.



> Now, of course, this requires us to introduce the Quantum Law of World Building. Any sort of mapping, history creation, cosmology, NPCs, culture, dungeons, nations, or anything that you create exists in this fuzzy quantum indeterminancy until such time it is actually used and then by alchemical force, 'Pop' it becomes good setting. And if it is not used, then its bad world building. Of course, merely not being used doesn't make it world building. No, it has to not be used in any alternate universe ever. Only the truly enlightened prophets of World Building can see into the murky future and bless something as setting. Those unblessed things, that's world building. Simple really. Just ask a prophet.




No.  Again, you are the one creating straw men.

If I build a setting element that has a reasonable chance of seeing use, that's creating setting.  If I create a setting element that does not have a reasonable chance of seeing use, that's world building.  That's been my point all the way along, although, to be fair, I've been sloppy in saying so.

So, detailing the thieves guild of Sasserine makes perfect sense since that's the starting point of the first of the adventures of the Savage Tide.  Now, in the modules, it does mention that there were other thieves guilds, but, none of them are detailed.  Why not?

 Because the other thieves guilds are entirely superfluous.  You don't need another thieves guild in Sasserine in order to run the adventure, despite the fact that it is highly likely that other thieves guilds exist (the fact that the module says that they do is a pretty big hint).

All stories need a setting.  All stories will have a setting, even if it is only skeletal.  However,  not all stories have world building.  No one, by any stretch, would say that Waiting for Godot has world building.  Romeo and Juliet, despite being placed originally in Verona, can be and have been, set in just about any setting you choose without changing a single line of the play.

World building therefore is not the same as setting creation.  All stories must create some setting.  Not all stories must world build.  So, where does setting creation stop and world building start?  IMO, the cut off line is when you move from elements that are required by the plot to elements which are entirely extraneous.

Of course elements you create for gaming are not always going to be used.  That's a given.  The cut off in RPG's is a reasonable level of possibility that it could be used.  There is absolutely no way that the Five Shires will have any impact on the Isle of Dread as written.  You could cut out the first two or three pages of the Isle of Dread without changing the module at all.

That's the difference between setting building and world building.  Setting building means that you will have a reasonable chance of using the material.  Granted, it might be that using X precludes using Y, but, before the choice is made, you still have to create X and Y.  That doesn't make one bad and the other good, just that the vagaries of gaming means that you will likely do more work than is absolutely required.

However, when you go beyond a reasonable chance of use into areas where you have to make dramatic changes to the adventure in order to use the information, then you enter into the realm of world building.  As written, the leaders of Sasserine will not come into play in the adventures.   You can change the modules so that they will come into play and that's fine, but, then, you are simply making extraneous information not extraneous.  

I hope that makes it clear enough.  Yes, I define world building as a bad thing.  There are many words that are, by definition, bad things.  Since we already have a perfectly good neutral world for creating where the action happens - setting - we don't need to define world building as a synonym for setting.  In fact, we cannot since, despite the fact that all stories require setting, not all stories require world building.


----------



## LostSoul

But Hussar, if worldbuilding does not get in the way of anything, is it still a bad thing?

(For what it's worth, I see setting as important so far as it creates conflict for the characters.)


----------



## rounser

> I don't see how designing adventures PC's will never experience is any less wasteful than worldbuilding which was a crux of numerous previous posts by you. Please explain this to me



Funny you should mention that, because I've been thinking a lot recently about scaling.  Next campaign I want to try scaling with NPC Designer.  e.g. The kobold caves the PCs ignored for 10 levels they now come to mop up have been taken over by one of the key villains in the meantime which the PCs have also not "kept down" enough, and they've now got an elite squad and drow slavemasters.  

Or, that ancient wilderness shrine which the PCs didn't investigate first time around with a few traps at 2nd level has been invaded by cultists who have upgraded the traps and actually summoned the demon bound to it when they drop by later on.  

See where this is going?  It's potentially a way to have your status quo cake and eat it, but I haven't tested it out yet, so it's still theory.  This is all adventure and campaign-arc focused stuff; worldbuilding need not apply.


> But Hussar, if worldbuilding does not get in the way of anything, is it still a bad thing?



It's always going to get in the way of doing other more productive things with that time.


----------



## Hussar

LostSoul said:
			
		

> But Hussar, if worldbuilding does not get in the way of anything, is it still a bad thing?
> 
> (For what it's worth, I see setting as important so far as it creates conflict for the characters.)






> It's always going to get in the way of doing other more productive things with that time.
> Today 04:34 PM




Wut he said.  

If, instead of ten or fifteen pages of Sasserine background, we had another adventure, perhaps a nice introductory module that gets the party together, which would be a better value for you?  I would MUCH prefer having a short module that gives the party a reason for existing than the life history of Lord Dractus whose chances of actually making any appearance in the adventures are vanishly small.

Honestly, really, there is no harm with world building.  Lots of people enjoy it.  But, really, let's call it what it is - indulgence.  It's setting porn.  It's the fifteen minutes of every CSI episode where they dial up the music and have the actors peer very carefully at walls and such.  Sure, it's fun to watch, but, like all porn, it's not exactly getting anywhere.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> Open your eyes to the fact that worldbuilding encompasses adventure design in a more holistic fashion.  I don't see how designing adventures PC's will never experience is any less wasteful than worldbuilding which was a crux of numerous previous posts by you. Please explain this to me, cause it's looking like in order to have a sandbox game, where players can explore what they want "wasted effort"(your words not mine) is necessary on either end of the spectrum.  This in turn means you just prefer a certain way of "wasting your time" in comparison to others.




It's not a case of designing adventures that the PC's don't encounter.  It's a case of designing adventures that the PC's have a vanishingly small  chance of encountering.  As I said in another post, if the adventure calls for choices X or Y, then you need to develop X and Y.  However, if you start developing Z when it isn't even a valid choice, that's not terribly useful.


----------



## LostSoul

rounser said:
			
		

> It's always going to get in the way of doing other more productive things with that time.




I'm not sure I buy that; it can be true, but then we have to assume that people who worldbuild focus on things that aren't productive (that is, whatever makes the session fun).  Sure, I bet that's true sometimes, but not always.

If worldbuilding is fun in its own right, and doesn't detract from the fun had at the table, I don't see the harm.


----------



## LostSoul

Hussar said:
			
		

> If, instead of ten or fifteen pages of Sasserine background, we had another adventure, perhaps a nice introductory module that gets the party together, which would be a better value for you?




If we're talking about what I prefer, I would say:  

Give me something like Beliefs or Aspects or a Kicker that tells the GM exactly what to prepare.  Any setting that needs to exist to drive the conflict in those flags, work on it, but anything else I could care less about.


----------



## Hussar

LostSoul said:
			
		

> If we're talking about what I prefer, I would say:
> 
> Give me something like Beliefs or Aspects or a Kicker that tells the GM exactly what to prepare.  Any setting that needs to exist to drive the conflict in those flags, work on it, but anything else I could care less about.




And, really, I think we are actually closer in agreement than it might appear.  I'm all for exactly what you are talking about.  Put big red signs on the adventures that say, "This is important, if they miss this, then add in these things to help you along".  Or something like that.  Particularly in an urban environment where the players can get buried behind the large amount of choices that they have.  

And, really, what someone does on their own time is their own business.  You're right, if it's not distracting from the game at hand, who cares how much world building is going on.  But, and I think I've been harping on this, the problem comes when DM's try to justify the amount of work that they've done by making it important in the game.

When I said that TheShaman was fine for giving his players the option of visiting 20 different systems,　I certainly meant it.  However, and this is where worldbuilding triumphs over plot, if the DM decides that he's done all this work, so the players bloody well better care about it, then we have a problem.

Hey, honestly, I love world building.  I wear my great clodding boots of nerdism with pride.  But, that doesn't stop me from thinking that there are a huge number of fantasy trilogies out there that could be condensed into one or two volumes by stripping out all the extraneous crap that shows off how smart the author is.  Someone mentioned Perdito Street Station and the Khepri.  Very good example.  Great book that could have been a much better read if the character whose history is built up over pages and pages doesn't vanish halfway through the novel only to reappear in the last chapter.

We could have done without a lot of the Khepri life cycle stuff.  It was completely extraneous.  It simply padded the pagecount.

There's a number of gaming supplements that suffer from the same thing.  We don't need fifteen pages detailing a city when the players are only going to be there for a very, very small amount of time.  Conversely, giving three pages of details of a town where the players will be stationed for almost half the campaign is probably just about right.  Considering that the first module featuring Farshore actually FEATURES Farshore.  Every one of the NPC's detailed has a reasonable chance of interacting with the PC's on some level.  There's almost no extraneous information there.  The terrain, the background, the people, are all necessary for the adventure and the ones following.  

To me, that's a pretty decent example of what I'm talking about.  The difference in the spectrum with The Lottery on one end and The Star Trek Enterprise Tech Manual on the other.  There is no real line where setting becomes world building, just like there's no real line where art becomes porn.  We can just point to certain things on the way and say that one is one or the other.  A book which details every room on the Star Ship Enterprise is world building.  It might even be interesting to some people.  But, for me, I would much prefer stories in which the Enterprise is simply the place where the action happens.


----------



## rounser

> I'm not sure I buy that; it can be true, but then we have to assume that people who worldbuild focus on things that aren't productive (that is, whatever makes the session fun). Sure, I bet that's true sometimes, but not always.



This has been stitched up pretty tight earlier in this thread.  Macro-level wishy washy stuff isn't productive game prep until magnified under the lens of an actual adventure (if you've spent time on Hurindian sword dances and elven migrations, you put the Hurindian dancing swords in a dungeon, or involve the ancient elven migrations in an adventure hook).  

The problem is, a lot of people spend so much time and effort on a lot of macro-level stuff that they don't even really intend to put in an adventure except "one day", and leave the actual adventure creation as an afterthought "if time permits", that a lot of D&D campaigns just plain out suck.  Or better yet, they leave all the background stuff in the equivalent of a "DM's Background" section in Dungeon magazine, and don't bother to let the players somehow ever find out that this whole thing was because of those elven migrations and that those are Hurindian dancing swords, because the worldbuilding isn't really integral to the adventure; the DM just wants to show off his world somehow.  

I say change the emphasis, tie your ego to a stronger moor than a world - instead of "Look at my epic and fantastic world, isn't it clever?" say, "Look at my epic and adventure-packed campaign arc, isn't it clever?"  Instead of starting every campaign by choosing or building a setting, start with the encounters you want to run, the adventures you want to run, the campaign you want to run....and let the world go hang as the afterthought to support that campaign that it should be.

If this thread proves anything, it's that worldbuilding is a HUGE d&d sacred cow, and basically a good deal of the metahobby that keeps people playing D&D.  I'm just suggesting a slight tweak: tie your ego and metahobby to the adventures and campaign arc, not the worldbuilding.


> If worldbuilding is fun in its own right, and doesn't detract from the fun had at the table, I don't see the harm.



It does detract from fun had at the table, because it sucks away time and effort from actual game prep.  DMs think their worldbuilding _is_ game prep, but a lot of it never gets to the table.  This is rarely the case with adventure prep, and adventure prep creates the setting it needs along the way.  If there's time, maybe you can extrapolate on that setting for bonus verisimilitude, but that's just icing on the cake - it's not the main event.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Simple rules of English, old bean: "Why is worldbuidling bad? Worldbuilding is bad because of X."
> 
> Why worldbuidling is bad: X.




If worldbuilding assumes X as an inherent and integral component, yes.  If not, no.

For example, your statement that "Desert is bad because it rots your teeth, but if you brush after you eat and don't eat much of it, you can avoid rotting your teeth." demonstrates a lack of understanding of the language.  Or of logic.

Dessert _isn't_ be bad because it rots your teeth; _not brushing your teeth after dessert_ is bad.

Reading Comprehension may be a good talent to develop, but so is learning how to write clearly.  



> :shrug: If you can't believe that someone's experiences with this game are that different from your own, I guess I can't convince ya.




I believe that many people's experiences with this game are different from my own.  However, I believe this only so long as those "experiences" don't defy logic.  For example, if you were to say that when you play D&D, your dog sits at the table and joins in by making a character and telling you what that character does, I wouldn't believe that either.  I would be willing to accept _that you believe it to be true_, but this doesn't _make it true_.



> I think that worldbuilding done during the game is still worldbuilding. Ditto with adventure-building.




I would agree.  In fact, I said so earlier, to the general consternation of the "worldbuilding is bad" crowd. 

This is a case of moving the goal posts when the previous position was shown to be in error.

However, there is a real difference between something planned and adjusted to meet the needs of planning, and something you are pulling out of your nether regions at the game table. Every game has stuff pulled out the nether regions, but planning ahead of time gives that stuff context and meaning. It isn't created in a vaccuum.

This is similar, in many ways, to the difference between a rough draft pounded out at breakneck speed and the completed, editted work that one hopefully sends to the printers. One may be chock full of good ideas, but it isn't deep and rich. It is a half-formed Quasimodo begging the readers/players for the sanctuary of not noticing the glaring plot holes and inconsistencies.

Again, all games are like this to some degree, but I believe that games that are Quasimodos to a lesser degree are inherently superior to games that are Quasimodos to a greater degree. I hold the same contention about books and movies.

YMMV.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Re:  Dragotha



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, mentioning a single word on a map is NOT world building.  It's setting.  It's creating atmosphere.  However, spending pages detailing Dragotha when there is no chance that the players can visit Dragotha within the confines of the adventure is exactly the kind of thing I'm pointing at.




Never mind that the map in the module is for the DM and doesn't create atmosphere for the players.  Never mind that the map itself (a full page) has nothing to do with the adventure. 

Sure, if you want to make that information relavent, that's fine.  But, that's changing what I said.  You've moved the goalposts.  That information is irrelavent to the setting in which it is presented.  If you change the setting - such as giving the map to the players or running an adventure that features Dragotha, that's fine, but, that's NOT what is presented.  In other words, you've changed the story to fit your setting.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> If I build a setting element that has a reasonable chance of seeing use, that's creating setting.  If I create a setting element that does not have a reasonable chance of seeing use, that's world building.  That's been my point all the way along, although, to be fair, I've been sloppy in saying so.
> 
> So, detailing the thieves guild of Sasserine makes perfect sense since that's the starting point of the first of the adventures of the Savage Tide.  Now, in the modules, it does mention that there were other thieves guilds, but, none of them are detailed.  Why not?




Now, am I wrong in thinking that there are people in power in that city?

And am I wrong in thinking that some of them might have interests oppossed to the guild presented?

And am I wrong in thinking that canny PCs might want to increase their potential reward and/or equipment by petitioning these people for reward/aid in opposing this guild?

Exactly what formula do you use to determine what might reasonably be used, and so avoid Celebrim's Quantum Worldbuilding?  Because, using your definition, Celebrim seems to be spot on to me.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Re:  Dragotha
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind that the map in the module is for the DM and doesn't create atmosphere for the players.  Never mind that the map itself (a full page) has nothing to do with the adventure.
> 
> Sure, if you want to make that information relavent, that's fine.  But, that's changing what I said.  You've moved the goalposts.  That information is irrelavent to the setting in which it is presented.  If you change the setting - such as giving the map to the players or running an adventure that features Dragotha, that's fine, but, that's NOT what is presented.  In other words, you've changed the story to fit your setting.





A single word on a map doesn't really do anything.  It does add atmosphere to the setting, but that's about it.  It doesn't detract from the adventure and it is easily removed.  I suppose, in that sense, it is world building since it's superfluous, although, IIRC, you can hand that map to the players as part of the hook for the module.  But, it's been a LONG time since I read that module although I ran the remake recently.

It probably is world building, but, forgivable since it isn't getting in the way.  That's the point that everyone seems to ignore.  World Building is bad when it gets in the way.  If you smack down a single line on a map, or name the ale, that's fine.  That's more setting than anything.  It's when you begin to detail out large amounts of information that is superfluous to the text or the adventure that you move from creating setting to world building.

Is there something wrong with my definition that there is a spectrum?  On one end you have the most basic of setting creation found in very short short stories and various other forms with almost no setting and all plot.  On the far other end, you have pure world building, with almost no plot (or no plot at all) and all setting information such as a Star Trek Tech Manual.

Is it so hard to believe that I don't think this is a purely black and white issue?


----------



## rounser

The killer blow to your argument, RC, is that Dragotha was created as a single line of flavor associated with _an adventure_ - and only became important when he was included in two other _adventures_!  If you can't see how the floor just fell out beneath your argument that some sort of worldbuilding fetish mattered in this instance, then well...  

Nevermind that extensive worldbuilding detail on Dragotha would probably have killed it's usability in those other adventures.  The brevity made it so usable.

Time to take that turkey out of the oven, it's well overcooked!


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Now, am I wrong in thinking that there are people in power in that city?
> 
> And am I wrong in thinking that some of them might have interests oppossed to the guild presented?
> 
> And am I wrong in thinking that canny PCs might want to increase their potential reward and/or equipment by petitioning these people for reward/aid in opposing this guild?
> 
> Exactly what formula do you use to determine what might reasonably be used, and so avoid Celebrim's Quantum Worldbuilding?  Because, using your definition, Celebrim seems to be spot on to me.




So you allow first level adventurers with no reputation to have access to the king in your world?  Never mind that the text of the adventure SPECIFICALLY TELLS YOU that you cannot do what you want.  That the PC's are basically told to bugger off if they try.

I know you own these modules.  Please read them if you want to discuss them.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> It's not a case of designing adventures that the PC's don't encounter.  It's a case of designing adventures that the PC's have a vanishingly small  chance of encountering.





How does this differ from the map in White Plume Mountain?

Where is the magical cutoff point between "creating atmosphere" and "worldbuilding"?  One word?  One paragraph?  One page?

For that matter, where is the magical cutoff point between "creating setting" and "worldbuilding"?  If the PCs go off-script and do the sorts of things PCs normally do (IME, at least, such as try to increase their rewards by securing additional patrons, and/or getting involved in the setting), does "worldbuilding" suddenly become "setting" or "atmosphere"?


EDIT:  Not to mention that, for most players, the information on the nobility of Sassarine is the _list of frakking suspects_ to the initial mystery presented:  Who is trying to scuttle thier patron's fortunes?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> The killer blow to your argument, RC, is that Dragotha was created as a single line of flavor associated with _an adventure_ - and only became important when he was included in two other _adventures_!  If you can't see how the floor just fell out beneath your argument that some sort of worldbuilding fetish mattered in this instance, then well...




That would be a killer blow if

(1)  You assume anything in an adventure isn't worldbuilding.  But, since the nobility of Sasserine is worldbuilding, this cannot possibly be.

(2)  Dragotha had anything to do with that adventure.

(3)  Dragotha had no influence prior to his inclusion of AoW (clearly not true, as he was the prototype Dracolich, a creature first appearing in a fluffy article by Ed Greenwood).  Extensive worldbuilding detail on the dracolich didn't kill it's usability.

Time to take that turkey out of the oven, it's well overcooked!


----------



## rounser

> Where is the magical cutoff point between "creating atmosphere" and "worldbuilding"? One word? One paragraph? One page?



It's subjective, but I'd venture that if you've created a 256 page setting bible, you've created much more setting than is needed to support a D&D campaign.

On the other hand, if you've created incidental setting into 256 pages of adventure, that's unlikely to be worldbuilding for the sake of worldbuilding, which is a lot of what you apparently like to do, because you're arguing for it.

Rather than refer to pagecount, though, I'd refer to Wolfgang Baur's first rule - will the PCs care who created the tomb?  No?  Then don't spend too much time and effort on that part of the game.  The problem is that this rule gets broken all the time, and is a big waste of time when broken, which is probably why it's first on the list.

Cue, Raven Crowking: "Define 'too much time'".

Heehee, it's fun to think in strawman black and white terms when it suits your argument, isn't it?


----------



## rounser

> (2) Dragotha had anything to do with that adventure.



But _he did_ have something to do with it, he was on a map handout for the adventure that was handed to the players.  He wasn't languishing in 10 pages of history in a 256 page setting bible somewhere, he actually made it into the adventure...if only by reputation.  That counts as a cameo.

Now, if Dragotha was created as living on another continent, and was part of the campaign world's history, and never made it into an adventure, and was just worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake, then he'd be on your team.  Nope, he's mentioned in an adventure _for a purpose that suits the adventure (not the campaign world)_, so he's batting for the other side.  Sorry.


----------



## Imaro

The problem I see with both rounser and Hussar's arguments is that anything "useful" is considered "setting" while anything "not useful" is worldbuilding.  To me this is a totally subjective argument and dependant upon both playstyle and oppinion.  In the above example, elven tea ceremonies was sited as "useless", yet if a PC wanted information from an elven noble and conducted the tea ceremony right I would give him a bonus to his Diplomacy roll...does that make it useful?  The elven migrations example leaves a trail in the world upon which many artifacts and items of "old magic" could be found...is that  useful? 

 Even if the PC's don't approach these things right away they still provide hooks and seeds.  Perhaps the problem with some people and worldbuilding is that they don't have the imagination to turn almost anything into a potential adventure, luckily I don't have that problem.  I honestly think adventure design is a hell of alot easier than constructing a logical and coherent world.  Draw dungeon, create hook(s) and populate with appropriate monsters and treasures.  If all I did was make an adventure up every couple of weeks I think my prep time would drastically decrease(especially using pre-made NPC's and monsters), of course my overall game would suffer as well( my players do not enjoy the hack n' slash, kill em and take their stuff playstyle as a regular thing.).  I don't see the point of creating numerous adventures so that the PC's can pick one and explore it...when I can get the same results + a vibrant and "living" setting by worldbuilding.  Do I spend more time detailing the areas closest to the PC's? Yes, but the overall macro-framework is there so that it all flows together smoothly and there is less chance of hiccups, inconsistencies etc. later on.

 I think one gigantic use of worldbuilding is in helping to generate ideas for adventures, and if it does so while keeping a consistent and coherent context...well then so much the better.


----------



## rounser

> The problem I see with both rounser and Hussar's arguments is that anything "useful" is considered "setting" while anything "not useful" is worldbuilding.



And what's useful?  Something that supports an adventure!  Because most of what people refer to as worldbuilding is often just for the sake of fleshing out a world for it's own sake, and any adventure support is incidental, then yes, a lot of is called worldbuilding isn't useful for purposes of D&D game prep.  

The big giveaway that this is the case is that setting is created first, adventures and the campaign arc as an afterthought, developed to fit in with what has arbitrarily been worldbuilt before.  This is priorities exactly the wrong way around, putting the cart before the horse, as has been argued earlier.  And here, it's been argued that it's arguably a waste of time in that a lot of the material will never see play, and therefore a violation of the First Rule of Dungeoncraft, Wolfgang's First Adventure Design rule, and the SF author referred to by the OP.  And yet, and yet, and yet, it's a sacred cow, so it can't be led to the abbatoir it so richly deserves.


----------



## Imaro

rounser said:
			
		

> And what's useful?  Something that supports an adventure!  Because most of what people refer to as worldbuilding is often just for the sake of fleshing out a world for it's own sake, and any adventure support is incidental, then yes, a lot of is called worldbuilding isn't useful for purposes of D&D game prep.
> 
> The big giveaway that this is the case is that setting is created first, adventures and the campaign arc as an afterthought, developed to fit in with what has arbitrarily been worldbuilt before.  This is priorities exactly the wrong way around, putting the cart before the horse, as has been argued earlier.  And here, it's been argued that it's arguably a waste of time in that a lot of the material will never see play, and therefore a violation of the First Rule of Dungeoncraft, Wolfgang's First Adventure Design rule, and the SF author referred to by the OP.  And yet, and yet, and yet, it's a sacred cow, so it can't be led to the abbatoir it so richly deserves.




Yeah cause their the end all and be all of gaming, right?  Names don't impress me. 

 My point in the single sentence that you responded too, when taken in context with the rest of what I wrote, is that a good GM can find a way to make any aspect of his world building into an important element, thus his designs aren't wasted.  Dungeoncraft is great advice...for beginners, but I've been playing long enough where macro-creation isn't a waste, it's a coherent and wide-ranging grouping of hooks, and adventures within a logical framework. YMMV of course.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> A single word on a map doesn't really do anything.




Yes, but I asked about the _map itself_.  Has nothing to do with the adventure (that starts at the dungeon entrance) and "wastes" a page.

That this map gave us Dragotha, and dracoliches in general, seems to my mind to indicate that it wasn't a "waste" after all.


----------



## rounser

> My point in the single sentence that you responded too, when taken in context with the rest of what I wrote, is that a good GM can find a way to make any aspect of his world building into an important element, thus his designs aren't wasted.



"Good GMs" are in limited supply - I think Ryan Dancey pointed that out at some stage.  I'd consider the majority of Dungeon adventures writers are probably "good GMs", but the amount of stuff that ends up in the DM's Background that the players can never discover has become a Dungeon magazine cliche.  The glaring fault here is that the DM knows the background, but no mechanism is in the adventure for the PCs to discover it.  To the PCs the setup for the adventure all seems totally arbitrary and inscrutable - in any media other than D&D this would be a death kiss, unless you're writing for the X-Files.  And that's just designing adventures!  Setting bibles aren't even on the map, and the "inscrutable background that the players will never discover" mistake's already being made!  No wonder Wolfgang had it as his first rule.


> Yeah cause their the end all and be all of gaming, right? Names don't impress me.



Especially when what they're saying doesn't suit your argument.  Yes, I understand.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> So you allow first level adventurers with no reputation to have access to the king in your world?  Never mind that the text of the adventure SPECIFICALLY TELLS YOU that you cannot do what you want.  That the PC's are basically told to bugger off if they try.
> 
> I know you own these modules.  Please read them if you want to discuss them.




Does being told to bugger off preclude the PCs from trying?  Does it preclude the PCs from trying to pursue information about these people in other ways?


----------



## rounser

> Has nothing to do with the adventure (that starts at the dungeon entrance) and "wastes" a page.



I don't know where to start with this one.  The map is an adventure handout which lets the PCs get to the dungeon in the first place, yet not part of the adventure, and the hook which sets up the adventure isn't part of the adventure?  No wonder we can't agree when everything not a dungeon is worldbuilding to you.  Here's a hint: if it's in a module, it's probably part of the adventure.


----------



## I'm A Banana

RC said:
			
		

> If worldbuilding assumes X as an inherent and integral component, yes. If not, no.
> 
> For example, your statement that "Desert is bad because it rots your teeth, but if you brush after you eat and don't eat much of it, you can avoid rotting your teeth." demonstrates a lack of understanding of the language. Or of logic.
> 
> Dessert isn't be bad because it rots your teeth; not brushing your teeth after dessert is bad.
> 
> Reading Comprehension may be a good talent to develop, but so is learning how to write clearly.




I dunno, seems like quite a lot of people understood the topic without splitting the hair so fine. You didn't, but I hope it's now been clarified. 



> I believe that many people's experiences with this game are different from my own. However, I believe this only so long as those "experiences" don't defy logic. For example, if you were to say that when you play D&D, your dog sits at the table and joins in by making a character and telling you what that character does, I wouldn't believe that either. I would be willing to accept that you believe it to be true, but this doesn't make it true.




Nothing I'm doing defies the laws of physics, and isn't anything not done already on a daily basis by thousands of actors worldwide who either specialize in or occasionally adopt a persona in improv. It defies your experience, but that's part of life and learning, man: realizing your experience isn't exhaustive of all possibility (even if it is extensive). 



> This is a case of moving the goal posts when the previous position was shown to be in error.




You'll note that I never agreed with Hussar's idea that worldbuilding is exclusively defined as superfluous. Certainly bad worldbuilding can have that quality. My argument has always been an agreement with Harrison and the idea that this could apply to D&D, and my discussion has been largely about how much it can apply to D&D. 



> However, there is a real difference between something planned and adjusted to meet the needs of planning, and something you are pulling out of your nether regions at the game table.




Demonstrably false. Whether I plan ahead of time to have the Necromancer King backed by ghouls or just fit the CR to the party on the fly, the Necromancer King is still backed by ghouls. How I arrived at that conclusion doesn't matter to anyone at the table except me. 

In the equasion N + X = 4, N and X could be a host of different numbers...all that matters is that they add up to 4. All the players see is that number 4. N + X could be anything. 



			
				ronseur said:
			
		

> I say change the emphasis, tie your ego to a stronger moor than a world - instead of "Look at my epic and fantastic world, isn't it clever?" say, "Look at my epic and adventure-packed campaign arc, isn't it clever?" Instead of starting every campaign by choosing or building a setting, start with the encounters you want to run, the adventures you want to run, the campaign you want to run....and let the world go hang as the afterthought to support that campaign that it should be.
> 
> If this thread proves anything, it's that worldbuilding is a HUGE d&d sacred cow, and basically a good deal of the metahobby that keeps people playing D&D. I'm just suggesting a slight tweak: tie your ego and metahobby to the adventures and campaign arc, not the worldbuilding.




I'm on board with this. The idea that it's necessary to do boatloads of worldbuilding needs to get kicked to the curb, hard. It's been proven time and time again (in various other games, if not much in D&D): A game doesn't require pages of setting material. And it can be a wonderful game with as much verisimilitude, verve, richness, and depth as anything with a Tolkeinesque-level setting bible. 

It ain't the QUANTITY, baby, it's the QUALITY. 



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> My point in the single sentence that you responded too, when taken in context with the rest of what I wrote, is that a good GM can find a way to make any aspect of his world building into an important element, thus his designs aren't wasted. Dungeoncraft is great advice...for beginners, but I've been playing long enough where macro-creation isn't a waste, it's a coherent and wide-ranging grouping of hooks, and adventures within a logical framework. YMMV of course.




How many of those hooks will be used this month?

This year?

Before someone moves away and the game is suspended?

Before you reach a level that the hook isn't well-suited for?

Before you need to tell players "you can't gain levels or be warforged or learn teleportation because my pre-planned adventure hooks can't handle it?"

Before it's either wasted effort, or setting-level railroading?


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> It's subjective, but I'd venture that if you've created a 256 page setting bible, you've created much more setting than is needed to support a D&D campaign.




Rounser, I doubt that you are attempting to argue either that

(1)  Worldbuilding is bad because it might be bad

or 

(2)  Worldbuilding is seperate from creating setting, where the sole determinant between the two is whether or not the PCs use the material (or, in a softer approach, the nebulous degree of likelihood of their using it).

Your position seems to be that obsession over macro-level setting can sometimes interfere with the creation of micro-level setting, in some cases to the point where the micro-level setting required to actually run the game is ignored.  

If that is your position, then I can well see why you don't think my points disprove it -- they don't.  They are related to positions (1) and (2), above, which seem to be what KM and Hussar's statements boil down to, respectively.

RC


----------



## Imaro

rounser said:
			
		

> "Good GMs" are in limited supply - I think Ryan Dancey pointed that out at some stage.  I'd consider the majority of Dungeon adventures writers are probably "good GMs", but the amount of stuff that ends up in the DM's Background that the players can never discover has become a Dungeon magazine cliche.  The glaring fault here is that the DM knows the background, but no mechanism is in the adventure for the PCs to discover it.  To the PCs the setup for the adventure all seems totally arbitrary and inscrutable - in any media other than D&D this would be a death kiss, unless you're writing for the X-Files.  And that's just designing adventures!  Setting bibles aren't even on the map, and the "inscrutable background that the players will never discover" mistake's already being made!  No wonder Wolfgang had it as his first rule.




How do you figure the players can "never" discover this stuff.  Once again it's on your skill as a DM, how much of this is worked into an adventure, or future adventures.  The beginning of these adventures are arbitrary because they have to be intentionally vague to suit various campaign settings...however that complaint is alleviated when there is context and history behind and adventure that fits into a greater whole.  The "inscrutable" background is only a "mistake" if you as a DM either choose to or are not imaginative enough to make it a significant portion of your adventure(s).  



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Especially when what they're saying doesn't suit your argument.  Yes, I understand.




Nah, I just ain't big on hero worship, and believe nobody is infallible.  Plenty of game designers have said things and years later said the total opposite...it's human nature.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> And what's useful?  Something that supports an adventure!




Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that what is useful is something that supports game play....whether that game play consists of an "adventure" per se, or anything else enjoyed by the players while playing?


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Nah, I just ain't big on hero worship, and believe nobody is infallible.




True, but when different people who all know their craft tell you the same thing over and over again...

"You should only use your right foot to press the pedals when driving" says your father.
"You should only use your right foot to press the pedals when driving" says your mother.
"You should only use your right foot to press the pedals when driving" says your instructor.
"That's fine for you novices, but I'm going to use BOTH feet because it gives me more control!"

I mean, cool that you can drive with both feet, but that doesn't mean it's better.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> Here's a hint: if it's in a module, it's probably part of the adventure.




Does this include the nobility of Sasserine?  Does this include the DM background that players can never discover (something I'm not familiar with, btw; whyever _couldn't_ the players discover it?)?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> True, but when different people who all know their craft tell you the same thing over and over again...
> 
> "You should only use your right foot to press the pedals when driving" says your father.
> "You should only use your right foot to press the pedals when driving" says your mother.
> "You should only use your right foot to press the pedals when driving" says your instructor.
> "That's fine for you novices, but I'm going to use BOTH feet because it gives me more control!"
> 
> I mean, cool that you can drive with both feet, but that doesn't mean it's better.





So, if I can pull up as many articles and authorities who say the opposite (and I can), that will make it true?  

Color me confused.


----------



## rounser

> The "inscrutable" background is only a "mistake" if you as a DM either choose to or are not imaginative enough to make it a significant portion of your adventure(s).



Well, that mistake seems to get made a lot in published work, so what chance does your average homebrewer have who's too busy worldbuilding to pay that much attention to adventure design subtleties like this have?  I hope he's a "good GM", because he's going to need to be to even spot the problem in the first place.  If he's a worldbuilder, he might even be too wrapped in his own sense of verisimilitude to notice or care that it doesn't make sense from the player's perspective, because it all makes sense to him.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> Well, that mistake seems to get made a lot in published work, so what chance does your average homebrewer have who's too busy worldbuilding to pay that much attention to adventure design subtleties like this have?  I hope he's a "good GM", because he's going to need to be to even spot the problem in the first place.  If he's a worldbuilder, he might even be too wrapped in his own sense of verisimilitude to notice or care that it doesn't make sense from the player's perspective, because it all makes sense to him.





Yeah, but maybe he's KM, who doesn't _need_ to do any prep work on the adventure at all, but consistently does as well as you could do no matter how much prep you put into it.


----------



## Imaro

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that what is useful is something that supports game play....whether that game play consists of an "adventure" per se, or anything else enjoyed by the players while playing?




QFT!


----------



## I'm A Banana

> So, if I can pull up as many articles and authorities who say the opposite (and I can), that will make it true?




Where did I say anything about truth? I just said listening to advice is important.

If you pull up articles and authorities who say the opposite, I will listen to what they have to say, because they are important. I won't let them control my thoughts, and I may disagree for my own purposes, but I'm not going to dismiss what they have to say out of hand or claim that it's somehow inferior.

So when ronseur brings up advice and Imaro rejects it out of hand, I say "Don't be so quick to dismiss it."



> Color me confused.




It might go better for you if you read what I write and stop trying to assign me a position I don't take. 



> Yeah, but maybe he's KM, who doesn't need to do any prep work on the adventure at all, but consistently does as well as you could do no matter how much prep you put into it.




Anyone can do what I do. Thousands of actors do it daily. Other DMs who have played under me do it. DMs I have played under do it to greater or lesser degrees. I'm sure DMs I haven't met do it, too. It doesn't defy logic. It's not even particularly difficult. Like any skill, it gets better with practice. It's not for everyone, it's no more perfect than any other method, but it's more fun for me, just as pre-prep is more fun for other DMs. I don't know how anyone can accurately judge my chosen method of imagining to be an elf for four hours as badwrongfun because it doesn't mesh with their experience of imagining to be an elf for four hours.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It might go better for you if you read what I write and stop trying to assign me a position I don't take.





Or, say, if you took a course on writing.    

Anyway, it now seems (in the last few posts) that you are saying that "Bad worldbuilding is bad", a statement that is tautological, fairly meaningless, and not very interesting.  Is bad worldbuilding bad?  Yes.  No one in this thread disagrees with that one.

For articles and authorities, you can go to issues of The Dragon going back to when it was called The Dragon.  I would recommend an article called "Let There Be A Method To Your Madness" that discusses consideration of what a dungeon or ruin was originally used for (and therefore what it needs to have located within it) prior to setting pen to paper.

(Of course, Hussar will then claim that this relates to setting, not worldbuilding.    )

You might also consider the Dungeoncraft articles related to a prehistoric setting, which (while suggesting not building more than you have to) certainly suggests that you build up details such as what sorts of gods are in the world, how the hook of the world affects PC class/race choices, who's in charge of the settlement, and background secrets that the PCs may or may not discover through the course of play.  IOW, all of those things that some in this thread believe unnecessary or a waste of time.    

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Anyone can do what I do.




That I agree with.  

What I am skeptical about is that what you do is as good as you think it is.


----------



## Imaro

KM, who are these numerous sources...One was listed as pertains to D&D, as far as a writer stating that, he's writing and knows exactly what's needed to tell his particular story.  He doesn't have to improvise or create something because his protagonist decided to go in direction A instead of B.  I actually think the usage of an author's oppinion on this has nothing to do with playing a game and has been used out of context for no good reason.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> That I agree with.
> 
> What I am skeptical about is that what you do is as good as you think it is.




Good for what?

My players are all fantastically happy, interested in the world and their characters, come back week after week, and compliment that I'm the best DM they've ever had, in a variety of different groups with a vast menagerie of personality types and backgrounds of players and play styles.

I don't think I need to do any better just to satisfy the skepticism of some critic on the internet, really.  I don't know how anyone can accurately judge my chosen method of imagining to be an elf for four hours as badwrongfun because it doesn't mesh with their experience of imagining to be an elf for four hours.



> KM, who are these numerous sources...One was listed as pertains to D&D, as far as a writer stating that, he's writing and knows exactly what's needed to tell his particular story. He doesn't have to improvise or create something because his protagonist decided to go in direction A instead of B. I actually think the usage of an author's oppinion on this has nothing to do with playing a game and has been used out of context for no good reason.




You build worlds to tell stories in D&D.

You build worlds to tell stories in fiction.

It absolutely has something to do with playing a game in which there is a world being built and a story being told, just as referencing Tolkein or Leiber or Howard or Lovecraft or any other writer has to do with this game.


----------



## rounser

> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that what is useful is something that supports game play....



Alright, I'll give you this: Something like deciding on the stock of a magic item shop is directly relevant to gameplay (i.e. it is involved in deciding what the PCs have on their persons), and is not an adventure.  The problem is that a lot of what falls under the heading "worldbuilding" will never see play in a way like this, and may "support play" so indirectly that the players might never notice if it had never been written, or might "meh" it away as being of no relevance to them because it's not relevant to the adventure and the campaign, only relevant to the world.  

It's easier to assume that most worldbuilding that isn't adventure-related is nowhere near as game-affecting as the contents of a magic item shop, adventure taxes, or laws that land PCs in jail.  For the players to care about it, worldbuilding needs to be dynamic in affecting them directly, and most worldbuilding that doesn't support an adventure isn't because the adventure is most of what PCs interact with, and therefore can be considered a waste of time and effort in the case of a lot of what falls under the heading "worldbuilding" and is never manifested in an adventure of any sort.

You may consider this an admission of the "bad worldbuilding is bad" tautology, but I'd call it the "most of what is considered worldbuilding will probably never see play in a meaningful way, unless it's anchored to an adventure or otherwise affects the PCs directly."


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> My players are all fantastically happy, interested in the world and their characters, come back week after week, and compliment that I'm the best DM they've ever had, in a variety of different groups with a vast menagerie of personality types and backgrounds of players and play styles.





Good on you.

Any of them reguler EN World posters?

Or, better yet, maybe you'll get a chance to run a no-prep game for me at some point.

I've changed my mind before when it made sense to do so; I'm not changing it on your say-so.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> You may consider this an admission of the "bad worldbuilding is bad" tautology, but I'd call it the "most of what is considered worldbuilding will probably never see play in a meaningful way, unless it's anchored to an adventure or otherwise affects the PCs directly."




I would agree that "most prep work or rules work of any sort will probably never see play in a meaningful way, unless it's anchored to an adventure or otherwise affects the PCs directly."  Why single out worldbuilding?


----------



## rounser

> Why single out worldbuilding?



Because it's emphasised as a metahobby by so many DMs, above and beyond what is actually useful as game prep - more as a "game within the game" where the objective is to create and show off some sort of verisimilitudinal magnum opus of worldbuilding genius through the convenient medium of a D&D game...as opposed to the more pure goal of running a fun campaign, and sod the "look at my cool world" ego-based stuff.

I've played in several campaigns which have yielded yawns because the main event is the DM showing off his world, with worldbuilding occupying the lions share of time and effort in development, and adventures as a threadbare backburner afterthought.  This is unfortunate, because the adventures are what the players actually end up playing, not the world.  I think a good deal of "bad GM" behaviour can be traced back to putting worldbuilding first and foremost at the expense of other priorities.

And oh look, that happens to be what the guy quoted by the OP was effectively arguing.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You build worlds to tell stories in D&D.
> 
> You build worlds to tell stories in fiction.





If you took a writing class (or read some good books on writing), you would know that stories are composed of setting, plot, theme, style, and character.  While our modern take on this seems to focus on plot, plot hasn't always been the most important part of all fiction.  There is much of Dickens, for instance, that focuses on setting, and while most people can tell you something of the theme of Uncle Tom's Cabin, few know the plot.  Virginia Woolf focused largely on character.

The best stories, I would argue, are not the page-turners, but the ones that balance these elements well.  Where plot, setting, theme, style, and character all become melded to the point where you cannot easily remove bits of one without unravelling bits of the others.  This is very similar to the LotR movies, where every change made by PJ required more changes down the road, altering plot, theme, and character -- and, ultimately, style and setting as well -- in order to accomodate them.

I would argue that the same is true for D&D games.

In one session, my players decided to wait three months so that the paladin could get a custom suit of armour made.  I gave them a quick summary of what occurred during that time, including news of the death of a distant prince and mention that a chess-like game played with carved dragons on a circular board had become a local fad.  The players appreciated the last detail (even though it was irrelevant to anything) and had their PCs spend time learning the game.  They even bought an expensive board.

Things become relevant because the players and/or the DM make them so.

This wasn't part of an adventure, and didn't need to impact the players directly at all.  They chose to make it impact them.  It is my job to be the facilitator of opportunities to make the adventure matter, the world matter, and the characters matter.

Doing less is.....well, it results in less.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> I've played in several campaigns which have yielded yawns because the main event is the DM showing off his world, with worldbuilding occupying the lions share of time and effort in development, and adventures as a threadbare backburner afterthought.




And I have run into DMs whose campaigns (and writers whose novels) have yielded yawns because the adventures are not grounded well enough into the world in which they are supposed to take place.

But, overall, I would agree that if the DM is writing an amature novel with you as the captive audience, it's time to walk from the table.    

OTOH, that's something that everyone agreed on from the beginning of this thread.  Everyone does not agree, however, that Harrison is saying what you and I agree on.    



> This is unfortunate, because the adventures are what the players actually end up playing, not the world.  I think a good deal of "bad GM" behaviour can be traced back to putting worldbuilding first and foremost at the expense of other priorities.




Some of the things that my current players single out as being the great moments of the game come about due to the world, or as byproducts of the world.  Example:  Chatting to a tentacled horror, discussing religion with cultists ("But you can't sacrifice innocent people!" "No one is innocent." "What about babies!  You can't sacrifice babies!" "We are all born into sin." etc.), and realizing that the Wizard Keye's assistant was actually in love with the wizard.  Of course, I have players who want their characters to go fishing, to lure aquatic sheep out of lakes, and who enjoy conversing with fictional entities.  They _enjoy_ figuring out what's going on around them, and being part of it.

OTOH, that stuff _never_ overshadows the action, and I am not reading them pages of descriptive text either.     I have no desire to run the type of game that I would walk away from!  I certainly agree that the DM should have "Why should the players care" in mind when presenting material at the table, and the DM should definitely follow up on anything that the players indicate that they _do_ care about.

As I said in a previous post, it is successfully melding storytelling elements that creates the best campaign experiences.  Also, DMs should play to their strengths and bolster their weaknesses, whatever they may be.


RC


----------



## rounser

> And I have run into DMs whose campaigns (and writers whose novels) have yielded yawns because the adventures are not grounded well enough into the world in which they are supposed to take place.



Yes, many is the time I've yawned at an FR campaign that "needed more Drizzt", or had my character say, "Don't worry, Elminster will fix it", and had him sit down to wait for Elminster to turn up and do so, only to find that didn't actually end up happening.  That waiting got rather boring, and I yawned a great deal.  I had to check with the DM that the game was really set on Faerun.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> Yes, many is the time I've yawned at an FR campaign that "needed more Drizzt", or had my character say, "Don't worry, Elminster will fix it"




DM PCs are a problem, all right.  Just not one that is not intrinsic to, or reliant upon, worldbuilding.

When I say that the campaign isn't grounded enough into the world it is set upon, I mean that there are no consequences for actions, good or ill, things don't change, and no matter what you do you cannot affect a world which is simply not there.

Also, the occasional game where you follow a river flowing uphill into the mountains because the DM fails to grasp basic geography and physics.


----------



## rounser

> DM PCs are a problem, all right. Just not one that is not intrinsic to, or reliant upon, worldbuilding.



I was kidding, btw.


----------



## Ourph

rounser said:
			
		

> Because it's emphasised as a metahobby by so many DMs, above and beyond what is actually useful as game prep - more as a "game within the game" where the objective is to create and show off some sort of verisimilitudinal magnum opus of worldbuilding genius through the convenient medium of a D&D game...as opposed to the more pure goal of running a fun campaign, and sod the "look at my cool world" ego-based stuff.



It seems to me that you're engaging in a pretty severe case of synecdoche here.  You're taking one extreme point of view about worldbuilding and labeling all worldbuilding as that one extreme case.  Several times in this discussion you've mentioned and defended as useful prep-work you do for your own game that, by any reasonable definition, qualifies as worldbuilding.  To belabor the previous food analogy, you've taken the stance that because some desserts are loaded with fat and processed sugar which are bad for your health, a healthy lifestyle is one which avoids all food.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Ourph said:
			
		

> It seems to me that you're engaging in a pretty severe case of synecdoche here.  You're taking one extreme point of view about worldbuilding and labeling all worldbuilding as that one extreme case.  Several times in this discussion you've mentioned and defended as useful prep-work you do for your own game that, by any reasonable definition, qualifies as worldbuilding.  To belabor the previous food analogy, you've taken the stance that because some desserts are loaded with fat and processed sugar which are bad for your health, a healthy lifestyle is one which avoids all food.




I think that's closer to Hussar's argument, except that any healthy food isn't food; it's granola.

I think that Rounser is closer to what KM now says he was saying earlier (that worldbuilding may contain certain flaws, and giving into those flaws is bad), rather than what KM was actually saying earlier (that worldbuilding is bad).

That's my take on it, anyway.

RC


----------



## gizmo33

Yea, world-building is crazy.  You know what drives me nuts is when a DM insists on naming his NPCs and towns and telling me about it.  All that blabbing about "NPC says this", and "back-story that" just gets in the way of me killing things and taking their stuff.  As a player, I'd just rather give the NPCs a number in the order that I meet them.  

Why are some DMs so egotistical?  Don't they realize that the game is primarily a vehicle for me to roll dice?  If an NPC is going to have a name it should be the name of his most powerful magic item, "I'm Mr. +4 Longsword" for instance.  That way it's useful to players.  "Oh look at me - I can think of names for NPCs!"  Sheesh.  Some DMs are so full of themselves.

From now on it's "don't ask, don't tell".  If you're an NPC and you've got a name, or some tragic backstory, keep it to yourself.  I'll return the favor by naming all my character's after myself.  In fact, don't even bother making up a dungeon because that's just a lot of world-building involving rooms full of monsters and treasure that I might never find.  I'll just work on hypothetical builds for higher level versions of my character while you figure out what's in the next room on the fly.

And speaking of treasure, something like a "necklace worth 500 gp" strikes me as being uncomfortably close to world-building details I don't need.  Now you're boring me with useless details about what kinds of things your NPCs like to wear around their necks.  Just go with "a jewelry item worth 500 gp" - that's all I'll need to know when I get back to Town #24 and sell it at "the trading post".


----------



## rounser

> You're taking one extreme point of view about worldbuilding and labeling all worldbuilding as that one extreme case.



And you're engaging in wishful thinking by pretending that there isn't a whole stack of evidence from multiple authors against your position that worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake isn't a waste of time in terms of actually preparing for a game.  Dungeoncraft et. al. are all arrayed against you.


> Several times in this discussion you've mentioned and defended as useful prep-work you do for your own game that, by any reasonable definition, qualifies as worldbuilding.



Again, it's wishful thinking to suggest that encounter level adventure prep is just worldbuilding, when the contents of any reasonable setting book apart from the Wilderlands contains nothing but macro level stuff you're so enamored of.  Because encounter level prep is all I've mentioned.


> Yea, world-building is crazy. You know what drives me nuts is when a DM insists on naming his NPCs and towns and telling me about it. All that blabbing about "NPC says this", and "back-story that" just gets in the way of me killing things and taking their stuff. As a player, I'd just rather give the NPCs a number in the order that I meet them.



When you can't make sense, there's always ridicule to resort to.  But then, that should be expected when you challenge the status quo, how can it not be the right way of doing things when we've always done it that way?  I don't know, so let's try reductio ad absurdum, regardless of the constant suggestions that a setting which supports adventures is fine, and a much better alternative to worldbuilding for it's own sake.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Anyway, it now seems (in the last few posts) that you are saying that "Bad worldbuilding is bad", a statement that is tautological, fairly meaningless, and not very interesting.  Is bad worldbuilding bad?  Yes.  No one in this thread disagrees with that one.




Why don't we discuss what bad worldbuilding is, why it happens, common pitfalls, etc.  That would be more interesting to me than going round-and-round on this same issue.


----------



## gizmo33

rounser said:
			
		

> When you can't make sense, there's always ridicule to resort to.




(edit:  unecessary language snobbery deleted.)



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> But then, that should be expected when you challenge the status quo, how can it not be the right way of doing things when we've always done it that way?




Yea.  When I'm bored or confused that's so obviously everyone else's fault, mostly the DM, but yet he never gets that.  So I go and challenge the status quo and get a bunch of guff back about it.  I hate when other people have fun doing something that doesn't include me.  That's a status quo I aim to fix.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> I don't know, so let's try reductio ad absurdum, regardless of the constant suggestions that a setting which supports adventures is fine, and a much better alternative to worldbuilding for it's own sake.




Exactly!  Mr DM:  Include me in your fun or (like the article quoted in the OP) I'm going to make vague statments about your psychological type.

Some DMs flounder about with detailing their worlds because they think those details might have some relevance at a future point.  Or sometimes they think the players might catch hold of an idea and run with it (like those crazy people playing with RavenCrowking that took an interest in his chess game).

Forget that.  I'll _tell_ you what kind of details I'm interested in.  I'll give the DM a one-page handout with my preferences and if he utters a peep about what species of tree it is that my half-dragon minotaur barbarian is climbing, I'm going home.


----------



## gizmo33

So my half-dragon minotaur barbarian, that I named Gizmo, was sitting in some place eating breakfast.  The DM was forcing me to overhear all this yakity-yak from the NPCs about whatever.  At first I thought one of them was going to tell me which dungeon I was supposed to go through, but instead it was almost like all these random details were flying at me that I had to piece together myself.  

And it's not like I'm all that happy in the first place because thanks to the DM's "world building" and his insistance that he tell me all about it, I got this vague feeling that my minotaur wasn't all that welcome in his "pseudo-Dark Ages" medieval setting.  What-ev-er.

Anyway, I'm about to attack one of these babbling NPCs, just to demonstrate what I mean by "setting element relative to the adventure" when this vaguely humanoid-shaped NPC approaches me.  He says something like "the King wants you to undertake a quest", and I'm all like "Whoa whoa, 'King'!? Cripes, what's with the Dark Ages techno-speak!?  I don't care about the intricacies of the governmental structure of your town, or realm, or wherever the heck I am.  Just tell me where the dungeon is."

It was getting late so we had to stop playing.  But while the DM was marking the time on his custom calendar (the height of arrogance!), I was thinking - what if I hired a bunch of mute minotaurs to serve as a bodyguard and keep the NPC riff-raff at bay?  Oh well, it's a thought.


----------



## Darth Shoju

rounser said:
			
		

> And you're engaging in wishful thinking by pretending that there isn't a whole stack of evidence from multiple authors against your position that worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake isn't a waste of time in terms of actually preparing for a game.  Dungeoncraft et. al. are all arrayed against you.




I really don't think he is saying that worldbuilding is more important than preparing the adventure. In fact, I don't see *anyone* saying that. But I guess you need to believe people are to have your revolution, right?


----------



## Ourph

rounser said:
			
		

> And you're engaging in wishful thinking by pretending that there isn't a whole stack of evidence from multiple authors against your position that worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake isn't a waste of time in terms of actually preparing for a game.  Dungeoncraft et. al. are all arrayed against you.




You're setting up a strawman here by saying that "my position" is in favor of "worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake".  First, I've never suggested that I'm in favor of anything of the kind.  Second, you're defining "worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake" as "the kind of worldbuilding you must engage in if you disagree with me".  Neither of those is very conducive to a useful conversation.



> Again, it's wishful thinking to suggest that encounter level adventure prep is just worldbuilding, when the contents of any reasonable setting book apart from the Wilderlands contains nothing but macro level stuff you're so enamored of.  Because encounter level prep is all I've mentioned.




Please explain to me how encounter level prep isn't worldbuilding.  Please also explain to me how creating multiple potential adventure hooks, having a pre-created hex wilderness with pre-placed encounters and incorporating the lead-ins for pregenerated adventures from Dungeon magazine into the campaign aren't all worldbuilding.

Just to be clear, I'll quote the exact remark I'm referring to.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> You couldn't be further from the mark. I'm all about dangling multiple hooks in front of the PCs, and having multiple prepared adventure areas available which the PCs can choose from...even hex wilderness with stuff they can "stumble across" at encounter level. I use Dungeon adventures as a crutch for this, but they're extensively edited down (there's a lot of stuff you can cut out of these).





Again, I think you're engaging in synechdoche by saying all worldbuilding is macro-level worldbuilding and ignoring the fact that all the stuff you're calling "encounter level" and "setting" is also worldbuilding.  



> regardless of the constant suggestions that a setting which supports adventures is fine, and a much better alternative to worldbuilding for it's own sake.




Why isn't it equally reasonable to say that creating a setting that supports adventures is, in fact, worldbuilding and that what you are comparing here isn't worldbuilding and "something else" but examples of good and bad worldbuilding?


----------



## rounser

> I really don't think he is saying that worldbuilding is more important than preparing the adventure. In fact, I don't see *anyone* saying that. But I guess you need to believe people are to have your revolution, right?



Yehah, it's all in my imagination.  People do it through example, just look at ENWorld.  The automatic new campaign thing is "what published setting should I use" or "check out my new homebrew setting ideas".  The sound of crickets with regard to adventures or campaign arc material is deafening, and that's not even beginning to count the real life DMs I've met who put worldbuilding first and foremost as, YES, more important than the adventures.  It's more fun and a lot easier to write about empires that never were, and the role of dwarves in the world than it is to write "a tower of orcs" as one WOTC designer who felt he was above such nitty gritty referred to it as.  I can understand why people would prefer to worldbuild (I like to do it too), and so spend a good deal more time on it than strictly necessary to support a D&D game.  But denial of that reality is what this thread is all about, so why stop now?


----------



## rounser

> Just to be clear, I'll quote the exact remark I'm referring to.



Because adventure hooks are part of adventures, and encounter level material with stats and whatnot is far too low level to make it into a book as setting material unless it's Wilderlands.  Everyone and their dog knows that such material is part of an adventure, as in what Dungeon magazine is full of as opposed to Eberron CS.  If you had a leg to stand on, the only encounter level material in the FRCS wouldn't be in it as (ta-da) an adventure in the back of the book, apart from the occasional NPC stat for Elminster and the like.  We've been down this road earlier in the thread, and what was said by your side didn't make sense then, and it doesn't now.  I'm using adapted Dungeon magazine _adventures_ for most of these locations, note the operative word!


----------



## FireLance

Why is this thread starting to smell like holy war?  

The fact that worldbuilding can be good does not mean that it is always good.

The fact that worldbuilding can be bad does not mean that it is always bad.

Like fire and money (and low-magic campaigns, and powergaming) worldbuilding is a good servant but a bad master.


----------



## Imaro

rounser said:
			
		

> Because adventure hooks are part of adventures, and encounter level material with stats and whatnot is far too low level to make it into a book as setting material unless it's Wilderlands.  Everyone and their dog knows that such material is part of an adventure, as in what Dungeon magazine is full of as opposed to Eberron CS.  If you had a leg to stand on, the only encounter level material in the FRCS wouldn't be in it as (ta-da) an adventure in the back of the book, apart from the occasional NPC stat for Elminster and the like.  We've been down this road earlier in the thread, and what was said by your side didn't make sense then, and it doesn't now.  I'm using adapted Dungeon magazine _adventures_ for most of these locations, note the operative word!






Sooo. your saying the ECS book doesn't have hooks or adventure seeds or stats for monster and NPCs.  Are we reading the same book?


----------



## rounser

> Sooo. your saying the ECS book doesn't have hooks or adventure seeds or stats for monster and NPCs. Are we reading the same book?



An adventure hook with no adventure attached isn't an adventure hook.  It's just a "promising" idea that may never see play, just like a large amount of other worldbuilding material.  Adventures aren't written without hooks; they don't rely on the campaign setting and like the tin man say, "Oh, if only I had a hook, I hope there's some setting bible out there to provide one for me because that's it's realm, really".  No, because an adventure hook is part of an adventure, and in the darn module or home written notes, thank you very much...unless you deign to write one of those Eberron CS hooks into an adventure, in which case well done, you've done something constructive: adventure design.


----------



## gizmo33

rounser said:
			
		

> An adventure hook with no adventure attached isn't an adventure hook.




Right on.  I was saying the same thing to the guy in the sporting goods store about fish hooks!  I was like "where's my free rod, dude?"  I wish people knew what hook meant.


----------



## Imaro

rounser said:
			
		

> An adventure hook with no adventure attached isn't an adventure hook.  It's just a "promising" idea that may never see play, just like a large amount of other worldbuilding material.  Adventures aren't written without hooks; they don't rely on the campaign setting and like the tin man say, "Oh, if only I had a hook, I hope there's some setting bible out there to provide one for me because that's it's realm, really".  No, because an adventure hook is part of an adventure, and in the darn module or home written notes, thank you very much...unless you deign to write one of those Eberron CS hooks into an adventure, in which case well done, you've done something constructive: adventure design.




Let me get this straight rounser, you're telling me the only "constructive work" for a DM is designing adventures?  Again color me confused. 

No one said adventures rely on a campaign setting...but the campaign setting can help to enrich the adventures.  If I'm playing in a grim world of sword and sorcery and my DM run's my character through Bobo's clowny clown adventures in toon-land...Yeah he made an adventure, and I'll be the first to say it was not constructive...if anything it's probably detrimental to us continuing the game.

Yes this is an extreme example, but no more extreme than you narrowing down what constitutes world building, as well as attributing a certain playstyle to encompass all of worldbuilding(the DM showing off his world over the actual play of the game).  So you see, when you make up your own reality to pose a question in you can't help but be right.


----------



## rounser

> Right on. I was saying the same thing to the guy in the sporting goods store about fish hooks! I was like "where's my free rod, dude?" I wish people knew what hook meant.



That's a lousy analogy.  Okay, here's a story title - "Lord of the Blue Reef".  It's a story title because I say it is, even though the story's not written.  But according to you it's just as good as a story which is written with a title, and it's ready to use.  Except that's nonsense.


----------



## rounser

> Let me get this straight rounser, you're telling me the only "constructive work" for a DM is designing adventures? Again color me confused.



No, I said "you've done something constructive", and a lot more likely to see play than working out thousands of years of campaign world history, or creation myths etc.  The problem is that worldbuilding is often prioritised far above said adventure design, because it's easy and fun, but not necessarily very useful to supporting gameplay in the same way an actual adventure is.  That's all.  You'll now go and say again "but it can inspire adventures".  So what?  Adventures can inspire a better setting, as we've already covered in this thread.  And arbitrary worldbuilding can shackle the kind of adventures that can be made, because it's usually done first and foremost as an end in itself.


----------



## gizmo33

rounser said:
			
		

> That's a lousy analogy.  Okay, here's a story title - "Lord of the Blue Reef".  It's a story title because I say it is, even though the story's not written.  But according to you it's just as good as a story which is written with a title, and it's ready to use.  Except that's nonsense.




Hey, if it was nonsense I would have resorted to ridicule.

Anyway, if "Story title - Lord of the Blue Reef" is a representative example of an adventure hook, then the Eberron CS must be a really short book!  Are the adventure hooks just given like that in a bulleted list?  How did you spot them?


----------



## Ourph

rounser said:
			
		

> Because adventure hooks are part of adventures, and encounter level material with stats and whatnot is far too low level to make it into a book as setting material unless it's Wilderlands.  Everyone and their dog knows that such material is part of an adventure, as in what Dungeon magazine is full of as opposed to Eberron CS.  If you had a leg to stand on, the only encounter level material in the FRCS wouldn't be in it as (ta-da) an adventure in the back of the book, apart from the occasional NPC stat for Elminster and the like.



When did I become responsible for what's contained in a published setting book or adventure periodical I had no hand in writing?  I get from the statement above that anything you know about your world which doesn't have an adventure directly attached to it is worldbuilding.  So I'll ask again, how is having a hex-map of the wilderness NOT worldbuilding.  Do you really have an adventure or encounter planned out for every hex?  Alternately, how is knowing which monsters to put in all of those encounters you have statted out NOT a product of worldbuilding.  If you don't know, in general, what monsters your campaign setting contains and where they might be found, how can you create encounters in the first place?



> We've been down this road earlier in the thread, and what was said by your side didn't make sense then, and it doesn't now.  I'm using adapted Dungeon magazine _adventures_ for most of these locations, note the operative word!



I still don't think you're adequately explaining how placing those adventures or encounters within the context of your campaign so that the players can stumble across them isn't worldbuilding.  Yes, it's worldbuilding directly tied to incorporating adventures into the campaign, but it's definitely worldbuilding.  I think the whole point of this discussion at this juncture is that defining worldbuilding as an activity that inherently has nothing to do with adventure-level campaign planning is disingenuous and a perfect example of synechdoche.  Defining worldbuilding as only encompassing macro-level creation which will never have any application to planning encounters or adventures simply isn't a reasonable definition of worldbuilding.  It may be a reasonable definition of bad worldbuilding or wasteful worldbuilding, but it does not encompass the entire activity of worldbuilding as most reasonable people envision it.


----------



## Imaro

rounser said:
			
		

> That's a lousy analogy.  Okay, here's a story title - "Lord of the Blue Reef".  It's a story title because I say it is, even though the story's not written.  But according to you it's just as good as a story which is written with a title, and it's ready to use.  Except that's nonsense.




  I got the impression he's saying just like a rod & hook...they work better together...and if your a fisherman, then you're going to use both. 

That's a title, not a story's hook, you know the thing that pulls the reader in and makes them want to actually read the story.  Without a good one most publishers aren't accepting your story...so you could also say without a good hook what's the reason any PC has interest in experiencing this adventure?


----------



## gizmo33

rounser said:
			
		

> That's a lousy analogy.




Oh, and as far as analogy goes:  You can buy fish hooks for any rod, mix and match.  By the same token, my world-building DM insists that you can apply an adventure hook to other adventures!  It's like if you have a castle from an adventure, and an adventure hook that mentions a castle.

What he fails to realize is that the DM might have to make a handful of changes to the adventure in order to integrate it with the hook.  If I was that kind of genius I'd probably be making millions putting fishing hooks on lines!


----------



## Ourph

rounser said:
			
		

> No, I said "you've done something constructive", and a lot more likely to see play than working out thousands of years of campaign world history, or creation myths etc.  The problem is that worldbuilding is often prioritised far above said adventure design, because it's easy and fun, but not necessarily very useful to supporting gameplay in the same way an actual adventure is.  That's all.  You'll now go and say again "but it can inspire adventures".  So what?  Adventures can inspire a better setting, as we've already covered in this thread.  And arbitrary worldbuilding can shackle the kind of adventures that can be made, because it's usually done first and foremost as an end in itself.



So essentially your argument comes down to the nonsensical assertion that because worldbuilding CAN be bad, all worldbuilding IS bad.  I get it now.


----------



## gizmo33

Imaro said:
			
		

> ...so you could also say without a good hook what's the reason any PC has interest in experiencing this adventure?




But a "good hook" is the kind of thing sounds like it's full of world-building details.  People, names, places, and their activities - probably in a context that involves other people and places in order to establish some sort of "meaning" to the events.  

Bah.  Here's a good hook world-builders:  "roll for initiative."  That gets me sucked right into the story, which is about me killing monsters and taking their stuff.  Everything else is just the DM flaunting his literacy and creativity, and that's just embarrasing to watch.


----------



## gizmo33

rounser said:
			
		

> No, I said "you've done something constructive", and a lot more likely to see play than working out thousands of years of campaign world history, or creation myths etc.




Yea, creation myths just gives background as to why gods behave in certain ways which in turn explains the motivation of their followers.  The motivation for evil cultists should be to stand in the right place for me to use my Great Cleave.  That other nonsense about what they're doing or why is superfluous. 



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> And arbitrary worldbuilding can shackle the kind of adventures that can be made, because it's usually done first and foremost as an end in itself.




"First and foremost" the real priority ought to be to entertain me.  After all, the DM has forced me to force him to run a game for me, so he might as well deliver instead of complaining about me coming into his house unannounced and waking him up (sleep also contributes nothing to the adventure as I remind him).  If he's writing some kind of nonsense to inspire himself to be interested in the campaign setting, or tickle the curiousity of the poofier players in our group, how is that getting me any closer to epic level?


----------



## Darth Shoju

rounser said:
			
		

> Yehah, it's all in my imagination.  People do it through example, just look at ENWorld.  The automatic new campaign thing is "what published setting should I use" or "check out my new homebrew setting ideas".  The sound of crickets with regard to adventures or campaign arc material is deafening, and that's not even beginning to count the real life DMs I've met who put worldbuilding first and foremost as, YES, more important than the adventures.  It's more fun and a lot easier to write about empires that never were, and the role of dwarves in the world than it is to write "a tower of orcs" as one WOTC designer who felt he was above such nitty gritty referred to it as.  I can understand why people would prefer to worldbuild (I like to do it too), and so spend a good deal more time on it than strictly necessary to support a D&D game.  But denial of that reality is what this thread is all about, so why stop now?




Well to clarify, I meant that I don't think anyone is saying that in the context of this thread. I agree that there are people who put worldbuilding above adventure design (I was one of them in my younger days), but I disagree that it is as widespread as you claim. Looking at the first two pages of the messageboards here, I found the following threads that seem to focus on designing adventures: 

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=196039
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=102706
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=194818
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195992

Granted, there are a lot of threads that deal with campaigns, and these threads also feature developing a setting along with the adventure, but I really don't see how the two have to be mutually exclusive. Personally, I want to play fun adventures in an interesting setting with cool characters. Putting some work into developing the setting is important to that IMO.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How does this differ from the map in White Plume Mountain?
> 
> Where is the magical cutoff point between "creating atmosphere" and "worldbuilding"?  One word?  One paragraph?  One page?
> 
> *snip*
> 
> RC




Where is the cutoff between art and porn?  There isn't one.  I've stated that directly.  It's a spectrum with all plot and no world building on one end and Trek Tech manuals on the other.  I've stated this repeatedly.


----------



## rounser

> Looking at the first two pages of the messageboards here, I found the following threads that seem to focus on designing adventures:



And not a single encounter detailed out of any of that.  No stats, nothing written up in a usable form.  This isn't adventure design as such, it's just brainstorming ideas with no follow-through.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Does this include the nobility of Sasserine?  Does this include the DM background that players can never discover (something I'm not familiar with, btw; whyever _couldn't_ the players discover it?)?




Again, strawman.  I did not say that they could NEVER discover it.  What I said was that the chances of the nobility of Sasserine becoming involved with the party is extremely small.  You are the one advocating that the players can interact with kings at first level.



> You might also consider the Dungeoncraft articles related to a prehistoric setting, which (while suggesting not building more than you have to) certainly suggests that you build up details such as what sorts of gods are in the world, how the hook of the world affects PC class/race choices, who's in charge of the settlement, and background secrets that the PCs may or may not discover through the course of play. IOW, all of those things that some in this thread believe unnecessary or a waste of time.




Actually, yes, I would consider a lot of that completely unnecessary and a waste of time.  You DON'T HAVE TO DO IT.  You can run perfectly fun games without it.  It's setting porn.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> You may consider this an admission of the "bad worldbuilding is bad" tautology, but I'd call it the "most of what is considered worldbuilding will probably never see play in a meaningful way, unless it's anchored to an adventure or otherwise affects the PCs directly."




I <3 Rounser.  



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Please explain to me how encounter level prep isn't worldbuilding. Please also explain to me how creating multiple potential adventure hooks, having a pre-created hex wilderness with pre-placed encounters and incorporating the lead-ins for pregenerated adventures from Dungeon magazine into the campaign aren't all worldbuilding.




Because you are conflating setting with world building.  Any adventure needs encounters of some sort, just as any story needs setting of some sort.  What adventures and stories don't necessarily need is world building.

If I have a dungeon with a simple T junction and two rooms, there is a reasonable chance that the PC's will visit either room.  Thus, I need to stat out both rooms, even though the PC's may not visit both.  However, in order to have a setting at all, I still need to do both rooms.  However, where world building would come in would be if I added a third room, only accessable by a massive DC (far higher than the PC's are capable of), completely hidden from view.  Sure, the PC's could return later and open the door when they are higher level, but they have no reason to do so.  It's superfluous.  It's world building.

Setting and world building are not synonymous.  Conflating the two is what is causing all the problems.  If something is where the action happens, then it's setting.  If it moves beyond where the action happens, then it's world building.  There is no cut off here. There is no magic point where the canvas becomes a painting.  There is merely a spectrum from one end to the other.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar and rounser...I get the impression you two would be perfectly happy playing in an endless dungeoncrawl of room after room of encounters with no contexual basis or consistency from game to game...because essentially that's what it seems like your advocating as the penultimate in "real DM work".  I gotta call BS on this, cause I can get that from numerous 8-bit videogames released in the 80's.  So why play D&D?  What does it offer, using your prescribed philosophy, that I can't get out of a videogame?  If worldbuilding wasn't important to players I don't think games like FFVII and Kingdom Hearts would be top sellers.  Claim whatever you will, but my impression is that people do enjoy and even crave this type of versimillitude.

IMHO this philosophy of "adventure design is all important" is an archaic concept that's dated and shouold go the way of the dinosaur. It offers nothing that a MMORPG can't offer.  And guess what, then we can all play and my workload is non-exsistant...the ultimate in work-waste management.  I'll tell you why, because it's also a creative outlet, that's why.  The more I feed my players in the creativity department, the more I'll get bach...at least in my experience.  My players can come to actually care about and invest in a world that seems real...encounter after encounter is played exactly how it sounds...boooooring.


----------



## I'm A Banana

RC said:
			
		

> Any of them reguler EN World posters?




I'm the requisite great clomping nerd of the group. None of the rest of 'em feel inclined at all to spend hours discussing the game here. 



> Or, better yet, maybe you'll get a chance to run a no-prep game for me at some point.




I wouldn't rule it out, but this hippo don't jump through flaming hoops. I'm not going to DM for anyone to prove something. If I DM for you it'll be because we hang out and get to talking and I mention a game idea you have interest in or you mention a character idea I can work with. Just like how it happens with all my players. 



> I've changed my mind before when it made sense to do so; I'm not changing it on your say-so.




I'm not an authority on my own games? Like I said, if you want to say that no personal experience with it = it's not possible (until proven otherwise), no one can convince you otherwise. I'm willing to believe that people run perfectly open and fun games with 256-page setting bibles, even though I have no experience with it, because I pretty much trust people to not keep doing what isn't fun.



> If you took a writing class (or read some good books on writing), you would know that stories are composed of setting, plot, theme, style, and character.




This isn't an internet wang-measuring contest, man. Classes and training are meaningless. A *child* has the ability to tell a compelling story. It probably won't be any work of literary genius, but it really doesn't need to be. No one who loved _Eragon_ seems to really care. Ditto with D&D games.



> While our modern take on this seems to focus on plot, plot hasn't always been the most important part of all fiction. There is much of Dickens, for instance, that focuses on setting, and while most people can tell you something of the theme of Uncle Tom's Cabin, few know the plot. Virginia Woolf focused largely on character.
> 
> The best stories, I would argue, are not the page-turners, but the ones that balance these elements well. Where plot, setting, theme, style, and character all become melded to the point where you cannot easily remove bits of one without unravelling bits of the others. This is very similar to the LotR movies, where every change made by PJ required more changes down the road, altering plot, theme, and character -- and, ultimately, style and setting as well -- in order to accomodate them.
> 
> I would argue that the same is true for D&D games.




Your arguments are pretty much subjective to *you* though. I don't need a finely crafted balancing act to have a fun time in a room with four of my friends for a few hours. In fact, the more finely crafted it is, the more it feels to me like someone should be alone in a room crafting this instead of in a room full of other people. 

I don't demand anything near perfection for an enjoyable night of D&D. Those who do -- those who obsess over minutiae in regards to such a pointless, disposable activity as pretending to be an elf because it's fun for them -- are exactly the great clomping nerds of Harrison's post. 

Don't assume that what makes a good D&D game for you makes an objectively good D&D game. 



> In one session, my players decided to wait three months so that the paladin could get a custom suit of armour made. I gave them a quick summary of what occurred during that time, including news of the death of a distant prince and mention that a chess-like game played with carved dragons on a circular board had become a local fad. The players appreciated the last detail (even though it was irrelevant to anything) and had their PCs spend time learning the game. They even bought an expensive board.
> 
> Things become relevant because the players and/or the DM make them so.




I could have pulled the same thing out of my head on the fly. I have. This isn't a case that my way is badwrongfun. It's just proof that your way makes use of some throw-away topics. Which is that little bit of improv that I'm sure every able DM possesses -- that little bit that can be spiraled into "practically all preparation" if one wishes. 



> This wasn't part of an adventure, and didn't need to impact the players directly at all. They chose to make it impact them. It is my job to be the facilitator of opportunities to make the adventure matter, the world matter, and the characters matter.
> 
> Doing less is.....well, it results in less.




Less than what? Pulling two or three events out of a mental hat to happen during downtime requires exactly as much prep as that: a few seconds to think of some events.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:
			
		

> Hussar and rounser...I get the impression you two would be perfectly happy playing in an endless dungeoncrawl of room after room of encounters with no contexual basis or consistency from game to game...because essentially that's what it seems like your advocating as the penultimate in "real DM work".  I gotta call BS on this, cause I can get that from numerous 8-bit videogames released in the 80's.  So why play D&D?  What does it offer, using your prescribed philosophy, that I can't get out of a videogame?  If worldbuilding wasn't important to players I don't think games like FFVII and Kingdom Hearts would be top sellers.  Claim whatever you will, but my impression is that people do enjoy and even crave this type of versimillitude.
> 
> IMHO this philosophy of "adventure design is all important" is an archaic concept that's dated and shouold go the way of the dinosaur. It offers nothing that a MMORPG can't offer.  And guess what, then we can all play and my workload is non-exsistant...the ultimate in work-waste management.  I'll tell you why, because it's also a creative outlet, that's why.  The more I feed my players in the creativity department, the more I'll get bach...at least in my experience.  My players can come to actually care about and invest in a world that seems real...encounter after encounter is played exactly how it sounds...boooooring.




Wow, took this many pages to bring in the comparison to video games Godwin.  Nice.  

Look, I've said it before, but I'll say it again.  I am not stating that setting is bad.  That would be stupid.  You need a setting, whether it be a massive dungeon, outdoor wilderness or steampunk city or whatever.  That goes without saying.  

However, the idea that adventure design is all important is by no means an archaic concept.  You cannot play without an adventure of some sort, even if it's just a blank sheet of graph paper and a random encounter chart.  At some point you would have to create that random encounter chart and thus, setting.  

You can have all the setting books in the world but, without an adventure, what you have are some pretty books.  Until such time as you sit down and do the nuts and bolts of designing an (or several) adventure (or adventures), nothing is going to happen at your gaming table.  No matter how you slice it, adventure design is the primary purpose of the DM.  He can write all the backstory to his campaign world that he likes, but, until that adventure gets made, nothing happens.  All the players can do is ooh and ahh about how smart their DM is to create such interesting campaign worlds.

Not exactly my idea of a fun night.

You mention top selling video games.  Do people play World of Warcraft to be wowed about the history of Azeroth or do they play to kill stuff and take the treasure?  I'm thinking that if you removed the combat aspects from FF or WOW, you wouldn't have too many players.  While Myst was fun for a while, it certainly never approached the levels of popularity that WOW has.

Again, once more.

Setting =/= World buiding.

All stories have setting but not all stories have world building, thus there must be something different about the two.  IMO, the difference is how relavent the ideas are to the plot of the story.  If it is relavent, then it is setting, if it's not, or at least not terribly, relavent, then it's world building.

Putting Dragotha on the edge of the player's map in White Plume Mountain is the equivalent of saying "Here be Dragyns" (Which is somewhat ironic considering what came later  )  It fits with the atmosphere of the adventure where the players are traveling to unknown parts to face whatever.  It becomes world building if, in White Plume Mountain, the author had spent pages detailing Dragotha when you cannot actually go there within the context of the module.

So, again, there is a spectrum.  At one end you have numerous stories with little setting at all and at the other you have books which are all setting like the Star Trek Tech Manuals.  World building is an indulgence.  It is mostly unnecessary.


----------



## rounser

> Hussar and rounser...I get the impression you two would be perfectly happy playing in an endless dungeoncrawl of room after room of encounters with no contexual basis or consistency from game to game...because essentially that's what it seems like your advocating as the penultimate in "real DM work".



Oh heck no, endless dungeon crawls bore me to tears.  In fact quite the opposite; I'm a big believer in Director's Cut dungeons, hacking out all the guard rooms and empty rooms and other timewasting junk that creeps into your typical Dungeon magazine dungeon.  I've already related what I'm into from a past attempt at a baseless ad hominem attack on me based on glaring assumptions just like your attempt, but here it is again:

My ideal campaign is one with multiple adventure hooks available at any one time (WITH actual adventures behind them) that are presented to the PCs - a collection of events, quests, and rumours of status quo locations.  If none of them appeal they have the option of exploring the admittedly very small setting, just stumbling across populated hexes in the wilderness (and finding detailed lairs, dungeons, magical features etc.) or running into geomorphed trouble in the single city or two towns.  The adventures that the PCs choose to complete are in many cases tied to campaign arc's villains, and PC choice of where to go and what adventures to play effectively determines the course of the campaign arc, and which villains end up dominating.  

I've never pulled this off completely to my satisfaction, but that's the ideal - a matrix campaign arc with lots of player choice and a setting that responds to those PC choices in a direct manner, because the campaign arc dictates how powerful the villains are and what they do to the setting based on what challenges the PCs overcome and when.  And the world?  I could give two hoots about it beyond the tiny microcosmic wilderness map it provides, it's generic D&D cliche all the way, because the adventures and the campaign arc are the interesting parts.  Last time I attempted this I didn't even have a setting beyond the needs of Dungeon magazine adventures all plugged together.

As noted earlier in the thread, I'm now plotting how to reduce the redundancy of the matrix model with scaling, such that if PCs skip several adventures, the problems they're about escalate and become harder to deal with later on (read, the ELs go up to challenge the current PC level, and the adventures may change as the current key villain gets involved).


----------



## Hussar

Y'know, been thinking.  I think that RC and Ourph and the others are right in one thing.

World Building isn't bad.  It's not about good or bad.

To me, world building is an indulgence.  It's about the writer (or the DM) taking the time to go beyond what is required by the plot to indulge his own whims and fetishes for creation.  It really is like desert.  You don't have to eat desert, but, it does taste good.

But, like any indulgence it becomes a problem when it takes over.  We can forgive a bit of indulgence once in a while.  It happens to all of us.  So long as the point is not all about the indulgence but rather, the focus is on the meat of the meal.  Ok, I'm stretching the analogy too far, but, I think you get the point.  

And, really, a lot of setting stuff is pure indulgence.  It doesn't really ever feature in a particular campaign.  There's an excellent editorial by Matt Sernett in Dragon 322.  He says:



			
				Matt Sernett said:
			
		

> Like a lot of D&D players, I'm tinkering with an idea for a new campaign world.  And, like many new campaign worlds, my idea for a fantasy setting had its genesis in frustration with the settings available...
> 
> Of course, I'm still a long way from having a whole setting in which to run games.  To make my campaign world, I'll check out the campaign creation advice soon to be published in Dungeon ...
> 
> Like a lot of D&D players, I'm prone to creating new campaigns at the drop of a hat.  My grim, dark fantasy world where monsters rule massive city states might not see the light of day, but its fun to tinker with and a joy to talk about with others.  Like compulsively making new PCs, creating new worlds for D&D games is a hobby within a hobby, providing yet another reason to love this game.




Note that last bit.  Creating campaigns and PC's is fun.  Nothing about making adventures.  Making adventures is work.  We don't crank out a 24 encounter dungeon at the drop of a hat.  People fiddle about with making campaign settings because it's easy and it looks like you are doing something that will help your game.  People don't sit down and do the meat and potatoes because they'd rather eat apple crisp.


----------



## gizmo33

Hussar said:
			
		

> All the players can do is ooh and ahh about how smart their DM is to create such interesting campaign worlds.




I wouldn't give the bum the satisfaction.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Not exactly my idea of a fun night.




Mine is yelling at people that write poetry and don't publish it.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> You mention top selling video games.  Do people play World of Warcraft to be wowed about the history of Azeroth or do they play to kill stuff and take the treasure?




Kill stuff and take treasure of course!  Everyone knows that the internet is the last bastion of refinement and good taste, so what else would one expect?  Besides, the programming it takes to provide world-based roleplaying opportunities for thousands of roving guild-hordes is child's play.  It's a lot harder to make decent hack-n-slash.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Setting =/= World buiding.




Yea, setting is that thinest of pretenses that I need to start killing stuff.  Anything beyond that and people might start asking for explanations and context and that just leads to a lot of "oohing" and "aahing" that I don't want to hear unless it's people being amazed at my quick Power Attack calculations.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> All stories have setting but not all stories have world building, thus there must be something different about the two.




The ideal setting floats in outer-space.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> IMO, the difference is how relavent the ideas are to the plot of the story.  If it is relavent, then it is setting, if it's not, or at least not terribly, relavent, then it's world building.




And immediately relevant too.  There's nothing I hate more than that smug look on the DM's face when some detail becomes relevant 10 adventures after it was described.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> It becomes world building if, in White Plume Mountain, the author had spent pages detailing Dragotha when you cannot actually go there within the context of the module.




They detailed those three magic items and you couldn't even keep them!  That was completely useless.  In fact the trident had power over the sea and the ocean was miles away from the dungeon.  Telling me that the items were returned to their owners, and describing the names of owners and such is completely useless unless you're going to let me kill those guys later and take back the items.  And Sir Bluto, and the "River of Blood mass murder case"?  I'm getting sleepy just thinking about it.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> World building is an indulgence.  It is mostly unnecessary.




Here, here!  I wish my DM would check with me before he does stuff.


----------



## gizmo33

Hussar said:
			
		

> Actually, yes, I would consider a lot of that completely unnecessary and a waste of time.  You DON'T HAVE TO DO IT.  You can run perfectly fun games without it.  It's setting porn.




The thought of the DM sitting at home working on "world-building" while no one is watching is so transparently erotic that "porn" is really the only dignified comparison.  He should be ashamed!


----------



## Hussar

Wow, ad hominem attacks just leaping out of the woodwork.


----------



## pemerton

This afternoon I was looking through some notes for my old Greyhawk campaign, setting out an integrated theology for a bunch of Greyhawk deities based loosely on debates between realists and idealists in pre-Twentieth Century metaphysics and philosophy of mind.

Is this an example of pointless worldbuilding? None of the players in that campaign was a philosopher, and we never had a cleric PC, so most of this detail never really came out in play. On the other hand, it gave me the basis for presenting the world and its NPCs to my players, and one thing that they enjoyed about the campaign was a degree of depth - both of detail and theme - which allowed them to build plots and plans and relationships of a high degree of complexity.

My GMing style at the table is very much to wing the details, joining together locations or vignettes from various modules or campaign settings and letting my players do the work of building a plot. Often, this also invovles converting AD&D or D20 material to Rolemaster on the fly. I find that the time spent worldbuilding supports this sort of play - it gives me the raw material to work from as a GM. And I think that that time is less time, and easier, than adventure design, because it is less technical, and really just involves adapting bits and pieces of history or philosophy that I'm already thinking about to a pre-published set of maps and setting descriptions - Greyhawk, or for our current campaign Kara-Tur (where the behind-the-scenes worldbuilding involves competing interpretations of Buddhist teachings on enlilghtenment and emptiness - I've found it surprisingly easiy to integrate the Cthulhu-esque elements of the Freeport Trilogy, shorn of its railroading, into this previously developed framework for the campaign).

A fiinal comment on adventure building: at the moment I'm reading Expedition to the Demon Web Pits. 



*SPOILERS MAY FOLLOW*​


One of the authors is Wolfgang Baur, who seems to have a pretty good reputation. But with every page, I'm just amazed by the railroading in this module.  Perhaps I'm out of touch with contemporary adventure design - it's the first Wizards module I've bought for a few years.

But I look at what the authors assume players will have their characters do more or less cause the GM says so (through a one-dimensional NPC puppet) and I try to imagine what would happen if I ran this adventure as written, with my group. They would never take the bait, and the adventure would never get off the ground.

Hence my hesitation to design adventures, in the sense of sequences of plot for the players to work their way through. I prefer to have a collection of NPCs and settings - and I can buy or download these much more easily than writing my own - and then to let the allies and adversaries for the campaign evolve through play and the players' own choices, and to rely on my sense of the campaign background to guide me in linking it all together as the session actually unfolds.

To use some GNS terminology, I think that this produces a type of primarily simulationist play, but with some satisfaction also of the players' narrativist urges, as they have a significant role in determining the way in which thematic content emerges, and their PCs relate to it. (There's quite a bit of gamism there also, but that tends to be confined to character building - which RM supports to a high degree - and to emerge much less during play itself.)


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Why don't we discuss what bad worldbuilding is, why it happens, common pitfalls, etc.  That would be more interesting to me than going round-and-round on this same issue.





That would actually be interesting.  Somewhere up there, in one post, I mentioned a few "bad worldbuilding" problems.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> just look at ENWorld.  The automatic new campaign thing is "what published setting should I use" or "check out my new homebrew setting ideas".  The sound of crickets with regard to adventures or campaign arc material is deafening





Is it even slightly possible that people simply feel they need/want more input on the macro-level than on the micro-level?  Is it possible that their players also visit EN World, and thus they don't want to post actual encounters?

(Mine do, but I still did three threads with actual encounters, one of which was lost to the system crash.)

Where are all these story hours coming from if no one does encounter-level work?!?


----------



## rounser

> Is it possible that their players also visit EN World, and thus they don't want to post actual encounters?



Yes, it's possible, but more likely it's too much like hard work.  Ephemeral high level bollocks is much easier to come up with, admit it.  I sure will.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> An adventure hook with no adventure attached isn't an adventure hook.  It's just a "promising" idea that may never see play





Isn't it equally true that a complete adventure is a promising idea that may never see play?  (I assume here that the players have enough free will to choose what hooks they follow, and therefore what adventure sites they go to).

Didn't you, earlier, suggest that your own campaign work included laying lots of hooks?  Do you completely write out every adventure before using these hooks?

In my campaigns, I write out an initial adventure location and then go top-up and begin to outline other possible adventure locations.  I do not fully detail these until the PCs are either close enough to follow up on them, or until they show some sign of being interested in that hook.

I consider these to be adventure hooks, and part of both good worldbuilding and adventure design. 

YMMV.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:
			
		

> Wow, took this many pages to bring in the comparison to video games Godwin.  Nice.




Uhm...didn't rag on videogames, so not really seeing what the problem of using videogame rpg's in this discussion...but ok.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Look, I've said it before, but I'll say it again.  I am not stating that setting is bad.  That would be stupid.  You need a setting, whether it be a massive dungeon, outdoor wilderness or steampunk city or whatever.  That goes without saying.
> 
> However, the idea that adventure design is all important is by no means an archaic concept.  You cannot play without an adventure of some sort, even if it's just a blank sheet of graph paper and a random encounter chart.  At some point you would have to create that random encounter chart and thus, setting.




Never disagreed about needing an adventure, my disagreement is with the all or nothing idea that you and rounser seem to be pushing that...worldbuilding is a waste of time...so I'm not getting how this in anyway addresses worldbuilding being "a waste of time".  I personally don't think either is a waste of time and both complement each other in the type of games I play.

Which is a far cry from D&D in it's beginning when there ws no "real setting" and it was a bunch of adventure released.  Very little coherency, no real context...unless you got a series that ran in an arc.  That was great when I first got into the game, but as you grow to want more than just encounter after encounter...settings appeared.  This was an evolution of the game, for those who wanted more out of it, whether through a home-brew world or published campaign.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> You can have all the setting books in the world but, without an adventure, what you have are some pretty books.  Until such time as you sit down and do the nuts and bolts of designing an (or several) adventure (or adventures), nothing is going to happen at your gaming table.  No matter how you slice it, adventure design is the primary purpose of the DM.  He can write all the backstory to his campaign world that he likes, but, until that adventure gets made, nothing happens.  All the players can do is ooh and ahh about how smart their DM is to create such interesting campaign worlds.
> 
> Not exactly my idea of a fun night.




Once again you seem to be under the impression that I think adventures are a waste of time...no, I've never posted anything on this thread to that effect.  I have addressed the issue of worldbuilding as a waste.

Ok, you don't like videogames, well let's go to boardgames.  What do you get out of your prescribed "way" of running a campaign without worldbuilding, that you don't get with a boardgame like Descent?  It gives you encounters, ever changing adventures and is even cheaper overall than buying the D&D core.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> You mention top selling video games.  Do people play World of Warcraft to be wowed about the history of Azeroth or do they play to kill stuff and take the treasure?  I'm thinking that if you removed the combat aspects from FF or WOW, you wouldn't have too many players.  While Myst was fun for a while, it certainly never approached the levels of popularity that WOW has.




Switch and bait cool I was talking Final Fantasy VII, which as of Dec. 2005 sold 9.8 million units while as of 2007 WoW has 8million subscribers...FFVII is still beating it in popularity(and it's only one of a series of best selling games.  The funny thing is it's MMORPG didn't do all that great, something like 500,000 subscribers.  I would have to concur that part of this is people totally dissapointed that it doesn't give them a "FF experience").  The one player games are full of extraneous stuff...but you know what, people apparently loved it.  Otherwise why are  they buying it?  My own oppinion is it gives them a feeling of being part of something bigger.  Oh yeah and don't kid yourself WoW definitely has worldbuilding elements in it.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, once more.
> 
> Setting =/= World buiding.
> 
> All stories have setting but not all stories have world building, thus there must be something different about the two.  IMO, the difference is how relavent the ideas are to the plot of the story.  If it is relavent, then it is setting, if it's not, or at least not terribly, relavent, then it's world building.




So what is it if you as a DM make it relevant, even though it might not have been before?  I still believe your argument is flawed in the assumption that a good DM can make any part of his world relevant to the adventures and the PC's





			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> So, again, there is a spectrum.  At one end you have numerous stories with little setting at all and at the other you have books which are all setting like the Star Trek Tech Manuals.  World building is an indulgence.  It is mostly unnecessary.




No disagreement here, because in my oppinion it's the balance of both that make a great game.  YMMV of course.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Where is the cutoff between art and porn?  There isn't one.




OK, let's say that you actually believe this (as opposed to merely having stated it repeatedly).

It then follows, if there is no cutoff, either that art is a form of porn, or porn a form of art, or both.  They are part and parcel of the same thing, right?

Following that logic, it would then follow, if there is no cutoff, that either worldbuilding is a form of setting design, or setting design is a form of worldbuilding, or both.  They are part and parcel of the same thing, right?

So either there is a cutoff point (and they are distinct) or there is no cutoff point (and they are not distinct).  What you cannot have (rationally, anyway) is a situation where creating setting is not worldbuilding, but where there is no cutoff between worldbuilding and creating setting.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, strawman.  I did not say that they could NEVER discover it.  What I said was that the chances of the nobility of Sasserine becoming involved with the party is extremely small.  You are the one advocating that the players can interact with kings at first level.




I was merely pointing out the difference in your and Rounser's positions.

To Rounser, if it is part of the module, it is part of the adventure, and this is obvious (and should be obvious to all).  To you, this is neither obvious nor true.


----------



## Hussar

> Where are all these story hours coming from if no one does encounter-level work?!?




Of course people are doing encounter level work.  You have to in order to have an adventure.  That's a given.  However, what's also fairly apparent is that there is an awful lot of macro level stuff being lobbed around as if it really mattered.

I stand astounded by Fargoth.  I really do stand back and gape in awe at the amount of work that has gone into that site.  There's just unbelievable amounts of stuff there.  Yet, for all the massive amount of material there, how much actual adventure creation has been done?  People have written thousands of words detailing numerous countries and lands, yet, I cannot find a single adventure set in those lands.  Look at their Forums.  Numerous forums dedicated to all sorts of elements found in the setting.  Yet not a single forum dedicated to creating adventures.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> None of the rest of 'em feel inclined at all to spend hours discussing the game here.






> I wouldn't rule it out, but this hippo don't jump through flaming hoops. I'm not going to DM for anyone to prove something.




That's what I thought.



> I'm not an authority on my own games?




Sure.  What you are not (and cannot be) is an authority on how your games measure up in comparison to the average game, or the games of anyone you haven't played with.  It's all well and fine to say "I can make as rich and detailed a world off the top of my head as you can with prep work" but you don't know how rich and detailed a world the other guy's is, and therefore it means nothing.

As a result, I'll go with my experience over your say-so, just as you'll presumably go with your experience over mine.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:
			
		

> So what is it if you as a DM make it relevant, even though it might not have been before? I still believe your argument is flawed in the assumption that a good DM can make any part of his world relevant to the adventures and the PC's




In other words, taking a minor element, such as Dragotha and spinning it into an entire adventure?  That's fine, so long as the adventure is about Dragotha.  However, detailing Dragotha in White Plume Mountain would make zero sense since WPM isn't about Dragotha.

See the problem I have is this idea that the DM can make any element relavent.  There's a very, very short step between making any element relavent and ramming his six page elven tea ceremonies down my throat.  

Or, to put it another way, how exactly would you make the Five Shires relavent to the Isle of Dread within the context of that adventure?  After all, the Five Shires is (briefly) detailed in the module.  So, a good DM should be able to make it relavent.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I was merely pointing out the difference in your and Rounser's positions.
> 
> To Rounser, if it is part of the module, it is part of the adventure, and this is obvious (and should be obvious to all).  To you, this is neither obvious nor true.




And, I would say that it is neither obvious nor true.  There are numerous modules with DM only background information in them that have no real way of being imparted to the players.  Actually, I believe Rounser mentioned this as well.  It's pretty standard to get that one page background at the front of every module.  Yet, most of that background has zero impact on the adventure itself.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OK, let's say that you actually believe this (as opposed to merely having stated it repeatedly).
> 
> It then follows, if there is no cutoff, either that art is a form of porn, or porn a form of art, or both.  They are part and parcel of the same thing, right?
> 
> Following that logic, it would then follow, if there is no cutoff, that either worldbuilding is a form of setting design, or setting design is a form of worldbuilding, or both.  They are part and parcel of the same thing, right?
> 
> So either there is a cutoff point (and they are distinct) or there is no cutoff point (and they are not distinct).  What you cannot have (rationally, anyway) is a situation where creating setting is not worldbuilding, but where there is no cutoff between worldbuilding and creating setting.
> 
> 
> RC




You aren't honestly going to try to tell me that you can definitively point to the exact place where art becomes pornography.  I know that's not what you mean to say when no one else in the entire world has been able to do so.  I know that I'm misreading the above quote somehow and you're not honestly trying to say that you can.

Ok, maybe you're just not understanding my point.

If I take a blank canvas and put a splash of blue on it, is it a painting?  How about two splashes?  Is it when all the paint has been applied and the finished product is dry?  Perhaps the second last dab in the upper left corner?  No?  Then, I can pretty much say that there is no point at which a blank canvas becomes a painting.  I can point to a blank canvas and say, "That's NOT a painting" and I can point to the Mona Lisa and say that it is.  However, there's a whole process in the middle where it's neither one nor the other completely.

Thus, the definition of the word spectrum.

It would be a very, very large stretch to say that Waiting for Godot has world building.  It would also be a pretty large stretch to say that a Star Trek Tech Manual isn't pure world building divorced entirely from anything else.  Yet, between those two extremes, we have a whole host of other works.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:
			
		

> In other words, taking a minor element, such as Dragotha and spinning it into an entire adventure?  That's fine, so long as the adventure is about Dragotha.  However, detailing Dragotha in White Plume Mountain would make zero sense since WPM isn't about Dragotha.
> 
> See the problem I have is this idea that the DM can make any element relavent.  There's a very, very short step between making any element relavent and ramming his six page elven tea ceremonies down my throat.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, how exactly would you make the Five Shires relavent to the Isle of Dread within the context of that adventure?  After all, the Five Shires is (briefly) detailed in the module.  So, a good DM should be able to make it relavent.




Don't have the modules...but I'll give it a try
 

How about a halfling from the shires who was captured by brigrands and sold into slavery a few years ago.  He eventually ended up on the Isle of Dread after he was procured by pirates.  After escaping he ends up...actually anywhere you want to put him and if he encounters the PC's begs them to return him to his home.  Of course they have the option to do this or not, but the Shires just became relevant.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Wow, ad hominem attacks just leaping out of the woodwork.




No...That's reducto ad absurdium.

Ad hominem seeks to disprove the point by attacking the person making the point.  This is a fallicious argument.

Reducto ad absurdium seeks to disprove the point by showing how absurd the logical extension of that point is.  This is not a fallicious argument.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> That's what I thought.




Do I detect a hint of smugness?   

I guess I just don't see it as my responsibility to force you to change your mind when, clearly, your requirements for such are above and beyond what I can reasonably accomplish with simple discussions. You don't see me as a credible witness of my own games. 



> Sure. What you are not (and cannot be) is an authority on how your games measure up in comparison to the average game, or the games of anyone you haven't played with. It's all well and fine to say "I can make as rich and detailed a world off the top of my head as you can with prep work" but you don't know how rich and detailed a world the other guy's is, and therefore it means nothing.




X + Y = 4. X + Y can be almost anything. All the players see is the number 4. Good prepwork or good improv, it's invisible to the group, who is much too busy having fun to worry about how the DM lead them to have this fun.

Unless the players are keen-eyed critics eager to find a chink in the DMs armor, or great clomping nerds who are only satisfied by setting porn, in which case they're as bad as rules lawyers: "You're playing this game wrong." 



> As a result, I'll go with my experience over your say-so, just as you'll presumably go with your experience over mine.




I've welcomed the idea that massive setting bibles can lead to a fun game based on hearsay. On discussions with people I assume to be rational and intelligent and reliable witnesses of their own gaming table. 

If your level of keen-eyed suspicion is too great to allow me that same freedom, that same benefit of doubt, then you've quite expertly entrenched yourself in a position that no one else can move you from, because the evidence will never be enough without direct personal experience for you.

You've defied the scientific process because you reject the experimental evidence based simply on your own lack of it. 

Have fun with that.


----------



## Imaro

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> .
> Unless the players are keen-eyed critics eager to find a chink in the DMs armor, or great clomping nerds who are only satisfied by setting porn, in which case they're as bad as rules lawyers: "You're playing this game wrong."




I'm sorry but it doesn't take a keen eyed critic to notice flaws in logic, especially when they have effects on the character he/she is playing.  You're really over generalizing here.
If what your "improv'ing" results in bad results for my character and I see a chink, I'm gonna call you on it.  Why shouldn't I?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I've welcomed the idea that massive setting bibles can lead to a fun game based on hearsay. On discussions with people I assume to be rational and intelligent and reliable witnesses of their own gaming table.



 So you started this thread because...?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> You aren't honestly going to try to tell me that you can definitively point to the exact place where art becomes pornography.




Nope.  But then, I believe that pornography is a subset of art.  



> If I take a blank canvas and put a splash of blue on it, is it a painting?  How about two splashes?  Is it when all the paint has been applied and the finished product is dry?  Perhaps the second last dab in the upper left corner?  No?




The answer to all of the questions is yes.  It might be a crappy painting, or an incomplete painting, but it is a painting.  Hence, I can pretty much say that there is a point at which a blank canvas becomes a painting.



> It would be a very, very large stretch to say that Waiting for Godot has world building.  It would also be a pretty large stretch to say that a Star Trek Tech Manual isn't pure world building divorced entirely from anything else.  Yet, between those two extremes, we have a whole host of other works.




Waiting for Godot has very little worldbuilding, as, except for the names of the characters, there is almost nothing that moves it from the general to the specific.  A Star Trek Tech Manual is pure worldbuilding (creation and exploration of setting) because it has no plot, character, or theme elements.  It also moves from the general to the specific.

Logical consistency of an argument.  Gotta love it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You don't see me as a credible witness of my own games.




Of course I do.  I merely don't see you as a credible witness of how _your games relate to the games of others_.  Or, more accurately, I don't see you as a _more credible witness_ as to how various styles of games relate than myself, which is what I would have to do to accept that your statements trump my experience.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> X + Y = 4. X + Y can be almost anything. All the players see is the number 4.





OK...Here's the thing.  X and Y _cannot_ be almost anything.  They have to be two things which, together, equal the number 4.

Another way to look at this:

Imagine that you're learning to drive a car.

Your mother tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
Your father tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
Your sister tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
Your brother tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
Your driving instructor tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
Some guy you don't actually know tells you to use your right foot the break and your left for the gas.

Who do you listen to?

In 28 years of gaming in two countries and several states (Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, California, Lousiana, Virginia) with hundreds of different players, I have seen many, many DMs who made the same claim as you are making.  And they believed it, for the most part.  And, in each and every case, their actual games fell far short of their claims.  

I am not talking about people, like Odhanan, who say that they can devise enough background to be able to wing individual sessions.  I know they exist; I can do that myself.  I am talking about people who believe that they can forgo prep work and change things on the fly and that no one will notice.

If that animal exists, like sasquatch, it keeps well out of sight.


RC


----------



## Hussar

> The answer to all of the questions is yes. It might be a crappy painting, or an incomplete painting, but it is a painting. Hence, I can pretty much say that there is a point at which a blank canvas becomes a painting.




How about when life begins?  (ok, strike that, that's against forum rules)

My point, and I think you actually agree, is there is a range from one end to the other.  

However, I would hardly say that a blank canvas=a finished painting despite the fact that they are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Or, simply look at color spectrum.  At what point does red become orange?

We can look at something and say it's red.  We can look at something else and say it's orange.  But, there is simply no point where you can definitively say that red becomes orange.

Just like there is no definitive point where you can say setting construction becomes world building.  Or art becomes pornographic.  Or any other process of becoming.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> I'm sorry but it doesn't take a keen eyed critic to notice flaws in logic, especially when they have effects on the character he/she is playing. You're really over generalizing here.
> If what your "improv'ing" results in bad results for my character and I see a chink, I'm gonna call you on it. Why shouldn't I?




Because you wouldn't be targeting the problem? If your character has bad results, you complain  about the bad results and let the DM fix them their own way. I wouldn't tell any of my DMs that they should have me make a Climb roll with my Dex modifier instead of my Strength modifier or that my Jump check of 25 really did beat his jumping cliff face when he says it didn't. I wouldn't tell my DM that they have to allow my warforged ninja in their 7th Sea game if he says it's not allowed. I wouldn't tell my DM they're playing the game wrong just because they're not DMing the way that I would DM. 

I will tell them if my character has bad results: "My jump check of 25 didn't cross the 5-foot wide gap?! Uhm...I attempt to disbelieve the illusion?" But it's not my prerogative as a player to tell them how to DM. My players give me much the same respect.



> So you started this thread because...?




I wanted to spur a discussion on how applicable a writer's advice for writing a good story was in regards to doing a good game of D&D, and to see what kind of defenses were offered against his position. It seems that more than 10 pages later, we're still discussing the OP and the various ramifications of the position, so I'd call it a resounding success. It has been especially interesting to me to see some of the passionate defenses of worldbuilding, which seem to echo a lot of Harrison's statements.

I've got no major issues with people having fun treating their world as a hallowed place of dedication and lifelong study, showcasing their great clomping nerdism, and loving their setting porn. If it's fun, do it. Sweet Zombie Jesus knows there's a lot of great clomping nerds who play this game because certain fictional worlds have been worthy of their dedication and study.

Where I take issue is when people insist that it must be this way for it to be rich, detailed, believable, and lively -- that you need prep work to have a world worthy of dedication and lifelong study. Whether you do the thinking alone in a room and write it down and do extensive research, or whether you do the thinking in a room full of people and use archetypes and twists and mental names in a hat to formulate whatever background you require, you can create a setting that lives and breathes with all the lungwork one needs.

Now, they will be distinctly different in many ways. They will show how they have been crafted. The spontaneous world may have a lot of areas that are "unknown" or vaguely defined, to be filled in only later as need be. The prepared world may have 50 pages on the politics of a nation-state the PC's maybe have a 1-in-20 chance of visiting, if they insist upon in. But it doesn't matter if the region is unknown or simply irrelevant -- the world lives and breathes around the characters just fine.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Your mother tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
> Your father tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
> Your sister tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
> Your brother tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
> Your driving instructor tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
> Some guy you don't actually know tells you to use your right foot the break and your left for the gas.




I'm not saying that you should use your right foot for the break and your left for the gas, though. It'd just be nice if you accept that I do and it works just fine. I've never been in any accidents, get to where I'm going on time, been in a few drag races out at Dead Man's curve, done as well as anyone else. I'd like acceptance of my experience that it certainly works, even if it's not what you'd want to do. I do it, my family does it, my instructors do it, and we all drive fine. Accept my own experiences as legitimate. 

By telling me that I can't possibly have the verisimilitude and depth and richness of a heavily pre-prepped setting, you're telling me that I'm driving wrong and just don't realize it because I've been lucky enough not to ever drive past a police car like that, but if I were, oh yes, I'd be arrested for driving the wrong way, because it can't *possibly* be as good as the way your family and instructors drive.

I'm in a nation where we drive on the right-hand side of the road. I don't believe that it's any inherently better than driving on the left-hand side of the road like most other nations do, though, just because everyone I know does it.


----------



## Imaro

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Because you wouldn't be targeting the problem? If your character has bad results, you complain  about the bad results and let the DM fix them their own way. I wouldn't tell any of my DMs that they should have me make a Climb roll with my Dex modifier instead of my Strength modifier or that my Jump check of 25 really did beat his jumping cliff face when he says it didn't. I wouldn't tell my DM that they have to allow my warforged ninja in their 7th Sea game if he says it's not allowed. I wouldn't tell my DM they're playing the game wrong just because they're not DMing the way that I would DM.
> 
> I will tell them if my character has bad results: "My jump check of 25 didn't cross the 5-foot wide gap?! Uhm...I attempt to disbelieve the illusion?" But it's not my prerogative as a player to tell them how to DM. My players give me much the same respect.




Your talking rules...I'm talking Improv.  We go to hunt down that bandit and he kills my character with some feat he isn't powerful enough to have or because he has way more hit points...or whatever, I as a participant in the game don't have a right to say something?  Wow when did D&D become a tyranny?


I wanted to spur a discussion on how applicable a writer's advice for writing a good story was in regards to doing a good game of D&D, and to see what kind of defenses were offered against his position. It seems that more than 10 pages later, we're still discussing the OP and the various ramifications of the position, so I'd call it a resounding success. It has been especially interesting to me to see some of the passionate defenses of worldbuilding claim that extensive pre-prep is the One True Way and that they can't possibly envision other ways to reach the pinnacle of quality they have achieved. This seems to echo Harrison's rather unkind sentiment about those who adore worldbuilding: the sort of passionate myopia that regards their built world as "a hallowed place of dedication & lifelong study" that reveals "the psychological type of the worldbuilder & the worldbuilder’s victim, & makes us very afraid," namely.
[/QUOTE]

Wow, we have totally different views on how this thread has gone.  What I've seen is a "one true way" about worldbuilding being a "waste of time".  Then I've seen those who've found it enhances their game in ways defend against steady attacks against their "method" and it's advantages.  Haven't really seen anyone state you have to do worldbuilding, only why they do worldbuilding and why it isn't a waste for them.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, I would hardly say that a blank canvas=a finished painting despite the fact that they are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Or, simply look at color spectrum.  At what point does red become orange?




OK, let's examine those two.  A blank canvas isn't a finished painting.  However, what appears to be a finished painting isn't a finished painting either if the artist goes back and adds something.  The term "finished" is like Celebrim's quantum indeterminancy; it doesn't have any "real" status until all possibility of the artist returning to the painting is gone.

Now, the difference between red and orange is a measurable wavelength of light.  From that standpoint, one can quite easily say that something is, or is not, orange on the basis of actual measurement.

But that is neither here nor there; I understand your point.

But, then, let me ask you this:  if something meets the standard definition of red, is it orange because you say it isn't red?  Because, so far as I know, your definition of worldbuilding is unique to you (and possibly KM, but it's hard to tell at this point).

We define things with terms like Red and Orange so that we can have meaningful discussions.  It doesn't matter exactly what we define as Orange, if all involved in the discussion can agree and use the term for mutual understanding.  The alternative is to be like Humpty Dumpty in Alice In Wonderland, and claim that words mean exactly what you want them to mean, regardless of the way others use them or the context they are used in.  If you persist in doing that, you shouldn't be surprised that people claim either that your definition is wishy-washy, or that it changes to suit your needs.

Because I believe that there is a definitive point where you can say setting construction becomes world building -- as soon as you move from anything general to anything specific.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It'd just be nice if you accept that I do and it works just fine.




I believe that it does work just fine, relative to you and your group.  I just don't believe that it produces comprable results (in terms of depth, detail, or consistency) relative to anyone actually doing prep work.

EDIT:  And really, my belief doesn't affect how your game works one way or another.  If you believe that improv isn't improved by prep work, why should you care that I say it is?


----------



## Hussar

> Because I believe that there is a definitive point where you can say setting construction becomes world building -- as soon as you move from anything general to anything specific.




Don't you think that's overly broad?  If I name anything, it becomes world building.  Except for a very, very small subset of fiction, pretty much anything written becomes world building in this definition.  It would be fairly difficult to find any examples of fiction that weren't world building by this definition.

So, we're basically back to the idea that setting=world building.  

For me, the cut off point is more utility.  If an element can be excised from the text without having a dramatic impact on the text, then it's gone beyond setting and into world building.  One can cut out most of the Khepri life cycle information from Perdito Street Station and not have much of an impact on the text.  One could strip out a couple of the songs from Lord of the Rings and still tell a good story.  Heck, you can strip out Tom Bombadil and not even miss a beat.

However, it would be difficult to strip out Cimmeria from Conan.  It would be difficult to remove Rivendell from LOTR.  It would be damn difficult to remove Perdito Street Station from that novel.    If the element is integral to the story, whether tied intimately to plot or character, it's setting.  If the element is extraneous, then it's world building.

/edit - sorry, just had to comment on the irony that as I clicked submit and went back to the main forum page, the top thread was a collaborative setting featuring faeries.


----------



## Ourph

Hussar said:
			
		

> Because you are conflating setting with world building. <> Setting and world building are not synonymous.  Conflating the two is what is causing all the problems.  If something is where the action happens, then it's setting.  If it moves beyond where the action happens, then it's world building.




The action happens in the Dungeon of Doom.  The action happens in the City of Dread (built over the Dungeon of Doom).  The action happens in the Kingdom of Catastrophe (whose capital city is the City of Dread).  The action happens on the World of Woe (whose major country is the Kingdom of Catastrophe).

Where do you draw the line?  Facts about all of those levels of the world could easily have an impact on the action.  It seems to me the problem isn't conflating setting and worldbuilding.  The problem is that some people are trying to draw an artificial distinction between the two in order to support the assertion that all worldbuilding is wasteful by simply taking all of the non-wasteful stuff and calling it something else.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Don't you think that's overly broad?  If I name anything, it becomes world building.  Except for a very, very small subset of fiction, pretty much anything written becomes world building in this definition.  It would be fairly difficult to find any examples of fiction that weren't world building by this definition.
> 
> So, we're basically back to the idea that setting=world building.




Not surprisingly, because that is the general definition used by writers the world over.

Just as, in D&D, making NPCs is character-building whether or not you are going to use those NPCs in your current adventure.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I wouldn't tell my DM that they have to allow my warforged ninja in their 7th Sea game if he says it's not allowed. I wouldn't tell my DM they're playing the game wrong just because they're not DMing the way that I would DM.




But wouldn't that be worldbuilding winning over adventure/player choice? Isn't that bad? Shouldn't you tell your DM that he is being a great clomping nerd and a loutish egotist?


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just like there is no definitive point where you can say setting construction becomes world building.  Or art becomes pornographic.  Or any other process of becoming.




Well if the difference is so indistinct, is there any use in trying to trying to use the two terms to mean different things? Doesn't it make more sense to use "setting" and "worldbuilding" as interchangeable and then say that if setting/worldbuilding gets in the way of everyone's fun at the table it has gone too far?


----------



## I'm A Banana

Imaro said:
			
		

> Your talking rules...I'm talking Improv.




It's the same thing: It's pretty rude for a player to tell a DM how they should be running their game. The DM is the judge. I might point out specific issues if I have them, offer suggestions if asked, but I'm not going to tell the DM he's doing it wrong. Rule 0 says he ain't.



> We go to hunt down that bandit and he kills my character with some feat he isn't powerful enough to have or because he has way more hit points...or whatever, I as a participant in the game don't have a right to say something? Wow when did D&D become a tyranny?




Sure, point out that "It's surprising that he's doing so little damage, yet he has the STR score for Cleave..." But tell the DM that "He can't do that, he doesn't have the STR for cleave!" is a problem.

But you're talking about rules, I'm talking about Improv.



> Wow, we have totally different views on how this thread has gone. What I've seen is a "one true way" about worldbuilding being a "waste of time". Then I've seen those who've found it enhances their game in ways defend against steady attacks against their "method" and it's advantages. Haven't really seen anyone state you have to do worldbuilding, only why they do worldbuilding and why it isn't a waste for them.




My case has, for several pages now, been that Harrison's reasons kind of fall apart because D&D isn't ultimately about crafting good fiction, it's about having fun, and if a great clomping nerd has fun doing way too much worldbuilding, that's fine by me. Hussar seems to take a similar position: Setting porn is an indulgence, not a necessity.

People seem to be saying that it *is* a necessity, and that your campaign suffers verisimilitude and depth and richness if you *don't* indulge in setting porn.

That's something I, at least, very much disagree with.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> I believe that it does work just fine, relative to you and your group. I just don't believe that it produces comprable results (in terms of depth, detail, or consistency) relative to anyone actually doing prep work.
> 
> EDIT: And really, my belief doesn't affect how your game works one way or another. If you believe that improv isn't improved by prep work, why should you care that I say it is?




I'd be comfortable with that if you weren't wrong, but there's no real good way to show this method online. I mean, you could post a random party of adventurers and I'd post enough material for an initial campaign location and some initial adventures (as I have been giving examples of throughout this thread), but that still doesn't capture the real before-your-eyes evolution of an improv-heavy game. And besides which, shouldn't be necessary if you believe that I am as objective a judge of depth, detail, and consistency as you are. If you don't believe that, that's fine, but at least admit that you're rejecting evidence because you're not sure you can believe the source, rather than claiming somehow that my position is simply objectively false.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Unless the players are keen-eyed critics eager to find a chink in the DMs armor, or great clomping nerds who are only satisfied by setting porn, in which case they're as bad as rules lawyers: "You're playing this game wrong."




If all of the players enjoy "setting porn" and you are trying to force them to enjoy adventures, aren't *you* guilty of telling them that they are playing the game wrong?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If you don't believe that, that's fine, but at least admit that you're rejecting evidence because you're not sure you can believe the source, rather than claiming somehow that my position is simply objectively false.





Show me where I did say that your position is s simply objectively false, and I'll admit that was an error.

Of course, you won't be able to do it, because I didn't say it.  I said I find it as believable as I do sasquatch, but I could be wrong about bigfoot, and I could be wrong about you.  I also invited you to one day show me I am wrong.  You declined.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Why don't we discuss what bad worldbuilding is, why it happens, common pitfalls, etc.  That would be more interesting to me than going round-and-round on this same issue.





From now on, I'm simply going to pretend that we all understand worldbuilding = creating setting, even if only for the purposes of this thread, and I am going to limit my posts to dealing with what bad worldbuilding is, why it happens, common pitfalls, etc.  Because LostSoul is right, this is going nowhere.

Rounser, when you decide to fill the gap with an encounter presentation/creation thread, please link to it here so that I can be sure to participate.

RC


----------



## Darth Shoju

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Where I take issue is when people insist that it must be this way for it to be rich, detailed, believable, and lively -- that you need prep work to have a world worthy of dedication and lifelong study. Whether you do the thinking alone in a room and write it down and do extensive research, or whether you do the thinking in a room full of people and use archetypes and twists and mental names in a hat to formulate whatever background you require, you can create a setting that lives and breathes with all the lungwork one needs.




I have no problem believing that you can improv a session and have your players have fun with that. I have no problem believing that you don't need hours of prep-work to have a fun game. I do have a problem believing that you can improv a setting that is just as deep as someone who has put hours into developing one ahead of time. Now, if that pre-made setting only gets used in a couple of sessions of play and thus never developed further, while you improv a setting up by developing it over many many sessions, then yes, ultimately they could be equivalent (but I'd suspect at some point you'd want to start writing some of the developed stuff down to keep it consistent, unless you have a hell of a memory    )

So is a pre-planned setting necessary to have fun at the table? No, but personally I'd find it easier to do some work before-hand than try and improv my way through and still keep it consistent over multiple sessions. But I'm not going to say it is impossible.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> If all of the players enjoy "setting porn" and you are trying to force them to enjoy adventures, aren't *you* guilty of telling them that they are playing the game wrong?




Yeah, you are. You're being a bad DM just as the player who demands to play a Warforged Ninja in the 7th Sea when the DM says "no" is being a bad player. 

It's a problem on either side of the screen, but the DM, as authority, has the "buck stops here" command. If they say this guy with a 8 STR can Cleave, well, they're the DM. If it ruins the game for me, I should probably let them know at a good time (e.g.: not during the game) and maybe step up and DM myself if they don't take my advice.


----------



## Darth Shoju

rounser said:
			
		

> And not a single encounter detailed out of any of that.  No stats, nothing written up in a usable form.  This isn't adventure design as such, it's just brainstorming ideas with no follow-through.




I'm afraid I don't see that as a problem. As far as I'm concerned, an encounter should be made with your group of PCs in mind. Someone creating an encounter in detail and posting it up is little use to me. Someone coming up with a cool concept/location etc for an encounter is useful, and I have seen threads on those before.


----------



## Darth Shoju

rounser said:
			
		

> My ideal campaign is one with multiple adventure hooks available at any one time (WITH actual adventures behind them) that are presented to the PCs - a collection of events, quests, and rumours of status quo locations.  If none of them appeal they have the option of exploring the admittedly very small setting, just stumbling across populated hexes in the wilderness (and finding detailed lairs, dungeons, magical features etc.) or running into geomorphed trouble in the single city or two towns.  The adventures that the PCs choose to complete are in many cases tied to campaign arc's villains, and PC choice of where to go and what adventures to play effectively determines the course of the campaign arc, and which villains end up dominating.
> 
> I've never pulled this off completely to my satisfaction, but that's the ideal - a matrix campaign arc with lots of player choice and a setting that responds to those PC choices in a direct manner, because the campaign arc dictates how powerful the villains are and what they do to the setting based on what challenges the PCs overcome and when.  And the world?  I could give two hoots about it beyond the tiny microcosmic wilderness map it provides, it's generic D&D cliche all the way, because the adventures and the campaign arc are the interesting parts.  Last time I attempted this I didn't even have a setting beyond the needs of Dungeon magazine adventures all plugged together.
> 
> As noted earlier in the thread, I'm now plotting how to reduce the redundancy of the matrix model with scaling, such that if PCs skip several adventures, the problems they're about escalate and become harder to deal with later on (read, the ELs go up to challenge the current PC level, and the adventures may change as the current key villain gets involved).




This actually sounds like a great beginning to planning a campaign to me, and a method I've been planning on trying out for my next campaign. However, I will also be doing so in conjunction with a published setting (Kalamar) so I can bring the level of detail and setting-interaction I and my players need. Personally, I can't just get by playing a generic fighter anymore; I need to be a person from somewhere. I enjoy playing my character in the adventure, reacting to people and situations how I think he would; to do so I need some setting information on where he's from and what the places he's going to are like. To do that we need to do a little worldbuilding IMO. I could probably play a more generic game if the adventure is fun, but my long-term enjoyment would suffer I think. YMMV naturally.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Here's an example of bad worldbuilding that is a DM problem:  The DM creates a world in which only one adventure is possible; if the players decide not to follow that adventure, there is nothing for them to do.  Here is another example:  The DM creates a 60-page document of information on the world and tells the players to read it because it is important to the setting; little if anything in the document ever sees play.  Third example:  The world doesn't make enough sense for the PCs to navigate with any confidence, as when a paladin has his paladinhood revoked for not murdering goblin children, and the DM has never before mentioned this take on "Lawful Good".  Final example:  The DM tells the players that they are going to play in a Conaneque game; when the players show up characters in hand, the DM tells them there are no humans in the setting, and they should have made wizards.





LostSoul, is there any objection if we start a more productive conversation using these examples?


----------



## I'm A Banana

DarthShoju said:
			
		

> So is a pre-planned setting necessary to have fun at the table? No, but personally I'd find it easier to do some work before-hand than try and improv my way through and still keep it consistent over multiple sessions. But I'm not going to say it is impossible.




Makes perfect sense to me. You're probably like the majority of DMs that way: a few notes, and away you go.



> I do have a problem believing that you can improv a setting that is just as deep as someone who has put hours into developing one ahead of time.




You know all the things you think of before the game?

I think of them at the game. 

It takes but a second to have a thought, another 5-10 to express it. Perhaps a minute or two to consider if it would be a good addition and if it contradicts anything that has come before. You write it down before and reference it later. I write it down at the time, and reference it before I think of the next step.

I've just spent a lot of time honing my ability to think consistently and creatively on my feet to the point where creating a world on the fly isn't a problem. Anyone can do it. 

Does that make it easier to envision? Or does it actually take people more than a few minutes to think up the concept of a villain or an adventure and reference the book it's in?

Stat work can make it long, but I don't work on stats -- I use them out of books, and I don't care about getting the numbers spot-on, so I can fudge NPC's out of the DMG (though that makes something like the NPC stats from MMIV amazingly useful for me). 



			
				RC said:
			
		

> Show me where I did say that your position is s simply objectively false, and I'll admit that was an error.
> 
> Of course, you won't be able to do it, because I didn't say it. I said I find it as believable as I do sasquatch, but I could be wrong about bigfoot, and I could be wrong about you. I also invited you to one day show me I am wrong. You declined.




Ah, I misspoke. You did say my position is unsupported by actual evidence (like bigfoot), and that you won't believe it without proof. So rather than saying it's totally false, you simply dismissed me as some guy with a fuzzy video, irrelevant to your world. 

Regardless, the thrust of that statement is that dismissing my position, reducing it to a level of speculation and bigfoot sightings, is pretty much based on, as far as I can tell, you judging me to not be as good a judge of my own games as I assume every other DM is, simply because it is alien to your experience. 

I say it is, you say prove it, I say I shouldn't have to prove it -- I don't ask you to prove that setting bibles don't interfere with adventure design because I assume you know what you're doing -- I assume you can run just as flexible and action-packed an adventure as any improved game. Why should I have to prove that improv doesn't interfere with depth? Why can't you assume I can run just as deep and worldly a setting as any pre-prepped game? Why don't I get the credit of knowing what I'm doing at a game table? 

Just because I'm appearing to drive with my legs crossed doesn't mean I'm more likely to get in an accident. Just because it's *different* doesn't mean it's not as good. 

I'm more than willing to cede that the style isn't for everyone, and that it certainly is a different experience from mostly pre-prep, but I'm not willing to cede that it's somehow a paler experience by logical necessity. A 250 page setting bible can still lead to great action adventures and flexibility and player impact, if done right. A totally improvised setting can still lead to great setting development and campaign, presence, if done right. I assume most who love pre-prep still give their players the adventure and flexibility they demand. I'm a little insulted that I can't be given the same credit without having to prove myself through some trial.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Ah, I misspoke. You did say my position is unsupported by actual evidence (like bigfoot), and that you won't believe it without proof. So rather than saying it's totally false, you simply dismissed me as some guy with a fuzzy video, irrelevant to your world.




Now we understand each other.    



> Regardless, the thrust of that statement is that dismissing my position, reducing it to a level of speculation and bigfoot sightings, is pretty much based on, as far as I can tell, you judging me to not be as good a judge of my own games as I assume every other DM is, simply because it is alien to your experience.




Now we don't.    

_Anyone_ who makes _any_ claim that follows rationally from my experience and expectations ("There's a bird on the porch") gets a free pass.  This doesn't mean that what they say is true; merely that it isn't likely enough to be false (unless there is good reason to believe otherwise) to argue about or worry about.  I will simply assume that it is true unless I have reason not to.

_Anyone_ who makes _any_ claim that does not follow rationally from my experience and expectations ("There is a lion on the porch", "I have a real photo of Bigfoot", "I can create as much depth, consistency, and detail on the fly as you can spending hours to perform prep work", "My rough draft doesn't need edittiing and revision") doesn't get a free pass.  This doesn't mean that what they say is false; merely that it isn't likely enough to be true (unless there is good reason to believe otherwise) to argue or worry about.

Here's another way to look at it:  How consistent has your position been in this thread?


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> LostSoul, is there any objection if we start a more productive conversation using these examples?




No problem at all!

Let's start a new thread.  Called "WOrldbuildng = teh suxxorz".


----------



## Hussar

Ourph said:
			
		

> The action happens in the Dungeon of Doom.  The action happens in the City of Dread (built over the Dungeon of Doom).  The action happens in the Kingdom of Catastrophe (whose capital city is the City of Dread).  The action happens on the World of Woe (whose major country is the Kingdom of Catastrophe).
> 
> Where do you draw the line?  Facts about all of those levels of the world could easily have an impact on the action.  It seems to me the problem isn't conflating setting and worldbuilding.  The problem is that some people are trying to draw an artificial distinction between the two in order to support the assertion that all worldbuilding is wasteful by simply taking all of the non-wasteful stuff and calling it something else.




The point is,  I don't.  I've repeatedly said that there is no line.  That "something else" is called setting.  That's the term that's used pretty commonly when discussing literature.  When I talk about where the action is happening, I don't use the word "world building" I use setting.  Maybe there has been a drastic shift in English since I last went to uni, but, I don't think so.



			
				Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Well if the difference is so indistinct, is there any use in trying to trying to use the two terms to mean different things? Doesn't it make more sense to use "setting" and "worldbuilding" as interchangeable and then say that if setting/worldbuilding gets in the way of everyone's fun at the table it has gone too far?




For exactly the same reason that we have two terms like art and porn.  No one can state empiracally where art becomes porn, but, we certainly can use the terms when discussing a picture.



			
				Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> If all of the players enjoy "setting porn" and you are trying to force them to enjoy adventures, aren't *you* guilty of telling them that they are playing the game wrong?




I could easily be wrong, but, I think it's far and away more likely that you'll get DM's who are in love with setting porn than a group of players who insist on it.    But, yes, you would be right.  If the DM is insisting that he run great adventures while the players are insisting that they want more Elven Tea Ceremonies, then, yes, the DM is forcing his playstyle on the players.  



			
				Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I don't see that as a problem. As far as I'm concerned, an encounter should be made with your group of PCs in mind. Someone creating an encounter in detail and posting it up is little use to me. Someone coming up with a cool concept/location etc for an encounter is useful, and I have seen threads on those before.




If that was universally true, then Dungeon magazine would have gone out of business long ago.  And Goodman Games.  Necromancer games.  And TSR once upon a time.  



			
				Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> This actually sounds like a great beginning to planning a campaign to me, and a method I've been planning on trying out for my next campaign. However, I will also be doing so in conjunction with a published setting (Kalamar) so I can bring the level of detail and setting-interaction I and my players need. Personally, I can't just get by playing a generic fighter anymore; I need to be a person from somewhere. I enjoy playing my character in the adventure, reacting to people and situations how I think he would; to do so I need some setting information on where he's from and what the places he's going to are like. To do that we need to do a little worldbuilding IMO. I could probably play a more generic game if the adventure is fun, but my long-term enjoyment would suffer I think. YMMV naturally.




Again, you conflate setting with world building.  Something I don't think is true.  Saying that your fighter comes from town X is part of setting.  Although, to be fair, most of the character background I see are pure world building in that the players write them and then never refer to them ever again after first level.  However, if the information you create is actually used, then it's setting.  It's not an indulgence, it's actually necessary for the character you want to play.

I'm reminded of the many discussions James Jacobs had with Takasi about the inclusion of Eberron adventures in Dungeon.  James' point was essentially that simply dropping a proper noun is not enough to make something an Eberron encounter.  It's not enough to say that the action happens in Breland, but, you also need to include setting specific elements such as Quori or lightning rails in order to make it an Eberron adventure.  

I take a similar view of world building.  It's not enough to drop a proper noun.  Writing Dragotha on the top of a players map is not world building.  It's no different than writing "here be monsters".  It adds atmosphere and the word itself connotes all sorts of bad things like Golgotha and dragons.  That's simply part of setting.  You are adding to the atmosphere.  

RC wants to say that world building is pretty much synonomous with setting.  I strongly disagree with this.  But, I also appreciate that it appears that most people see them as almost exactly the same thing.  I think this is a misuse of the language.  We have a perfectly good word in setting.  I also admit freely that there is no exact cutoff where setting becomes world building and that's fine.  We can generally agree on the far ends, it's just the bits in the middle that are causing difficulties.

I would point to wiki here and say that world building is certainly not used synonomously with setting as RC suggests.  World building is the process of developing an entire world.  To be fair though, following the link to Holly Lisle, she does pretty much agree with Celebrim.  However, I think that RC takes a far too broad of a view of world building.  It's more than just some proper nouns and a map.  There's a number of steps listed in world building that goes beyond simple setting.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> For exactly the same reason that we have two terms like art and porn.  No one can state empiracally where art becomes porn, but, we certainly can use the terms when discussing a picture.




We can use those terms, but different people will call it different things. We could argue all day whether it is one or the other, or we could just agree that porn is a form of art, thus what we are looking at is art, whether or not we both like it or not. Same with setting and world building; to me, you are just arguing semantics and functionally they are the same term (at least in the context of this discussion; really, "setting" is a noun that refers to where a story/adventure/etc is set, while worldbuilding refers to the process of creating that setting in a formalized fashion to ensure consistency and bring added depth). The issue comes when the people involved in the game feel that the worldbuilding/setting is either too limiting or not developed enough. Setting/worldbuilding isn't bad in any form; what is bad is if the people who have gathered together for the evening not enjoying themselves for whatever reason.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If that was universally true, then Dungeon magazine would have gone out of business long ago.  And Goodman Games.  Necromancer games.  And TSR once upon a time.




Well to clarify I was speaking in the context of Enworld as a response to something Rounser said. Naturally I expect a published adventure to have detailed encounters (I'd be rather peeved if they didn't!) and I expect to have to make minor modifications to them to suit my group. What I was speaking of was the suggestion that there should be more threads that develop detailed encounters out of the context of an adventure. While I'm not saying a thread like that wouldn't be useful, I just don't see how the lack of them is a big problem. 




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, you conflate setting with world building.  Something I don't think is true.  Saying that your fighter comes from town X is part of setting.  Although, to be fair, most of the character background I see are pure world building in that the players write them and then never refer to them ever again after first level.  However, if the information you create is actually used, then it's setting.  It's not an indulgence, it's actually necessary for the character you want to play.




Well we've established that we have differing opinions on the setting/worldbuilding dichotomy. But even still I'm confused; since my group plays in Greyhawk, was the information I used (in the Greyhawk Gazeteer) useless "worldbuilding" until I decided to use it to create my character? Did it become useful "setting" as soon as I did? By using it did I validate its existence? As a DM, how do I figure out what information is going to be used (either by my players or myself) before I create it to ensure I'm not wasting my time ? If we restrict ourselves to only creating information beforehand that pertains to the adventure we are about to do, then I (as a player) would have never had any information to make my character's background. Now certainly I could have made something up from scratch, but I allready spend plenty of time doing that; I appreciated having an established setting to get ideas for characters from. 

Is a book like the Greyhawk Gazeteer useless worldbuilding? Does potential in and of itself not have merit?


----------



## Hussar

> Is a book like the Greyhawk Gazeteer useless worldbuilding? Does potential in and of itself not have merit?




Honestly?  Probably 90% of it is never used.  I know that in my Scarred Lands collection, despite running campaigns there for a few years, most of my books sat gathering dust on my shelves.  And I know that I'm not alone in that.  Setting books are perfect example of what I'm talking about with indulgence.  We don't need them.  A two page setting background would probably suffice for most campaigns out there.  

Books like setting gazateers, players guides, etc. are just fluffy extras.  Ask yourself this, of the setting guides that you own, what percentage of them has seen the light of day in your campaigns?  Most people haven't even used more than a third of the Monster Manual if polling on En World is to be believed.  And this should be one of the most used books in the game after the PHB.  

If I may, can I answer your question with a question?  You asked, "was the information I used (in the Greyhawk Gazeteer) useless "worldbuilding" until I decided to use it to create my character?"  Could you have created a believable character without using that information?  

See, I've seen far too many character sheets cross my table with backgrounds of varying lengths.  After the background is created, it's never referred to again.  It sits like a dead leech at the back of the player's character folder and slowly yellows with age.

Again, I doubt I'm alone in this.

Personally, I would much prefer a brief synopsis of the character's personality.  Background is what you have when you're about 7th level.  Background is what you do for the first six levels of your character.  That pretty bit of prose in the back of your character folder is nice and all, but, how much does it really inform your gameplay at the table?  How often do you refer to the fact that you are from Town X in Country Y?  

In other words, I find nearly all character backgrounds to be needless indulgences.  It's gotten to the point where I don't even ask for them from my players.  If they want to bring them up at the table, bloody fantastic.  Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time reading something that really doesn't matter.


----------



## Hussar

> (at least in the context of this discussion; really, "setting" is a noun that refers to where a story/adventure/etc is set, while worldbuilding refers to the process of creating that setting in a formalized fashion to ensure consistency and bring added depth).




I would point out that the wiki definition would not agree with what you just wrote.  There is a lot to world building beyond simply creating a consistent setting.  You need to create a history, flora, fauna, maps, etc to be world building.


----------



## Baron Opal

Hussar said:
			
		

> Books like setting gazateers, players guides, etc. are just fluffy extras.  Ask yourself this, of the setting guides that you own, what percentage of them has seen the light of day in your campaigns?




Fairly small. However, taking the Greyhawk Gazeteer as an example, the 5% that you used is probably different than the 5% that I used, the 5% Crowking used and so forth. Which is probably the main difference between published and homebrew settings. A majority of the setting is likely to be used but over the population of purchasing gamers.


----------



## Hussar

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Fairly small. However, taking the Greyhawk Gazeteer as an example, the 5% that you used is probably different than the 5% that I used, the 5% Crowking used and so forth. Which is probably the main difference between published and homebrew settings. A majority of the setting is likely to be used but over the population of purchasing gamers.




I agree 100%.

But, I'm also being told that in order to have a campaign with depth, I need to do a complete gazateer, even for the 95% of stuff that I'm not going to use.

I'd rather simply call the 5% that I do use setting, and everything else is world building.  Optional goodies that feed my geek joneses, but, at the end of the day, nothing more than that.  I've stated multiple times that I agree that you need a setting.  And, I, unlike KM, think that it helps the DM to be prepped before the game.  The question is, what prep is needed?

Me, I'll stick to the adventure at hand thanks.  Detailing out Fargoth is a wonderful project and, again, I'm in awe of the work that went into it.  But, at the end of the day, I would never want to think that I need to do a fraction of that work in order to run a campaign.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> Books like setting gazateers, players guides, etc. are just fluffy extras.  Ask yourself this, of the setting guides that you own, what percentage of them has seen the light of day in your campaigns?




Actually I'm fairly cheap so I tend to use the living crap out of any material I own. Still, not all of it has been used (yet).



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Most people haven't even used more than a third of the Monster Manual if polling on En World is to be believed.  And this should be one of the most used books in the game after the PHB.




So are MMs useless? Is it a waste of time and resources to publish them?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If I may, can I answer your question with a question?  You asked, "was the information I used (in the Greyhawk Gazeteer) useless "worldbuilding" until I decided to use it to create my character?"  Could you have created a believable character without using that information?




Believable? Of course. Would I have as much fun with the character without it? Not unless I put the time in to develop the information that was lacking (which I may or may not do depending on how much time I had).



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> See, I've seen far too many character sheets cross my table with backgrounds of varying lengths.  After the background is created, it's never referred to again.  It sits like a dead leech at the back of the player's character folder and slowly yellows with age.
> 
> Again, I doubt I'm alone in this.
> 
> Personally, I would much prefer a brief synopsis of the character's personality.  Background is what you have when you're about 7th level.  Background is what you do for the first six levels of your character.  That pretty bit of prose in the back of your character folder is nice and all, but, how much does it really inform your gameplay at the table?  How often do you refer to the fact that you are from Town X in Country Y?




No you're probably not alone. However I use my character's background every session. It informs nearly every action and reaction he makes. The little details I tossed in based on his culture have come up repeatedly and I (and the other players and the DM) have enjoyed them quite a bit. But if I had just created what I needed to play in the adventure (which would involve almost no character info beyond stats really) then none of that would have existed. 

Really, we're talking about people enjoying a game here. Focusing on the basic necessities of what you are doing for the evening is great for a start, and you *can* run a game that way certainly, but that only gets you to having something to do that night. The necessity of everyone having fun (rather than just something to do) sometimes requires work beyond the basic functionality of the adventure. If everyone at the table enjoys having a lot of setting/worldbuilding to play with, then that is necessary for their enjoyment. If they all want to play out an adventure and don't need that extra character/world detail then it isn't necessary. Naturally in a group you'll rarely get everyone wanting the same things in the same amounts, but that is where compromise comes in.


----------



## DonTadow

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Utter crap.
> 
> 
> RC



agreed, in his article he seems to say that writers need a "way out" and painting yourself in a corner doesn't give you those ways. 

Books by famed scifi arthurs nancy kress and oscar scott scard praise the importance of building a believable world for any scifi book.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> I agree 100%.
> 
> But, I'm also being told that in order to have a campaign with depth, I need to do a complete gazateer, even for the 95% of stuff that I'm not going to use.




Well IMO, to have a campaign that is *fun* you only need what the players and DM are interested in. That could be almost no setting required. It could be a 200-page gazeteer. Even if you as the DM don't use 95% of the book, what about your players? What if they each use bits and pieces of it in making their characters? Even if they don't use that information in play, if they enjoyed using that info and writing a bit of background about their character, isn't it worth it? Naturally the answer to that will require you to ask "how much did I pay for the setting book or how much time did I spend writing it compared to how much of it got used?". 

Really, as far as I can see, it is dependent on communication between the DM and the players beforehand. They need to have a consensus on what type of game they are looking for; if the players want tons of setting detail but the DM doesn't want to provide it, someone needs to compromise or there will be a problem. If the players want to stick to straight-forward adventuring, then I hope the DM enjoys designing adventures. If he prefers worldbuilding more and decides to do some after the adventure is made  (assuming his presentation of said information doesn't get in the way of the adventure and thus his players' enjoyment), then I'd say no one has wasted any effort, regardless of how much worldbuilding the DM did. 

But this seems to be where we disagree: if I understand your position correctly, that worldbuilding the DM did was a useless waste of time and incorporating it into the game did nothing but feed his ego. In *my* opinion, doing so was necessary for that particular DM's enjoyment and allowed the game/adventure to happen (assuming the DM wouldn't run a game he had no enjoyment in). If everyone got what they wanted, then I have a hard time understanding how any effort was wasted and how the DM would be a loutish egotist.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The question is, what prep is needed?




As much as required to have fun.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> I would point out that the wiki definition would not agree with what you just wrote.  There is a lot to world building beyond simply creating a consistent setting.  You need to create a history, flora, fauna, maps, etc to be world building.




I'm operating off of the definitions found on dictionary.com:

Setting:

*set·ting *
_–noun_

5.	the locale or period in which the action of a novel, play, film, etc., takes place: _The setting of this story is Verona in the 15th century._

World Building:

"*Worldbuilding* is a technique widely used by authors to create diverse and believable constructed worlds in which to base their stories, the process usually involves the creation of maps, listing the backstory of the world and the people of the world, amongst other features."

I don't think that definition is contrary to what I said; setting is still where the story is set and world building is still fleshing out that setting to bring added detail and ensure consistency. While I'd agree it often *involves* the creating of histories and maps and such, the point of worldbuilding is to do what is necessary to bring that level of detail and consistency. 

From the same article I quoted:

"*Worldbuilding* - though primarily the tool of fantasy and science fiction authors - is also a helpful tool to authors of any genre. Worldbuilding allows the creator to add a depth of realism that they might not have been able to achieve otherwise, having a guide to the created world that can be easily referred to will help to avoid simple mistakes in the lore of the world."

To me, the point is to bring detail and consistency to the setting. Thus, as far as I am concerned, establishing the setting is the first step in worldbuilding. How far you go after that is up to you; but I would agree that you shouldn't let it get in the way of writing the story (or adventure in the context of D&D). 

So really, I'd say that setting is a part of worldbuilding, just like porn is a form of art.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'd rather simply call the 5% that I do use setting, and everything else is world building.




See I see the whole book as setting, or at least *potential* setting. The 95% you didn't use just wasn't relevant to the adventure you were doing at the time. If you play for years, doing many adventures and using that setting book to inform all of them, you could very well get to 95% used and 5% unused. In that case the potential of the campaign book paid off. To my mind, that meant the book was useful from the beginning. The fact that you used it so much made it *worth* the purchase. Perhaps it is a comparison between utility and worth then?


----------



## Ourph

Hussar said:
			
		

> I would point out that the wiki definition would not agree with what you just wrote.  There is a lot to world building beyond simply creating a consistent setting.  You need to create a history, flora, fauna, maps, etc to be world building.




Synechdoche again.  All of those things are worldbuilding, but you don't need to be doing each and every one of them in order to be worldbuilding, just one suffices.  If you are creating setting, you are worldbuilding.


----------



## rounser

> If you are creating setting, you are worldbuilding.



"A bit of pepper enhances the meal, so a whole meal of pepper is better" are not equivalent.  The main course may suck, but hey, look at my lovely condiments.


----------



## Baron Opal

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'd rather simply call the 5% that I do use setting, and everything else is world building.  ... The question is, what prep is needed?




Ah. For me, "world building" it the process of developing the "setting". To me there is also a difference between setting and trivia.

_Needed...?_ Enough so that the players are able to role-play acquiring resources and overcoming obsticles to their comfort level.

_Desired...?_ Enough that the players encounter a realistic world that conforms to their expectations. And, where those expectations are violated, there is sufficient background information to explain it. Even to the point of "why yes, it is wierd that our city is built on a large continental slab of floating stone. But as long as we don't fall into that storm below, we don't worry about it too much."

_Too much...?_ when the referee is continually interrupting the player's exploits to correct their perception of the world.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, I'm also being told that in order to have a campaign with depth, I need to do a complete gazateer, even for the 95% of stuff that I'm not going to use.




Link, please.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Anyone who makes any claim that follows rationally from my experience and expectations ("There's a bird on the porch") gets a free pass. This doesn't mean that what they say is true; merely that it isn't likely enough to be false (unless there is good reason to believe otherwise) to argue about or worry about. I will simply assume that it is true unless I have reason not to.
> 
> Anyone who makes any claim that does not follow rationally from my experience and expectations ("There is a lion on the porch", "I have a real photo of Bigfoot", "I can create as much depth, consistency, and detail on the fly as you can spending hours to perform prep work", "My rough draft doesn't need edittiing and revision") doesn't get a free pass. This doesn't mean that what they say is false; merely that it isn't likely enough to be true (unless there is good reason to believe otherwise) to argue or worry about.




Anthropologists call it the ethnocentric fallacy, but "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" works well enough. You can't prove a negative, right? So why insist that something is *not* the case when someone claims it is? Why say that I am more likely to be an untrustworthy source than to simply accept my experience as accurate?

Guy 1: "My kid is named Tom."
Guy 2: "No he isn't. I've called him Jujubee and he's been responding."
Guy 1: "Well, that's nice, but his name is Tom."
Guy 2: "Prove it!"
Guy 1: "....Tom, come away from the strange man..."
Kid: "I AM JUJUBEE!"
Guy 2: "See! That's his name!"
Guy 1: "I think I know what I wrote on the birth certificate..."
Guy 2: "Oh, do you? Everyone I know calls this kid Jujubee, I think you might be mistaken."
Guy 1: "But his name is Tom."
Guy 2: "I don't believe it. That makes no sense. No one calls this kid Tom. Prove it!"
Guy 1: "I'm his *father.*"
Guy 2: "So? Your experience is so counter to my own that I really can't believe your perspective is accurate at all. Maybe you're just not a very good father because you don't know what your kid is named."
Guy 1: "Look, I believe he's been responding to Jujubee, but that's not his name."
Guy 2: "I don't believe you. My experiences suggest otherwise."



> Here's another way to look at it: How consistent has your position been in this thread?




My position on what happens in my campaign? I've always claimed that good improv lacks nothing that extensive pre-prep gives you. 

My position on how useful worldbuilding is? I claimed in the OP that you don't need to spend hours building it, and that Harrison's post reinforced this position. I still claim that. I also claim that if you want to spend hours on worldbuilding, you can go have fun at it, but, with regards to my above position that good improv lacks nothing that extensive pre-prep gives you, that it's unnecessary and doesn't provide any inherent advantages. DMs may be more comfortable in one or the other, but both can add together to produce 4. 

Now, the positions that have been attributed to me range far and wide, but my actual position has been fairly consistent, once one was established, and certainly adheres to internal logic.


----------



## Imaro

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> My position on how useful worldbuilding is? I claimed in the OP that you don't need to spend hours building it, and that Harrison's post reinforced this position. I still claim that. I also claim that if you want to spend hours on worldbuilding, you can go have fun at it, but, with regards to my above position that good improv lacks nothing that extensive pre-prep gives you, that it's unnecessary and doesn't provide any inherent advantages. DMs may be more comfortable in one or the other, but both can add together to produce 4.




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. Another example is timed chess vs. un-timmed chess, I've played both and could argue they're very different games beyond the rules.

 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),.  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?

You used personal experience before, and I'm going to do it now.  My firend B' Lovin does improv comedy at Second City in chicago, and we've talked about it before...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.

Now the advantage I see to writing it out is it creates a win/win situation.  If you're great at improv then use it as a sketchy guideline at best and do your improv thing (btw even "improv" shows have guidelines and structure), if your not good at it you can fall back on your notes.  I think that, especially for a beginning DM, writing it is more generally applicable than your "wing everything" advice.  Thus it has an advantage.


----------



## BryonD

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> My position on what happens in my campaign? I've always claimed that good improv lacks nothing that extensive pre-prep gives you.



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.


----------



## Matt Black

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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

Matt Black said:
			
		

> 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

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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+).



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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? 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Raven Crowking

You say that I am to believe that your game has the same depth and verisimilitude as a game with prep work.  Here are some more reasons that I doubt this:



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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.




Which, perhaps, you are hoping that we will do with this thread?    



> 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.




I would disagree.  Both have inherent advantages and inherent disadvantages.  Their advantages just happen to cancel out thier disadvantages, so that using both creates a superior game to using just either.  IMHO, of course.



> A good DM builds confidence and trust and a living, breathing world.




Part of confidence and trust for myself, and IME a vast majority of players (over 99% of those I have gamed with) includes confidence and trust that the world isn't changing simply to counter/facilitate thier plans.



> 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.




If the context is largely irrelevant to your players, your experience with those players cannot be evidence as to the depth (context) of your games.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> 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.





By Crom's Hoary Beard, man, "bottom up" is a _method_ of worldbuilding.

(Also, I can easily prove that I can straightjacket an adventure into an artificial and arbitrary mold, with or without worldbuilding.)


----------



## rounser

> the "board" changes.



And as has been mentioned earlier in this thread as a big problem with worldbuilding, 9 times out of 10 the reason why you can never influence "the board" is because it's the product of worldbuilding, and therefore set in stone because it's the DM's oh-so-precious creation, and they don't want to see it "mucked up" by the PCs in any way they don't intend long beforehand.  

A focus on the campaign arc rather than pointless worldbuilding is the cure to this - instead of being obsessed with a world of NPCs, the DM becomes focused on what the PCs are going to do and are doing.  The setting can react to that because it's just a sideshow, it's not the main event, and the DM's ego isn't tied to it.  If the DM's ego is tied to the world he's built on the other hand, look out - nothing's going to change much that he or she doesn't like, because they're too emotionally tied to their precious world.


----------



## rounser

> By Crom's Hoary Beard, man, "bottom up" is a method of worldbuilding.



I knew you'd jump on that.  You guys love the semantics, because it's the only way you can defend your position, simply because it's unjustifiable.  You say that it aids all this stuff, but there's no reason to make it more important than the adventures, and building adventures is indeed building from the bottom up.  It's the antithesis of your bloatworlds, because the "bottom up" approach concerns itself with no more than is needed to run the campaign, and thus constitutes the bare bones of setting needed to run a campaign.  If you keep going it will indeed become redundant timewasting worldbuilding, but that's a case of knowing when to stop.


> (Also, I can easily prove that I can straightjacket an adventure into an artificial and arbitrary mold, with or without worldbuilding.)



Which is irrelevant.  If you design your adventures first, and straitjacket the setting instead of the very meat of the campaign (the adventures), that would make sense.  Instead, you're adding yet another straitjacket to the adventures to the ones you're referring to above (whatever they are) for no reason whatsoever, except that you've tied your ego to the world and have your priorities back-to-front.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> A focus on the campaign arc rather than pointless worldbuilding is the cure to this - instead of being obsessed with a world of NPCs, the DM becomes focused on what the PCs are going to do and are doing.  The setting can react to that because it's just a sideshow, it's not the main event, and the DM's ego isn't tied to it.  If the DM's ego is tied to the world he's built on the other hand, look out - nothing's going to change much that he or she doesn't like, because they're too emotionally tied to their precious world.




And as has been mentioned earlier in this thread as a big problem with focusing on the campaign arc, 9 times out of 10 the reason why you can never influence "the plot" is because it's the product of campaign arc building, and therefore set in stone because it's the DM's oh-so-precious creation, and they don't want to see it "mucked up" by the PCs in any way they don't intend long beforehand.


----------



## rounser

> And as has been mentioned earlier in this thread as a big problem with focusing on the campaign arc, 9 times out of 10 the reason why you can never influence "the plot" is because it's the product of campaign arc building, and therefore set in stone because it's the DM's oh-so-precious creation, and they don't want to see it "mucked up" by the PCs in any way they don't intend long beforehand.



Only a campaign arc isn't a metaplot; that's part of a "worldbulding first" approach that usually stars NPCs (surprise surprise).  A campaign arc is a series of adventures, and that can be a matrix, or a railroad, or whatever.  At least if your attention is focused on the actual game (the campaign arc), you have some chance of being reactive.  If your attention is focused on the world, what the PCs do in the adventures isn't going to matter because you won't be paying attention to that; you'll be too busy showing off your precious world.

Unlike your post, that's not rhetoric; that's what actually tends to happen.


----------



## Imaro

rounser said:
			
		

> Only a campaign arc isn't a metaplot; that's part of a "worldbulding first" approach that usually stars NPCs (surprise surprise).  A campaign arc is a series of adventures, and that can be a matrix, or a railroad, or whatever.  At least if your attention is focused on the actual game (the campaign arc), you have some chance of being reactive.  If your attention is focused on the world, what the PCs do in the adventures isn't going to matter because you won't be paying attention to that; you'll be too busy showing off your precious world.
> 
> Unlike your post, that's not rhetoric; that's what actually tends to happen.




In your experience? Right?


----------



## Matt Black

rounser said:
			
		

> Only a campaign arc isn't a metaplot; that's part of a "worldbulding first" approach that usually stars NPCs (surprise surprise).  A campaign arc is a series of adventures, and that can be a matrix, or a railroad, or whatever.  At least if your attention is focused on the actual game (the campaign arc), you have some chance of being reactive.  If your attention is focused on the world, what the PCs do in the adventures isn't going to matter because you won't be paying attention to that; you'll be too busy showing off your precious world.
> 
> Unlike your post, that's not rhetoric; that's what actually tends to happen.




It really sounds like Rounser has had a terrible experience with a bad GM. Presumably an obsessive worldbuilder. Perhaps a few of them? 

I'm sure worldbuilding can be done badly, but when it's done well - damn, the immersiveness of a well-crafted world combined with a decent GM. That's why I play.


----------



## rounser

> In your experience? Right?



Even if it is in my experience, and you disagree, and you attempt to prove that my experience isn't reality, then you're trapped: If you're not going to show off your world in-game, then all that worldbuilding work which is so important to you is wasted, and not contributing to the game.  Checkmate.


----------



## Imaro

rounser said:
			
		

> Even if it is in my experience, and you disagree, and that isn't reality, then you're trapped: If you're not going to show off your world, then all that worldbuilding work which is so important to you is wasted, and not contributing to the game.  Checkmate.




Far from checkmate...I build my world for the PC's to interact in and discover while influencing it in logical ways.  I mean are you building your adventures to "show off" to the PC's?  Your whole argument is based on an assumption/fallacy.  You invoke a situation where any worldbuiding DM, must want to preserve his creation at all costs...however this inherently is not true for all DM's and is not an actual part of worldbuilding.  It is a "playstyle" of the particular DM and if you would admit that then tou might also be able to see how worldbuilding could be beneficial when used in conjunction with adventure design, you need the whole of both for a fullfilling game IMHO.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> Only a campaign arc isn't a metaplot; that's part of a "worldbulding first" approach that usually stars NPCs (surprise surprise).




Like the A series of modules.  Like the Dragonlance series of modules.  You perhaps forget that Dragonlance began as a railroading adventure arc, not a series of 256-page books about the world in which those arcs take place.


----------



## rounser

> It really sounds like Rounser has had a terrible experience with a bad GM. Presumably an obsessive worldbuilder. Perhaps a few of them?



Only, what gets published (256 page world bibles, that then often get metaplotted) belies that my experience is abnormal.  The existence of these books suggests that it's very much the norm, as is the kneejerk "I'm starting a new campaign, which setting?" which we see all the time on these boards.  "Setting first priority" goes to the heart of D&D culture so far as I can tell, and homebrewers aren't immune because they tie their egos to their worlds.

Look, I understand; it's fun, you get to create these awesome world maps, stamp your personality on the rules and implied setting by tweaking the roles of races and classes, write of empires that never were, and DMPC-by-proxy about all these powerful NPCs that have clashed over continent and history.  Now, if we could just direct all that creative energy into something a lot more directly relevant to running the game, like adventures and campaign arcs...and I know that's way too much like hard work and not nearly as grand as working on worldbuilding or house rules.  Heck, purportedly even a WOTC core rules designer considered himself above designing "a tower of orcs"...


----------



## rounser

> Like the A series of modules. Like the Dragonlance series of modules. You perhaps forget that Dragonlance began as a railroading adventure arc, not a series of 256-page books about the world in which those arcs take place.



And it's a perfect example of how much in it's infancy campaign arc design in D&D is.  The published game's idea of prepped campaign arc is so primitive that even Bioware's Baldurs Gate and Planescape Torment computer games do it far better than 3E's adventure paths, without railroading the PCs from start to finish.  If so much time and energy wasn't spent on pointless worldbuilding, then maybe the state of the art would improve in this respect.


----------



## Celebrim

Matt Black said:
			
		

> 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.




This is one of those things where I disagree with the consensus position of _both_ sides of this debate.  While I absolutely agree that Wolfe has some of the coolest invented worlds in fiction, there is very little evidence that Wolfe uses a world building process to create them.  I mean, there is some evidence.  In book of the Long Sun, Wolfe has obviously done some math on the population that is sustainable on his world using certain assumptions, and he does some enumeration within the story as part of the revealing of what is really going on because in context only the world's enumeration can meaningfully shift the reader's context.  But by and large, I see no evidence in Wolfe that he relies heavily on world building as I understand the term, because Wolfe seems to have relatively little desire in seeing his world 'hang together' in an orderly fashion.  If you scratch his story, I think you find his setting is only plot deep.  In this fashion, I disagree with both sides consensus position.  Yes, you can generate an elaborate setting without a world building process, but the mere fact that you can does not render world building useless, bad, or justify the claims Mr. Harrison made directly or indirectly.  



> One of things I love about Wolfe is his ability to drop in subtle references to a large, intricate world and an ancient history.




I just have no reason to believe that that history actually exists.  Interestingly, Mr. Harrison also has this talent (for the record, I went down to the library to check some of Mr. Harrison's work out, and once I started reading it, realized that I'd already read 'Light'.  That's how much impact his work had on me the first time.)  Mr. Harrison is always dropping references to technology, or history, or setting.  It's just I've no reason to suspect that they actually mean anything, and in fact my understanding is that behind Mr. Harrison's work is the conviction that they cannot or should not mean anything.  For example, when Tolkien drops a reference to the 'cats of Queen Beruthiel' ability to find thier way home in the dark, he's just dropping an invented reference that has no depth behind it purely for the sake of having a non-anchronistic metaphor.  This is an entirely different sort of thing than when Tolkien drops a reference to Earendil the Mariner in Frodo and Sam's discussion of the meaning of stories in the central passage of the LotR.  In the former, Queen Beruthiel doesn't exist and the legend is created whole cloth for the purpose of creating color.  In the latter case, Tolkien's refering to an actually existing secondary creation myth which has been elaborated on both within and without the story, and which gives greater depth to Sam's insight about what stories mean.



> You know that this depth is driving the story, even if you only catch tantalizing glimpses of it.




There is clearly some depth driving the story, but its not clear to me that its necessarily world building.   Like Tolkien, Wolfe's writing is being driven by some really deep philosophical thinking, some of which is obvious and some less so, but less like Tolkien Wolfe is not worried so much about the consistancy of the setting.  In fact, Wolfe is probably deliberately creating a vague setting to enhance the alienness of the setting.  Wolfe wouldn't expect you to understand a setting that occurs in that distant of a future time.


----------



## rounser

> I mean are you building your adventures to "show off" to the PC's?



In the process of playing them, yes, they are being shown.  Worldbuilding for it's own sake is often extraneous to the adventures (or "story" in the case of a book), so special efforts often have to be made to show the work that has gone into it, because they're simply not relevant to what's going on - a collection of dry facts about what amounts to stage props.  And that's the author quoted by the OP's point, and a very salient one it is.


----------



## Imaro

rounser said:
			
		

> Only, what gets published (256 page world bibles, that then often get metaplotted) belies that my experience is abnormal.  The existence of these books suggests that it's very much the norm, as is the kneejerk "I'm starting a new campaign, which setting?" which we see all the time on these boards.  "Setting first priority" goes to the heart of D&D culture so far as I can tell, and homebrewers aren't immune because they tie their egos to their worlds.




Again...ASSUMPTION OF PLAYSTYLE.  Why does the existence of a setting book automatically determie how it's information will be used?  Do any published settings actually say "don't change anything.", my experience is the opposite.  You are making numerous assumptions based off...well actually nothing but ancedotal evidence.  I don't really think most DM's slavishly keep their world or a published setting from changing.  Maybe you should do a poll so we can actually have some basis to refer to when you speak about these things.


----------



## rounser

> Again...ASSUMPTION OF PLAYSTYLE. Why does the existence of a setting book automatically determie how it's information will be used? Do any published settings actually say "don't change anything.", my experience is the opposite. You are making numerous assumptions based off...well actually nothing but ancedotal evidence. I don't really think most DM's slavishly keep their world or a published setting from changing. Maybe you should do a poll so we can actually have some basis to refer to when you speak about these things.



You're right, it's all in my head.  No-one's obsessed with canon, or anything like that, are they...


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> You're right, it's all in my head.  No-one's obsessed with canon, or anything like that, are they...




Of course there are people like that (on both, and on no, sides of the screen).  OTOH, that's a personality/playstyle thing.  Obsessing about any particular facet of the game to the exclusion of others isn't going to result in a great game.  IMHO.  YMMV.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

rounser said:
			
		

> You're right, it's all in my head.  No-one's obsessed with canon, or anything like that, are they...




Bingo. That's one of the reasons that I refuse to run or play in FR games. I know that not all of the GM's who run FR games are like that, obsessed with canon, but the majority of he ones that I've run into are. It's one of the reasons that I don't use published settings (as is) even though I own quite a few of them. It feels like so much homework having to keep track of what happens in the novels, the latest sourcebook etc, and then to have to reflect that in the game. No thanks. 

On the other hand setting sourcebooks are amazing for putting things together piecemeal. When you dont have the time and/or inclination to put stuff together yourself, just peruse and take what you like from other settings, change a location name and youre good to go.


----------



## Imaro

You know what's funny...setting obsession can be a player thing as well.

I was playing in a star wars campaign set after the events of episode III but before episode IV.  We we're all playing Jedi fugitives who we're basically following orders from Obi wan to perform cetain missions.  Halfway through the campaign, me and my brother decided to break from the remnants of the Jedi order and form our own order called the Gray Order...basically finding a balance between the Dark side and Jedi teachings.  The GM was cool with it, but one of the players had a fit.  Hollering about how this never happened, and wasn't star wars, etc.  The game crashed and burned from there as this player made it his obsession to try and stop everything we did in building our new order.  It's actually kind of hillarious now that I tink back on it.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Imaro said:
			
		

> You know what's funny...setting obsession can be a player thing as well.
> 
> I was playing in a star wars campaign set after the events of episode III but before episode IV.  We we're all playing Jedi fugitives who we're basically following orders from Obi wan to perform cetain missions.  Halfway through the campaign, me and my brother decided to break from the remnants of the Jedi order and form our own order called the Gray Order...basically finding a balance between the Dark side and Jedi teachings.  The GM was cool with it, but one of the players had a fit.  Hollering about how this never happened, and wasn't star wars, etc.  The game crashed and burned from there as this player made it his obsession to try and stop everything we did in building our new order.  It's actually kind of hillarious now that I tink back on it.




NO DOUBT!

It's funny that you mention the SW example as I'm planning to start a SW game after the Saga rules come out and I have a concern about that same exact thing. But it all comes down to making sure that you and your players are properly aligned in what you want out of the game before you even sit down to make characters. For me this is one of the most important parts of pre-game prep that often gets neglected, people in some cases are just so excited to have found a group to play in they don't concern themselves with if this is the right group or DM for them. 

Which once again brings us back to the worldbuilding thing, I dont think it's a bad thing and in some cases it's neccesary, but to what extent? Also the extent of worldbuilding is different of each group and/or DM. Some DM's really feel the need to draw out that world map and populated with areas that the PC's will probably never go to. Some Dm's will just detail the area that the PC's start out in and along with PC input begin to flesh out the surrounding areas and eventually the world. Some DM's wing it and then either rely on the memories / notes of the PC's or take really good notes themselves for consistency's sake. Who's to say that any of these things is the one true way or the way of suck. I know what works for me and my group and in the end that's all that matters. I really think that's the crux of this entire 20+ page argument.


----------



## Raven Crowking

IM-not-so-HO, no good can come of the DM artificially keeping NPCs alive.  I'd call that a failure of worldbuilding (possibly and adventure preparation) for sure.  If your world/adventure can't survive the death of an NPC (no matter how important), then you haven't given enough consideration to how that NPC fits into things to show how his/her death affects the area/adventure/world.

Sure, you might have imagined a major fight with the BBEG in Chapter Three of your story arc, or you might have imagined that the Good Guy Wizard was always going to be around to meddle with/control the PCs.  But the PCs aren't supposed to have a DM hammer controlling them, and they aren't supposed to necessarily follow your clever Adventure Path Outline either.

A well made setting -- be it a dungeon, a city, or a world -- makes it _easier_ for the DM to swing with the changes the PCs cause, but that doesn't mean that the DM will avail herself of that utility.  _The PCs are_ supposed _to change things_.  They are _supposed_ to inteact with the world.  If they can't leave things different than how they found them, what's the point?

(Though I very much doubt that anyone on this thread thinks that the PCs _should_ be in a world/adventure made like a ride at Disneyland, where what you can see, touch, choose, and effect is all tightly controlled and largely illusory.)


----------



## Darth Shoju

rounser said:
			
		

> I knew you'd jump on that.  You guys love the semantics, because it's the only way you can defend your position, simply because it's unjustifiable.




Who are "you guys" and what is their "position"? Personally I largely agree with you. The part where we differ in opinion is you seem to feel worldbuilding is completely useless and nothing more than a tool to inflate DM ego. I see it as a useful tool for adding depth. I see it as a secondary priority to adventure design, but still an important element to many DMs and players alike.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Instead, you're adding yet another straitjacket to the adventures to the ones you're referring to above (whatever they are) for no reason whatsoever, except that you've tied your ego to the world and have your priorities back-to-front.




Really man, that's gotten old. In my experience I've never had a setting or worldbuilding hinder my fun at the gaming table. There's no reason that any DM worth his screen can't run an enjoyable game using *any* setting. Frankly the game you describe sounds potentially fun until you've run through the generic adventure archetypes. At that point it seems like it would get repetitive and boring. If a DM had nothing more to offer me than the same adventure types I'd be done with him (or her). If that was all D&D was about I'd find myself a new hobby (or at least a new RPG).

Thankfully, that *isn't* what D&D is about. But if the group you DM for is having fun, then whatever. Keep doing what you are doing.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (Though I very much doubt that anyone on this thread thinks that the PCs _should_ be in a world/adventure made like a ride at Disneyland, where what you can see, touch, choose, and effect is all tightly controlled and largely illusory.)




I agree, but apparently Rounser feels that's how the majority of DMs in the hobby run their games.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> I agree, but it apparently Rounser feels that's how the majority of DMs in the hobby run their games.





Well, I have to acknowledge from the wide number of reports of the same from very different sources that those DMs must exist, but thankfully I seem to be able to avoid them.  Or maybe those are the people who I don't even become interested in gaming with after talking to them.  Don't know.   

EDIT:  I very much doubt, though, that those people would be any better DMs if they were playing based on adventure arcs or improv, though.  Immature is immature, and a bad DM is a bad DM; this is just one way in which "bad DMism" manifests....sometimes even officially (like Fizban in the DL modules; we're not going to the DM what's going on so that clever PCs can't use divination magic to find out....It'd ruin our adventure!).


----------



## Baron Opal

rounser said:
			
		

> 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.




Allow me to clarify: 

Worldbuilding can lead to railroading.
Improv can lead to "beer and pretzels" gaming. (Sorry, vocabularly failure.)

I think I see where my disconnect is with your position. Developing the adventures and the campaign arc _is worldbuilding._ Worldbuilding is the generation of the "why" and the "what" of the world. Why are the orcs in the tower? How old is the tower? Did the orcs take the tower from someone else or build it themselves? These are all questions that require some forethought about the world around the PCs rather than simply determining "Room 1: 4 orcs with bows. 25% chance of being asleep." Finding the letter with the seal of Lord Timberlake on the orc chief begs the question of who the seal belongs to. What is the seal? Do all nobles have seals, or is there something special about this one?

The wasted effort you call "worldbuilding" is what ties the adventures together in a meaningful manner. There's noting wrong with pulling a Dungeon magazine off the shelf and running the level appropriate adventure. But if you want a meaningful _campaign_ rather than a string of adventures there needs to be _consistency_ and _context_. This is what worldbuilding provides.

"Worldbuilding" is not a pejorative term. It is the process of determining what exists for the PCs to interact with. In designing my campaign it let me determine that the city-states of Beryl and Spicegate would war. It gave me an idea of their resources and temperment. And, since the PCs chose not to involve themselves, wouldbuilding tells me who the victor will probably be.

When it comes right down to it, I disagree with the OP's definition more than the assertion. Yes, if you define all aspects of the world down to the names of all the innkeeper's children you are spending far more effort than you need. If you are enjoying yourself, it is arguable whether or not the effort is wasted. Yes, more than a little effort needs to be devoted to the creation of the adventures, plot and theme. But, the process of worldbuilding provides the plot hooks, motivations, locales and potential rewards of the PCs directed mayhem.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:
			
		

> Again...ASSUMPTION OF PLAYSTYLE.  Why does the existence of a setting book automatically determie how it's information will be used?  Do any published settings actually say "don't change anything.", my experience is the opposite.  You are making numerous assumptions based off...well actually nothing but ancedotal evidence.  I don't really think most DM's slavishly keep their world or a published setting from changing.  Maybe you should do a poll so we can actually have some basis to refer to when you speak about these things.




Really?  Look at sites like Canonfire! or Fargoth, or a multitude of others.  I've seen people on EnWorld specifically say that when one person added flying ships to Forgotten Realms that he wasn't playing the Realms anymore.  (sorry, no linkie)  There's a huge amount of chatter on setting canon that flies around.  Try starting a thread that states you think that demons were created by the gods and see what happens.   



			
				Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Really man, that's gotten old. In my experience I've never had a setting or worldbuilding hinder my fun at the gaming table. There's no reason that any DM worth his screen can't run an enjoyable game using *any* setting. Frankly the game you describe sounds potentially fun until you've run through the generic adventure archetypes. At that point it seems like it would get repetitive and boring. If a DM had nothing more to offer me than the same adventure types I'd be done with him (or her). If that was all D&D was about I'd find myself a new hobby (or at least a new RPG).




Really?  So, I can play my modified Warforged Ninja at your 7th Sea game no problem?  

Or Imaro's anecdote, which I've seen similarly presented by other people in other places?

Let's see WOTC publish a book about the planes which contradicts canon and see what happens.  Or a book which destroys half of Greyhawk and then brings it back in a new form.  

Oh wait, that was done fifteen years ago and people still bitch about it.  



			
				Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> So are MMs useless? Is it a waste of time and resources to publish them?




Sorry, working backwards here.  I would say yes.  Most monster manuals are a complete waste of time.  A book which only sees about 10% use in play is by and large, useless wouldn't you agree?  The search by WOTC for monsters with traction shows how bloated the monster field is right now.  People complain about feat bloat, but, come on, right now, there's THOUSANDS of monsters in print just for 3.5 edition.  Most of which will never see the light of day.



			
				DS said:
			
		

> No you're probably not alone. However I use my character's background every session. It informs nearly every action and reaction he makes. The little details I tossed in based on his culture have come up repeatedly and I (and the other players and the DM) have enjoyed them quite a bit. But if I had just created what I needed to play in the adventure (which would involve almost no character info beyond stats really) then none of that would have existed.




And, again, you've made your setting relevant.  Fantastic.  That's how it should be.  



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Hussar
> But, I'm also being told that in order to have a campaign with depth, I need to do a complete gazateer, even for the 95% of stuff that I'm not going to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link, please.
Click to expand...



http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3515172&postcount=732

You're welcome.  (Note, it's been a while, so, I've added my original line to the quote.

Apparently, without setting bibles, we are constrained to only play meaningless dungeon crawls without any context.  It is only through world building that we gain any context in the adventures.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> This is one of those things where I disagree with the consensus position of both sides of this debate. While I absolutely agree that Wolfe has some of the coolest invented worlds in fiction, there is very little evidence that Wolfe uses a world building process to create them. I mean, there is some evidence. In book of the Long Sun, Wolfe has obviously done some math on the population that is sustainable on his world using certain assumptions, and he does some enumeration within the story as part of the revealing of what is really going on because in context only the world's enumeration can meaningfully shift the reader's context. But by and large, I see no evidence in Wolfe that he relies heavily on world building as I understand the term, because Wolfe seems to have relatively little desire in seeing his world 'hang together' in an orderly fashion. If you scratch his story, I think you find his setting is only plot deep. In this fashion, I disagree with both sides consensus position. Yes, you can generate an elaborate setting without a world building process, but the mere fact that you can does not render world building useless, bad, or justify the claims Mr. Harrison made directly or indirectly.




Celebrim, isn't this pretty much what I've been saying all the way along?  That you can create deep settings WITHOUT world building?

Now, I've gone a step further, true, and stated that I find world buildilng to be an indulgence, but, is that where our differences lie?

Ok, I'll try to give an example of how you can do setting without world building.  Take the difference between Sword and Sorcery Press' Shelzar: City of Sin and Mystic Eye Games' Urban Blight.

In Shelzar, you have a couple of hundred page setting bible that's pretty much par for the course.  Map, several pages of history, hundred or so keyed locations, important NPC section, and a few other odds and sods.  Pretty much bog standard setting bible.  Nothing too original here.  This I would call definitively world building.  It contains all the elements of world building by definition.

In Urban Blight, you have 20 encounter locations that can fit into any city.  The locations don't really have any plot to them, although some are suggested by the location - ie. the gambling house would likely have some sort of gaming plot.  The locations are each self contained and are only linked by the fact that they appear in the same book.  Each location is scalable for various levels and are immenently reusable.  To me, this is placing adventure ahead of setting.

Imagine if a setting bible city book were presented in this way.  Instead of bog standard setting book, you have a couple of dozen high point adventure locations to be fleshed out by the DM.  You can link them together by including references within the locations which showcase the setting.  Each location can be used and reused and the DM can craft any adventure he feels he wants simply by mixing and matching the locations.

I think this is the kind of thing that Rounser is advocating.  Instead of having a 200+ page setting bible appear for pretty much every setting out there, change the format to adventure location books, as specific as you wish them to be, so that the world building that occurs serves the adventure.

To me, it's the difference between Sasserine and Farport.  Sasserine will only see a small, tiny fraction of the information available actually used in a given campaign.  The fact that one of the plantation owners who lives a days journey from Sasserine has a hot daughter and six strapping sons will likely not come up in play.  OTOH, every NPC that appears in Farport has a fairly high chance of seeing play.  The history of the Isle of Dread is tied to the main NPC's mother and the players have her journals in their greedy hands.  Setting is tied to adventure, rather than simply mooching around bumming smokes.


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:
			
		

> Celebrim, isn't this pretty much what I've been saying all the way along?




'Partly' is not the same as 'pretty much'.



> That you can create deep settings WITHOUT world building?




Deep?  Maybe.  Evocative, certainly.  But I've never argued that creating a setting depended on world building.  I have always only said that world building was a useful tool for a writer.



> Now, I've gone a step further, true, and stated that I find world buildilng to be an indulgence, but, is that where our differences lie?




That and your incredibly twisted definition of world building which insists that any world building that goes on which creates setting isn't in fact world building.  But, yes.



> Ok, I'll try to give an example of how you can do setting without world building.




Who do you think needs such an example?  An example of a setting that was created without a world building process proves nothing that is actually a point of contention.  As a trivial example, a setting that is internally inconsistant is still a setting.  You can't prove your case by listing examples of setting without world building, because your case is not that world building is sometimes bad, but by your own admission that it is always a negative.  But a single example of a setting or story that couldn't be created (or could not be creaetd as well) without a world building process proves that world building is not merely an indulgence.  There is a vast gap between necessity and indulgence, and I don't have to prove necessity to disprove indulgence.


----------



## Hussar

Celebrim said:
			
		

> There is a vast gap between necessity and indulgence, and I don't have to prove necessity to disprove indulgence.




Although, again, where does necessity end and indulgence begin.  Sorry, that was rhetorical.  

Fair enough, but, otoh, we've got people here emphatically stating that a setting without world building leads to railroaded, mindless dungeon crawls with zero depth.  That's not a fair characterization either.  One doesn't need world building in order to construct setting.

Before I get accused of taking things out of context, look at:

Post 5
Post 19
Post 52 with quote:



> Part of the problem, I think, is people who see world building as wasted effort don't care about versimilitude, they don't care about details, and they aren't interested in building something that exists beyond the character they are currently playing. This is a perfectly viable way to play, but it seems atithetical to the idea of the RPG to me. Why would you play throwaway characters in a throwaway setting? You have these tools at your disposal to create a whole world -- not just as the Dm, but as a player, too. Don't people play subsequent campaigns in the same worlds anymore? Don't people play their characters' children and children's children? Is it just me? Is the idea of making legends and legacies that live on a dead one?
> 
> I engage in worldbuilding because the results, at the table, are far superior to the alternative, and the stories we tell of those results, we tell for decades after they happen. Because there is context, for everyone. If the world in which the adventure occurs in which the characters exist doesn't matter, how can the adventure or the characters matter?




Post 55
Post 62

And that's just from the first two pages.  Rounser does have a point.  The idea that you must engage in world building to create a deep, impacting setting is pretty heavily ingrained in a lot of people's mindsets.  The fact that RPG companies crank out setting book after setting book shows how ingrained this is.  Heck, GURPS makes  money off of people buying their setting books who never play their game.  Because we are that much of great clodding nerds.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:
			
		

> And that's just from the first two pages.  Rounser does have a point.  The idea that you must engage in world building to create a deep, impacting setting is pretty heavily ingrained in a lot of people's mindsets.  The fact that RPG companies crank out setting book after setting book shows how ingrained this is.  Heck, GURPS makes  money off of people buying their setting books who never play their game.  Because we are that much of great clodding nerds.




I don't think anyone, and I may be wrong, that's argued "for worldbuilding" has claimed you "must" do it.  These whole thread was started with the assumption that "worldbuilding is bad"  continued to a further point that "world building is a waste of time" by both you and rounser.  If anything the arguments for worldbuilding have been to defend it against being considered a "waste"...which IMHO is a totally subjective thing anyway. You and rounser have steadily preached your one wayism without consideration for both personal prefrence and utility beyond your view of the utility of worldbuilding.

If anything, in the quotes you've posted, I've seen people take you and rounser's theory of "design a bunch of encounters" to the same extreme that you've used to bash worldbuilding...All I can say is what goes around comes around.  None of these posts say you have to do worldbuilding to play the game or even have fun with the game.  What I read indictaes that for a certain style of play depth the method of worldbuilding helps these people and is appreciated by theior players.  Why is the concept that worldbuilding might not be a total waste, dependant upon the people you play with, so hard to grasp.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3515172&postcount=732
> 
> You're welcome.  (Note, it's been a while, so, I've added my original line to the quote.




I don't see anything there that supports your original line, though.

There is nothing even remotely like your assertation of

But, I'm also being told that in order to have a campaign with depth, I need to do a complete gazateer, even for the 95% of stuff that I'm not going to use.​


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> The idea that you must engage in world building to create a deep, impacting setting is pretty heavily ingrained in a lot of people's mindsets.




But, when saying that, you must take into account that they are talking about worldbuilding as _they_ define it, not worldbuilding as _you_ define it.


----------



## prosfilaes

Mallus said:
			
		

> Niven's a good example of an author who kept the level of detail in his imaginary universe pretty low. Memorable, but low.




In one of his books, N-Space I believe, Niven mentions that he created the details for the jump drive used in The Mote in God's Eye, down to fourth-order differential equations for something. He did a lot of world-building behind something that didn't really matter in the course of the story.


----------



## Raven Crowking

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> In one of his books, N-Space I believe, Niven mentions that he created the details for the jump drive used in The Mote in God's Eye, down to fourth-order differential equations for something. He did a lot of world-building behind something that didn't really matter in the course of the story.





Which is, perhaps, why the details were memorable?


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but, otoh, we've got people here emphatically stating that a setting without world building leads to railroaded, mindless dungeon crawls with zero depth.  That's not a fair characterization either.  One doesn't need world building in order to construct setting.




Do you notice the shift in meaning between one sentence and the next?  You can't construct an argument around that sort of shell game and expect anyone to take it seriously.  

In one sentence we are speaking of the medium of literature, and in another sentence we are speaking of a role playing game.  They have similarities, but you can't equate the two completely.  Even if I fully agree, as I have, that "one doesn't need world building in order to construct setting" _in a novel_, it doesn't necessarily follow that I agree that it follows that one doesn't need world building in order to construct a role playing game.  I can fully agree that one doesn't need visual effects to present a story in a novel, but it would not follow that I think that no visuals is a good way to present a movie.  They may both be the same super-type of narrative art, but they have different pecularities unique to them (otherwise we wouldn't need a separate word for 'role-playing game' when we already had novel or story or epic or whatever).  

Therefore, rounsers point that world building is essential to well constructed role playing game is not at all harmed by my agreement that it is not essential to a well constructed novel.  Just how essential world-building is to a role playing game, I'm not entirely sure.  To a dungeon crawl, it is comparitively unessential, though I tend to find dungeon crawls that are based on prepared maps and notes and have some thought put into why the inhabitants of the dungeon are there and what they are doing are more compelling than ones that lack that thought.  But, to the sort of games I wish to play, I at least find it essential and do not believe I could run a game without some sort of world building.



> And that's just from the first two pages.  Rounser does have a point.  The idea that you must engage in world building to create a deep, impacting setting is pretty heavily ingrained in a lot of people's mindsets.




And probably for very good reason.  There maybe a handful of DMs that can improv thier way through a deep, thoughtful, and engaging setting without any of the forethought and preparation into the setting that I have previously defined as world building but if there are, and I've never met one, they are few and far between.  The vast majority of DMs require notes, thought experiments, maps, demographics, and some thought on culture its role in local government, a bit of couriousity about how the characters of the story live, and so forth before they can run a mature and engrossing campaign.  And even if you can dispense with these things, its not clear that the session might not have been better with them.

As proof that the assertion that world building is not essential to a role playing is probably ill-founded, lets consider the example of a massively multiplayer online role playing game.  In this case, whatever is not in your setting bible, whatever is not added to the game in great detail, whatever is not planned simply doesn't exist.  Every detail of the world must be placed into it at every level, from the smallest to the largest, if it is to be part of the game.  It would be very hard indeed to argue that such games don't benefit from world building.

World building is not as essential to pen and paper games as it is to computer games, but that doesn't mean it isn't important.



> The fact that RPG companies crank out setting book after setting book shows how ingrained this is.




That's one interpretation of this fact.  I can think of ones that are more logical.


----------



## rounser

> As proof that the assertion that world building is not essential to a role playing is probably ill-founded, lets consider the example of a massively multiplayer online role playing game.



Which are completely and utterly boring and pointless if it's devoid of quests aka adventures.  No-one cares that Duke Leeto runs the city of Sargrah if there's no opportunity to go get phat loot through actual adventure, so you may as well shut up shop right now if worldbuilding is all you have to offer.


> I can think of ones that are more logical.



Here's one; a lot of people prefer to daydream about the game rather than play it, and buy books conducive to that (I'm looking at you, setting material).  It's why so many dubiously useful books get sold, and so little of the material of many books actually ever reach play.  Setting tomes are perhaps the number one offender in this respect.  

People slowly coming to realise that led to the "crunch good, fluff bad" backlash, which was perhaps an oblique way of pointing out that worldbuilding is far too often only dubiously useful to running the actual game.  Yet more fuel for the fire.


----------



## Imaro

rounser said:
			
		

> People slowly coming to realise that led to the "crunch good, fluff bad" backlash, which was perhaps an oblique way of pointing out that worldbuilding is far too often only dubiously useful to running the actual game.  Yet more fuel for the fire.




If you say so. I though it was more players than DM's, so more players to purchase books than DM's, so more books with crunch for players= more books sold just off numbers.

While we're on the subject of sales...How well do adventures sell? I mean if we're wasting all this time on worldbuilding, we gotta be getting our adventures from somewhere...right?


----------



## rounser

> While we're on the subject of sales...How well do adventures sell? I mean if we're wasting all this time on worldbuilding, we gotta be getting our adventures from somewhere...right?



A few observations:

1) Traditionally, 32 page adventures haven't sold, yet there seems to be a lot of interest in Adventure Paths, because rather than string together half a dozen unrelated piddling little 32 page vignettes together into a setting that's probably arbitrarily ruled over half of them out for reasons covered in this thread, Adventure Paths _are_ the campaign, and the setting must bow to it or you may as well not bother playing it.  Why it's taken 30 years to get to the point where 256 page adventures are becoming the norm and are finally taking priority over extraneous setting nonsense like "FR, GH or Eberron?" is beyond me.  I'd estimate that more people have played the Paizo adventure path modules than any other set of adventures in Dungeon.

2) Refer to my point about people liking to buy products as much or moreso for daydreaming purposes as for actual use in play.  Setting material is marvellous for this purpose, because it's a good read (adventures generally aren't save for the DM's background), letting you dream of grandious campaigns that never might be etc.  No wonder it sells better than adventures.  It sells well for the same reason that homebrew worldbuilding is so popular - you can focus on and daydream about the sexy macro aspects of the game, and ignore the tedious nitty gritty of stats and encounters.  I wonder how many people who bought the FR Underdark book went on to run an Underdark campaign?  I suspect that plenty of them just toyed with the idea, and said "one day" before shelving the book.  But I could be wrong.

3) Good fully prepped adventures are *hard* to write, and as a result many published adventures kind of suck.  Setting tomes can hide their flaws in wishy-washiness and broadly painted strokes, and even if the material sucks for actual play purposes it can always end up a good read regardless.  Adventure design has no such luxury, because it has to be specific - it's what actually gets played, and doesn't lend itself to being a good read beyond the intro, so can't fall back on that.  No wonder people often look at what's on offer and think "I can do better", especially if they're mostly 32 pagers that need adapting, making it even less worth the effort.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone, and I may be wrong, that's argued "for worldbuilding" has claimed you "must" do it.  These whole thread was started with the assumption that "worldbuilding is bad"  continued to a further point that "world building is a waste of time" by both you and rounser.  If anything the arguments for worldbuilding have been to defend it against being considered a "waste"...which IMHO is a totally subjective thing anyway. You and rounser have steadily preached your one wayism without consideration for both personal prefrence and utility beyond your view of the utility of worldbuilding.
> 
> If anything, in the quotes you've posted, I've seen people take you and rounser's theory of "design a bunch of encounters" to the same extreme that you've used to bash worldbuilding...All I can say is what goes around comes around.  None of these posts say you have to do worldbuilding to play the game or even have fun with the game.  What I read indictaes that for a certain style of play depth the method of worldbuilding helps these people and is appreciated by theior players.  Why is the concept that worldbuilding might not be a total waste, dependant upon the people you play with, so hard to grasp.




I would point out that the quotes I posted are all from before Rounser or I got involved in this thread.  Thus, the backlash was up long before I even got going.  



> And probably for very good reason. There maybe a handful of DMs that can improv thier way through a deep, thoughtful, and engaging setting without any of the forethought and preparation into the setting that I have previously defined as world building but if there are, and I've never met one, they are few and far between. The vast majority of DMs require notes, thought experiments, maps, demographics, and some thought on culture its role in local government, a bit of couriousity about how the characters of the story live, and so forth before they can run a mature and engrossing campaign. And even if you can dispense with these things, its not clear that the session might not have been better with them.




Why does a lack of world building equate with improv DMing though?  That's only true if you assume that all setting creation is world building.  Also, my point is that DM's _don't_ require notes, thought experiments etc.  What has happened is that we, as DM's have been trained to think this way.

Originally, there was very, very little world building going on in published material.  Modules were vignettes, as Rounser points out, with little, if anything of the world around them being covered.  It wasn't until TSR and later WOTC figured out that they can have a sweet little cash cow going by feeding reams of mostly irrelavent material to gamers.  TSR probably went too far in that direction by whacking out setting after setting and not paying any attention to things like modules and the like.

On a smaller scale, look at Sword and Sorcery Press and Scarred Lands.  Book after book of setting material.  I've got most of them.  Yet, for all of that, three modules.  And what happened?  The setting died.  Why?  Because it got to the point where, if you wanted to run a SL campaign, you had to wade through several hundred pages of crap to find that one nugget that might stand out and make an impression on your players.

Compare that to Freeport.  Three modules, also from a d20 publisher.  Later, the setting bible came, after the interest was there, mostly, again, to feed the clodding nerds who feel the need to know exactly how many widgets there are.  While Freeport may not be a runaway success, the fact that it survived the move to 3.5 and is still seeing material produced for it does show that you don't need world building to have a great setting.

I admit that I've changed my tune.  I'm not saying that world building is bad.  I believe I was wrong there.  It's not bad.  But, I do believe that it's an indulgence.  It's not necessary.  Or, rather, it's not as necessary as some are making it out to be.  We don't need Monster Ecology articles in Dragon to tell us how to run an Ythrak.  We don't need to know the breeding habits of manticores.

And don't tell me that that isn't world building, because it damn well is.  

Celebrim, you bring up the idea of MMORPG's.  But, again, why do people play them?  Or, rather, what is the main draw?  Is the main draw to look at the pretty pictures?  To explore the history of the setting?  Or to kill stuff, gain levels, and kill more stuff?  Sure, you need the setting.  Of course, and we all agree on that.  We need some sort of context, because that's needed for the action.  

But, how many people stopped reading the backgrounds in those books you found in Baldur's Gate after the second or third one?  How much did that add to the game?  What do you remember about Baldur's Gate or its follow ups?  The stories in those books, or beating the living crap out of Saravok?  

See, everyone keeps saying that if you don't world build, then your settings are contradictory and flat, lacking in depth.  But, that's simply isn't true.  No one would say that Freeport is lacking in depth.  Or Shackled City.  Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil may be repetitive in places, but, it's not exactly a boring ride.  City of the Spider Queen is bloody great fun.  

I know this is coming out as a one true way sort of thing.  And I really don't mean it to.  However, there really is a point here.  If setting bibles were the greatest thing to gaming, that would be one thing, but they aren't.  Campaigns can function perfectly well without them.  We've been conditioned over the past couple of decades that we must have reams of setting material in order to have a decent setting.  After all, why would there be enough Forgotten Realms material to fill a small library if it was completely unnecessary?  Could it possibly be, is there not the slightest possibility that we've been doing things a bit back assward for years?  That instead of bottom up or top down setting creation, we should focus on campaign creation and then let whatever setting come out of the necessities of that?


----------



## Ourph

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why does a lack of world building equate with improv DMing though?  That's only true if you assume that all setting creation is world building.




I have yet to hear anyone from the other side give a reasonable explanation as to how setting creation and worldbuilding aren't two names for exactly the same thing.  However, I do agree with your main point here, which is that lack of worldbuilding doesn't equate to improv DMing or to be more precise, improv DMing doesn't equate to a lack of worldbuilding.  Even if you are engaging in improv worldbuilding, you are still worldbuilding.


----------



## howandwhy99

Here are some relevant posts I made over at therpgsite:



> I use a sort of Escher "Hands" approach like the painting. The place where the PCs begin is highly detailed and as you expand out from that spot the world becomes more and more of a sketch.
> 
> This is both macro and micro in its detail. Microscopic is easy to understand as it's the highly detailed starting area. Macroscopic comes into play regarding the big elements of the world that exist in that local area too. For example: seasons, star charts, weather patterns, physiologies, etc. You don't need to have a stack of textbooks on hand for these, but keep in mind that the underlying physics, metaphysics, magic, heavens & hells, etc. are all going to have their easily experienced elements in play from the start so be prepared to fit within these perceptions. Water is wet, magic needs a source, Gods give power, seasons pass as on Earth, whatever.
> 
> A big thing to remember is many of these, like calendars, common tongues, star charts, and religions, are all just as local as every other microscopic element. You don't need every God to start, nor do you need every type of magic. Leave room to grow and add for foreign cultures farther afield. "The Truth" is as each locale understands it. It is the culture and simply answers for the "big" questions. Medieval worlds are nice like this as there is no "shrinking world" aspect like we have in our real one.
> 
> "Time and Space" are the two vectors I use in my approach. It's not just the map that is detailed locally and sketched globally. Time, as well, is really only important for the starting point of the campaign. I sketch it out in this "Hands" way both forward and back with the future as a series of potentialities based on NPC plans and plotted actions. I don't really need ancient history, but I do want to know why this locale has come to be as it is. If their are ancient sites around I want to know generally when they came into being, but I can always make those fit as I expand with newly created histories conciding with what has come to light in game.
> 
> This technique requires some intensive preparation before a campaign begins, but not so much work during one. I like to stick 7 or so adventures in the starting area and intwine them in the setting. This means all NPCs, their histories, the dungeons, towns, everything becomes the setting. This way I never really need adventure hooks as the adventures themselves ARE a great deal of the world. By simply being within the world the PCs will run up against exciting goings on. Even if they do their own thing and ignore what's around them, the world (i.e. the adventures) doesn't go away. It remains relevant even if all aspects of the adventures are never directly experienced.
> 
> As we play time moves forward and the PCs move around the map. Between sessions I then expand the world along the time and space vectors. Like the "Hands" painting I keep the locations where the PCs are and are going to at the highest level of detail. Time moves forward too and people, places, even adventures are all slightly adjusted to take into account what happened. An adventure can completely change, but every element of it has the potential for reuse, even multiple uses. Also, if a lot of time passes in game, I'll detail more of the future as well.
> 
> The key things to watch for are PC travel speed and when Players decide to fastforward. In truth, I'd have some difficulty if the group sat for 3 years or flew half way across the globe, but I'd also have at least a sketch of what was going on then and there. Even a lightly placed adventure and setting can work for a single session. Earlier versions of D&D and some other older games had safeguards in place for this potentiality. Very fast travel was hard for most groups and almost always used Encounter tables anyways. Teleportation required viewing the intended area beforehand and risked possibly landing somewhere else (presumably somewhere you've already detailed).
> 
> Personally, I use a number of published adventures and modules and also a published setting, but there are plenty of folks who used to homebrew everything when stats didn't bog down prep time. My suggestion is: NPC generators and plenty of generic NPCs to place as needed. Just because a portion of the world wasn't in place before the PCs arrived does not mean what you winged isn't just as legitimate.





> You know, I'm all for Players playing however they want to. Tons of folks are reactive in real life and it's no mystery some are equally so when playing, whatever the game. If they want to play in a RPG fantasy world, give them one. What's unrealistic is to think that fantasy world will be as unresponsive to them as they are to it. Any good DM will have it spinning around according to its own reality and bumping into the characters.
> 
> The problem occurs when the DM dreams up his own fun and attempts to serve it. Lots of players will take whatever predetermined choices have been made for them. The fun is delivered, bought, and performed for them. This style of play reinforces passive reactivity.
> 
> Imagination, however, is active creativity. It takes work, initiative, desire. If the world you create is truly interesting to the Players (not necessarily the characters), they will shop around for what they like. They will begin to take an interest, take action, which creates goals, and inevitably leads them down a path of their own choosing. They are no longer children asking "What are we supposed to do?" They are full functioning individuals and the fun they will have will be of their own devising.
> 
> Everyone already knows how to take action and make choices in the real world. RPGs are just a hypothetical realm of "What if?" actions.



In reference to the AIAAT (all improvisation, all the time) style, I gotta say, almost everything I've ever done in life was made better (or would have been made better  ) by thinking about it first.  Even the great, blind Homer (not Mr. Simpson), who it's said could not read or write, prepared or at least thought about his epic poems before performing them.

Whether you're the DM or a Player the game is going to require some improvisation.  Otherwise we'd all have scripts to read from when it came time to speak.

In the same way, making plans and preparations before the game begins aids play.  Again, whether you're the DM or a Player.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really?  Look at sites like Canonfire! or Fargoth, or a multitude of others.  I've seen people on EnWorld specifically say that when one person added flying ships to Forgotten Realms that he wasn't playing the Realms anymore.  (sorry, no linkie)  There's a huge amount of chatter on setting canon that flies around.  Try starting a thread that states you think that demons were created by the gods and see what happens.




Man, don't even bother lumping me in with people like that.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Really?  So, I can play my modified Warforged Ninja at your 7th Sea game no problem?




Probably. But we've already established that that is irrelevant to the merits of world building. That kind of choice can easily be hampered by "setting" alone (using your definition of setting being different than worldbuilding). Would you let me play a Care Bear in the Shackled City AP? Age of Worms?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Sorry, working backwards here.  I would say yes.  Most monster manuals are a complete waste of time.  A book which only sees about 10% use in play is by and large, useless wouldn't you agree?  The search by WOTC for monsters with traction shows how bloated the monster field is right now.  People complain about feat bloat, but, come on, right now, there's THOUSANDS of monsters in print just for 3.5 edition.  Most of which will never see the light of day.




So you make up all your own monsters then?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> And, again, you've made your setting relevant.  Fantastic.  That's how it should be.




And what was that setting a product of? Worldbuilding.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The history of the Isle of Dread is tied to the main NPC's mother and the players have her journals in their greedy hands.  Setting is tied to adventure, rather than simply mooching around bumming smokes.




I still don't understand how you can not consider potential to be useful. If the information is useful when you tie it to an adventure it was useful *before* you tied it to an adventure. Is your car only useful when you are driving it? Do you consider it worthless when you go to trade it in because you aren't using it anymore?


----------



## rounser

> Is your car only useful when you are driving it? Do you consider it worthless when you go to trade it in because you aren't using it anymore?



I hate car analogies because they never apply to the topic at hand, but suppose if your car is a huge SUV with a ridiculous engine and all these added fittings which you never use, totally beyond the needs of going down to the corner store which is all you ever use it for because you spend so much time in the garage modifying it, and you've spent all your money on it and you can't afford groceries when you get there....or we could drop analogies and actually talk about the topic at hand, as it is.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> On a smaller scale, look at Sword and Sorcery Press and Scarred Lands.  Book after book of setting material.  I've got most of them.  Yet, for all of that, three modules.  And what happened?  The setting died.  Why?  Because it got to the point where, if you wanted to run a SL campaign, you had to wade through several hundred pages of crap to find that one nugget that might stand out and make an impression on your players.




Really? You can pinpoint its lack of success to that? That must have required a lot of research on your part.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Compare that to Freeport.  Three modules, also from a d20 publisher.  Later, the setting bible came, after the interest was there, mostly, again, to feed the clodding nerds who feel the need to know exactly how many widgets there are.  While Freeport may not be a runaway success, the fact that it survived the move to 3.5 and is still seeing material produced for it does show that you don't need world building to have a great setting.




So a successful setting that has examples of "worldbuilding" (as you define it) is an example of how worldbuilding isn't necessary to have a successful setting? 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that world building is bad.  I believe I was wrong there.  It's not bad.  But, I do believe that it's an indulgence.




Of course it is. But then again, so are RPGs.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> See, everyone keeps saying that if you don't world build, then your settings are contradictory and flat, lacking in depth.  But, that's simply isn't true.  No one would say that Freeport is lacking in depth.  Or Shackled City.  Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil may be repetitive in places, but, it's not exactly a boring ride.  City of the Spider Queen is bloody great fun.




Fun and depth aren't the same thing. You can have fun with nothing more than a set of dice and some pencil and paper. That doesn't mean what you are producing has "depth". It really depends on what you mean by depth I suppose (although I am loathe to introduce yet another definition of term tangent to this thread). If by depth you mean amount of setting material available then yes you can say that FR has more depth than Shackled City. If by depth you mean the options of play you have in each product then yes FR is deeper than SC; after all, when you use SC, then all it is good for is that particular adventure. The FRCS can be used for a nearly limitless number of different adventures. If by depth you are referring to the quality of play then that depends on the people using the information and what they do with it and isn't a commentary on the usefulness of said information (although its value to that group may be low if it isn't to their taste).


----------



## Darth Shoju

rounser said:
			
		

> I hate car analogies because they never apply to the topic at hand, but suppose if your car is a huge SUV with a ridiculous engine and all these added fittings which you never use, totally beyond the needs of going down to the corner store which is all you ever use it for because you spend so much time in the garage modifying it, and you've spent all your money on it and you can't afford groceries when you get there....or we could drop analogies and actually talk about the topic at hand, as it is.




Or you could stop ignoring the rest of my post instead of focusing on the analogy. Besides, the analogy was relevant to the point I was making in response to Hussar.


----------



## Darth Shoju

rounser said:
			
		

> A few observations:
> 
> 1) Traditionally, 32 page adventures haven't sold, yet there seems to be a lot of interest in Adventure Paths, because rather than string together half a dozen unrelated piddling little 32 page vignettes together into a setting that's probably arbitrarily ruled over half of them out for reasons covered in this thread, Adventure Paths _are_ the campaign, and the setting must bow to it or you may as well not bother playing it.  Why it's taken 30 years to get to the point where 256 page adventures are becoming the norm and are finally taking priority over extraneous setting nonsense like "FR, GH or Eberron?" is beyond me.  I'd estimate that more people have played the Paizo adventure path modules than any other set of adventures in Dungeon.
> 
> 2) Refer to my point about people liking to buy products as much or moreso for daydreaming purposes as for actual use in play.  Setting material is marvellous for this purpose, because it's a good read (adventures generally aren't save for the DM's background), letting you dream of grandious campaigns that never might be etc.  No wonder it sells better than adventures.  It sells well for the same reason that homebrew worldbuilding is so popular - you can focus on and daydream about the sexy macro aspects of the game, and ignore the tedious nitty gritty of stats and encounters.  I wonder how many people who bought the FR Underdark book went on to run an Underdark campaign?  I suspect that plenty of them just toyed with the idea, and said "one day" before shelving the book.  But I could be wrong.
> 
> 3) Good fully prepped adventures are *hard* to write, and as a result many published adventures kind of suck.  Setting tomes can hide their flaws in wishy-washiness and broadly painted strokes, and even if the material sucks for actual play purposes it can always end up a good read regardless.  Adventure design has no such luxury, because it has to be specific - it's what actually gets played, and doesn't lend itself to being a good read beyond the intro, so can't fall back on that.  No wonder people often look at what's on offer and think "I can do better", especially if they're mostly 32 pagers that need adapting, making it even less worth the effort.




Perhaps the settings sell because they have a wider appeal due to their large amount of potential uses. If my group doesn't want to play an AP because they don't like it, then it is useless to us. Even if we do want to play it, then it gets used once and only once. On the other hand, the Greyhawk Gazeteer gets used by all of the players and the DM and can continue to be used as long as we play in Greyhawk. How can that which has a narrower range of use be considered *more* useful than something with broader applications?


----------



## rounser

> How can that which has a narrower range of use be considered *more* useful than something with broader applications?



Because arguably, with the exception of roleplaying talk to NPCs and PCs, the game doesn't really exist until you're interacting with something low level.  Disarming a trap, fighting a monster, quelling a riot, chasing a thief, navigating a dungeon, puzzling over a mystery.  Goggling at the DM's cool world isn't playing D&D, it's just decoration to the main event.

You can't avoid the specifics unless your campaign is a vacuum, as many a worldbuilder's campaign seems to be because they're painted in such broad macro strokes rather than the down and dirty meat of the game, the specifics of adventure.  

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a lot more play straight off the bat with no more prep needed using Age of Worms plus a 32 page setting like Thunder Rift than there is with the FRCS plus a 32 page module like Sunless Citadel.  As far as running a game now goes, rather than the possibility of a campaign sometime in the future, the former is, yes, a lot more useful than the latter.  If you don't want to play, now, then that's not the case, but that just points out that your priorities are not about actually playing the game - they're about worldbuilding fetishism (and if that weren't the case you'd be more interested in making your own homebrew adventure campaign arc equivalent if Age of Worms didn't do it for you, but no, you're too busy making a "world").  But we already knew that.


----------



## rounser

> Perhaps the settings sell because they have a wider appeal due to their large amount of potential uses.



Or, you could just cut out the middle man and make an "actual use" straight off the bat from first principles, ignoring worldbuilding trivia and making the damn adventure and campaign arc already.  Worldbuilding is often superfluous, and the value it adds comes at a price that, as the OP points out, isn't really worth paying, except in terms of self-indulgence.  You're going to have to make the damn adventure to some degree anyway, unless you're an improvisation savant.

And don't bother falling back on the old saw we've seen in this thread already that "worldbuilding inspires adventures", because the converse is just as true, and at least by putting adventure needs first you're not imposing arbitrary restrictions on the quality of the game just because some setting doesn't have a city there, or there are no boggarts in the area.


----------



## Baron Opal

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why does a lack of world building equate with improv DMing though?  That's only true if you assume that all setting creation is world building.




Well, yes. What is the difference between establishing setting and worldbuilding? Where in your mind is the dividing line? Merely one of utility? If certain details are extraneous, that then is "worldbuilding"?



> On a smaller scale, look at Sword and Sorcery Press and Scarred Lands.  Book after book of setting material.  I've got most of them.  Yet, for all of that, three modules.  And what happened?  The setting died.  Why?  Because it got to the point where, if you wanted to run a SL campaign, you had to wade through several hundred pages of crap to find that one nugget that might stand out and make an impression on your players.




I think you are right, there. There was practically no adventure support for Scarred Lands and that was a major problem of the product line. However, in that particular case, the setting material was scattered over many books. There wasn't a true campaign setting book until Ghelspad, you had to mine the setting from the monster books, spell books, &c.


----------



## rounser

> Well, yes. What is the difference between establishing setting and worldbuilding? Where in your mind is the dividing line? Merely one of utility? If certain details are extraneous, that then is "worldbuilding"?



The OP's point is that, yes, worldbuilding for it's own sake with no story purpose and that the author then self-indulgently forces into the narrative at the expense of the actual story kind of sucks.  I suppose we'll keep obfuscating and splitting hairs in order to avoid the logic of this point like you're doing there, though.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> And don't bother falling back on the old saw we've seen in this thread already that "worldbuilding inspires adventures", because the converse is just as true, and at least by putting adventure needs first you're not imposing arbitrary restrictions on the quality of the game just because some setting doesn't have a city there, or there are no boggarts in the area.




That probably explains my improv-heavy style better than anything I typed before.

The players inspire the adventure. The adventure inspires the world. 



> In reference to the AIAAT (all improvisation, all the time) style, I gotta say, almost everything I've ever done in life was made better (or would have been made better  ) by thinking about it first.




The brain is a marvelous tool. It's first advantage is that thought is immensely rapid. I can think about something before I do it, and then do it, all within the span of a minute or less. I don't need to think about it, prepare to do it, wait a week, and then do it. 

It's second advantage is that it is amazing at recognizing patterns. I've read a lot of books, seen a lot of movies, watched a lot of TV, played a lot of games...I know that when there is a princess in trouble, a knight in shining armor will always want to save her. I know that necromancer kings host armies of undead in forgotten lairs. I know that barbarians hate wizards, and that tentacles make people go insane. I know no one can see a ninja who does not want to be seen unless they are an even *better* ninja. 

In other words, I know archetypes. Archetypes are a pattern that the brain can recognize. And then, as if those patterns were building blocks, I can meld them together and structure them one on top of the other and twist them and balance them to make an adventure.


----------



## Darth Shoju

rounser said:
			
		

> Because arguably, with the exception of roleplaying talk to NPCs and PCs, the game doesn't really exist until you're interacting with something low level.  Disarming a trap, fighting a monster, quelling a riot, chasing a thief, navigating a dungeon, puzzling over a mystery.  Goggling at the DM's cool world isn't playing D&D, it's just decoration to the main event.




Not that "goggling at the DM's cool world" is how I play, but I'm very glad you hold the sacred definition of how to "play D&D".



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a lot more play straight off the bat with no more prep needed using Age of Worms plus a 32 page setting like Thunder Rift than there is with the FRCS plus a 32 page module like Sunless Citadel.  As far as running a game now goes, rather than the possibility of a campaign sometime in the future, the former is, yes, a lot more useful than the latter.  If you don't want to play, now, then that's not the case, but that just points out that your priorities are not about actually playing the game - they're about worldbuilding fetishism (and if that weren't the case you'd be more interested in making your own homebrew adventure campaign arc equivalent if Age of Worms didn't do it for you, but no, you're too busy making a "world").  But we already knew that.




You already knew what? From your response you don't seem to have read the majority of my posts so I'm not sure what you know. My point has always been that the "adventure" has priority. I've explicitly stated that. I do as much worldbuilding as is required to bring the depth of interaction and sense of wonder and fantasy as is required for myself and my group; but the point is to bloody well adventure. However, what I've been refusing to concede is that worldbuilding is only superfluous and has NO value. Even if it only exists to entertain the DM it has value. As long as it doesn't negatively affect the design or execution of the adventure it doesn't have any cost compared to that value either. 

And not wanting to play a particular AP certainly does not mean I prefer worldbuilding over adventure-frankly that tactic was pretty weak. And what does "ready to play *now*" mean anyway? As long as the DM shows up with the adventure ready to go what bloody difference does it make how he made it or where he got it? Do you ambush DMs and force them to run APs? Further, why do I need to design a whole AP up front? I'd rather make a handful of low-level adventures for the PCs to choose from and then develop on what they choose. 

If your ultimate point is that DMs who do nothing but create a fabulously intricate world that the PCs can't change and play a backseat to uber DMPCs then I agree: that is bad. But frankly that is a gigantic non-argument and a waste of a thread. There have been countless threads on ENWorld decrying that form of gaming. But maybe that is how the majority of D&D games are run nowadays; all I can speak from is experience and the only crappy games I've played in have had neither adventures nor worldbuilding. Things are working out just fine for me lately but maybe I've just been lucky.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Even if it only exists to entertain the DM it has value.




And if it doesn't entertain the DM?

It's worthless.  

And I think running the game with your friends is a lot more entertaining for me, as a DM, than sitting alone in a room pondering about a world that will never be.


----------



## Baron Opal

rounser said:
			
		

> The OP's point is that, yes, worldbuilding for it's own sake with no story purpose and that the author then self-indulgently forces into the narrative at the expense of the actual story kind of sucks.




Hmm, with all the invective in the OP's post the point I received was somewhat different.

Keeping the OP's original quote in mind, with your fine, insult-free translation, I still maintain that "worldbuilding" is _useful_. Not necesary, but useful. The worldbuilding allows the insertion of details that make the DM's own. Also, if the PCs deviate from the established story arc if gives the DM ready made options. Worldbuilding increases your options.

So, at what point is the DM becoming "self-indulgent"? Time, I imagine. When the players are hampered in their adventuring by tripping over details; the DM constantly narrating the glories of the world rather than the consequences of the hero's actions. Time spent listening to corrections than furthering their goals.

I have no idea if the shape and details of the coins of the Jewel City-States, the Star Crown Empire and the Yarcha tribes will ever be useful. That the detail is present does lend itself to a bribery adventure where the coins of a different country would be the tale-tell sign. I would say "You find a sack of rectangular gold coins stamped with a cursive worm-like script. You believe that they are of Yarcha mint", rather than simply describe the coins and have the players rely on their breadth of knowledge of pick up the clue. Is that detracting from the story or is it a plot point of the adventure?

The OP's quote is talking about crafting a _story_ where the reader is entertained through the development of characters and plot. Preparing a _game_ where the players are entertained through the active development of a plot. Since the characters can diverge from the planned path, excercising some forethought about what they might encounter is useful in my mind. Developing other, potentially extraneous, details give the DM the opportunity for inspiration later.

Perhaps it is because I'm an explorer at heart and I always want to see what's over the next hill. Or, in this case, on the next map sheet. And since it provides me with useful background that I can use later, I see no benefit to waiting to see what's beyond the next rise until just before the player's do.

It's pretty late, and I've had a really busy week. Does that explain my point of view clearly enough or is it too obfuscatory?


----------



## Hussar

I can think of an excellent example where world building has become indulgent and that's Forgotten Realms.  FR's been in print for what, about 20 years?  There's been thousands of pages of material (not adventures, just setting material) banged out for that setting.  

And they're not finished yet.

Darth Shoju, I think that we actually agree more than disagree really.  If the world buildilng that you do comes out during the game, then, likely, it isn't terribly indulgent.  It might be, but, likely not.  But, no one is going to tell me that ten or twenty thousand pages of setting material is not indulgent.  There's depth and then there's a festering quagmire that no one could possibly sort through.  Again, it's building the world's largest library.

Earlier someone mentioned Niven's work on his FTL drives in Mote in God's Eye.  There's a perfect example of indulgent world building.  What do we remember from the novel?  We remember fantastic battle scenes, cool aliens, funky xenobiology and possibly the opening scene of the light sail ship committing suicide.  What we don't remember is how the FTL drives work.  Thankfully, that information was never brought into the book, because, frankly, it's completely unimportant.  Niven did it as a thought experiment and that's fine.  But, it's not like it is required in the slightest for the text.

Is all world building indulgence?  Probably not.  Certainly not if you define world building as all setting construction.  Since placing trees in a MMORPG is apparently world building, then, of course you need to do some.  Me, I define world building as going beyond what is required for the setting.  World building, by nature, is indulgent.  If it's required by the text, then it's setting.  That's where I draw the line.  Obviously, that annoys the heck out of some people who figure that any time you do the slightest bit of setting building, you are world building.  To me, that makes world building a meaningless term relative to setting.  Why not just dispense with it entirely?

The net is littered with indulgent world building.  The front page of Enworld right now advertises a new bit on Fargoth.  And, look, it's not an adventure.  It's a new race.  Color me surprised.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> The net is littered with indulgent world building.  The front page of Enworld right now advertises a new bit on Fargoth.  And, look, it's not an adventure.  It's a new race.  Color me surprised.





Is a new race not useful?  I thought, if it was useful, it wasn't worldbuilding (by your definition)?

I assume that you mean those extraneous details, like mentioning that the players see bunnies while their travelling in the hills, right?  Or mentioning the goatherds along the road way, or the milling sheep, or mice....things like that?


----------



## Imaro

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Is a new race not useful?  I thought, if it was useful, it wasn't worldbuilding (by your definition)?
> 
> I assume that you mean those extraneous details, like mentioning that the players see bunnies while their travelling in the hills, right?  Or mentioning the goatherds along the road way, or the milling sheep, or mice....things like that?




Apparently the ONLY IMPORTANT THING in a roleplaying game is an adventure, anything else is a waste of time and NOT WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING.  Of course we could all just play Descent and then be totally focused on "what's important" in a roleplaying game...wait a minute, that's a boardgame.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imaro said:
			
		

> Apparently the ONLY IMPORTANT THING in a roleplaying game is an adventure, anything else is a waste of time and NOT WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING.  Of course we could all just play Descent and then be totally focused on "what's important" in a roleplaying game...wait a minute, that's a boardgame.





My point in the above, re: "mentioning that the players see bunnies while their travelling in the hills, right? Or mentioning the goatherds along the road way, or the milling sheep, or mice....things like that?" is that, unless the DM _does_ mention things that are extraneous to the plot, the players are going to know that anything he mentions _is part of the plot_.

For example, how many people ever fell for the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing (originally Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, later 1e Monster Manual 2)?  Suddenly the DM is interested in telling us about rabbits?  Clearly it's a trap.  Likewise, if the players never encounter normal (non life-threatening) animals, the first toad they see is obviously a familiar spying on them.  

If you ever read mystery novels, you will know that extraneous details can be used as a kind of literary sleight-of-hand, to heighten the sense of the unknown and to make the relevant bits a little less obvious.  People claim that you can't run a murder mystery in D&D because divination spells make it too easy, but divination can only be used when you know the right questions to ask.  Details can make it more difficult to know the right questions to ask.  In effect, they help to preserve sense of wonder (you knew that was coming, didn't you?   ).

BTW, Hamlet in the Forgotten Realms works like this:  Hamlet's father is said to be slain by bandits, and his body hasn't been recovered.  A ghost appears to Hamlet to tell him that his uncle, who has married his mother, was actually behind the bandits.  Hillarity ensues.  

Worlds don't get in the way of basic story ideas; lack of imagination does.  Just for the record.

RC


----------



## Imaro

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> My point in the above, re: "mentioning that the players see bunnies while their travelling in the hills, right? Or mentioning the goatherds along the road way, or the milling sheep, or mice....things like that?" is that, unless the DM _does_ mention things that are extraneous to the plot, the players are going to know that anything he mentions _is part of the plot_.
> 
> For example, how many people ever fell for the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing (originally Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, later 1e Monster Manual 2)?  Suddenly the DM is interested in telling us about rabbits?  Clearly it's a trap.  Likewise, if the players never encounter normal (non life-threatening) animals, the first toad they see is obviously a familiar spying on them.
> 
> If you ever read mystery novels, you will know that extraneous details can be used as a kind of literary sleight-of-hand, to heighten the sense of the unknown and to make the relevant bits a little less obvious.  People claim that you can't run a murder mystery in D&D because divination spells make it too easy, but divination can only be used when you know the right questions to ask.  Details can make it more difficult to know the right questions to ask.  In effect, they help to preserve sense of wonder (you knew that was coming, didn't you?   ).
> 
> BTW, Hamlet in the Forgotten Realms works like this:  Hamlet's father is said to be slain by bandits, and his body hasn't been recovered.  A ghost appears to Hamlet to tell him that his uncle, who has married his mother, was actually behind the bandits.  Hillarity ensues.
> 
> Worlds don't get in the way of basic story ideas; lack of imagination does.  Just for the record.
> 
> RC




RC I've agreed with your position throughout this hread...I guess sarcasm doesn't really come across to well on the internet.  But yes I agree with most of the things you've said earlier.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> BTW, Hamlet in the Forgotten Realms works like this:  Hamlet's father is said to be slain by bandits, and his body hasn't been recovered.




True Res will still work - you just need the King's time and place of birth.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imaro said:
			
		

> RC I've agreed with your position throughout this hread...I guess sarcasm doesn't really come across to well on the internet.




Oh, it does, it does.    

Just making things explicit for the gallery.

Breathing is bad.  Of course, when I say breathing, I mean breathing on people when you're sick, and spreading germs on them.  If you say breathing means anything else, I accuse you of playing semantics.  If you agree, on the basis of my definition, that breathing is bad, I then take it to mean that _all breathing is bad_ using a much wider definition.

Discuss. 

​


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:
			
		

> True Res will still work - you just need the King's time and place of birth.





But the uncle has the keys to the coffer.  Hence, poor Hamlet cannot afford True Res.

EDIT:  Moreover, the King's time and place of birth aren't known.  This is for two reasons.  

(1)  The Queen Mother gave birth while travelling, and

(2)  The players demanded that the DM not waste his time with developing extraneous details of that nature.

EDIT TO THE EDIT:  For that matter, the plot of Hamlet doesn't require that Hamlet be the Prince of Denmark.  His father could as easily have been the head of a fishing village as a King, without any damage whatsoever to the plot (and eliminating the chances of the village shelling out for any sort of death-defying).  

As I said before, it isn't the world that prevents plots from being used; it's a lack of imagination.


----------



## Imaro

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> it isn't the world that prevents plots from being used; it's a lack of imagination.




QFT,

This should be a sig.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Discuss.




People who like breathing really like making other people sick because it feeds their ego - that's just simple medical science.  Also - Breathing is a waste of time, but complaining about people who breathe is not.  Once you all finally face that, it's a simple matter of concluding that none of us, by definition, breathes.


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> People who like breathing really like making other people sick because it feeds their ego - that's just simple medical science.  Also - Breathing is a waste of time, but complaining about people who breathe is not.  Once you all finally face that, it's a simple matter of concluding that none of us, by definition, breathes.





Hey, even Umbran said it was funny the first time.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Hey, even Umbran said it was funny the first time.




?  What's funny?


----------



## Ourph

I don't bother to breathe because it's constraining to creativity.  I oxygenate spontaneously.


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> ?  What's funny?




Why Adventure Building is Bad.  Then after several more mock threads showed up, he closed one down.  _But he did say the first one was funny!_


----------



## Raven Crowking

Ourph said:
			
		

> I don't bother to breathe because it's constraining to creativity.  I oxygenate spontaneously.




Anyone can learn it.  All it takes is practice.

BTW, Sasquatch is going to be making it to my next game.    

RC


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> Darth Shoju, I think that we actually agree more than disagree really.




You know what? I think you are right. I have a suspicion you and I could play in the same campaign without any problem.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Oh, it does, it does.
> 
> Just making things explicit for the gallery.
> 
> Breathing is bad.  Of course, when I say breathing, I mean breathing on people when you're sick, and spreading germs on them.  If you say breathing means anything else, I accuse you of playing semantics.  If you agree, on the basis of my definition, that breathing is bad, I then take it to mean that _all breathing is bad_ using a much wider definition.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> ​




LOL.

OTOH, if there was another perfectly good word for breathing, then you might have a point.

See, there is a perfectly good word for talking about where the action occurs in a story - it's called setting.  When you building the place where teh action occurs, you are building setting.  But, apparently, that bit of simple English isn't highbrow enough.  So, we need a totally new word.  World building.  Wow, that sounds just so much more impressive than setting building.  We're not just crafting a well thought out setting, we're making A WHOLE WORLD.

See how the straw man you guys build falls apart when you actually have real English words to work with?  If World Building=Setting Construction, then of course it's not a bad thing.  I've said all the way along that you need setting.  

Basically, you've just flipped my argument around.  I say world building is indulgent because it is by definition.  World building=extraneous creation that doesn't add to the plot.  If it adds to the plot, then it's setting building.  You're just saying that world building=setting creation, therefore it's a good thing.  Me, I say that definition is meaningless since we already have a perfectly good word for where the action happens:  setting. 

Back a while Darth Shoju asked if I thought you didn't need any monster manuals.  No, I think that you need a monster manual.  It helps to keep the workload way down to have stock monsters already statted.  Heck, I'll buy that you might even need two monster manuals.  But, and here comes the indulgent part, do we really need: 
4, soon to be 5, Monster Manuals
3 Creature Collections
2 Tome of Horrors
Denizens of Avadnu
Fiend Folio
Probably half a dozen or more monster books

At what point can we say, hey, y'know what?  That's a bit much.  Twenty THOUSAND pages of setting material is slightly overkill.  Five or six THOUSAND statted monsters is slightly on the high side.  Several hundred races is probably just a tad more than necessary.  A couple of thousand PrC's is just a smidgeon unnecessary.

I never, ever said that you don't need setting.  You all are the ones saying that putting bunnies on a hill is world building.  That placing trees in a forest is world building.  That dropping propper nouns is world building.  You're the one claiming all setting building is world building, not me.  Me, I'll stick to buildilng settings thank you very much.  I'll leave articles on the color of rooftops in Forgotten Realms to those who truly appreciate the value of world building.

On a side note, I finally understand completely why RC and I disagree so much on how much work needs to be done on the World's Largest Dungeon.  Me, if I reran it, I would take about two or three hours to patch the problems that I spotted when I ran it.  Mostly some consistency stuff in the maps (big monsters in small rooms, things like that) and some tweaks because I don't like the idea of nerfing broad ranges of spells for no reason (personally, I think the spell nerfs had a lot more to do with jim pinto than any playtest issues.).  OTOH, RC claims that it would take him a very long time to create a complete setting in which to run the WLD.  That the WLD, as is, needs massive rewriting in order to add "depth" and "history".  I'm not saying he's wrong.  He's right, for him.  For me, that would be a complete waste of time and rather boring to boot.  But, this thread does illustrate quite nicely the differences in approach.

IMNSHO, gamer culture has been bombarded with so many of these "world building" books that we take it for granted that IT MUST BE DONE.  After all, Papa Tolkien did it, so we must have to too.  We all want to be like the Professor, thus, we must do reams of world building in order to have "depth" and whatnot.  If this thread has done one thing for me it's show me how ingrained that idea is.  That people would simply brush off the idea of putting adventure first as shallow and immature gaming surprises the heck out of me.  But, it also does show me why RPG publishers crank out setting books as fast as they can to feed the great clomping nerds in all of us.


----------



## Hussar

It's bugging me, so I'll add another thought.

Take the hill with bunnies and the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing encounter.  Placing rabbits on a hill is not world building.  It's just setting.  It's creates an atmosphere of idyllic peace.  Detailing the life cycles of those rabbits would be world building.  Putting a hill there isn't world building.  Again, it's simply setting  - a place for the action to happen.  Talking about how ancient halflings used the hill in their moon worshipping ceremonies centuries ago would be world building.  Putting the monster there isn't world building, it's the antagonist.  It's not even setting.  Detailing the history of the creature when that history isn't going to affect play would be world building.

I hope that makes my point crystal clear.

I really get the sense that people object the idea that setting creation =/= world building because it hits them in the ego.  They aren't simply making a setting, they are *creating a WORLD*  It's almost as if setting creation just isn't a grand enough term for the amount of work they think needs to go into a setting before the setting has "depth".  It almost seems that people need a grandiose title that sounds better than just plain old setting creation.  Anyone can make a setting, only true artists can _build a world_ (Cue fanfare).


----------



## khyron1144

I've been working on one world since middle school.


I've discarded pages upon pages of notes on NPCs, history and geography, but certain elements have remained consistent throughout.

I think that makes me a better DM not a worse DM.


At some point, if there are enough adventures there, a world gets built no matter what, consider Discworld as a literary example, especially the city of Ankh-Morpork.


What counts as world-building?
Making another character for your NPC folder?
Telling the PCs the name of the ruler of the land they are in?
Figuring out where the Dwarven Mountains are in relation to the Cities of the Coast?
Coming up with some detailed flavor text for a homebrew adventure once the map is done; something that gives the PCs a logical reason to go to the dungeon?

At some point all of these activities are necessary to some degree or another.


----------



## LostSoul

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> You know what? I think you are right. I have a suspicion you and I could play in the same campaign without any problem.




I have a feeling that most people involved in this thread could, after 20 minutes discussion, have a great game.

No idea where I got that from, though.


----------



## Hussar

Heh, Why Bodybuilding is Bad.  

See, I look at it this way.  People are stating that setting creation and world building are the same thing.  Thus, the Bodybuilding joke looks like this:

When you body build, you build muscles.  When you exercise, you build muscles, therefore all exercise is body building.  No matter what kind of exercise you are doing, you are bodybuilding.  Anyone who says that perhaps bodybuilding isn't the best activity is therefore stupid because, well, we all know that exercise is good for you, so, it follows that bodybuilding is good for you.

Dissenting voice - but, what about exercise that isn't about building muscle?  There's a whole host of exercises out there that have little to do with body building.  Like yoga for instance.  

Irrelavent.  Whenever you do exercise, you are building muscle.  Therefore you are bodybuilding by definition since the definition of body building is building muscle.

Dissenting voice - but, hang on.  What if you change your goals?  What if, instead of building muscle, you want to work on cardiovascular capacity or endurance? 

Irrelavent, even when you do do those things, you are still building muscle, so you are body building.

Change the words body building to world building and exercise to setting construction and you get my point.  We can most certainly create setting without world buildilng.  Waiting for Godot is my favourite example of this.  World building is a subset, a specific set of activities, within setting creation.  World building is going beyond what you need and into setting creation for its own sake.  Sure, there's lots of grey in the middle, that's fine.  But it's a mistake to conflate setting creation with world building.  World building requires a number of actions to be taken.  Simply dropping a proper noun isn't enough.  You need to go beyond and detail the history, surroundings, whatnot of that proper noun.

Mine, and I think Rounser's point of view here is that most DM's engage in body building when they don't need to.  They could instead take up swimming or yoga, get just as fit and not require thousands of dollars of expensive equipment.  Or, to put it another way, you can create your campaigns without spending huge amounts of resources, either money or time, detailing out a setting and instead, focus on adventures and let the setting simply fade to the background.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> It almost seems that people need a grandiose title that sounds better than just plain old setting creation.  Anyone can make a setting, only true artists can _build a world_ (Cue fanfare).





Where in tarnation are you getting this stuff?

If that was actually the position of anyone on this thread, then that person would be declaring from the top of his lungs that world building _is not and could not be_ setting creation.

Much like your previous statement I asked a link for, you are pulling this out of the same place that someone who hasn't done prep gets his ideas at the table.

The "world" in a fictional story or rpg isn't necessarily a literal world.  Sometimes, as in a sf game, it is more than a world.  Sometimes it is less.  Sometimes it includes lists of monsters that can be encountered, and their statistics.  Sometimes it is a small town like Sunnydale and the larger "world" is merely implied.

"Worldbuilding" relates to "building the setting for a particular adventure" in the same way that "fish" relates to "trout"......And also the way that "fish" relates to "good eating".

All trout are fish.  That doesn't mean that all fish are trout.  The category "building the setting for a particular adventure" is a subset of the category "worldbuilding".  Worldbuilding can encompase many different subsets, such as creating a web of NPCs designed to play foils to the stated goals of the PCs.  When you are creating backdrop, you are building the "world" in which the action takes place.  Note that this is an ongoing activity in almost every game, where the interaction between players and DM add to the world, and build upon what has gone before.  Also, most DMs add to the world in terms of creating new adventure settings, while most players add to the world in terms of creating new character backgrounds.

Not all fish are good eating.  Likewise, not all parts of worldbuilding necessarily lead to an enhancement of the experience of reading or playing in a role-playing game.  Some are downright vile (although it is still quite likely that someone, somewhere, likes that particular type of "fish").  Some types of fish are poisonous, and need very careful preparation if they are to be consumed to good effect.  Some people are allergic to, or just do not like, fish no matter how appetizing they are to the population at large.

I know that this is not how _you_ use the term, but it is how the term is used _in general_ whether you like it or not.  That there are multiple words or phrases that can be used to refer to the same thing is not only common in English, but it is irrelevant.

So, you can either accept that (1) given your definition of worldbuilding, no one disagrees with you, but that we don't accept that the definition is valid for general use, or (2) you can stop playing Alice in Wonderland's Humpty Dumpty for whom words mean whatever he wishes them to mean when he uses them, regardless of general usage. 

As to (1), myself and others have already agreed ad infinitum ad nauseum that if you define worldbuilding as "building setting that is worthless and bad" then the statement "worldbuilding is bad" is tautologically true.

As to (2), general definitions are widely available on the Internet.  If there is any authority you accept other than your own, please let me know and I'll try to gain the applicable quote.

There is, of course, a third choice:  Accept neither.  

OTOH, if that is your choice, I can and will continue to be amused by your unwillingness or inability to accept either.


----------



## rounser

> I hope that makes my point crystal clear.



*claps*


> As to (1), myself and others have already agreed ad infinitum ad nauseum that if you define worldbuilding as "building setting that is worthless and bad" then the statement "worldbuilding is bad" is tautologically true.



You're playing a deliberate trick with words there.  Your worldbuilding isn't "setting" by his definition if it doesn't manifest in some form as support for an adventure, so worldbuilding is _not_ "building setting that is worthless and bad" because not all worldbuilding _counts_ as setting, by his definition (which I thoroughly agree with).


> As to (2), general definitions are widely available on the Internet. If there is any authority you accept other than your own, please let me know and I'll try to gain the applicable quote.



"Widely available on the internet" apparently means returning this thread as the top Google result, which is kind of ironic and happens to undermine that assertion totally.  And it's not in a dictionary, because it's a turn of phrase, which literally means "building a world" in the english language.  Setting, on the other hand, means something entirely different....and it's actually in the dictionary.  Hmm...not looking good for that argument of yours, better try another.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that most people involved in this thread could, after 20 minutes discussion, have a great game.
> 
> No idea where I got that from, though.




Probably some hack.


----------



## gizmo33

Hussar said:
			
		

> I really get the sense that people object the idea that setting creation =/= world building because it hits them in the ego.




Wow, now who's "world building"?  In the world I'm building, everyone who disagrees with me is doing so because they're Chaotic Evil (cue blood-curdling scream).  In fact, the harder I think about it the more I have the sense that this is the case.  Now all I have to do is have the will power to ignore 22 pages of explanation as to why they actually think what they do.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> You're playing a deliberate trick with words there.  Your worldbuilding isn't "setting" by his definition if it doesn't manifest in some form as support for an adventure, so worldbuilding is _not_ "building setting that is worthless and bad" because not all worldbuilding _counts_ as setting, by his definition (which I thoroughly agree with).




WTF?!?!?!   

Can you rephrase that?

EDIT:  Actually, on rereading, I think I see what you are trying to say.  Let me see if I can rephrase:

Setting exists only as support for an adventure/story.

Worldbuilding is any creation of material that would otherwise be called setting that is not support for an adventure/story.​
The gist of this is that, in the parlance of _everyone else_, what you are calling "worldbuilding" is simply the construction of setting that isn't used.  In that case, I can't even say that this makes sense in a tautological way.  What happens when that setting material gets used?  Suddenly it becomes "good setting" as opposed to "bad worldbuilding"?  This is what Celebrim called "quantum worldbuilding" and it makes little (or no) rational sense.

Far from trying to play tricks with words, I was assuming that what you were saying made sense _within its own framework_.  END EDIT

Also, are you _certain_ that worldbuilding isn't in the Oxford Unabridged?


----------



## gizmo33

rounser said:
			
		

> You're playing a deliberate trick with words there.




You're right, it's not polite for RC to use people's ambiguous definitions in unapproved ways.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Your worldbuilding isn't "setting" by his definition if it doesn't manifest in some form as support for an adventure,




Most DM scribbles have the potential to manifest itself as support for an adventure.  Even a lame adventure title might inspire one to create the rest of the adventure, therefore making it "setting" material.  Therefore, I have to consider all setting material as bad because the risk is that lame adventure titles will gain respect otherwise.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> And it's not in a dictionary, because it's a turn of phrase, which literally means "building a world" in the english language.




"Fire fighter" is in my dictionary.  Then again, I'm sure a noun really isn't a noun unless it manifests itself as support for a verb.



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Setting, on the other hand, means something entirely different....and it's actually in the dictionary.  Hmm...not looking good for that argument of yours, better try another.




It's a good thing you've brought your expertise with you regarding dictionary construction.  Otherwise I would be totally lost if you weren't there to tell me what I ought to conclude from what I'm reading.


----------



## howandwhy99

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The brain is a marvelous tool. It's first advantage is that thought is immensely rapid. I can think about something before I do it, and then do it, all within the span of a minute or less. I don't need to think about it, prepare to do it, wait a week, and then do it.
> 
> It's second advantage is that it is amazing at recognizing patterns. I've read a lot of books, seen a lot of movies, watched a lot of TV, played a lot of games...I know that when there is a princess in trouble, a knight in shining armor will always want to save her. I know that necromancer kings host armies of undead in forgotten lairs. I know that barbarians hate wizards, and that tentacles make people go insane. I know no one can see a ninja who does not want to be seen unless they are an even *better* ninja.
> 
> In other words, I know archetypes. Archetypes are a pattern that the brain can recognize. And then, as if those patterns were building blocks, I can meld them together and structure them one on top of the other and twist them and balance them to make an adventure.



Speed chess can be fun, but it still requires hours of study and practice.  Moreover, playing speed chess isn't a great strategy when your opponent can take as much time as he or she desires.  Can you still be great at chess?  Sure, but the best take their time.

Can you tell me you make every decision in life in 5 seconds flat?  Reflection and planning has value that isn't superfluous navel gazing.  I find it hard to believe that you are spontaneous in every aspect of your life.  I'm fine with the idea that this is your favorite style of DMing.  But I presume you'd agree that a DM who does some prep work isn't necessarily wasting his time?


----------



## Raven Crowking

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Can you tell me you make every decision in life in 5 seconds flat?  Reflection and planning has value that isn't superfluous navel gazing.  I find it hard to believe that you are spontaneous in every aspect of your life.  I'm fine with the idea that this is your favorite style of DMing.  But I presume you'd agree that a DM who does some prep work isn't necessarily wasting his time?





Not only that, but you need to notice the subtle insult to his players.  Apparently, KM can always think one or more moves ahead of them, no matter what.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not only that, but you need to notice the subtle insult to his players.  Apparently, KM can always think one or more moves ahead of them, no matter what.




Are you sure you're not reading too much into it?  I took KMs statements as rather self-deprecating, as in "I don't use any ideas in my games that take me more than a minute to come up with."  I didn't see where he said he stayed ahead of his players.  It's an open question whether or not his players are as familiar with the archetypes as he is (and if you think "world building vs. setting" is bad, just imagine a "archetype vs. cliche" debate...)


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Are you sure you're not reading too much into it?  I took KMs statements as rather self-deprecating, as in "I don't use any ideas in my games that take me more than a minute to come up with."  I didn't see where he said he stayed ahead of his players.  It's an open question whether or not his players are as familiar with the archetypes as he is (and if you think "world building vs. setting" is bad, just imagine a "archetype vs. cliche" debate...)




I could probably dredge through this thread and find it.....If it hasn't been editted away.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You don't need to read characters mind's or run a railroad, you just have to think about "what *would* happen if..." slightly more than the players do.





I might be reading that a bit harshly, but I've yet to meet the individual who can consitently think "what would happen if" slighty more than the players do without prep work.  This seems to imply to me a subtle insult to KM's players.  Of course, as I said, I might be reading that a bit harshly.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Is creating setting world-building



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

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





Apparently so.


----------



## howandwhy99

I know this may appear redundant, but you guys are on page 23.  My understanding still is: Hussar and Rounser are playing stories while everyone else is playing games.  Stories have plots.  Games don't.  Plots are predetermined by definition.  Games aren't (or Vegas owes me big).

Now I know, since the advent of the DL adventures plots have become status quo.  That even the "Choose Your Own Adventure" style plotting has become considered de rigeur for running a railroad-free game.  For myself, I can only shake my head and disagree.  This style is still laying down tracks; it just presumes to know when and where they divide.  

The misunderstanding about "setting" and "world-building", again, as I understand it, is directly related to riding these plots.  Plots weave around the country like freeways.  "Setting" is the freeway barrier on either side.  "World-building" is everything beyond those barriers.  

So, if you're telling a story, regardless of the number of plot threads, anything that doesn't count as "setting" is pointless.  The freeway, the plot, is the only thing that matters.  The rest is pretty much just scenery (which can be painted with as much detail as the DM cares to give it.  It will never influence anything anyways).

If you're not telling a story, if you are playing a game, a simulation game that is very, very much like real life, then world-building is a necessity (whether done spontaneously or not).  

How can this possibly work?  Won't chaos break out without plots?  Isn't everything pointless then?  Well, think back to all the pre-1986 adventures.  Some were designed for tournaments, true, but never a one had a plot.  What they did have were limited scope and proscribed goals.  Why?  Because players had only 4 hours to achieve some kind of success within them.  Not to mention everyone was being graded on their achievements as well, so, in competition, each group worked to best as much of the module as possible within the alloted time.  

In home "campaigns" the action doesn't need to stop.  Success and achievement don't run on a timeline; they occur as appropriate based on how everything plays out.  Goals are not needed either.  The group, a bunch of heroes remember, choose their own goals and live or die by them.  That's freedom of choice, of desire.  They are responsible for what happens to them, not the DM.  It also invests them in the game.  

The other consideration is "Scope".  That's a big one for me as it factors in on how I run high-level adventures too.  In a campaign scope has no boundaries.  Certain adventure locales of course do.  These are modules and are called that as they are modular.  They are designed to fit into your world, not "setting".  While they are uniform, there are no real boundaries around them.  No freeway barriers.  Nothing but world and perhaps more modules.  The idea is, scope can grow and grow and grow just as your players increase in level.  A high level adventure will have little in low level detail, but will have great breadth of scope.  They are still difficult to publish as it's hard to generalize what low-level details the players may have been rewarded with to call on as resources in the larger module.

It's a little like smaller circles overlapping or concentric of bigger ones.  And then all are inside a big petri dish.  When the game starts it's like adding heat.  Everything starts to go wild where the PCs are and the heat turns up with every action.

Again, why aren't plots needed?  Because in the real world I haven't needed others to decide my goals, my actions, or my choices for me since I was a child. Who ever needed plots then when they played "let's pretend" games?  Most adults on this planet seem to get along just fine without others determining a plot for their lives.   In fact, to suggest otherwise is against freedom.  It's against everything we stand for.  I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]


----------



## Baron Opal

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not only that, but you need to notice the subtle insult to his players.  Apparently, KM can always think one or more moves ahead of them, no matter what.




Oh, come on. You know as well as anybody else that he's just saying he's mentally adroit on his feet. You're better than that, Crowking.


----------



## JustinA

Hussar said:
			
		

> See, there is a perfectly good word for talking about where the action occurs in a story - it's called setting.  When you building the place where teh action occurs, you are building setting.  But, apparently, that bit of simple English isn't highbrow enough.  So, we need a totally new word.  World building.  Wow, that sounds just so much more impressive than setting building.  We're not just crafting a well thought out setting, we're making A WHOLE WORLD.




See, there is a perfectly good wood for talking about where the action in a fantasy story takes place -- it's called "the world". When you are building the place where a fantasy story occurs, you are building the world. But, apparently, that simple English isn't highbrow enough. So, we need a totally new term. CRAFTING A SETTING. Wow, that sounds just so much more impressive than world building. We're not just making a world, we're carefully crafting a setting that's PERFECT FOR THE STORY.

...

I'm deeply suspicious when people take words or terms which have a common meaning, attempt to redefine them in some sort of arbitrary fashion, and then claim that their new definitions should be universally understood to be THE ONE TRUE MEANING OF THE TERM.

They're usually playing a stupid and meaningless semantics game like the one you're playing.

Instead of trying to ram your non-standard definitions of commonly used terms down people's throats, why don't you just discuss the underlying issue?

So, let's discuss the difference between "setting created for a specific purpose in a particular story" and "setting created without a specific purpose in mind".

When it comes to RPGs, how -- exactly -- do you tell the difference? You cite the example of deciding that a particular hill was once the site of halfling religious rituals as "indulgent" and "unnecessary". But, in D&D, the relevancy of that information is no farther away than a bardic knowledge check or a _legend lore_ spell.

Similarly, when I prepped my current Ptolus campaign the first thing I did was read through the 600 page book and carefully made notes detailing how various locations, NPCs, and organizations would need to be changed in order to fit into the existing cosmology and history of my established campaign world. You'd probably call this indulgent since I had no immediate purpose in mind for much of this work. But in the very first session there were at least a dozen instances of the players asking questions or the PCs going to places that I hadn't anticipated -- but that, thankfully, I had prepped answers for.

When it comes to RPGs, your distinction between "good setting (that was needed for the adventure)" and "bad setting (that wasn't needed for the adventure)" can only be determined _after the fact_. You look back at the adventure and say, "Huh. Guess I didn't need all that information about the hierarchy of the Thieves' Guild, since the PCs just ignored all that and went straight to the dragon's lair. So I guess that was all self-indulgent 'world-building'. Shame on me."



> Take the hill with bunnies and the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing encounter. Placing rabbits on a hill is not world building. It's just setting. It's creates an atmosphere of idyllic peace.




Okay, so having bunnies on a hill is "good setting" -- it's needed...



> I'll leave articles on the color of rooftops in Forgotten Realms to those who truly appreciate the value of world building.




But the color of a rooftop is "bad setting" -- it's not needed?

What's the distinction, exactly? How far does this go? When I mention that the nobleman the player's are talking to is wearing silk is that "bad setting" or "good setting"? What if I mention what color the silk is?



> At what point can we say, hey, y'know what?  That's a bit much.  Twenty THOUSAND pages of setting material is slightly overkill.  Five or six THOUSAND statted monsters is slightly on the high side.  Several hundred races is probably just a tad more than necessary.  A couple of thousand PrC's is just a smidgeon unnecessary.




5000 monsters do me no good if what I need for a particular scenario is the 5001st monster that would have been in the next supplement.

I've never understood people who get upset when more choices are offered to them. More choices means that there's a higher likelihood that something I want and/or need will be available when I want and/or need it.


----------



## Baron Opal

Plot is necesary to give the adventure direction in the absence of the players. I feel you need to know what the villain is going to do if unthwarted so you know how he's going to react when the players muck up the works.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I might be reading that a bit harshly, but I've yet to meet the individual who can consitently think "what would happen if" slighty more than the players do without prep work.  This seems to imply to me a subtle insult to KM's players.  Of course, as I said, I might be reading that a bit harshly.




I admire your ability to tough out this thread in the face of such bizarre logic that it makes my head spin - I was mostly kidding about your harshness.  I don't even know what common English words like "setting" mean anymore.  And the irony is that I really like adventures far more than campaign setting material as a consumer, but the arguments on that side are so exaggerated and patronizing that I can't support them respectfully.  I wish I could have turned these guys loose on TSR in the 2E days when setting material of dubious quality seemed much more prevalent.  Oh well, I bow to your superior Fortitude save.  Good luck.


----------



## gizmo33

JustinA said:
			
		

> I'm deeply suspicious when people take words or terms which have a common meaning, attempt to redefine them in some sort of arbitrary fashion, and then claim that their new definitions should be universally understood to be THE ONE TRUE MEANING OF THE TERM.




Me too.  But the magic of the internet is that no one can see you laughing when you type stuff like that.  Watch this:  "Setting is where you _set_ your DM screen in relation to where the players are sitting."


----------



## howandwhy99

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Plot is necesary to give the adventure direction in the absence of the players. I feel you need to know what the villain is going to do if unthwarted so you know how he's going to react when the players muck up the works.



I agree.  Background, personality, goals, strategy, and even specific tactics (not just in combat) are all nice to have for NPCs.  Make all the NPC plots you want.

My point is: plots aren't written for PCs.

(hmm-hmm hmmm hmmm hmmm hmmmmm)


----------



## rounser

> My understanding still is: Hussar and Rounser are playing stories while everyone else is playing games. Stories have plots. Games don't. Plots are predetermined by definition. Games aren't (or Vegas owes me big).



Yet another accusation of railroading.  No, that's a style of campaign arc.  You'd probably understand that if you didn't spend so much time worldbuilding.


----------



## rounser

> Me too. But the magic of the internet is that no one can see you laughing when you type stuff like that. Watch this: "Setting is where you set your DM screen in relation to where the players are sitting."



You guys are hypocrites; you ridicule Hussar's stated definition which matches the literal one in the dictionary, whilst turning a blind eye to the fact that RC doesn't even state a definition, and pretending that there's some consensus on a non-literal meaning for a combination of two words which have english meaning, and _are_ in the dictionary.  You've got nothing except assumptions based on your own personal bias, and you're so invested in your bias that you can't even see it.


----------



## rounser

> I admire your ability to tough out this thread in the face of such bizarre logic that it makes my head spin - I was mostly kidding about your harshness.



At least I understand where you guys are coming from, even if I don't agree.  I've "moved beyond" the point where you're at, because your viewpoint was once mine - I shared your assumptions.  If this side of the argument really seems that bizarre to you, and you can't see even the smallest kernel of truth to the multiple "rules" and opinions mounted against you, then...wow, quite frankly.  I suspected that worldbuilding was a sacred cow, but had no idea it was the King Kong of D&D sacred cows.  I suppose it makes sense, worldbuilding is the metahobby which DMs indulge in, and so an attack on that is an attack on the heart of D&D tradition.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> But I presume you'd agree that a DM who does some prep work isn't necessarily wasting his time?




You're right. I was merely trying to describe to the incredulous how it is possible to DM with no prep work without defying the laws of physics as if it were some superpower.

If my 0 + 4 = 4, and a prep-heavy 256 page setting bible's 4 + 0 = 4, the equation remains balanced: both of us are having fun gaming our way and both of our games add up to fulfilling, enriched, action-packed, flexible campaigns. 

I've got no problem with those who have fun doing prep -- no problem with those who love their world porn and their great clomping nerdism. I currently game under a DM who certainly loves his setting and has prepared a lot of history for it. I can't say as I'm interested in it too much, but it's something he likes to do and as long as it doesn't get in the way, I've no problem with it. 

Where I take exception is when it is suggested that prep work has some inherent virtue that elevates the campaigns of those who do it to some greater level of richness and depth that no less-developed campaign can have -- that worldbuilding is something that everyone should do as much of as possible because it will make the game better. Harrison, in a rather provocative way, re-affirms that worldbuilding is not what makes a story good for anyone other than those obsessed with worldbulding minutiae. Rather, for most people, it is a good story that makes a fantasy or sci-fi world worth living in. 

The subtle arrogance that developing elven tea ceremonies makes your games richer and deeper and more immersive than those who do not justifies all manner of DM indulgence under the guise of improving the game. Part of my desire was to call a spade a spade and to promote discussion of how much worldbuilding actually makes a D&D game good. The thread has provided a wonderfully re-affirming answer: how much is good is how much is fun for the group (DM and players all), and that amount will vary from campaign to campagin. I'm very happy with that conclusion.

But I still take issue with the subtle arrogance of those who love their setting porn claiming that it makes their games better in a way that those who do not love their setting porn can never match.

A game with more worldbuilding isn't richer -- it just has more worldbuilding. Which can be fun for the players and DM alike to geek out over, but it's not a deeper or more immersive world. It's just a world with more stuff to geek out over. And since a lot of D&D fans are great clomping nerds, it can be a lot of fun geeking out over worldbuilding minutiae. And if you're DMing for someone who loves worldbuilding, you should probably spend a bit of time on it because they're going to love it, just as if you're DMing for someone who loves gnomes, you should probably have gnomes in your game. 

Worldbuilding doesn't add anything improv doesn't, they're just two ends of the same spectrum. Both are capable of compensating for 0's at the other side, but both are rather rare because DMs usually aren't as extremist as either Mr. "I'll think about it when the time comes." or Mr. "I've poured 10 years of my life into developing the world of Valendia!"

Both of those extremists can still run some dang fine games, without any noticeable drop in any quality, but with a noticable difference in style.


----------



## howandwhy99

rounser said:
			
		

> Yet another accusation of railroading.  No, that's a style of campaign arc.  You'd probably understand that if you didn't spend so much time worldbuilding.



Perhaps if you could explain it to me?  Or point to one of the many posts in this thread that does?  I've posted my understanding above as to "setting" vs. "world-building".  Is that wrong too?


KM - thanks for the explanation.  I'm still of the mind that at least some prep can beneficial.  But I've gotta agree that the 256 pagers (or 20,000 pagers) are just taking things too far.  A DM doesn't need to write a book to run D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Oh, come on. You know as well as anybody else that he's just saying he's mentally adroit on his feet. You're better than that, Crowking.




If he's saying that he can consistently stay ahead of the players, then he's not just saying that he's mentally adroit; he's saying that he is _more mentally adroit_ than those players.  

I know that I wouldn't make that claim for my own group.

(But thanks for thinking me better than that)

And howandwhy99, your analysis _rocked_.


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I admire your ability to tough out this thread in the face of such bizarre logic that it makes my head spin - I was mostly kidding about your harshness.  I don't even know what common English words like "setting" mean anymore.  And the irony is that I really like adventures far more than campaign setting material as a consumer, but the arguments on that side are so exaggerated and patronizing that I can't support them respectfully.  I wish I could have turned these guys loose on TSR in the 2E days when setting material of dubious quality seemed much more prevalent.  Oh well, I bow to your superior Fortitude save.  Good luck.




Thanks.

But my Will save apparently sucks ass, or I would have bowed out long ago.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If my 0 + 4 = 4, and a prep-heavy 256 page setting bible's 4 + 0 = 4, the equation remains balanced: both of us are having fun gaming our way and both of our games add up to fulfilling, enriched, action-packed, flexible campaigns.




Honestly, I don't believe that the "prep only" guy runs a fun game either.



> But I still take issue with the subtle arrogance of those who love their setting porn claiming that it makes their games better in a way that those who do not love their setting porn can never match.




I know that this is supposed to balance out the subtle insult to your players (or the subtle stretch to pat your own back, if you prefer), but I'd be hard pressed to find _anything_ subtle about my position.

My statement is pretty clear (and pretty clearly defined, often, over the course of the thread):  Worldbuilding is creating setting, specifically moving setting from the generic to the specific.  Doing so is necessary to create an rpg game (although sometimes some of the work has been done for you, like WotC telling you what elves and dwarves are, what classes can do, and what spells do).  Some worldbuilding is indulgent, yes.  Some worldbuilding methods lead to potential problems in the game, yes.  But not all, or even most.


RC


----------



## rounser

> And howandwhy99, your analysis rocked.



Only someone who can't differentiate between worldbuilding and designing a campaign arc would say that.  But you're seemingly so invested in worldbuilding, it's no wonder you can't see the difference.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Is creating _campaign_ setting world-building
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
> Sci-fi writer M John Harrison tells you why you don't need to spend hours crafting your campaign setting:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently so.




FIFY



			
				HowandWhy said:
			
		

> I know this may appear redundant, but you guys are on page 23. My understanding still is: Hussar and Rounser are playing stories while everyone else is playing games. Stories have plots. Games don't. Plots are predetermined by definition. Games aren't (or Vegas owes me big).




There you go RC.  Pretty much word for word what I've been saying.  Those that figure that you need setting bibles figure that placing adventure first=railroading.

Since people apparently can't follow links, I'll post it here:



			
				From Wiki said:
			
		

> Worldbuilding Steps
> 
> Worldbuilding is a complex process, but it can be broken down into smaller categories.
> 
> [edit] Maps
> 
> It is vital to have clear and concise maps that display the locations of key points in the story - both so the author can be sure to be consistent and so the readers can get a clearer picture of the world being described. Two examples of famous maps in both literature and modern media are Middle-earth and the world of Azeroth.
> 
> [edit] Imaginary Ecosystem
> 
> Many authors create their own fauna and flora to enrich their world. Imaginary herbs are a large part of many fantasy novels, Kingsfoil in The Lord of the Rings being one such example.
> 
> [edit] Cultures
> 
> The different cultures that inhabit the world are another important aspect of worldbuilding. These are often based on real cultures, such as Vikings, the Middle Ages, ancient China, or Bedouins.
> 
> [edit] Written History
> 
> Creating a history for an imaginary world adds a depth and flavour to it that can help to draw readers into it. Created history can be based on anything, but many science fiction and fantasy authors base their novels in worlds where a major war has occurred in the past, is occurring, or will occur in the near future. Examples of such writing include The Lord of the Rings, the Shannara series, and the Belgarath series.
> 
> Physics and Magic
> 
> Another major aspect in worldbuilding is creating a world based either on A)Physics or B)Magic. The former is favoured by Science Fiction authors, who use technology in accordance with theories of the universe to create "magic-like" circumstances. Hyperdrive or faster than light travel is a common factor in most science fiction, and is an example of Physics. The latter is favoured by fantasy authors, who will give some (or all) characters magical talent. Authors such as David Eddings and Holly Lisle use Limited Magic, whereas authors such as J. R. R. Tolkien and Fiona McIntosh prefer Limitless magic.




Now, where in there does it not say that world building is far more than simply setting construction?  World building is a very specific process.  It's CREATING A WORLD.  Geez, I know that taking the literal definition of a phrase is a really whacked out concept, but, come on.  

World - a big place where everything is.

Building - to make something.

World building - to make a really big place where everything is.

In a D&D game, we don't need to know where everything is.  We only need to know where the things necessary for the adventure are.  If, instead of banging out setting book after setting book we instead focused on adventures and then let setting arise from that, we'd be much further ahead.

People have brought up Diskworld.  Diskworld has lots of setting depth because there are twenty-three (or more) novels set in it.  Nothing like ten or fifteen thousand pages of text to give some depth to a setting.  But, I would never try to claim that The Color of Magic is a triumph of world building.

Really guys, try some yoga.  Body building is great if all you want is big muscles, but, y'know, flexibility is nice too.


----------



## Hussar

Look at it this way:

When someone starts a new campaign, almost always it will be approached in one of two ways - bottom up or top down.  Either way, you are constructing a complete setting.

My point is that maybe, just maybe, this approach is wrong.

Instead of starting out with the question of "where is the action going to happen?" why not start out with the question, "What is going to happen?"  I want to run a naval based campaign for instance.  So, I want to run adventures based around the sea.  At low levels, maybe we'll do a couple of portside adventures with the players foiling smugglers and gaining a boat.  Then, we'll do a few adventures where the players get used to being sailors.  Then we'll bring in a nice arc about hunting a big white whale.  Following that...  You get the idea.

Then, as you make those adventures, and probably a few more as well for side treks, you create setting as needed.  Need an island here?  Poof it's there.  Need a sandbar there?  Magic.  

Does that make sense?  

Repeately people have claimed that setting inspires adventures.  I'll buy that.  I'm a big proponent of using whatever inspires you.  My point is, there are many, many things out there that can inspire you without you having to do hours and hours of work that ultimately won't see the light of day.  The point of inspiration is to craft the adventure.  That means that adventures are the important thing.  Why not skip the middle man and go straight to the adventures?


----------



## JustinA

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, where in there does it not say that world building is far more than simply setting construction?  World building is a very specific process.  It's CREATING A WORLD.  Geez, I know that taking the literal definition of a phrase is a really whacked out concept, but, come on.




And now we switch to a definition of world-building from which one can only conclude that no one has ever done world-building.

Why?

Because you are insisting that it's only world-building if some creates an entire world. This is impossible. No meaningful world can ever be described to its last detail. So, clearly, a line must be drawn at some point.

You are, in fact, choosing to draw that line at an arbitrary point of "more detail than is needed for the present adventure", and then tautologically assuming your conclusion from that.

But, of course, I have already destroyed this line of your argument. And it is notable that you failed to respond to that.



> Repeately people have claimed that setting inspires adventures.  I'll buy that.  I'm a big proponent of using whatever inspires you.  My point is, there are many, many things out there that can inspire you without you having to do hours and hours of work that ultimately won't see the light of day.  The point of inspiration is to craft the adventure.  That means that adventures are the important thing.  Why not skip the middle man and go straight to the adventures?




This line of argument is more compelling, but you're assuming that "what type of adventures do I want to run" isn't taken into consideration when you're world-building. You're the only one drawing an artificial boundary between the two activities, after all.

And, ultimately, this still just comes back to the after-the-fact nature of the distinction you're trying to draw: The color of a rooftop is "good setting" if it comes up during the course of an adventure; it's "bad setting" if it doesn't.

Barring a precognizant DM, I'm not sure what the usefulness of this distinction is supposed to be.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Worldbuilding is creating setting, specifically moving setting from the generic to the specific.  Doing so is necessary to create an rpg game (although sometimes some of the work has been done for you, like WotC telling you what elves and dwarves are, what classes can do, and what spells do).




I'm not sure I follow.

In a recent campaign, the first session consisted of our group sitting down and coming up with a world.  Everything was vague and generic.  (As in, "This world is ruled by a merchant council."  "Yeah, it's like a corporation, and the council members are guys who have huge numbers of shares.")

During the game, if we needed something (or someone!) more detailed, we created it on the fly.

What would you say we were doing 1) during the first session, and 2) while we were playing out individual scenes?

I would say 1) was worldbuilding, and 2) was creating setting.  I guess I would say that worldbuilding is creating the generic, and setting is moving to the specific.


----------



## khyron1144

Hussar said:
			
		

> World - a big place where everything is.
> 
> Building - to make something.
> 
> World building - to make a really big place where everything is.
> 
> In a D&D game, we don't need to know where everything is.  We only need to know where the things necessary for the adventure are.  If, instead of banging out setting book after setting book we instead focused on adventures and then let setting arise from that, we'd be much further ahead.
> 
> People have brought up Diskworld.  Diskworld has lots of setting depth because there are twenty-three (or more) novels set in it.  Nothing like ten or fifteen thousand pages of text to give some depth to a setting.  But, I would never try to claim that The Color of Magic is a triumph of world building.
> 
> Really guys, try some yoga.  Body building is great if all you want is big muscles, but, y'know, flexibility is nice too.





I will agree with your definition, but I will disagree with your conclusion.  

Like I said before: I've been working with the same homebrew world, since seventh grade.  I think that might be equivalent to a few thousand pages of text.  I have retconned out much of the stuff from the earliest days, so I guess it was not initially a triumph of world-builidng.




By the by, you're the Hussar from the Shadow of the Dragon forums too, right?  Cool to run across you again on this board, if so.


----------



## Hussar

JustinA said:
			
		

> And now we switch to a definition of world-building from which one can only conclude that no one has ever done world-building.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because you are insisting that it's only world-building if some creates an entire world. This is impossible. No meaningful world can ever be described to its last detail. So, clearly, a line must be drawn at some point.




Only if you assume that you only world build if you have a complete product.  If the process of world building is creating an entire world (note, world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending) with as much detail and history as possible - following the six steps outlined above - then you would be wrong.



> You are, in fact, choosing to draw that line at an arbitrary point of "more detail than is needed for the present adventure", and then tautologically assuming your conclusion from that.
> 
> But, of course, I have already destroyed this line of your argument. And it is notable that you failed to respond to that.




There's been a lot of posts in here.  If I missed something mea culpa.  

However, you are also guilty of tautology.  Setting is good because you need setting.  World building=setting construction.  Therefore world building is good.  Just like exercise is good.  Exercise builds muscles.  Body building builds muscles.  Therefore all exercise is body building.

World building is a specific process that is not necessarily the same as setting construction.  All stories, and rpg's, need a setting.  They don't need world building.  



> This line of argument is more compelling, but you're assuming that "what type of adventures do I want to run" isn't taken into consideration when you're world-building. You're the only one drawing an artificial boundary between the two activities, after all.
> 
> And, ultimately, this still just comes back to the after-the-fact nature of the distinction you're trying to draw: The color of a rooftop is "good setting" if it comes up during the course of an adventure; it's "bad setting" if it doesn't.
> 
> Barring a precognizant DM, I'm not sure what the usefulness of this distinction is supposed to be.
> 
> Justin Alexander
> http://www.thealexandrian.net




So, what kind of adventures are being taken into account in twenty some thousand pages of Forgotten Realms material?  When I pick up the Ghelspad Gazetteer, I get 300 (ish) pages that paints the nations and city states of Scarn with a very broad brush.  What kind of adventures are being taken into account there?

Y'know what?  I'm fairly willing to think that the entirety of The Border Kindoms articles are pretty much indulgence.  Note, please note, that I'm NOT saying that it's bad.  I'm saying that you could spend time in better ways, but, I'm not saying that it is bad.  We've been over this before.  Dessert isn't bad.  But, you don't really need it.  A little once in a while is probably a good thing.  But, ignoring the main course to always go for the dessert is probably not the way to go.

/edit - found it.  How about four separate articles detailing architecture in the rural areas of FR?  Can we not at least agree that here, in this one case, we have found something that is pretty much pure indulgence?  

It's not about being precient.  But, come on.  Let's be honest here.  Do you REALLY think that 32 and counting articles are really necessary?  I agree that setting is necessary.  I fully support the idea that setting is necessary.  But this is pure indulgence.  It's big, creamy, boston cream donuts.  It's a big slice of cherry cheesecake with graham crust.  

Oh man, now I've got the munchies.  

LostSoul - you are doing pretty much what I'm advocating.  Your world building is confined to a paragraph, but your setting building is focused on what you need for the adventure.  Cudos.


----------



## Baron Opal

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If he's saying that he can consistently stay ahead of the players, then he's not just saying that he's mentally adroit; he's saying that he is _more mentally adroit_ than those players.




No, he's saying that he can make up fun stuff to do faster than the players can do it. There is no insult here, real or implied, merely the claim of honed skill.

Which, if you've been making stuff up for a long time, I imagine you would become quite good at tale telling after a while.


----------



## Hussar

Hey Khyron - Long time no see.  ((Waves!))

On the whole KM sidebar.  Come on, get with the program here.  While it's true that players do surprise the DM from time to time, I'm willing to bet that everyone posting in this thread can generally predict their player's behavior the majority of the time.  Not because we're bloody geniuses or anything like that, but because, by and large, it's isn't a huge leap to figure out what someone's going to do.  Hrm, as DM, I set the scenario and I've been playing with the same people for some time.  So, if I start with a similar scenario as the one I did a couple of weeks ago, it's fairly likely that the players will react in similar ways.  Or, if not, at least fairly predictable ways.

It ain't rocket science.  Very few players, when faced with a closed door will begin yodelling.


----------



## Baron Opal

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, what kind of adventures are being taken into account in twenty some thousand pages of Forgotten Realms material?  When I pick up the Ghelspad Gazetteer, I get 300 (ish) pages that paints the nations and city states of Scarn with a very broad brush.  What kind of adventures are being taken into account there?




Hussar, you've done me the favor of drawing the line between setting and worldbuilding when I asked, and I a appreciate that. Allow me to return the favor. I can't imagine that I would write 300 pages on my campaign world. I think about it a lot, and I make some notes on a pad at work when my muse strikes me, but may campaign guide is about twenty pages in length. About five pages of that are house rules, class tweaks, &c. I think that if I copied what I stole from Planescape, Eberron, Iron Kingdoms, Greyhawk, &c. and imported it into Adobe I would probably reach about 120-150 pages of material. That would be the whole ball of wax, cosmology, important places, the works. So, let me be on the record and say that ~200 pages of professional material is a reasonable upper limit on a campaign milieu _considering sole authorship and for personal use._ 

You can't really take Forgotten Realms as a true example of "great clomping nerdism", or whatever that jerk was quoted in the first post. It's a commercial product. However, I do agree that after reams and reams of notes you will tend to get lost in the details. I maintain that my notes are the adventure seeds for a lifetime and that the geography, cultures and other details inform me how things will play out. This helps me create the adventures, in which plots are resolved and details are fine tuned.

Here's the thing,


Some dude I've never heard of,
insults something I do for fun,
that reinforces something else that I do for fun,
while writing about something that's only tangentally related.

That stuck in my craw just a bit. 

But, I realize that there is a continuum of detail. The amount prepared before a game ranges from Kamikaze Midget's white write-as-you-go to Khyron's black Encyclopedia Homebrewica. Does the dread specter of *nerdism* arise with a continental map and five pages of geo-political notes? Or with my fifty or so pages of typed and hand-written notes? Perhaps the Jester's 500 page opus of home rules and background? Where upon this grey continuum do we get to apply the stamp of the *nerd* and reject and ignore the fool as a sad and obsessed gamer?

I've got quote for you.

"I've been called worse from better people."

Hrumpf.


----------



## Hussar

Oh hey, I wear my badge of great clomping nerd with some pride.    I don't really care that much about Harrison's original screed to be honest.  It was a jump off point for me to see the debate.  I'm actually truthfully somewhat surprised by the impassioned defense of world building.  I knew that it was important to some people, but, not to the point where they would state that campaigns lacking world building are flat/railroads.

Now, where the turning point is will really vary from person to person.  I honestly don't want to create/copy a couple of hundred pages of setting bible anymore.  If I crafted a couple of hundred pages of adventures and called that a campaign, I'd be more happy.  On the downside, doing that is a heck of a lot of work.  

But, maybe, with the large number of adventures getting cranked out, and the number of large adventures hitting the shelves, I can create a sort of matrix that Rounser is talking about and then see what sort of setting arises from that.

I've got 11 issues of Dungeon or Dragon coming to me in September.  (Sorry guys, didn't opt into Pathfinder - 11 back issues with free delivery was just too tempting vs 4 issues of Pathfinder - bloody international post)  Anyone want to give me some suggestions for good Dungeon back issues for this sort of thing?  I've only got the STAP Dungeon issues.  I figure with 11 more Dungeons, I would have 30+ adventures in my greedy little hands.  That's gotta be enough for a complete campaign.


----------



## JustinA

Hussar said:
			
		

> Only if you assume that you only world build if you have a complete product.  If the process of world building is creating an entire world (note, world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending) with as much detail and history as possible - following the six steps outlined above - then you would be wrong.




Actually, no, then _you_ would be wrong, since that completely contradicts the distinction you were trying to draw between "setting creation" and "world building".



> However, you are also guilty of tautology.  Setting is good because you need setting.




If I had ever said that, I would be guilty of tautology. In reality, of course, I never said that.

But, please, don't let that dissuade you from punching those strawmen around.



> World building is a specific process that is not necessarily the same as setting construction.




So you keep insisting with tautological fervor. But, like I said, I'm deeply suspicious of people who try to redefine commonly used terms in order to prove some sort of nebulous and ill-conceived point.



> So, what kind of adventures are being taken into account in twenty some thousand pages of Forgotten Realms material?  When I pick up the Ghelspad Gazetteer, I get 300 (ish) pages that paints the nations and city states of Scarn with a very broad brush.  What kind of adventures are being taken into account there?




Lots of them? Was this meant to be a trick question?



> Y'know what?  I'm fairly willing to think that the entirety of The Border Kindoms articles are pretty much indulgence.




Really? Because they would seem to be directly pertinent to anyone running a campaign set in the Border Kingdoms.



> /edit - found it.  How about four separate articles detailing architecture in the rural areas of FR?  Can we not at least agree that here, in this one case, we have found something that is pretty much pure indulgence?




Are you kidding? Do you never run adventures in rural locations? Or do your PCs never find themselves in buildings when you do so?

Let's just take two random facts from the first article you link to:

(1) "In Calimshan and Tethyr (and less prevalently elsewhere, as ideas spread from the Sword Coast), windows tend to be rectangular, with rough-cast metal frames crossed diagonally by three or four bars, with small panes of glass leaded into place between the bars."

Well, now I know what happens when someone gets defenestrated (which seems to happen at least three times in every campaign I've ever run) or when the PCs want to make a hasty escape out the window.

(2) "So glass pieces and fragments of all sizes are sold in markets all across the Realms. Merchants transport these wrapped in oilcloth or scraps of old clothing and laid in layers in wood "presses" of boards bound tightly together with leather straps."

Having the PCs act as merchant caravan guards is a cliche for a reason. Now we know what they're guarding.

Now, I suspect your answer to this will be: "Can't you just make these types of details up on the fly?" Please feel free to do so. It will give me the opportunity to completely destroy your position yet again.



> It's not about being precient.  But, come on.  Let's be honest here.  Do you REALLY think that 32 and counting articles are really necessary?




Necessary for what? My personal campaign? Probably not. But, on the other hand, Ed Greenwood isn't writing the column just for me. But do I think that pretty much everything in those columns will be useful to somebody at some point (or would be if they knew the resource existed)? Sure.

When you try to switch the focus from what I prep for my personal campaign to what a professional game company preps for their entire consumer base, you're trying to pull a fast one in any case.

For example, I have absolutely no plans to include assassins in my current campaign. Does that mean it was "indulgent" of WotC to include an assassin class in the DMG? Of course not. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people have found that assassin class immediately useful in their games.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## JustinA

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> No, he's saying that he can make up fun stuff to do faster than the players can do it. There is no insult here, real or implied, merely the claim of honed skill. Which, if you've been making stuff up for a long time, I imagine you would become quite good at tale telling after a while.




And, honestly, this isn't a particularly elite skill. It takes me almost no time at all to come up with a concept for a basic fight scene. It'll take half and hour for that to play out at the game table, which should give me more than enough time to plot out my next move.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## Wayside

JustinA said:
			
		

> Now, I suspect your answer to this will be: "Can't you just make these types of details up on the fly?" Please feel free to do so. It will give me the opportunity to completely destroy your position yet again.



Your (unintentionally comedic) summaries of whose words are doing what aren't really helping your position.


----------



## rounser

> I've got 11 issues of Dungeon or Dragon coming to me in September. (Sorry guys, didn't opt into Pathfinder - 11 back issues with free delivery was just too tempting vs 4 issues of Pathfinder - bloody international post) Anyone want to give me some suggestions for good Dungeon back issues for this sort of thing? I've only got the STAP Dungeon issues. I figure with 11 more Dungeons, I would have 30+ adventures in my greedy little hands. That's gotta be enough for a complete campaign.



Modified versions of _A Wrastle With Bertrum_, _At The Spottle Parlor_, _Asflag's Unintentional Emporium_, _Irongard_ and _Nbod's Room_ are nice strong flavour starting points for a quilted-adventures-campaign.  _Secrets of the Towers_ can provide an ongoing theme for wilderness travel, and _Granite Mountain Prison_ is a good place to put an NPC important to the PCs.   _King Oleg's Dilemma_ and _The Siege of Kratys Freehold_ can be tied together into a "defend the keep" thread.  _The Shrine of Isildahur_, _Herme's Bridge_, _Troll Bridge_ and _The Elven Home_ are nice "just stumbled upon" locations in the wilderness.  I like _Welcome to Krypthome_ more as a location than a plot (gotta love honkmoss).

_A Hot Day In L'Trel_, _Goblin Fever_ and _Bzallin's Blacksphere_ are very dynamic events to build cities around.  If you're feeling adventurous, doing all three to the same city at different parts of the campaign is a possibility, though it risks the PCs beginning to not care about saving said city.  _Legacy of the Liosalfar_ plus _The Standing Stones of Sundown_, _Nightshade_, _Blood on the Plow_ and _A Wizard's Fate_ provide a lot to do in villages.  _Horror's Harvest_ can be set up long beforehand as a perfectly normal home village for the PCs - they see the comet whilst on adventure and hoo boy, things have changed when they return.  

Dungeon also has a lot of adventures with the "seeking immortality" theme, and they can be tied together into a loose campaign arc, perhaps with a coterie of villains and lost souls at the heart of it.  There are several adventures involving wererat infestations, which could be tracked over the course of the campaign through a single infested NPC villain.  _Raiders of the Chanth_ provides an Egg of Coot-style villain and it's demesne.  The _Challenge of Champions_ series provides another ongoing campaign theme in urban areas.  _Hrothgar's Resting Place_, _Forbidden Mountain_, _Deadly Treasure_, _Thunder Under Needlespire_, _A Rose for Talakara_ and many others on the tip of my tongue also shouldn't go unmentioned as excellent campaign-making fodder.  

Combined with your own adventure ideas, it should result in something very dynamic and packed to the gills with adventure, which is what D&D should be all about IMO.


----------



## howandwhy99

So world building is a specific practice of creating a simulated environment.  I gotta say, all 6 of the Wiki listed elements routinely enter into my designs.  I don't see this as separate from what you are terming "setting" however.  Why?

In a word: Relevancy.  

All 6 of those aspects will be in my game.  Will every specific detail be designed?  Of course not.  I've mentioned I build by proximity.  Will every detail I create be encountered?  No too.  But the players aren't expected to suss out every last tunnel in every dungeon either.  This isn't Zelda.

What about the "23 grasses of the Shaar plains"?  Yeah, Greenwood is a great, clomping nerd.  He isn't designing for relevance.  He's just futzing around with his world and fanboys read all about it.  Does that mean a game cannot be played there?  No.  Does it mean the 23 grasses are wasted creation?  I say no to that too.  But they are extraordinarily irrelevant until a PC takes interest in grassland botany.

IMO, relevancy changes as soon as the players take an interest.  To your yodeling example.

Some folks yodel in front of doors.  They ask around for the most popular yodel songs in town.  Am I to have that ready?  I'd say, no way, no how.  Can I improvise?  Sure, and I might just indulge the player with yodeling contests in the vicinity or, at the very least, I'll insert a few leads on where other yodelers might be found.  If Bluegrass Willy keeps it up all session or seriously shows interest, guess what?  I'm world-building yodels for next session.  

Oh, the great, clomping nerdism of it all.  

But seeing as the point is fun.  And this element became fun.  I'm indulging the players.


----------



## gizmo33

rounser said:
			
		

> At least I understand where you guys are coming from, even if I don't agree.




But then... 



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> I suppose it makes sense, worldbuilding is the metahobby which DMs indulge in, and so an attack on that is an attack on the heart of D&D tradition.




So what is it that you understand?  You're trying to take some sort of "moral high-ground" at times but it's going to take some will-power to keep from slipping back into these imaginary excursions into other people's motivations. 

It's easier for you to believe that the firmness of people's objections is due to some flaw in their personality rather than simply finding your reasoning to be strange, your fears exaggerated, and your definitions of words unusable.  

I could just make up a conspiracy theory, say that kobolds controlled the world.  People who deny it work for the kobolds.  This sort of thing has, built into it, a narrative that you can use to completely dismiss objections to your theory.  In fact, the more people object, the more you can convince yourself that you're on to something.  A person doing that is not actually listening anymore to what people are saying, just absorbing comments into their framework and using it to build up the fantasy.


----------



## Brentos

*worldbuilding and being a nerd*

Why is worldbuilding ahead of time any more nerdy then worldbuilding while improvising?

Seems that playing a game, such as D&D already implies nerdy-ism, so whichever method I'm using is more about preference and personal fun.   "I'm an orc wizard!"  We really can't much nerdy-er, I imagine.

I like world-building, though, because I can do it more then I can play, but most of it is not relevant, and through improvising, things may change on the fly--yes, I'm nerdy from both end of the spectrum!


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I could just make up a conspiracy theory, say that kobolds controlled the world.  People who deny it work for the kobolds.  This sort of thing has, built into it, a narrative that you can use to completely dismiss objections to your theory.  In fact, the more people object, the more you can convince yourself that you're on to something.  A person doing that is not actually listening anymore to what people are saying, just absorbing comments into their framework and using it to build up the fantasy.





That's actually a serious problem with Freudian analysis, too.

RC


----------



## rounser

> You're trying to take some sort of "moral high-ground" at times but it's going to take some will-power to keep from slipping back into these imaginary excursions into other people's motivations.



Thirty years of published settings and homebrews as the pride of D&D and 3rd party publishers, forming their own little mini-cults like no other aspect of the game can except different editions, and I'm imagining it all.  Yes, one of us is definitely divorced from reality.


----------



## Hussar

JustinA said:
			
		

> So you keep insisting with tautological fervor. But, like I said, I'm deeply suspicious of people who try to redefine commonly used terms in order to prove some sort of nebulous and ill-conceived point.




So, Wiki is redifining a commonly used term?  Wow.  I guess wiki isn't a decent source of common thought at all.  



			
				HowandWhy said:
			
		

> What about the "23 grasses of the Shaar plains"? Yeah, Greenwood is a great, clomping nerd. He isn't designing for relevance. He's just futzing around with his world and fanboys read all about it. Does that mean a game cannot be played there? No. Does it mean the 23 grasses are wasted creation? I say no to that too. But they are extraordinarily irrelevant until a PC takes interest in grassland botany.




And that's pretty much my point in a nutshell.  Most of world building is creating 23 grasses, even if its on a smaller scale.  

My point isn't you should improv world building or that you should do prepared world building. My point is that you don't need to do world building at all.  

Compare, for a moment, Ed Greenwood's Realms articles to Vicious Venues.  You could easily build upon those VV articles to create an entire campaign.  Nice little linked locations that are mostly self contained.  To do the same with the Realms articles, you have to contrive some pretty bizarre circumstances like finding a way to make 23 kinds of grass relavent or the shape of windows.

Yes, I realize that we are all creative enough to contrive situations where the fact that windows are square (like anyone would assume that they weren't), but, I'm still going to file those articles in the same place as Elven Tea Ceremonies.


----------



## Hussar

Look, what I'm advocating isn't ground breaking or particularly new.  It's not.  What I'm trying to say is that, for the homebrewer, the DM might be better served in emulating Green Ronin's Freeport, Goodman Games DCC's or AEG's World's Largest Dungeon rather than Forgotten Realms, Scarred Lands or Eberron.

If you go the FR route, whether you go top down or bottom up, you are, IMO, placing setting first.  You are creating world independently of adventure.  Granted, that process may lead to adventure creation, that's true, but, why not skip the middle man?  The adventures are the important thing.

If you go the Goodman Games route, instead, then you craft adventures, based on whatever criteria.  At the end of the process (if it ever ends) you are left with functional adventures rather than simply adventure ideas that then need to be turned into adventures.

After you have your collection of adventures, then you work out any setting that you might need that follows from those adventures.

I realize that this is going against the grain of what's been inculcated into the collective brains of DM's over the past couple of decades.  After all, Tolkien created setting first, story second, so, why shouldn't we?  Ed Greenwood did exactly the same thing as well - stories of FR first appeared in Dragon without any module support and people ate it up.  Second Edition is littered with setting after setting.  Really, the only settings that started with adventures first would be Greyhawk and Dragonlance (possibly Mystara as well) and, from DL, we have the sense that adventure first=railroad.  

My point is, if you go setting first, world building first, whatever you want to call it, you are going to do a lot of extraneous work.  True, you can fit that work into the adventures, but, then you run into the danger of forcing square pegs into round holes of contriving your scenarios so that the work you did becomes relevant.  So that square windows somehow figure into your adventures.  

Like I say, this is hardly a new concept.  Heretical perhaps now, but hardly new.  Heck, The Keep on the Borderlands is as generic as you can possibly make an adventure - the NPC's don't even have names!  Yet, this is still held up as a very solid, very good module by a lot of people.

I know bodybuilding is all the rage, but, honestly, try yoga.  It does wonders.


----------



## khyron1144

I like to go to the forums at Campaign Builder's Guild with others that like to spend a lot of time on world-building.  They have contests to see who can design the best whatever.  This month, the chosen subject is taverns.  I had a good idea, so I wrote this up:  

[sblock]
Physical description:  The King of Coins appears to be a one-story building with approximate dimensions of fifteen feet tall by fifty feet wide (east to west dimension) by fifty feet long (north to south dimension).  The common room, which is the one that guest coming in from the street will enter, is about thirty feet long by forty feet wide.  The door marked Private leads to a very boring storage room where beer kegs are kept and so on.  This room is about twenty feet long by forty feet wide.  There's a door on its west wall, leading to a tiny, little ten foot by ten foot kitchen.  The unmarked door leads to a nicely furnished office, ten feet wide by thirty feet long.

That's the stuff that's obvious to the naked eye.  Anyone that carefully paces it out will notice the about ten by ten area of "missing" space.  Of course, PCs should be kept too busy to carefully pace it out.  The office has a secret door in the north wall that leads to the "missing room".  (Search DC 25 to find the secret door where relevant).  This room is used by Smashfiste as a secure treasure room for anything he's about to liquidate.  If the solid oak desk is moved (this should take a minimum D&D Strenght score of 16 to accomplish), a trapdoor in the floor can be found, which leads to Smashfiste's complex of tunnels that provide alternate entrances and exits and include a few secret rooms where valuables too hot to be easily fenced are kept to age.

Background: Five years ago a new tavern sprung up on the Street of Coins, taking its cue from The Ace of Swords (Street of Swords), Queen of Wands (Street of Wands) and Page of Cups (Street of Cups), this place was named The King of Coins.  Since the Street of Coins was a vastly different sort of neighborhood, the clientelle it cultivated was different.  Richer for one thing.

It's a silent partnership between Morton Ostler and "Lucky" "Four-Fingers" Smashfiste.  Ostler is a friendly face and competent tavern manager.  Smashfiste is a batttle-scarred half-ogre leg-breaker with a lot of money and a desire to earn more without doing so much hard work. Smashfiste decided to finance a tavern as the front for the new gang he was heading.  Ostler was simply lucky enough to find someone willing to finance "his" tavern.    

Morton Ostler is the owner of record for the King of Coins, but it was built to Smashfiste's specifications and with his money.  The builders were dwarfs fresh in from the mountains; their corpses buried under the tunnel's floor tiles is nasty secret #305 about The King of Coins.  Smashfiste's Coin Street Irregulars meet in the hidden rooms to plot.

Smashfiste invented the Mailed Fist to the Head accidentally.  He doesn't go in for mixed drinks much, but one night he was out of beer and found an intersting result when he mixed certain things together in the right doses.  Only Ostler can make them reliably.



"Lucky" "Four-Fingers" Smashfiste is a battle-scarred half-ogre.  He's missing one finger on his right hand and his sword has a custom grip to take that into account.  He wears stylish clothes in bright colors, but always has his sword on one hip too.  Like most half-ogres he's as ugly as sin.  Unlike most half-ogres he's pretty sharp.  He got his start as a leg-breaker for someone else's racket and he is not averse to violence.  He is however quite willing to let threats, explicit or implied, do the work of actual violence whenever possible.[/sblock]



Is this excessive?  I think it isn't because, while knowing the details of the Smashfiste and Ostler might be not immediately relevant, it has a lot of adventure potential.


----------



## Hussar

> Is this excessive? I think it isn't because, while knowing the details of the Smashfiste and Ostler might be not immediately relevant, it has a lot of adventure potential.




Is it excessive for what though?  For a website project devoted to world building?  Probably not.   

However, as a different approach, why not conceive of an adventure first.  Perhaps it's something as simple as killing giant rats in the cellar of a tavern.  Ok, now we need a tavern.  Tavern's should have names.  You need a tavern owner to hire the PC's.  Now, you don't need the whole front man bit at all and the clientelle isn't really all that necessary either.

If, OTOH, your adventure is investigating and breaking up the local thieves guild (or possibly joining it), then the front man bit is necessary.  The clientelle is also quite possibly necessary as well depending on the needs of the adventure.

This is my whole point in a nutshell.  Instead of taking the time to make a very cool tavern, why not make a very cool adventure and then any details you require come out of the needs of that adventure?


----------



## Hussar

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> But then...
> 
> 
> 
> So what is it that you understand?  You're trying to take some sort of "moral high-ground" at times but it's going to take some will-power to keep from slipping back into these imaginary excursions into other people's motivations.
> 
> It's easier for you to believe that the firmness of people's objections is due to some flaw in their personality rather than simply finding your reasoning to be strange, your fears exaggerated, and your definitions of words unusable.
> 
> I could just make up a conspiracy theory, say that kobolds controlled the world.  People who deny it work for the kobolds.  This sort of thing has, built into it, a narrative that you can use to completely dismiss objections to your theory.  In fact, the more people object, the more you can convince yourself that you're on to something.  A person doing that is not actually listening anymore to what people are saying, just absorbing comments into their framework and using it to build up the fantasy.




Just to add to the conspiracy theory:

Rich Burlew's World Building Project

Yeah, there's no movement in the gaming community to push setting first.  Sites like Fargoth, Urbis etc are all just figments of my diseased imagination.  No one would ever create six hundred page documents for their homebrew campaign.  No sir, that would never happen.


----------



## khyron1144

Hussar said:
			
		

> 1) Is it excessive for what though?  For a website project devoted to world building?  Probably not.
> 
> 2) This is my whole point in a nutshell.  Instead of taking the time to make a very cool tavern, why not make a very cool adventure and then any details you require come out of the needs of that adventure?




1) Alright, that is a good point.

2)  It's not usually the way I operate, but there probably is more sense in this approach.

You might dig this:

[sblock]*Castle Granite*
[This is the introductory text I've written to an adventure that I've started writing but haven't tried to run yet.  The bracketed bits are my comments directly to you, the  audience.  How things start is often murky with events getting disordered and justifications being made up after the fact.  Such is the genesis of this project.  As far as I can figure the following events came together some time last year: my acquisition of the orignal AD&D hardbacks Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures and Fiend Folio making my collection of first edition rulebooks reasonably complete with the 1e PHB, DMG, MM, and MM2 that I already had; my starting to write the recent history of Tera, knowing that I wanted the current Emperor to be a scholar descended from a recently started dynasty and that the founder is a bit of a Conan-type figure, leading me to create Gladius Steel; and a back to school sale at Office Max where I picked up a bunch of one subject notebooks; somewhere along the line, I thought:  it's a shame Gladius is part of the past relative to my current game; he'd be fun to run as an NPC buddy for the party; why don't I devote one of these notebooks to a classic dungeon-crawl style adventure set in Tera's past for 1e rules?]

They say all roads lead to Tera Prima, capital of the Human Empire on Tera.  Probably because only humans are ambitious and arrogant enough to assemble the crew necessary to put in a road where a perfectly good forest was.
They also say it's a city rich in oppurtunities for those looking to earn fame and wealth by adventuring.
That's why you're there.
Everywhere there are posters saying:  Emperor Manus Iron wants you for his legions.  You've heard tell that the legions are still understaffed for The New Goblinoid War, even though the Emperor has begun recalling troops from the Beastlands mission that has the official name of Manus's Southern Expedition.  Your slightly subversive grandpa calls it Manus's Folly.

[I am making a bit of a leap saying that the PCs all have slightly subversive grandpas, but I feel it is merited.]

For those that go willingly:  The nearest recruitment office is surprisingly small and shabby.  The man at the desk has an eyepatch and is missing two fingers on his left hand.
He says, "Thanks for considering the Legions.  We just have a brief Physical.  Let's see you can stand and walk under your own power.  That's a definite plus.  Now can you see the chart on the back wall?  Okay how about the back wall then?  Well, you're in.  You'll be reporting to the Swords Street Barracks for further instruction."



For those with a weakness for women:  You find your way to the seemier side of the city.  One of the women of negotiable affection calls out from an alleyway.  If they step into the alley:  Just as you begin to engage her services, the world fades to black.  When you wake up, you're on a cot in a room with a bunch of other cots.  Judging by the uniforms of the other men in the room, you're in the Legions now.
If they pass up the alleyway: You find Miss Rose's Girls' Finishing School, and, knowing what Finishing School is a euphemism for in Tera Prima, you slip the bouncer a few coins to get in.  You pay the headmistress for a girl and a room for the night.  You have a reasonably good time and then fall asleep for the night.  When you wake up, you're on a cot in a room with a bunch of other cots.  Judging by the uniforms of the other men in the room, you're in the Legions now.




For those who prefer the fermented beverages:  You make your way to the Ace of Swords, King of Wands, King of Coins, or Page of Cups.  Whichever one:  you buy drinks and after the third one everything goes black.  When you wake up, you're on a cot in a room with a bunch of other cots.  Judging by the uniforms of the other men in the room, you're in the Legions now.





For those who like a good brawl:  You make your way to The Ace of Swords, famed far and wide as the best brawling tavern in all the Empire.  There's about twenty in tonight's melee.  (treat all combatants as Fighter 1s with AC 8 (leather armor), +2 to hit (Strength bonus), and doing 1d4+3 damage (tankards and chairs).  Five immediately gang up on brawling PC.  When PC is knocked unconscious: When you wake up, you're on a cot in a room with a bunch of other cots.  Judging by the uniforms of the other men in the room, you're in the Legions now.


[Yes it's railroading, but it's railroading with style and it offers a decent illusion of choice.  PCs can jump the tracks later by going AWOL or similar.]

In the barracks:  A large man in a Legion uniform walks into the room and starts bellowing:  "All right men, rise and shine.  A new day is before us and so are a thousand ways to die valiantly.  I'm your Sergeant, Gladius Steel.  If you can get dressed and down to the mess in under a minute, you've got a cahnce to eat before you die.  Seeing as to how it's grain mush, I wouldn't hurry though."

After finishing his inspirational speach, he walks out of the room and the more prepared Legionnaires file out of the room behind him.  One of them mutters: "He says that every morning, but we've been drilling for a whole week now.  I think he's eager to recieve combat orders."

"Must be his barbarian blood showing through," says another.

The mess is a large room with lots of tables.  Along one side of the room, a line of Legionnaires are recieving a bowl of grain mush from a big, ugly, scary cook.  One of your comrades-in-arms explains: "That's Smashfist; he's a half-ogre; they chose him for his way of discouraging folks asking for seconds."

The Sergeant strides back into the mess and says: " Well men, we've got orders.  We're being sent to retake Castle Granite from the goblinoids.  We don't know what we'll find there.  That castle has been in Goblinoid hands for over a hundred years.  That's a long time, but the Emperor syas we're not going to let any Tartru-spawned golbins use one of our own fortresses to launch attacks against us.  Now, since a mere is not distinguished enough to lead this mission, they've assigned a nob with an academy commision to lead us.  Let me present to you the Lieutenant Silvus Emerald."

When he ends his speach, a clean-shaven, young man in shiny polished armor and a family crest painted on his shield strides confidently into the room:  "Once, you've finished your mush, report to  quartemaster um..." he consults his notes.  "Oh yes, Forthingay Fingers.  What an odd name.  Report to the quartermaster to receive your armaments.  Once everyone's done that, we march."
 [/sblock]


It seems to put adventure first and setting development second in a way, but it also exists as a way to develop the setting that I thought might be interesting by using it in an adventure.


----------



## Hussar

Exactly.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just to add to the conspiracy theory:
> 
> Rich Burlew's World Building Project
> 
> Yeah, there's no movement in the gaming community to push setting first.  Sites like Fargoth, Urbis etc are all just figments of my diseased imagination.  No one would ever create six hundred page documents for their homebrew campaign.  No sir, that would never happen.




I guess I just don't see this as a problem. I don't see a conspiracy or a movement. Are there a lot of settings out there, both amateur and professional? Yup. So what? If these people are running games where their players don't have anything to do but play tourists then that is their problem. Either the players are enjoying themselves and everything is cool, or they aren't and they should tell the DM. 

I've pretty much reconciled myself to the fact I will never agree with your definition of worldbuilding. I see it as an act that encompasses the creation of the setting and is only a problem when it interferes with the group's enjoyment of the game. But frankly, I've yet to see a convincing argument that states that such problems aren't an issue with the DM rather than worldbuilding. It's already been pointed out that a bad DM can make a mess of any campaign, regardless of whether they start by making an adventure or start with a setting. If we lived in a world where books of generic encounters and books on adventure building outsold settings, would we say "adventure building is bad" if there were DMs running crappy railroaded adventures? I'd certainly hope not. 

And I'm not terribly moved by the yoga/bodybuilding analogy; D&D is an indulgence unto itself. I guess I find it odd then to decry one indulgence as bad and another good; is it bad to put ice cream on cake? As long as you don't force someone to eat it, what difference does it make? We're not saving lives by writing adventures first and worldbuilders aren't killing puppies with every page they write.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, Wiki is redifining a commonly used term?  Wow.  I guess wiki isn't a decent source of common thought at all.




As an aside, I think its credibility has been called into question lately. I pretty much only use it to look up geeky stuff (Star Wars, LoTR, Comics, etc). Anything important I generally try to use multiple sources/resources (often including the internet).


----------



## LostSoul

khyron1144 said:
			
		

> Is this excessive?  I think it isn't because, while knowing the details of the Smashfiste and Ostler might be not immediately relevant, it has a lot of adventure potential.




Where's the conflict?


----------



## LostSoul

khyron1144 said:
			
		

> [Yes it's railroading, but it's railroading with style and it offers a decent illusion of choice. PCs can jump the tracks later by going AWOL or similar.]




It's not railroading if the players have agreed to join the legion before you started playing.  That is called buying in to the campaign.


----------



## Hussar

> It's already been pointed out that a bad DM can make a mess of any campaign, regardless of whether they start by making an adventure or start with a setting. If we lived in a world where books of generic encounters and books on adventure building outsold settings, would we say "adventure building is bad" if there were DMs running crappy railroaded adventures? I'd certainly hope not.




But, the question that should be asked is why do setting books outsell adventure building books?  Or at least, I find that question interesting.  Why do we see reams and reams of setting material, far in excess of what you could possibly need and vastly more than adventure material?  

Is it because having setting material makes your life as a DM easier?  I don't think so really.  You can have all the setting guides in the world, but, you still have to sit down and do the work of crafting adventures.  Or, could it be that setting guides sell so well because people spend far more time on the easy stuff of daydreaming campaigns than the hard stuff of actually making them?

In the end, you're right Darth Shoju, it doesn't hurt anything usually, to world build.  Just as having desert doesn't hurt anything.  Although, apparently, there are those here who think that you cannot possibly run a campaign without world building.  That crafting a campaign based on adventures rather than setting will result in lockstep railroads or completely bland and flavourless experiences.  So, I would say that the world building paradigm has managed to really burrow itself deep into gamer psyche.

Sorry, got off on a tangent.

I was saying that you're right.  At the end of the day, so long as the campaign gets made, who cares?  My point isn't that world building is bad.  I've admitted that.  World building isn't bad in the sense of, if you do it, you're doing something wrong.  What I'm calling for here is a shift in thinking from the style of Forgotten Realms (and frankly the majority of settings out there) to the style of Freeport or the Adventure Paths.

For me, I'd MUCH rather have twenty or thirty thousand pages of adventure paths, or campaign in a box, than 20000 pages of Forgotten Realms material.

For the homebrewer, just starting a new campaign, perhaps the common wisdom of top down or bottom up isn't the best advice.  Maybe.  Just maybe.  Perhaps, a better approach is to go straight to the work of crafting adventures and then paper over the cracks as needed.  

Hey, it doesn't always work either.  Look at Dragonlance.  There's a campaign setting that saw its genesis in modules.  Lockstep modules.  But, you could also look at some of the other setting modules, like Cauldron, or Savage Tide, or World's Largest Dungeon, which, while perhaps railroady in places, certainly aren't locking the players to the rails.  For the homebrewer, who doesn't have to worry about page count and budgets, he can craft a whole web of adventures, or matrix to use Rounser's word, and then go back and add any scenery that's needed.

When you do world building first, you have to go through and do all that work of crafting the world, which, if you do a good job of it, is a pretty work intensive thing to do.  Once you have, say, Fargoth, THEN you have to go back and start making adventures.

My point is to turn it around.  Do the adventures first.  That way you can save yourself a whole pile of work doing the world building.  Heck, if you want, you can simply raid Dungeon magazine, the WOTC site, and various other companies out there and come up with a couple of dozen (or more) interwoven adventures without having to do a lot of work.  Then you go back and spackle the walls.

See, if you go the other way, and buy setting material like FR, you're likely not going to use the majority of it in your campaign.  You just wind up with so much on the cutting room floor.  But modules, you can pick and choose based on a theme.  You wind up with a lot less extra.  

IMO.  Of course.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, the question that should be asked is why do setting books outsell adventure building books?  Or at least, I find that question interesting.  Why do we see reams and reams of setting material, far in excess of what you could possibly need and vastly more than adventure material?
> 
> Is it because having setting material makes your life as a DM easier?  I don't think so really.  You can have all the setting guides in the world, but, you still have to sit down and do the work of crafting adventures.  Or, could it be that setting guides sell so well because people spend far more time on the easy stuff of daydreaming campaigns than the hard stuff of actually making them?




I'd say they sell for both reasons. There certainly are people who get use out of them. There are also people who buy them just to read. But I'd add a third reason that they sell so well: broader appeal. Anytime you are trying to sell a product of any kind, the more specific and focused you make it, the narrower your audience becomes. Like I tried to state earlier, while the APs Paizo released look fun (and personally I want to play them all), if for some reason the adventure isn't to your taste (maybe you don't like the concept behind Cauldron?) then you probably aren't going to buy it. That even goes for campaign settings; the more specific or "gimicky" they are, the more controversial. Look at the storm around Eberron when it came out; it is really only cosmetically different yet it is really hit-or-miss with a lot of people. FR I understand is far more popular and is also more of a generic, kitchen-sink setting. So I'd chalk that up to my third reason: general appeal. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Although, apparently, there are those here who think that you cannot possibly run a campaign without world building.  That crafting a campaign based on adventures rather than setting will result in lockstep railroads or completely bland and flavourless experiences.




I would disagree with those people. As KM pointed out, you don't have to prepare diddly to have *fun* at the table.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> What I'm calling for here is a shift in thinking from the style of Forgotten Realms (and frankly the majority of settings out there) to the style of Freeport or the Adventure Paths.
> 
> For me, I'd MUCH rather have twenty or thirty thousand pages of adventure paths, or campaign in a box, than 20000 pages of Forgotten Realms material.




I'd tend to agree. While I've never read the FRCS all the way through, I sort of got the impression it was made as much to support the novels as it was to support campaigns. I thought the Eberron guide was a step in the right direction though; the whole design and layout of the thing was very conducive to campaign/adventure design. There were plot hooks presented throughout the book; now certainly they weren't fleshed-out encounters but I find adventure hooks more personally useful than encounters-I don't mind creating the encounters myself.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> For the homebrewer, just starting a new campaign, perhaps the common wisdom of top down or bottom up isn't the best advice.  Maybe.  Just maybe.  Perhaps, a better approach is to go straight to the work of crafting adventures and then paper over the cracks as needed.




And for homebrewing that is what I do. I'm very much in the Ray Winninger school of homebrewing there (his DMing seminar at Gencon 2k was one of my favourites of the con).



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> See, if you go the other way, and buy setting material like FR, you're likely not going to use the majority of it in your campaign.  You just wind up with so much on the cutting room floor.  But modules, you can pick and choose based on a theme.  You wind up with a lot less extra.




And I think this is part of the problem; running a setting vs homebrewing are two different animals. I have limited time to create a campaign; if I manage to find the time to homebrew then I don't have the time to detail the types of grasses of the world-I've got to make the adventure(s). Using a campaign setting saves time and gives details that can be useful in adventure and PC creation. The more you use the setting the more value you get out of it. As far as usefulness, as far as I'm concerned, if the book useful after you've used 95% of it then it was useful from the beginning. 

As far as setting limiting your options for adventures: I'd say that depends largely on the setting used. I fail to see how using Greyhawk or Kalamar as settings will significantly limit my options as to what adventures I can use. Certainly in some cases I'll need to change things here or there to get some adventures to work, but that seems a reasonable concession considering how much time I've saved by using a published CS and adventure in the first place.

If we are talking about the more specific/gimicky campaign settings (Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Darksun, Midnight, etc) then I'd agree you are limiting your options (and I would also say those settings are sacrificing some appeal by being more specific in focus, as I outlined above). But if the players are on board with it from the beginning (as I assume they would have to be or the game wouldn't happen), then what is the problem? Earlier you gave an example of deciding you wanted to play some naval adventures-isn't that narrowing your options as well? Certainly if the player's aren't enjoying it you can veer into other territory because your setting as a whole is flexible, but wouldn't you have wasted a bunch of work on creating all those naval adventures? Now, the assumption is that your players would be advised up front what type of campaign you were running, so they would want to play your naval adventures and no work would be wasted. On that note, then, couldn't you do the same before picking a published CS or creating a homebrew world with a unique focus? Personally I'd get a feel for how many people wanted to play my dragon-riders of Pern-esque campaign before I put a lot of work into it. 

Could we say that communication of expectations up front is more important than whether you start with worldbuilding or adventure then?


----------



## Hussar

> Could we say that communication of expectations up front is more important than whether you start with worldbuilding or adventure then?




Couldn't agree more.

I'm not trying to say that this is the be all and end all of campaign design.  Far from it.  I'm specifically comparing two thing - world buidling vs ... hrm, I'm not sure what you call it.  Adventure building?  Naw, that's not right.  Well, vs whateverthehell I'm trying to talk about.  

When you look at world building and D&D though, you start to realize how ingrained it has become.  There's what?  Three Four chapters in the DMG specifically devoted to campaign building, but only one on adventure building.  Dungeon and Dragon had hundreds of pages of advice for either top down or bottom up campaign creation, but, honestly, I can't think of a regular column that discussed adventure design.

The only regular column on adventure design that I can think of is Wolgang Buar's on the WOTC board and that's very, very recent.


----------



## JustinA

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, Wiki is redifining a commonly used term?  Wow.  I guess wiki isn't a decent source of common thought at all.




Unless you've recently edited Wiki to match your whack-job definition of world-building as "setting creation that won't be used in an RPG session", then you're just lying through your teeth here.

And if you have edited Wiki to say that, then we're just dealing with another variety of intellectual dishonesty here.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> But, the question that should be asked is why do setting books outsell adventure building books?  Or at least, I find that question interesting.  Why do we see reams and reams of setting material, far in excess of what you could possibly need and vastly more than adventure material?




The value of the material.

A fairly simplistic evaluation of the value of RPG supplement is:

(1) The amount of material from the book you will use.
(2) How often you will use it.

You will commonly use a setting to run many adventures. You will typically only use an adventure once.

Everything else being equal in terms of the products' quality and cost, I will use the setting material more often and it will, therefore, be more valuable to me.



> Is it because having setting material makes your life as a DM easier?  I don't think so really.  You can have all the setting guides in the world, but, you still have to sit down and do the work of crafting adventures.




Your conclusion here is completely fallacious.

If I need to spend X amount of time crafting a setting and Y amount of time crafting an adventure, then my total prep time is X + Y.

If I, instead, purchase the setting material then my prep time is merely Y.

Clearly, purchasing the setting material DOES make my life as a DM easier.



> Although, apparently, there are those here who think that you cannot possibly run a campaign without world building.  That crafting a campaign based on adventures rather than setting will result in lockstep railroads or completely bland and flavourless experiences.




Uhh... No. It doesn't really matter how often you repeat this absolutely absurd assertion, it doesn't make it any more true.


----------



## Rothe

Hussar said:
			
		

> For the homebrewer, just starting a new campaign, perhaps the common wisdom of top down or bottom up isn't the best advice.  Maybe.  Just maybe.  Perhaps, a better approach is to go straight to the work of crafting adventures and then paper over the cracks as needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you just stated how it was done in "the beginning."  I recall folks often started with an adventure+village.  A few more adventures were added, questions were raised about the wider world or players went off on a lark.  All of a sudden a world, or at least the framework of one, was needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you do world building first, you have to go through and do all that work of crafting the world, which, if you do a good job of it, is a pretty work intensive thing to do.  Once you have, say, Fargoth, THEN you have to go back and start making adventures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's not that bad if you design the world so you can readily plop in the adventures you have.  You also don't need to do all parts at the same level of detail, in fact I'd counsel against it.  My own adventures also tend to be 2 pages per level, one a map with copiuos notes on it plus another page or so listing treasure and info for me to remember.  Afterall, it's not for publication.
> 
> I find a world very useful for DMing on the fly.  Even if you haven't written anything down, you have an idea of what lies in each direction and how various factions and ecologies interact.  Having thought ahead it makes it much easier to come up with things on the fly that are consistent with what has come before, not unbalancing, and lead to the kinds of adventures your players like.  I'm sure there are those out there who can do this off the cuff, not so for me.
> 
> Just my one little post to get this perpetual thread to 1000 posts.
Click to expand...


----------



## Faraer

Mike Harrison isn't a 'sci-fi' writer in the sense of someone who writes stories set in the future with spaceships and rayguns; he uses some of the tools and approaches of science fiction. Much of his work is set in contemporary Earth, and he doesn't go in for long novel series. Otherwise, his advice, which works very well for him, would be different.

Similarly, if you're running a single average-length D&D campaign, or writing a short story or single novel, working out a few thousand words on rural architecture isn't the best use of time. If you're world-building for your own 30-year in-depth campaign, potentially thousands of other people's campaigns, and a fiction line running well into the millions of worlds, _and_ you enjoy world-building for its own sake and find it beautiful, a few thousand words on rural architecture (the places where most of your world's characters live much of their lives) is just the basics.


----------



## rounser

> Unless you've recently edited Wiki to match your whack-job definition of world-building as "setting creation that won't be used in an RPG session", then you're just lying through your teeth here.



No he's not.  It's just that you don't understand the meaning of a subset and a superset.


----------



## Hussar

> Unless you've recently edited Wiki to match your whack-job definition of world-building as "setting creation that won't be used in an RPG session", then you're just lying through your teeth here.
> 
> And if you have edited Wiki to say that, then we're just dealing with another variety of intellectual dishonesty here.




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.  



> Your conclusion here is completely fallacious.
> 
> If I need to spend X amount of time crafting a setting and Y amount of time crafting an adventure, then my total prep time is X + Y.
> 
> If I, instead, purchase the setting material then my prep time is merely Y.
> 
> Clearly, purchasing the setting material DOES make my life as a DM easier.




Really?  Spending all the time and effort trying to fold your adventures into the framework of a given setting isn't adding to your time?  Having to rewrite modules to go from generic setting to Eberron isn't adding to your workload?



> Uhh... No. It doesn't really matter how often you repeat this absolutely absurd assertion, it doesn't make it any more true.




Umm, how many people do I have to quote?  Just because you fail to click through links provided and read quotes, doesn't mean that they don't exist.


----------



## Nightfall

*click*

World building is bad because you should just use the Scarred Lands! 

(I waited for about 105 posts to say that!)


----------



## Hussar

Hey Nightfall.  I've been waiting for that.  

Y'know, in this thread I've been accused of misrepresenting people's ideas, I've been accused of having learning disabilities, and now I'm being accused of perpetrating fraud in order to make my point.  If you guys have such a strong case, then why resort to all the ad hominem attacks?  Perhaps you think that it helps your case to attack me rather than my ideas?

We've managed to go almost a 1000 posts without having a single mod warning.  Let's not break that shall we?  If you disagree with what I say, talk about that rather than accusing me of rewriting the wiki in order to make a point.



> I think you just stated how it was done in "the beginning." I recall folks often started with an adventure+village. A few more adventures were added, questions were raised about the wider world or players went off on a lark. All of a sudden a world, or at least the framework of one, was needed.




Well, yes and no.  X1　is a pretty early module yet contains an overview of what would become Mystara.  Most of the classic Greyhawk modules, like the GDQ series do spend a fair bit of time world building.  Even something like Hidden Shrine of Tomoachan talks about a number of world building issues.  The idea that we need a framework of a larger world has been around for a very long time.

What I'm suggesting is that perhaps it isn't necessary.  Skip it.  Don't worry about the world when designing a campaign.  Go straight to the adventures.  Start with a theme and design around that.  Once you've got your main arc, add a couple of side arcs that can be scaled along the way.  Then go back and add any setting you really need.

No matter what you do, you have to have adventures.  We can all agree on that.  What I'm saying is that you don't need to do bottom up (start with a village) or top down design.  Do adventure design and go from there.


----------



## Nightfall

Hussar,

You?!! Accused of misrepresentation?! Never!!! *is only SLIGHTLY kidding*

But yeah I waited for it before posting. Mostly because I'm saving it now for every...20-30 postings.


----------



## Smackfish

Ok I don't post very often here, and the few times I have, I've tried my best to be respectful and polite and still have somehow rubbed people the wrong way, so I apologize in advance if I offend anyone.  I assure you it is not my intention to do so.   


I've been following this thread from the beginning, and most of it seems to be from the perspective of the dm, which isn't surprizing, since world building is mostly a dm issue.  However, I feel compelled to present this from the point of view of a player, more specifically, me (since my point of view is the only one I can speak to with any authority).


Is worldbuilding necessary for a good game? No, not necessarily, and I certainly wouldn't try to tell someone that they are required to do all that work for my enjoyment, that having been said, if they want to do it, I say "Yes, Please"

1. World background for me to look at and get an idea of the mood of the game? Yes, Please.

2. World background for the party to look at pre-character creation to spark ideas for those of us who have a hard time thinking of them, and to let us all make interesting characters that feel like they all came from the same planet? Yes, Please.

3. Interesting places, people and organizations for me to interact with, either in the context of the adventures or in the downtime between adventures? Yes, Please. 

4. Knowing what's over the next hill if my character would know because I read the campaign handout, and not having to ask the dm every five minutes "Is there anything I would know about that?"  Yes, Please (keeping in mind that metagaming is bad, I'm not gonna claim to know things I think I have no way of knowing, yadayadayada)



Now to answer a few rebuttals to this that I can see coming already.  Is world building necessary for these things to be there? Well, it depends.  It depends on the dm, and it depends on the players.  The players all have to be on board to create a cohesive party for example.  I just find that it's easier when it's spelled out in advance, on paper, what the world is like, that way everyone starts on the same page, and can ask for a change to something they don't like, instead of making a character that they think will fit from the 2 sentence blurb they've received, then finding out 3 sessions in that it doesn't work.

Also I'm sure a few people will say they can make up all the people, places and organizations they'll need on the fly if they are necessary.  I won't say they can't, I've seen dm's who can do that and do it very well.  However, what about the times when you don't know they're needed?  I mean, if an organization is already detailed, I as a player may decide to go to them for help and training, or decide that the current adventure/dungeon/macguffin is something they'd be interested in, or come up with some other wierd idea for how they're involved in the current plot that you as a dm hadn't thought of. I could be way off base, I could be wrong, but it'll sure be fun to find out!!  If those organizations aren't pre-existing though, I probably won't come up with any of those ideas.

Wow, this is getting long isn't it?  Well, let me just close with saying what I'm not saying.  I'm not saying the pcs shouldn't be able to affect and change the world.  Entirely the opposite in fact, they absolutely should.  I'm just saying that, as a player, I like to have a good bit of the world defined, so that I can make a character  that has a place in it, in a party that has a place in it, and then I can go work on making my place bigger, try to change the things that my character doesn't like, and all in all, interact with the world that is there in ways that were never planned or expected. 

Smackfish


----------



## Hussar

A recurring theme I see is that if you don't do world building, you automatically start creating things on the fly.  I disagree.  You can do a huge amount of prep without doing any world building.  However, this does go back to the whole disagreement of what world building is.

For me, if that organization/place over the hill/person is necessary for the adventure, then it's not world building.  Earlier Celebrim said that placing all elements in a MMORPG is world building.  I strongly disagree with this.  SImilarly RC is claiming that world building is going from generic to specific.  Effectively this is the same arguement.

Both boil down to this:  Unless your campaign is a flat plain of indeterminate substance, you are world building.  If the placement of every tree in WOW is world building, then setting= world building.  If putting a hill there is world building, then, well, that doesn't leave a whole lot for setting to do.

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.

You don't need to make anything up on the fly.  I'm absolutely pants at doing that sort of DMing.  I LIKE being well prepared.  But, what I've come to realize, and this is probably why I like the idea of adventure paths and campaigns in a box, is that most of the setting books are there are pretty much superfluous.  Even running a hardcore Scarred Lands game will only use a small fraction of the books for SL.  Unless, of course, you engineer the campaign so that you get to use all the books.

But, that's precisely what I'm arguing against - placing setting ahead of adventure.

Smackfish, I agree with you 100%.  You need some background information before you can create characters.  But, again, I call that setting.  It's needed.  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.  Instead, why not tell the players the theme - "Guys, we're going to do a dragon hunting campaign.  Most of the adventures are going to feature dragons in some form." and let the players create characters from that?


----------



## Smackfish

> A recurring theme I see is that if you don't do world building, you automatically start creating things on the fly.  I disagree.  You can do a huge amount of prep without doing any world building.  However, this does go back to the whole disagreement of what world building is.




Probably true, and seems to be where the fundamental disconnect in this whole dicussion lies.  I would suppose that it's because many people, when writing their setting, call what they are doing world building. It rolls off the tongue better, and to them, more accurately describes what they are doing, plus it just sounds cooler.   



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




I guess that's one of the points I was trying to make, although I think it's been stated before upthread, ie, that some things that aren't necessary to the adventure, per sae, can still make the game fun, and it's hard to know in advance what a player is going to latch onto and make a more central part of the plot than was planned.  I as a player love doing that, partly out of a perverse pleasure in surprizing the dm occassionaly and making him scramble a bit like he does to the pcs all the time    If all that's there are the things that are necessary to the adventure though, that becomes more difficult to do.



> 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.




You have an excellent point here.  Let me just say that I've never seen a dm go into that kind of detail, at least not that he'd let the players know about, so it's kind of outside my experience.  As a side note let me mention that in college one of my gaming buddies was a Botany grad student, and loved to play druids, and at one point the dm described some trees in a particular area that just happen to be the wrong type of trees for that climate.  Instead of just pointing that out, he, in character, stopped the party to examine the trees, casting all sorts of divinations and such, while we all looked on wondering what was so special about these trees.  Turns out he honestly thought the dm put them there, out of place on purpose as a chance for his charcter to shine for a moment, and that those trees being there were a very important clue, if he could only figure out what it was.  Take from that what you will, I just thought it was a funny story.  The look on both of their faces was pretty priceless.



> You don't need to make anything up on the fly.  I'm absolutely pants at doing that sort of DMing.  I LIKE being well prepared.




That part wasn't precicesly directed at you, there was an argument about that earlier though, so I thought I'd address it instead of waiting for someone else to call me on it.  



> But, what I've come to realize, and this is probably why I like the idea of adventure paths and campaigns in a box, is that most of the setting books are there are pretty much superfluous.




I certainly agree with that, at least when it comes to game time.  I do like them for character creation, for instance, in Iron Kingdoms, I can just tell the dm "I want to play a Llaelese Gunmage, basically the dashing younger son of a noble family displaced by the Khadoran occupation"  and we're both right there on the same page.  Of course the choice of Iron Kingdoms is deliberate, if there ever was an example of world/setting building done right, then IMNSHO that's the one.   



> 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.




I totally agree with this -- if you're not going to use your own background, why write it?  I like to help the dm out on that, by writing proactive character backgrounds, not just reasons why my charcter became an adventurer, but things that actually motivate him/her in game.  To use my Laellese Gunmage example again, His family is displaced and now poor, he needs money.  He's nobility so any roleplaying encounters with the lower classes are likely to be strained, and interactions with Khadorans are likely to be downright hostile.  During downtime I might seek out representatives of the Laeallese underground and do what I can to help them, if we're not in place where I can do that I'll probably try to send money to them from time to time.  Over all, making my charcter history part of the story is only, once again IMNSHO, only about 25% the dm's job.  It's my job as a player to chase that, to take what I've put there in the past and make it a present concern and a part of the character's life.  If I'm not going to reference it at least once in a while, then I don't blame the dm for not going there.



> Instead, why not tell the players the theme - "Guys, we're going to do a dragon hunting campaign.  Most of the adventures are going to feature dragons in some form." and let the players create characters from that?




That would definitely work, although I've never had a dm do it.  I still like more than that to build on, but the best part about worldbuilding or setting or whatever you want to call it for me is when I as a player can get involved too.  If something in the background strikes my fancy and gives me an idea, I love the interaction that comes over email or sitting down at IHOP over coffee and a big plate of pancakes with the dm and together fleshing out a culture that he hadn't detailed as much, or that I had a few different ideas for, until we're both happy with it.  I love in depth charcter motivation, because like you I love being prepared, even as a player.  I don't always think fast on my feet, so the more I know about a character's background and culture, the easier it is for me to act and react in a consistent manner, and to have an answer when the dm says "Ok you guys have some free time in town x, what are you doing?" 

Overall, Hussar, I think we agree on a lot of things, just that we say it in different ways. TBH i just thought I'd break it up a bit and come at the question from a player's perspective


----------



## Nightfall

Hussar,

*pats on the back* Don't worry, I know you are a good guy. I was just teasing you.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, where in there does it not say that world building is far more than simply setting construction? World building is a very specific process. It's CREATING A WORLD. Geez, I know that taking the literal definition of a phrase is a really whacked out concept, but, come on.
> 
> World - a big place where everything is.
> 
> Building - to make something.
> 
> World building - to make a really big place where everything is.






			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Only if you assume that you only world build if you have a complete product.  If the process of world building is creating an entire world (note, world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending) with as much detail and history as possible - following the six steps outlined above - then you would be wrong.





So, does worldbuilding require you to create a world or not?  It's these shifting definitions that make this discussion difficult.


----------



## rounser

> So, does worldbuilding require you to create a world or not? It's these shifting definitions that make this discussion difficult.



Let's make it simple for you:
Yes, worldbuilding is creating a world, but you probably won't complete the task.  Therefore, there's nothing contradictory about what Hussar's said, despite your wishes otherwise.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> Let's make it simple for you:
> Yes, worldbuilding is creating a world, but you probably won't complete the task.  Therefore, there's nothing contradictory about what Hussar's said, despite your wishes otherwise.





No, Hussar said "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" which doesn't make it any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.

His definitions are based on (1) scale and (2) utility, but IRL, it is very difficult to say that any DM actually meets his criteria on either point.  When the (1) criteria is shown to be invalid, he admits it is so, and uses the (2) criteria.  Hence "world doesn't necessarily mean planet".  But when the (2) criteria is shown to be invalid, he uses the (1) criteria.  Hence "It's CREATING A WORLD".

Apart from that, there is actually a lot that is easy to agree with.  Bad worldbuilding is bad.  We might argue about whether or not example A, B, or C falls under the qualifier "bad" or not, but that deeper, more meaningful level of the discussion is constantly derailed by "That's not worldbuilding; that's setting."




RC


----------



## rounser

> No, Hussar said "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" which doesn't make it any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.



You're grasping at straws.  A demiplane smaller than a planet can be considered a "world" for D&D purposes, and I feel safe in assuming that's the sort of thing Hussar meant (especially given that such a demiplanar microcosm is my "world" of choice).  A village or dungeon cannot fit that definition, because almost invariably it has a planetary or planar context (i.e. a larger world out there which contains it).  Nice try though.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, does worldbuilding require you to create a world or not?  It's these shifting definitions that make this discussion difficult.




Oh come on RC.  That's pedantic and you know it.  Again, we go back to the whole idea of spectrum.  I am certainly not shifting definitions.  I'm actually pretty much using the dictionary definition of world building - an attempt to create a complete world in as much detail as possible

Once you stop misquoting my points, they start to make a lot more sense.

I've repeatedly stated what I think world building means.  I've quoted the Wiki definition of what world building means.  Both those definitions do not agree with you RC.  You seem to feel that the second we have more setting than a blank plain, we are world building.

That's not the definition of world building though.  World building is a specific process that contains a whole lot of work.  If I place a tree at _this_ point in World of Warcraft, I'm not world building since I actually need a forest at this point.  If I didn't have a forest, then I wouldn't be able to have all those lovely forest creatures.

Put it another way.  In a story about hunting deer, you are, in all likelyhood, going to have a forest.  You are also likely going to talk about the weather, since that will affect the plot.  You will probably have seasons, since deer hunting at different points of the year is different.  

All of that is contained under setting.  I don't have to world build to do that.  World building is when you go beyond the needs of the plot.

Now, I agree that in an RPG, the needs are greater than in a novel since you don't control your protagonists.  However, detailing 23 kinds of grass or the shape of windows is going far beyond setting and into the extreme of world building.

I also agree that there is going to be all sorts of grey in the middle where it might be world building or it might be setting.  Just like any spectrum, no one can really agree on the middle parts.  After all, try to define where fantasy stops and science fiction starts and you get all sorts of arguements.  And that's been my point all the way along.  Yes, you need setting.  However, IMO, going beyond that, into the realm of detailing extraneous elements is a waste of time.

But, it's a waste of time that has been drilled into the hearts and minds of gamers for years.  Heck, look at the 3e DMG.  Chapter 4, Adventures, is about 50 pages long.  And a lot of that is taken up with crunchy bits like explaining different conditions and assigning xp.  Actual advice on adventure design is about 25 pages at best.  Chapter 6 World Building (wow, it's right there) is 18 pages long.  Almost as much time is spent on telling DM's how to build a world as how to craft an adventure.  That's how ingrained the idea is in the hobby.

And, look at the advice given for world building:


Creation Methodology
Geography
Demographics
Economics
Politics
Culture
Religion

Just to name a few.  They go on a bit more about building non-standard D&D worlds as well.  Look at the advice given for creating adventures:


Site Based
Event Based
Motivation
Structure

A whole four pages before they get into designing encounters.  The rest of Chapter 4 is stuff like dungeon rooms, random encounter tables and the like.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> You're grasping at straws.  A demiplane smaller than a planet can be considered a "world" for D&D purposes, and I feel safe in assuming that's the sort of thing Hussar meant (especially given that such a demiplanar microcosm is my "world" of choice).  A village or dungeon cannot fit that definition, because almost invariably it has a planetary or planar context (i.e. a larger world out there which contains it).  Nice try though.




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

That is much smaller than a demiplane.


----------



## gizmo33

Hussar said:
			
		

> Oh come on RC.  That's pedantic and you know it.




You guys are always having opinions about what people are thinking that they're not saying.  I think that's a waste of time.  I can see how it's easy to be pedantic in a situation where someone is splitting hairs so fine over distinctions between world and setting.  

When I read your definitions literally, I find the distinctions between world-building and setting creation to be insignificant.  When I try to interpret the spirit of what you intend based on your examples, I find your defintions to be misleading at best.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, we go back to the whole idea of spectrum.  I am certainly not shifting definitions.  I'm actually pretty much using the dictionary definition of world building - an attempt to create a complete world in as much detail as possible




So if I write a 600 page setting bible, and I say that I'm actually capable of 1200 pages of detail, then obviously I'm not creating the world *in as much detail as possible* and so by your definition I'm not world building.  Yet you don't really reference that situation in your examples, instead concluding, *based on the 600 page document alone* that it's world-building.  IMO if one were to take your definitions seriously, then the document in itself is not enough information to define what's going on.

Your definition is extremely unintuitive, I'm not sure how you painted yourself into this corner.  When I'm "fixing my car", am I trying to make my car run as well as possible, or just fixing some problems so it will run?  Who knows, and who cares?  Why does your definition rely on someone's motive, and yet the words used imply nothing other than action.  "World building" intuitively would mean "building a world" - adding all this other stuff about motive you would think would require more precise language.   



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Once you stop misquoting my points, they start to make a lot more sense.




Do they?  You guys are barely paying attention to what we're saying it seems.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Put it another way.  In a story about hunting deer, you are, in all likelyhood, going to have a forest.  You are also likely going to talk about the weather, since that will affect the plot.




You're not really capable of knowing what the "plot" is in a cooperative game like DnD unless you're going to railroad players into YOUR particular plot as a DM.  That's why the issue of railroading keeps coming up.  It's a logical (your protests of being misquoted aside) result of saying that anything that you don't use for the adventure is superfluous - and worse even. 

A previous poster has already made the case for why you, as a DM, don't really know what elements are going to be used for an adventure.  Therefore you don't really know how to define what you've created, whether it's extraneous or not.  At best there's a "% likelihood" guestimate that you could make.  But if that's the case it hardly seems rational to level accusations of "ego" at people that try to prepare material in order to give their players more choice.   



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, I agree that in an RPG, the needs are greater than in a novel since you don't control your protagonists.




Calling the needs "greater" IMO doesn't do justice to the fundemental differences between novels and DnD.  Then again, one example of a DM that doesn't really see much difference is a railroad DM, which I suppose is the reason that it keeps coming back to that.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> However, detailing 23 kinds of grass or the shape of windows is going far beyond setting and into the extreme of world building.




All world building, by your definition, is unecessary and extreme, so highlighting an "extreme" within an extreme seems AFAICT to be unecessary and I think it reinforces the confusion with your definition.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> However, IMO, going beyond that, into the realm of detailing extraneous elements is a waste of time.




You're not in a position to label any element as extraneous for someone else's campaign with such confidence and prejudice.  And in "extreme" situations like the shape of windows, why bother?  I don't think such things are representative of most campaign setting supplements.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> But, it's a waste of time that has been drilled into the hearts and minds of gamers for years.  Heck, look at the 3e DMG.  Chapter 4, Adventures, is about 50 pages long.  And a lot of that is taken up with crunchy bits like explaining different conditions and assigning xp.  Actual advice on adventure design is about 25 pages at best.




I would say most of the rulebooks are devoted to adventure design, or at least the process of resolving conflict, which takes place within the adventure.  The other things I think you could mean by "adventure design" don't belong in a rulebook IMO.

Plus, it's hard to say something universal about adventures.  You got traps, monsters, walls, features, hardnesses of objects, etc.  They can't very well put them together for you - and while I think a sample adventure is cool (and I think there is one of those too!), I don't think it should be the primary content of the core rulebooks.

On the other hand it's fairly simple to say something universal about world-building/setting design, as you did so fairly effortlessly, with an implicit assumption that I would agree, regarding the hunting of deer.  

The section on "economics" that you reference, for instance, has many bits of information that seem to fit the "usefulness" criteria by your definition.  What can you buy, which NPCs are likely to be found in a given settlement, how much money do they have, what's the base standard of living (helps guage an NPCs reaction to being offered a silver piece) etc.  What kind of game are you running where your players don't buy stuff during some adventures?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Damn you, Gizmo33, you beat me to it.    

Hussar, the wiki also says



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> The second method is the bottom-up (or micro-to-macro) approach where the designer begins with a focus on one small part of the world, possibly with a few elements, not necessarily consistent, needed for fictional purposes.




Note that it says "needed for fictional purposes" and "one small part of the world".  This is not an attempt to create a whole world, but it is worldbuilding.  It is not an attempt to create things that are not needed, but it is worldbuilding.

That paragraph goes on to say



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> This location is given considerable detail, adding in important facts about the local geography, culture, social structure, government, politics, commerce, and history. Many of the prominent locals are described, and their interrelationships determined.




Note again, that the wiki doesn't say "trivial" facts or "useless" facts; clearly the designer is focusing on what is determined to be important.



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> The surrounding areas are then described in a lower level of detail, with the information growing more general and less detailed with increasing distance from the focus location.




In other words, no attempt is made to create as much detail as possible.



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Later when the designer needs to use other parts of the world, the descriptions of these other locations are then enhanced.




But the designer adds based upon need.

I asked you for a source that you would consider authoratative.  If you are going to argue on the basis of the wiki, I hope you will agree that the wiki flatly contradicts your contentions.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

wiki said:
			
		

> The alternative third method is the top-down-bottom-up (or macro-and-micro) approach, where the designer uses a combination of the first two methods by beginning with a loose overview of the world as in the top-bottom (macro-to-micro), determining basic characteristics of geography and climate, but is not very detailed. Next the designer switches to the bottom-up (micro-to-macro) approach, filling and adjusting details as required.
> 
> Worlds constructed in this method have the benefit of being able to be immediately applicable to the setting as well as having consistent global scale details. The drawback is there is more work required in creating the world to keep the marriage of Macro-world and Micro-World consistent.




Again, something described which is very similar to my own worldbuilding method.  Note that the designer provides a *loose* overview that *is not very detailed*.  Note that details are filled and adjusted *as required*.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I, for one, think that it is obvious that worldbuilding, _*like every other human activity*_ is performed not based upon the limits of the possible, but on the basis of perceived reward based upon the work done.  

Any definition that somehow requires human beings to _perform work on the basis of no perceived or expected use or reward for that work_ is automatically nonsensical.  And, Hussar, if you could see that, you'd see why your definition makes no sense.


----------



## FireLance

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I, for one, think that it is obvious that worldbuilding, _*like every other human activity*_ is performed not based upon the limits of the possible, but on the basis of perceived reward based upon the work done.
> 
> Any definition that somehow requires human beings to _perform work on the basis of no perceived or expected use or reward for that work_ is automatically nonsensical.  And, Hussar, if you could see that, you'd see why your definition makes no sense.



Of course the worldbuilder perceives some expected use or reward for his worldbuilding. It might be something he enjoys. He might consider it an interesting thought experiment. He might simply do it so that he can admire his own cleverness. 

While I personally do not draw such a harsh distinction between setting and worldbuilding (to me, the former is a subset of the latter), I do think that there is a continuum of worldbuilding, from elements that the DM will definitely use in his games to elements that he _should_ realize will almost never come up. (Does anyone want to try to convince me otherwise?)

Surely it is reasonable to expect a DM to spend more time detailing elements that are likely to come up than elements that are unlikely to make an appearance. Surely it is reasonable to expect a DM to decide which elements are likely to come up on the basis of his player's interests, or at least, on the basis of what he thinks his players will find interesting, instead of on the basis of his personal interests. (Again, does anyone want to try to convince me otherwise?)

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)?


----------



## Raven Crowking

FireLance said:
			
		

> While I personally do not draw such a harsh distinction between setting and worldbuilding (to me, the former is a subset of the latter), I do think that there is a continuum of worldbuilding, from elements that the DM will definitely use in his games to elements that he _should_ realize will almost never come up. (Does anyone want to try to convince me otherwise?)




I can't attempt to convince you otherwise, because I happen to agree.    

I would also say (again) that one problem that can arise from worldbuilding is when the worldbuilder doesn't differentiate between these elements _in actual game play/writing_.  There's nothing wrong with someone spending years writing accounts of various types of coinage, but if it never comes up it shouldn't be thrust upon players (or readers), and if it does come up, only the important bits should be mentioned.  There is actually a post from someone upthread that described exactly how they would go about using this example (coin types).    

(Of course, people vary as to what they believe the important bits to be)


RC


----------



## gizmo33

FireLance said:
			
		

> 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

rounser said:
			
		

> 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.  



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> 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

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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

FireLance said:
			
		

> ...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

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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.)


----------



## Hussar

JustinA said:
			
		

> 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.)




Create a dungeon crawl with ten encounters and a non-linear map.  It is quite possible that you will not actually use some of those encounters.  However, it is still possible that you might use any of those encounters.  Thus, it's used in the adventure, but, not used in a session.

Shame you can't use your powers of snark to read the Dungeon Master's Guide.


----------



## JustinA

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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.




I had to go dig my DMG 3.0 out, but it was totally worth it. On the very first page of Chapter 6 two different approaches to world-building are defined: Inside Out and Outside In. Allow me to quote:

"*Inside Out*: Start with a small area and build outward. Don't even worry about what the world looks like, or even the kingdom. Concentrate first on a single village or town, preferably *with a dungeon or other adventure* site nearby. Expand slowly and *only as needed*." (emphasis added)

You'll notice that, contrary to supporting your position as you claim, the DMG _explicitly contradicts it_.

It shares this trait in common with every other source you've attempted to cite or quote to support your completely untenable and utterly useless definition of "world-building".

I mean, it's nice of you to keep providing all these resources which prove you wrong. But at what point are you simply going to admit the error of your ways? Aren't you getting tired of punching yourself in the face like this?


----------



## JustinA

Hussar said:
			
		

> Create a dungeon crawl with ten encounters and a non-linear map.  It is quite possible that you will not actually use some of those encounters.  However, it is still possible that you might use any of those encounters.  Thus, it's used in the adventure, but, not used in a session.




So it's not "in a session" it's merely "might be in a session".

You'll note that this neatly removes your distinction entirely, since no matter what I create it might end up in a gaming session.

I suppose you'll respond with some further semantic nonsense about the LIKELIHOOD of something appearing in a gaming session. This will raise questions like, "Which gaming session, exactly? Does it need to be the very next session? Or is it okay for me to prep a few sessions in advance?" And, "So it's a matter of the probability of something appearing? How probable does it need to be, exactly, before it becomes setting instead of world-building?"

These questions will stymie you. So you'll either (a) ignore them; (b) claim that these questions constitute ad hominem; (c) attempt some unpredictable semantic nonsense to avoid the issue; or (d) pout for a bit and then repeat your initial assertions as if they hadn't been thoroughly discredited a dozen times over.


----------



## Hussar

Ok, from here on out, I am defining world building as what is contained in Chapter 6 of the Third Edition Dungeon Master's Guide.  If it is contained within those specified pages, then I consider it to be world building within the context of this discussion.



> I suppose you'll respond with some further semantic nonsense about the LIKELIHOOD of something appearing in a gaming session. This will raise questions like, "Which gaming session, exactly? Does it need to be the very next session? Or is it okay for me to prep a few sessions in advance?" And, "So it's a matter of the probability of something appearing? How probable does it need to be, exactly, before it becomes setting instead of world-building?"




Please, look up the definition of a spectrum.  If you do so, it will answer all of your questions quite nicely.  I have stated, time and time again, that there is NO CUT OFF POINT!  There is no point where red becomes orange.  If you know where that is, you better be applying for a Nobel Prize, because no one else in the world can.  At one end of the spectrum, you have elements that will always feature in an adventure and at the other end, you have elements that will not feature in the adventure.

The Five Shires are detailed in X1 The Isle of Dread.  However, they are not once referred to in the actual adventure.  No NPC comes from there and there is pretty much no way to get to the Five Shires from the Isle (without a whole lot of travel time at least).  The details of the Five Shires is completely and utterly superflous to the adventure.  That's world building.

The central plateau where the Black Pearl rests is key to the Isle of Dread.  It's the setting for the climax to the module.  It's referenced multiple times throughout the module.  That's pretty much as close to setting as you can get because you cannot complete the module without going there.

However, and I've admitted this multiple times, there are lots of things in the middle that may or may not be needed.  I tend to err on the lighter side of work because I'm lazy.  Some may go the other way.  However, there becomes a point where the details you create are not going to factor into the module without some major arm wrestling on the part of the DM or rewriting the adventure itself.

I hope this becomes clear because I don't know how else to say it.  There is a spectrum, a continuum, a range with Keep on the Borderlands on the one side and Realmslore articles on the other.



> These questions will stymie you. So you'll either (a) ignore them; (b) claim that these questions constitute ad hominem; (c) attempt some unpredictable semantic nonsense to avoid the issue; or (d) pout for a bit and then repeat your initial assertions as if they hadn't been thoroughly discredited a dozen times over.




Please, before you try again, open up your DMG.  Take a look at what the creators of 3rd edition considered to be world building.  Think about how that relates to the idea of world building vs setting.  Take a deep breath or three.  Come on back.


----------



## Hussar

BTW:



			
				JustinA said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



You asked for examples of the point of view that if you don't do world building you're not playing the game right.  Here's a good one.  Several of my players world build according to your definition.  However, since they don't force that world building into the game, they are crappy players.  And, of course, the corollary of this is that any player that doesn't engage in character background is a crappy player.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> Do you have a quote?




City:  Sassarine in the current AP, he complained about the pages wasted on the rulers thereof as an example of worldbuilding.

Hill:  When I mentioned bunnies on a hill, he said that was setting, but if you described how the hill had been used for halfling sacrifices (or somesuch) or how it had been formed due to glacial action, that would be worldbuilding.

(Others noting, of course, that the glacial action or halfling sacrifices could have been as much setting-for-flavour as mentioning bunnies, despite his contention to the contrary.)

I will go back and find the quotes, if you agree that my doing so means that Hussar's points are not what you think they are.  Otherwise, why bother?    

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

JustinA said:
			
		

> So it's not "in a session" it's merely "might be in a session".
> 
> You'll note that this neatly removes your distinction entirely, since no matter what I create it might end up in a gaming session.




Hussar obviously doesn't define the adventure as "what occurs in the gaming session".    



> I suppose you'll respond with some further semantic nonsense about the LIKELIHOOD of something appearing in a gaming session. This will raise questions like, "Which gaming session, exactly? Does it need to be the very next session? Or is it okay for me to prep a few sessions in advance?" And, "So it's a matter of the probability of something appearing? How probable does it need to be, exactly, before it becomes setting instead of world-building?"
> 
> These questions will stymie you. So you'll either (a) ignore them; (b) claim that these questions constitute ad hominem; (c) attempt some unpredictable semantic nonsense to avoid the issue; or (d) pout for a bit and then repeat your initial assertions as if they hadn't been thoroughly discredited a dozen times over.




They've already been asked, upthread, and they've already been ignored.

(You will note also that Hussar didn't answer my points about the wiki he previously used as an authority, because they didn't support him, nor did he answer your point quoting the DMG -- which explicitly suggests placing adventure setting as part of the process of worldbuilding -- while claiming that what lies in the DMG world building chapter is worldbuilding.)

RC


----------



## rounser

> I will go back and find the quotes, if you agree that my doing so means that Hussar's points are not what you think they are. Otherwise, why bother?



I don't trust you not to twist things around to your liking, because you've been doing it for many pages of this thread.  Until you come up with the quotes, rather than your interpretation of them, I don't believe you.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> I don't trust you not to twist things around to your liking, because you've been doing it for many pages of this thread.  Until you come up with the quotes, rather than your interpretation of them, I don't believe you.





Even if I came up with the quotes, slathered them with butter, and served them on a silver tray, you wouldn't believe me.

Example me one thing I've twisted around to my liking, please.  You do that, and I'll Search for the quotes.  I'll even Take 20 on it.

RC


----------



## rounser

> You asked for examples of the point of view that if you don't do world building you're not playing the game right. Here's a good one.



I'd also add that if adventure hooks from future adventures that the DM has chosen to make "on offer" in the campaign are built into character backgrounds, rather than irrelevant worldbuilding claptrap, then this problem can be avoided.  It's yet another example of how much more utility adventure building has than world building.


----------



## rounser

> Even if I came up with the quotes, slathered them with butter, and served them on a silver tray, you wouldn't believe me.
> 
> Example me one thing I've twisted around to my liking, please. You do that, and I'll Search for the quotes. I'll even Take 20 on it.



I asked first for proof on _your_ accusations, and it speaks volumes that you're hedging.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> I asked first for proof on _your_ accusations, and it speaks volumes that you're hedging.




Yes, it says that you are asking me to engage in labour when I very much doubt that there will be a return.  Also, I would hesitate to say that claiming Hussar used a hill and a city as examples of worldbuilding is an _accusation_.  I'm not, after all, saying that Hussar is deliberately _twisting other's words_, now, am I?

Nonetheless....

From post 612 (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3510101&postcount=612)



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> A very good example of world building as I define it - extraneous information that is separate from the plot - can be found in the Savage Tide AP. Of the 12 adventures, only the first two take place in the city of Sasserine. While the PC's are in Sasserine, they will advance from 1st to 4th or 5th level before leaving. It is assumed that they will not be returning.
> 
> In the players guide, Dragon Magazine and in Dungeon Magazine, Sasserine is very finely detailed. A large amount of space is given over to the ruling families of Sasserine. However, that information will never have any impact within the context of the adventures. The PC's are only 5th level at most while in Sasserine. They simply will have no contact with the ruling powers in the city and the ruling powers in the city will have no real interest in them.
> 
> That, to me, is an example of the kind of world building, the "six pages of Elven Tea ceremonies" that I was talking about before. This information is completely extraneous. It serves no real purpose within the adventure. Instead of detailing several power families in Sasserine, we could have had extra adventures, or longer encounter descriptions, or whatever. Instead, we have backgrounds and histories of people who will almost certainly not feature in the adventure and will never really have a chance to feature.




That is certainly smaller than a world, and is specifically a very small part of a world that appears in an adventure.  So clearly, to Hussar, what appears in an adventure isn’t necessarily part of an adventure (see also the Five Shires reference to X1).  Nor is worldbuilding something that occurs only on the scale of a world.

That would be the city I mentioned, and here’s the hill:

From post 882 (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3528163&postcount=882)



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Take the hill with bunnies and the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing encounter. Placing rabbits on a hill is not world building. It's just setting. It's creates an atmosphere of idyllic peace. Detailing the life cycles of those rabbits would be world building. Putting a hill there isn't world building. Again, it's simply setting - a place for the action to happen. Talking about how ancient halflings used the hill in their moon worshipping ceremonies centuries ago would be world building. Putting the monster there isn't world building, it's the antagonist. It's not even setting. Detailing the history of the creature when that history isn't going to affect play would be world building.




Again, smaller than a world.  It is a response to a post of mine that claims that, if you never mention bunnies, the minute you use a wolf-in-sheep’s clothing the players are going to notice that something is up.  IOW, if the only details you mention are the significant ones, any detail mentioned must be significant.  Do I need to pull that quote up as well?  I can.

And one has to wonder why mentioning bunnies on a hill isn’t world-building, but mentioning the shape of windows is.  Or how mentioning bunnies “creates an atmosphere of idyllic peace” but mentioning the ancient halfling moon worship doesn’t create an atmosphere of its own (eerie, magical, whathaveyou).


Now it's your turn, Rounser.  Stop hedging!


----------



## rounser

Thank you RC, I rest my case that once Hussar's words are back in their proper context, your argument fails.  Nowhere in those quotes has Hussar stated that city = the world, or that hill of rabbits = the world.  Heck, it's not even implied!


> Now it's your turn, Rounser. Stop hedging!



As far as my example, well, it's your post above!  You've twisted his words around into a heavily filtered interpretation that suits your purposes in the posts earlier, but doesn't fit what he actually said, so I'm vindicated in asking for the direct quotes.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> Thank you RC, I rest my case that once Hussar's words are back in their proper context, your argument makes no sense at all.  Nowhere in those quotes has Hussar stated that city = world, or that hill of rabbits = world.  And that's what you were trying to argue.




Quote me on that, pal.  What I said was 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

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




This itself was support for my contention that



> No, Hussar said "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" which doesn't make it any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.
> 
> His definitions are based on (1) scale and (2) utility, but IRL, it is very difficult to say that any DM actually meets his criteria on either point. When the (1) criteria is shown to be invalid, he admits it is so, and uses the (2) criteria. Hence "world doesn't necessarily mean planet". But when the (2) criteria is shown to be invalid, he uses the (1) criteria. Hence "It's CREATING A WORLD".




Note that "world here" doesn't mean "planet" but "world" in the term "worldbuilding".

If Hussar consistently required that something be related to scale, then his defintion of "worldbuilding" as being tied to scale would be consistent.  It is not, and the above quotes demonstrate this, which was my intention.

If Hussar is going to make a claim that creating setting is not worldbuilding because of the differences in scale, then he has to either be consistent in that definition (in which case his examples Re: Isle of Dread, STAP, and the halfling moon worship are _not_ worldbuilding) or he is going to encounter people who will call his position inconsistent.

Like I said earlier, even if I came up with the quotes, slathered them with butter, and served them on a silver tray, you wouldn't believe me.  I have done so.  You have demonstrated my expectations to be correct.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Let me be even clearer:

IF "creating setting" is not "worldbuilding" because you are not "building a WORLD" THEN neither can creating the political structure of a city or the history of a hill or determining the shape of windows because doing so is not "building a WORLD".

THEREFORE, either

(A)  The examples of creating the political structure of a city, the history of a hill, and determining the shape of windows ARE NOT WORLDBUILDING, or

(B)  That you are not "building a WORLD" DOES NOT EVIDENCE that "creating setting" is not worldbuilding.

You cannot have it both ways, and be rationally consistent.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> Thank you RC, I rest my case that once Hussar's words are back in their proper context, your argument fails.  Nowhere in those quotes has Hussar stated that city = the world, or that hill of rabbits = the world.  Heck, it's not even implied!
> 
> As far as my example, well, it's your post above!  You've twisted his words around into a heavily filtered interpretation that suits your purposes in the posts earlier, but doesn't fit what he actually said, so I'm vindicated in asking for the direct quotes.




Speaking of people twisting words, why would I say 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So clearly, to Hussar, what appears in an adventure isn’t necessarily part of an adventure (see also the Five Shires reference to X1). *Nor is worldbuilding something that occurs only on the scale of a world.*




(emphasis mine)

if I was trying to demonstrate that "Hussar stated that city = the world, or that hill of rabbits = the world"?


RC


----------



## rounser

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



The conclusions you draw from that aren't true, because he doesn't imply that they're the limit of his world.  The city isn't the entire world, and neither is the hill.  The only place he said that is in your imagination.

It certainly doesn't imply this:


> No, Hussar said "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" which doesn't make it any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.



That's where you make the city = the entire world by Hussar's definition claim.  So yes, you are twisting his words.  A lot.  No disbelief needed.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> This isn't true, because he doesn't imply that they're the limit of his world.  The city isn't the entire world, and neither is the hill.  The only place he said that is in your imagination.




Crom on a stick, man _read his quotes_.  He says that they are examples of worldbuilding.  He uses that word.  He says they are examples.  They are certainly not the entire world, therefore it doesn't follow that you need to be building an entire world to be worldbuilding.

Hussar's statement that ""world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" is a hedge against his scale claim.

IOW, as I said previously,

His definitions are based on (1) scale and (2) utility, but IRL, it is very difficult to say that any DM actually meets his criteria on either point. When the (1) criteria is shown to be invalid, he admits it is so, and uses the (2) criteria. Hence "world doesn't necessarily mean planet". But when the (2) criteria is shown to be invalid, he uses the (1) criteria. Hence "It's CREATING A WORLD".


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Hussar said "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" which doesn't make it any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you make the city = the entire world by Hussar's definition claim.  So yes, you are twisting his words.  A lot.  No disbelief needed.
Click to expand...



Again, if worldbuilding requires that you are CREATING A WORLD, and "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending", then it is logically inconsistent to claim that creating the village/dungeon/wilderness combo is NOT worldbuilding because it isn't CREATING A WORLD.  The term "world" loses its scale reference.

Or, another way to look at it:  You brought up a demiplane as being smaller than a planet, and that is certainly possible.  From this point of view, one could claim that the Top-Down method of worldbuilding was the Only True Worldbuilding, and everything else was creating setting or adventure.  That would be consistent with claiming that worldbuilding is CREATING A WORLD.

However, creating the political structure of a city or the history of a hill IS NOT Top-Down worldbuilding.  When Hussar makes the claim that these things are worldbuilding, he is violating the meaning he ascribes "world" in the context of "worldbuilding".

This is not saying that a "city = the entire world", but it IS saying that the meaning of the word "world" as used in the term "worldbuilding" doesn't necessarily refer to the entire world.

No twisting of anyone's words is required to draw the conclusion.  You simply cannot have it both ways, and be rationally consistent.


----------



## rounser

> Crom on a stick, man read his quotes.



I have, and by Thor's beard duuuuude, you're making things up!


> He says that they are examples of worldbuilding. He uses that word. He says they are examples. They are certainly not the entire world, therefore it doesn't follow that you need to be building an entire world to be worldbuilding.



You have to make worlds in terms of component parts like cities and rabbit hills, but that doesn't make them the entire world, which is what he was referring to by "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet."  Indeed not.  To use D&D cosmology, it can encompass the entire Great Wheel to get larger, or a single Ravenloft demiplane to get smaller, for instance - it doesn't necessarily mean planet.


> Hussar's statement that ""world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" is a hedge against his scale claim.



Whether or not that is true, *you're still wrong in your claim that he said that the city or rabbit hill constituted an entire world, or by your putting-words-into-people's-mouths "creative interpretation" of his words, a village/dungeon/wilderness.*  And that's all I was looking for from you, confirming my suspicions that your reinterpretation doesn't match what he actually said, by the boots of Fharlangn.


> This is not saying that a "city = the entire world", but it IS saying that the meaning of the word "world" as used in the term "worldbuilding" doesn't necessarily refer to the entire world.



No, it isn't.  Stating that developing bunnies on a hill is worldbuilding doesn't imply that when Hussar says "the world" he means "that hill of bunnies" rather than "the entire planet or plane or cosmos".  The argument you make is nonsense, probably because you've been caught out making things up.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> You have to make worlds in terms of component parts like cities and rabbit hills




But if cities and rabbit hills are part of setting, then doesn't it follow that you have to make worlds in terms of crafting setting?



> Whether or not that is true, *you're still wrong in your claim that he said that the city or rabbit hill constituted an entire world.*




I never made a claim that _*anyone*_ said a city or a rabbit hill constituted "an entire world".

Again, why would I say 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So clearly, to Hussar, what appears in an adventure isn’t necessarily part of an adventure (see also the Five Shires reference to X1). *Nor is worldbuilding something that occurs only on the scale of a world.*




(emphasis mine)

if I was trying to demonstrate that "Hussar stated that city = the world, or that hill of rabbits = the world"?


----------



## Raven Crowking

I note also that you ignore:

IF "creating setting" is not "worldbuilding" because you are not "building a WORLD" THEN neither can creating the political structure of a city or the history of a hill or determining the shape of windows because doing so is not "building a WORLD".

THEREFORE, either

(A) The examples of creating the political structure of a city, the history of a hill, and determining the shape of windows ARE NOT WORLDBUILDING, or

(B) That you are not "building a WORLD" DOES NOT EVIDENCE that "creating setting" is not worldbuilding.

You cannot have it both ways, and be rationally consistent.​
Do you agree, or disagree?


----------



## gizmo33

Hussar said:
			
		

> The details of the Five Shires is completely and utterly superflous to the adventure.  That's world building.




Again - I find your statements to be consistently illogical on this point.  On one hand you argue about a "spectrum" in terms that you suggest that other people don't know the defintion.  And a few sentences later procede to forget what you just said apparently.  Show me where the "complete and uttelry superfluous" part of the spectrum is?

Consider - the Isle of the Dread is not complete - nor are many adventures.  The Isle of Dread contains nothing IIRC about the ship that you use to get to the Isle, or the folks aboard that ship - one or more of whom might be a halfling from the Five Shires.  Now all of the sudden, as a result of the DM fleshing out the Isle of Dread to actually be usable in a campaign style game, the Five Shires info has gone from "complete and utterly superflous" to...something else.

But this has happened over and over again where you suggest that one thing is your philosoophy in the abstract, and then say all sorts of things that appear to contradict it.  Your habits and comments previously have been much more in the "black and white" frame of mind, so I find this spectrum thing to be an unatural fit with your basic inclinations on this subject.

AFAICT the more you apply the "spectrum" philosophy to the way you talk about this issue, the less we'll have to disagree on.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I hope this becomes clear because I don't know how else to say it.  There is a spectrum, a continuum, a range with Keep on the Borderlands on the one side and Realmslore articles on the other.




The problem with the spectrum in how you're using it (when you use it) here is that the light spectrum, for instance, is based on a measurable phenomena.  The wavelength of light is a measurable quantity, and is useful for talking about things like energy and how the light reacts with other things.  Physicists AFAIK don't argue about whether something's "red" or not because it's not a useful definition.  Wavelength is useful.

The "world-buildiness" of Realmslore vs. KotB is not objective, and I don't find your definitions here to be any more useful than "red".  The whole idea isn't much useful unless you're trying to tell other people how to DM or what to think about something.  And compounding the error and the arrogance is telling other people *what they should think about the people who write it and their motives*.


----------



## rounser

You keep trying to divert attention away from this quote:


> No, Hussar said "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" which doesn't make it any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.



That's the one which is an extrapolation that his words don't support.  You've conclusively proved that you can't back up this assertion, so I'm satisfied.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> If the "world" in "worldbuilding" "doesn't necessarily mean planet" but can mean such things as "city" or "hill" then it is not any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.




Note that this is an IF/THEN statement.

IF the "world" in "worldbuilding" can mean "city" or "hill" THEN it is sensible to discuss the creation of a city or a hill in terms of worldbuilding.

IF the "world" in "worldbuilding" cannot mean "city" or "hill" THEN it is not sensible to discuss the creation of a city or a hill in terms of worldbuilding.

As Hussar discusses both the creation of a city and a hill in terms of worldbuilding, I conclude that the first proposition is more likely to be true than the second.

One can then make the claim that, while it is not sensible to discuss the creation of a city or a hill in terms of worldbuilding _on its own_ it is sensible to do so _within the context of a larger world_.

However, in both cases (city and hill) this doesn't follow, though, because (1) the hill example is not part of a larger project, and (2) Hussar's complaint (right or wrong) about the city example (what he claims makes it worldbuilding) is that it doesn't relate to the larger project of which it is a part (the Savage Tide Adventure Path).

So, again, I must conclude the first possibility to be more likely than the second.

I could be wrong -- all communication is fraught with that peril -- but this is why I believe Hussar's comments mean what I think they mean.

RC


----------



## rounser

> If the "world" in "worldbuilding" "doesn't necessarily mean planet" but can mean such things as "city" or "hill" then it is not any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.



But he didn't say that.  That's just your interpretation, and you've claimed that your interpretation is backed up by things he's said, like the city and the rabbit hill.  Which it isn't.  You can't hustle your way around that fact.

I'm not sure if this is first time either, was it you who did it to me in that railroading thread and I had to go find a direct quote to deny your misrepresentation of what I was claiming?

I don't really care, I've made the point I wanted to make about your misrepresenting people's words and I'm going to bed.


----------



## Raven Crowking

From post 919:




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> JustinA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are insisting that it's only world-building if some creates an entire world. This is impossible. No meaningful world can ever be described to its last detail. So, clearly, a line must be drawn at some point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you assume that you only world build if you have a complete product.  If the process of world building is creating an entire world (note, world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending) with as much detail and history as possible - following the six steps outlined above - then you would be wrong.
Click to expand...



Now, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that JustinA is claiming that

Hussar insists that it is only world building if you create an entire world and

That this is impossible, and therefore a meaningless definition.​
To which Hussar responds that

You don't have to have an entire world to be worldbuilding.​
We should note (and others have) that

with as much detail and history as possible​
is as impossible, leaving us with only

following the six steps outlined above​
as Hussar's actual definition of world building.  Ignoring that there are several methods of worldbuilding in every authority that Hussar has brought up, even if we follow that reasoning, the logical conclusion is that this definition

doesn't make it any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in. ​
which is, not surprisingly, what I said.

You then pointed out that when he said "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" that he could have meant, for example, a demiplane.  I pointed out that this was inconsistent with his examples of worlbuilding, which included a city and a hill.

This is not to say that a city or a hill are "an entire world" because the initial context is that you do not need to create an entire world to be worldbuilding.

Regardless of what you think.

Clear?


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> But he didn't say that.  That's just your interpretation, and you've claimed that your interpretation is backed up by things he's said, like the city and the rabbit hill.  Which it isn't.  You can't hustle your way around that fact.




All communication is a synthesis of the speaker and the listener.  There is no way to communicate without interpretting the words of the other person.

Sometimes people say things that do not convey what they mean; sometimes they do not convey what they mean specifically to the people who the person is speaking to, due to cultural or other differences.  

By restating what I believe Hussar said, I give Hussar the chance to modify his communication so that I can better understand what he means.  This is not unlike my restating my position several times recently so that you could get that I wasn't saying that Hussar thought a hill was an entire world.

I honestly do not believe that your position and Hussar's position are the same position.  

I note that, while you have spent a great amount of effort trying to show that Hussar didn't mean what I think he meant, or doesn't have the problems of logical consistency that I find in his position, he's been silent on the issue.


RC


----------



## Hussar

Ok, going to repeat myself yet again.

*((If I knew the right php code to make this bigger I would use that one too))

For the rest of this conversation, can we PLEASE restrict the definition of world building to what is included in the 3rd Edition DMG?*

Of course, if we did that, we would have to admit that most of what you guys call world building isn't included in the section on world building, but rather, included in the section on adventure creation.  But, hey, who cares?  You'll just continue to pick and choose quotes and ignore anything that contradicts you.

I am not being inconsistent here.  

How you get to the Isle of Dread isn't included in the adventure, that is correct.  However, it also doesn't matter within the context of the adventure as well.  Very little, if anything actually changes if the party teleports to the island, sails a ship or arrives upon the backs of rocs.  The adventure doesn't change.  You can run the module in identical ways in any case.

However, in order to make the Five Shires relavent to the adventure, you have to change the adventure.

And that's my point in a nutshell.  If an element requires you to change the module in order to make it relevant then it stands to reason that that element wasn't relevant beforehand.  As Isle of Dread stands, as written, there is no chance of the Five Shires appearing anywhere in the module.  The people, culture and geography of the Five Shires isn't going to come into play without some major rewriting.  It is superfluous.

However, the geography of the island is not.  It is very important within the context of the adventure.  Note, most people don't define adventures as only what happens during a game session.  I've seen most people say that they create an adventure before a game session.  I know for a fact that RC has done so on these boards.  So, it's pretty strange to start defining adventure as solely what occurs during play.

Anyway, within the context of the adventure, the geography of the island is very important.  A major element of the adventure is exploring the island.  However, it's also true that you likely won't cover the whole island.  Fair enough.  However, it is possible to do so, so detailing the island beforehand isn't a terribly bad thing.

Sure, some of that work will be wasted.  That's true.  I've said that repeatedly that in RPG's we need to do more setting work than what is needed in a novel.  But, again, it's a question of scale.  RC brings up the example of the Dawn Council members in Sasserine.  Never mind that that information isn't actually contained within the module, but is placed in a nice little world building package after the module.

Even the writers of the adventure pretty much know that the Dawn Council isn't needed for the adventures.  But, they also want to sell magazines and not including that information would see people like the posters here frothing at the mouth, insensed that such information is not included.  But, it is pretty much superfluous.  Borderline perhaps, if you follow my spectrum line of thought.  RC is right that it is within the realm of possibility that it might come up.  Personally, I think it's pretty unlikely, but, hey, I'm willing to think I'm wrong.

My point is, and will continue to be, that you can pretty much skip Chapter 6 in the DMG and have a good campaign.  That you can build a complete campaign without dealing with most of the world building elements detailed in Chapter 6.  

Heck, Dungeon does it every single month.  Every month we get modules (or _adventures_) that have little or no world building.  They are, to use RC's definition, so generic that we can't call them world building.  Random town faces humanoid threat and turns to the nameless heroes to save them is a pretty darn common adventure.

You could take a couple of dozen of these adventures and build one heck of a campaign.  All without dealing with the extraneous bits that fill so many setting books.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> I note that, while you have spent a great amount of effort trying to show that Hussar didn't mean what I think he meant, or doesn't have the problems of logical consistency that I find in his position, he's been silent on the issue.
> 
> 
> RC




Guys I live on the other side of the world from you all.  Some of us DO actually have to work from time to time.  

Rounser and I have pretty much identical points of view AFAIK.  We're both saying that setting construction beyond what is dictated by the adventure at hand is mostly unnecessary.  If it's needed by the adventure, then by all means do it.  If it's not, then don't bother.  It adds a lot less to the game than you think.

I think Shamus says it best Here when he says that "Only in the context of an RPG is it possible for someone to need the Cliff Notes version of their own biography."  

Hey, I've said it many times here.  I stand in awe of the work that goes into a site like Fargoth, or Urbis, or a number of other works out there.  And, honestly, I like reading them.  I do.  I enjoy reading setting books.  However, just because I happen to like it, doesn't make it necessary.

We, as DM's, have to create adventures.  That's part of the job.  Without adventures, not a whole lot happens at the table.  Even if the adventure is just a couple of random encounter tables and a map, it's still needed to run things.  Heck, even if you're completely making it up as you go along, five seconds beforehand, you are still making an adventure.

What you don't have to do is go much further than that.  If the adventure needs square windows in the tavern, then fine, the windows are square.  If the players are facinated in botany, then perhaps 23 types of grass are needed.  But, without those needs, when the information is created in a vaccuum because it might be needed if the stars line just so, then we've gone a wee further than required.

Again, I'm not saying that we don't need setting.  That would be stupid.  What we don't need is five thousand years (or 15 thousand) years of history of a nation that doesn't actually appear in the campaign.  

Yes, there will be some question about the actual necessity of a particular element, and that's something an individual DM will have to determine on his own.  But, I really don't think there's a problem in a shift in approach from Setting leading to Adventure to Adventure leading to setting.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> And that's my point in a nutshell.  If an element requires you to change the module in order to make it relevant then it stands to reason that that element wasn't relevant beforehand.  As Isle of Dread stands, as written, there is no chance of the Five Shires appearing anywhere in the module.  The people, culture and geography of the Five Shires isn't going to come into play without some major rewriting.  It is superfluous.




Explain how that differs from the map in White Plume Mountain.



> My point is, and will continue to be, that you can pretty much skip Chapter 6 in the DMG and have a good campaign.  That you can build a complete campaign without dealing with most of the world building elements detailed in Chapter 6.
> 
> Heck, Dungeon does it every single month.  Every month we get modules (or _adventures_) that have little or no world building.  They are, to use RC's definition, so generic that we can't call them world building.  Random town faces humanoid threat and turns to the nameless heroes to save them is a pretty darn common adventure.




Where do you find the information to build that random town?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Guys I live on the other side of the world from you all.  Some of us DO actually have to work from time to time.




First off, let me say that the post I am now quoting from makes more sense, to me, than several of the past posts.



> Rounser and I have pretty much identical points of view AFAIK.  We're both saying that setting construction beyond what is dictated by the adventure at hand is mostly unnecessary.  If it's needed by the adventure, then by all means do it.  If it's not, then don't bother.  It adds a lot less to the game than you think.




Mind if I pare it down to here to work with?

I would suggest the following:

(1)  Something like an Adventure Path can only exist by broadening you horizons to encompasse more than the adventure at hand; one needs to consider the future.

(2)  It is quite possible for someone to "bother" doing something for his own benefit, rather than for that of his players, and this is a completely legitimate use of time.

(3)  Some people have had different experiences than "It adds a lot less to the game than you think".

(4)  D&D can be inherently limiting, where what is prepared becomes what is possible.  The more one prepares, including things beyond the adventure at hand, the more becomes possible.

EDIT:  BTW, does that mean that you are no longer arguing that worldbuilding requires creating an entire world (i.e., argument by scale) and only arguing on the basis of utility?  If that is the case, I think your position and rounser's are much closer than I'd say they were before.

RC


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Explain how that differs from the map in White Plume Mountain.




Umm, scale?  A single word on the top of a map vs a fairly significant portion of the pagecount of a module?  Y'know, pretty much exactly what I've been talking about?




> Where do you find the information to build that random town?




Generating Towns Chapter 4 - Adventures (Page 137, 3rd Edition DMG)

Look, we've pretty much always agreed on the definition of setting.  Setting is where the plot happens.  Now, in RPG's we don't have plot, but we do have a pretty decent analogue in adventures.  It's not too far of a stretch to say that in RPG's, setting is where the adventure happens.

Adventures happen in towns.  Towns have a direct impact on adventures even if they aren't directly linked - for example, is the town big enough to have a cleric that can Raise dead.  In RTTTOEE, Hommlet plays a pretty small role in the overall adventure, but, it's impact is felt throughout the adventure since that's the safe port for the party.  You could run RTTTOEE without Hommlet, but, it would be extremely difficult.

Thus, the rules for creating a specific town are included, not in the World Building section of Chapter 6, but, in Chapter 4 because towns (and by town, I don't just mean a settlement with 901-5000 people) have direct impact upon adventure.

If we take a Chapter 6 approach to towns, then we have to go through things like history, background, economy, ecology, etc.  Some of that might come into play, but, probably a lot of it won't.  Most people don't care that Lord Muckhigh founded the town 150 years ago unless, of course, that impacts the adventure.

The background story of Sasserine found in Dungeon is a pretty good example of Chapter 6 approach.  It's a fun story.  Interesting.  And pretty much has no relation to the adventure path.  That the town was founded by a priest of a particular faith doesn't appear in any of the adventures.   Is it world building?  I think we'd all call that world buiding.  Is it indulgent?  Pretty much.  It's not terribly important and removing that page from the magazine would have little to no impact upon the adventure.  

Can it be made to be relevant?   Quite possibly.  Is it relevant as written?  Nope.


----------



## Hussar

> EDIT: BTW, does that mean that you are no longer arguing that worldbuilding requires creating an entire world (i.e., argument by scale) and only arguing on the basis of utility? If that is the case, I think your position and rounser's are much closer than I'd say they were before.




I never, ever stated that world building requires the creation of an entire world.  What I stated was that the goal of world building was to create an entire world.  How close you approach that goal will vary, but, in the end, when you world build, that has to be the ultimate goal.

Setting's goal is to simply act as a place for the plot (or the adventure).  

You guys are the ones stating that world building requires building an entire world.  I never stated that, or if I did, it's not what I meant.  World building, as an activity, has as its goal, the idea of creating an entire place.  With that as a goal, then elements like history become very important.  You cannot have a world without history.

You can have a setting without history though.  Keep on the Borderlands has little to no history.  

World building concerns itself with all sorts of questions that setting doesn't.  I used the example of glaciation to create a hill.  From a setting point of view, we just need a hill and poof, the hill is there.  If it needs to be a specific sort of hill (Hey, I'm not a geographer, what do I know?) then it is so.  From a world building perspective though, we have to question why that hill is there.  What forces acted upon our world to put that hill there.  What is the hill's history?  Who did things upon that hill?  What impact has that hill had before now?

World building is never complete.  It cannot be, even with the world's largest library.  There is always more gaps to fill in.  When the goal is to create a whole world, whether you start from a single village or from the first word of the creator, you can never be finished.

Setting, specifically Chapter 4 style setting, couldn't care less.  It's not important who did what on that hill unless it affects the adventure in some way.  Adding in halfling cannibal ceremonies on the hill could be a good way to add atmosphere, depending on what you are going for.  But, I'm willing to think that this is a bit closer to the indulgent end of the scale than the necessary one.

So, to answer your question directly, I would say that you've misinterpreted what I've said.  World building doesn't require a finished product.  However, the goal of world building is a whole world in as much detail as possible.  That that goal is not really attainable isn't important.  It's still the goal.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> The background story of Sasserine found in Dungeon is a pretty good example of Chapter 6 approach.  It's a fun story.  Interesting.  And pretty much has no relation to the adventure path.  That the town was founded by a priest of a particular faith doesn't appear in any of the adventures.   Is it world building?  I think we'd all call that world buiding.  Is it indulgent?  Pretty much.  It's not terribly important and removing that page from the magazine would have little to no impact upon the adventure.
> 
> Can it be made to be relevant?   Quite possibly.  Is it relevant as written?  Nope.




All of this really hinges on what your goal is in playing D&D. If your goal is to have fun (which I'm thinking is the goal of most who play), then the priority of setting over adventure or vice versa is irrelevant. "Fun" is totally dependent on the individual. As KM pointed out, he and his group have fun without preparing either settings *or* adventures. If your point is that you don't *need* to "worldbuild" to have a fun D&D campaign then I'd have to counter that you don't *need* to build adventures to have fun either. What you need to do is whatever is required for the members of the group to enjoy themselves.

However, (and I've been avoiding this for fear of opening a new can of worms) it can be argued that detailing information that isn't used in the events of the adventure brings more depth to the campaign. Using the example quoted, knowing that the town was founded by a priest gives character to that settlement (although I have to admit to not being familiar with the source of your example). It can explain why there is a statue of the guy in the town square. It can explain why the townspeople only tolerate their founding religion and no others. It can explain why PC priests of that religion can claim shelter from any townsperson. These are details that make the town come alive. Will they have any bearing on the dungeon  you are about to clear out? Probably not. Could you have had *fun* just clearing the dungeon without putting any detail into the nearby town? Yup, but as I outlined above that isn't really saying anything new. Can you say that the town I just outlined has the same depth as one where all you know is what level of priest is in it and what the max sell price of magic items is? While I'd say that the latter information is important, you can also just pull that from the DMG when you need it. I'd also say that the latter example isn't as deep as the former.

I guess that my point is that "what is fun" is hard (if not impossible) to quantify, while depth is a little easier to measure. However, I'd also say that depth can be fun, but fun isn't necessarily dependent on depth.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, to answer your question directly, I would say that you've misinterpreted what I've said.  World building doesn't require a finished product.  However, the goal of world building is a whole world in as much detail as possible.  That that goal is not really attainable isn't important.  It's still the goal.




If that is truly what you are claiming worldbuilding to be, then I really do think you are operating on your own definition here. It certainly doesn't match the definition I found in my 3.5 ed DMG:

The definition of a campaign:

"A campaign is composed of a series of adventures, the nonplayer characters (NPCs) involved in those adventures, and the events surrounding everything that happens in those adventures." (DMG, p. 129)

The definition of a world:

"A world is a fictional place in which a campaign is set. It's also often called a campaign setting." (DMG, p. 129)

"A campaign first requires a world. A 'world' is a consistent environment for the campaign." (DMG, p. 129)

On page 135, under the "World-Building" section, they provide two methods of "world-building": "Inside Out: Start with a small area and build outward...Expand slowly and *only as needed*." (emphasis mine) and "Outside In: Start with the big picture-draw a map of an entire continent or a portion thereof."

Since their advice on world-building explicitly states a method of not making more than you need, I'd have to conclude that their definition of world-building does not include the motive of ultimately creating a whole world in as much detail as possible. 

If we are only going to go with your own definition then yes, *that* version of worldbuilding is not only unnecessary but it is futile. But frankly I see that as a non-argument.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> I never, ever stated that world building requires the creation of an entire world.  What I stated was that the goal of world building was to create an entire world.  How close you approach that goal will vary, but, in the end, when you world build, that has to be the ultimate goal.




OK, let's say that you never intended to state that world building requires the creation of an entire world, but merely the _goal_ of creating an entire world.

How does that mesh with Bottom-Up Worldbuilding?  There the goal is clearly not to create an entire world, but only so much of the world as appears necessary to the creator.  Should I snag that quote again?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Umm, scale?  A single word on the top of a map vs a fairly significant portion of the pagecount of a module?  Y'know, pretty much exactly what I've been talking about?




OK, so that map takes up an entire page.  If I used that page instead to describe the geography and inhabitants around WPM instead, would it make a difference?  Would it still be setting?  Would it become worldbuilding?  



> Look, we've pretty much always agreed on the definition of setting.  Setting is where the plot happens.  Now, in RPG's we don't have plot, but we do have a pretty decent analogue in adventures.  It's not too far of a stretch to say that in RPG's, setting is where the adventure happens.




Can we say "Setting is the backdrop to the action"?  I am not certain that all setting is "where" though I pretty much agree with you.  I also think that some character creation might be setting, and some setting creation might turn out to be unexpected character creation or prop creation.

You know what?  I don't have my DMG on me here.  Can you give me the headings for that chapter?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Note, most people don't define adventures as only what happens during a game session.  I've seen most people say that they create an adventure before a game session.  I know for a fact that RC has done so on these boards.  So, it's pretty strange to start defining adventure as solely what occurs during play.




Sure.

For example, in "Heather's First Adventure" I put together a railroad in order to illustrate play.  However, for the most part, "putting together an adventure" is usually composed of:

(1)  Putting together an adventure setting,
(2)  Statting up the potential adversaries,
(3)  Devising events,
(4)  Devising the plots/motivations of NPCs, and
(5)  Devising actual potential encounters.

Note that a lot of that can contain worldbuilding elements.

But you are correct.  "Creating an adventure" is a sloppy shorthand that doesn't hold up when compared to what is actually being done.  This is probably why I've titled threads "Some Cavern Encounters" instead of "A Cavern Adventure".

"Creating Potential Story Elements" might be a better term.     I think this applies, btw, to open-ended structures like the WLD, too.  The module provides a lot of story elements, but it doesn't proved an "adventure" per se.


----------



## gizmo33

Hussar said:
			
		

> How you get to the Isle of Dread isn't included in the adventure, that is correct.  However, it also doesn't matter within the context of the adventure as well.  Very little, if anything actually changes if the party teleports to the island, sails a ship or arrives upon the backs of rocs.  The adventure doesn't change.  You can run the module in identical ways in any case.




This doesn't make any sense to me at all.  What can you possibly mean by "adventure"?  For example - Arriving on the backs of rocs would probably attract a lot of attention, meaning that the initial encounters would be different than if the PCs snuck onto the island invisibly.  

DnD doesn't work by just reading sections of a written module outloud and rolling dice.  It works by interpreting information and presenting it to the players in ways the module doesn't cover.  Isn't that part of the adventure?

It's not about making what you call "significant changes".  Those "changes" are actually the required additions to the material that it was assumed DMs would make (I refer to the advice in the intro to the KotB).

We were close to some sort of agreement with your "spectrum" analogy - where did that go?  The Five Shires information is _less likely_ to be useful than details on encounter area 2B - at least that's how I understand your "spectrum" theory.  And yet that goes completely out the window when you revert back to the extremist black-and-white language of Five Shires info being totally irrelevant.


----------



## gizmo33

Hussar said:
			
		

> In RTTTOEE, Hommlet plays a pretty small role in the overall adventure, but, it's impact is felt throughout the adventure since that's the safe port for the party.  You could run RTTTOEE without Hommlet, but, it would be extremely difficult.




Hommlet details every single farmer, pet dog, and hidden gold piece in the village.  This whole time AFAICT you've suggested that good adventure material is immediately relevant - I have no idea how details on how many hitpoints a peaceful farmer has or where he hides his gold is relevant to describing something that's suppose to be a safe port (which it's not really, but that's another story).  It seemed pretty clear to me that module writers assumed that their creations would be used in ways they didn't anticipate - Keep on the Borderlands (as an intro module) bothers to say this explicitly.  Are you suggesting that module T1 is a good example, or bad example of what you're talking about?

Oh - and Hommlet's impact is not necessarily felt through the adventure (if by that you mean the moathouse) any more than the Five Shires impact is felt in the Isle of Dread.  Whatever connection is there is largely a creation of the DM - not the material as written.  I've run the Moathouse dungeon completely seperate from Hommlet and Greyhawk, there's very little explicit connection between the encounters in the dungeon and the surface world - all you need to do is come up with an evil cult to explain the presence of the cleric.  And even then, if your players are the kind that "don't care" about who ruled the town 150 years ago, then why would they even care why the cleric is really there?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> "A campaign is composed of a series of adventures, the nonplayer characters (NPCs) involved in those adventures, and the events surrounding everything that happens in those adventures." (DMG, p. 129)
> 
> The definition of a world:
> 
> "A world is a fictional place in which a campaign is set. It's also often called a campaign setting." (DMG, p. 129)




So, if we are going by the DMG definition, a world is a fictional place in which a series of adventures, the nonplayer characters (NPCs) involved in those adventures, and the events surrounding everything that happens in those adventures is set.

That sounds to me like creating adventure settings is part of worldbuilding.    

Are we still going by the 3.X DMG definitions, or are we now going to change to something new?   

Because if we are going by the 3.5 DMG definitions, we can stick a fork in it and call it done.  Right?  Right?


----------



## Rel

I'm already giving somebody a 3 day ban for needlessly rude posting in this thread.  The next person in this thread to earn one will get some multiple of that.


----------



## Hussar

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> *snip for good points*
> 
> I guess that my point is that "what is fun" is hard (if not impossible) to quantify, while depth is a little easier to measure. However, I'd also say that depth can be fun, but fun isn't necessarily dependent on depth.




Oh hey, look.  I'm not saying that setting first doesn't work.  Of course it does.  Decades of play proves that.  The stock method of creating the world first (from either direction) and then crafting adventures in that world is functional.  It works.

What I'm trying to suggest here is that you may not have to follow that methodology.  Instead of doing to the standard Dungeoncraft approach to building a campaign - where you start with dino island and build up from there, why not just create dino themed adventures?  Craft a series of adventures based on a theme and then go back and fill in the holes.

Time and again I bring up examples only to have people tell me that you can look at them a different way.  That's true.  There's a lot of overlap between what I'm calling setting and world building.  Since we're tossing around quotes from the DMG, how about the one from the introduction to world building?



			
				DMG Page 153 said:
			
		

> ... however you may wish to build your own world.  It's a challenging and rewarding task, but, be aware, it can also be a time consuming one.




World building is defined as building your own world.  Not just what is needed for the adventures, but, a whole world.  When they talk about bottom up they say, 







			
				DMG 153 said:
			
		

> Start out with a small area and build outward... expand outward in all directions so you're ready no matter which way they go.  Eventually you will have an entire kingdom developed... Proceed to other neighbouring lands, determining the political situations.




Now, it's true that bottom up is less work intensive than top down.  But that's not really what I'm talking about.  My point is to completely ignore that part.  Block Chapter 6 out of the book entirely.  

We have to develop adventures.  I'm suggesting that the common method of setting first may be less efficient than adventure first.

Hey, I could be wrong here.  I admit that.  I'm thinking that it's far more expedient to have a complete campaign first and then go back.  But, that's pretty work intensive as well and runs all sorts of risks, like heavy handed railroading.  I do realize that.  



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure.
> 
> For example, in "Heather's First Adventure" I put together a railroad in order to illustrate play.  However, for the most part, "putting together an adventure" is usually composed of:
> 
> (1)  Putting together an adventure setting,
> (2)  Statting up the potential adversaries,
> (3)  Devising events,
> (4)  Devising the plots/motivations of NPCs, and
> (5)  Devising actual potential encounters.
> 
> Note that a lot of that can contain worldbuilding elements. (underline mine)
> *snip*




And I agree with this 100%.  I have stated repeatedly that there is a huge grey area in the middle of what is absolutely needed and what is completely irrelevant.  Realistically, you can't really get away with doing zero world building.  You just can't.  You have to do some.  

What I've been very badly trying to explain is that you can approach it in a different direction.  Let the world building elements come out of the adventure, rather than starting with them first.  Like Star Trek or pretty much any other long lived series, let the world building elements accrete over time.  To continue the analogy, write the Star Trek stories first and then go back and apply any world building that you feel is warranted.  

Actually, the TV or movie approach is perhaps closer to what I'm getting at.  TV or movies don't have the time to spend on large amounts of exposition detailing the history and other world building goodies that we all love.  So, in any given episode of Star Trek, you get snippets of world building, but, not a whole lot at once.  In a novel, you can just add page count and go into details that aren't terribly necessary, but, lots of people seem to enjoy.


----------



## Hussar

Gizmo - you are entirely correct btw.  Hommlet is a very bad example.    It was pretty late when I posted that.  My bad.  Hommlet and Orlane are both poster children really for excessive world building.  Detailing every inhabitant in the town is really just far too much IMNSHO.



> Oh - and Hommlet's impact is not necessarily felt through the adventure (if by that you mean the moathouse)




Note, I did specify Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, in which Hommlet does play a pretty big role throughout.  Once the players clear out the cultists, Hommlet is meant to be a safe haven and contains the resources needed (mostly) for the players for pretty much the entire module.  The cleric can raise dead, there is a potion/scroll seller.  There are merchants.  Anything beyond those needs, they tell you to head to Verbobonc (sp) and skip over the details.

But, yes, the original Village of Hommlet would be a very good example of going beyond what's needed.  Some might even say well beyond what's needed.  

You bring up KotB.  Look at the Keep. Almost no detailing of the inhabitants of the keep beyond what would most logically interact with the PC's.  This is a good example of the approach I'm advocating.  It's pretty reasonable to think that the PC's need a bar, an inn, a place to flog treasure and a place to get healed.  Adding in the Castelan and some mook guards isn't particulalry needed, but, it's not too far beyond either.  

Detailing Pig Farmer #12 is.

It's funny, I got into a discussion here on these boards during one of Quasqueton's module discussions about precisely this.  At the time, I advocated the approach taken by Village of Hommlet for exactly the same reasons that you seem to - depth, realism, etc.  I've come to realize that perhaps that approach is perhaps in need of a makeover.  That putting the adventures first and then worrying about world building is maybe a better approach.


----------



## Ourph

Hussar said:
			
		

> What I'm trying to suggest here is that you may not have to follow that methodology.  Instead of doing to the standard Dungeoncraft approach to building a campaign - where you start with dino island and build up from there, why not just create dino themed adventures?  Craft a series of adventures based on a theme and then go back and fill in the holes.



I think the problem people see with this approach is simply that not having enough information can be just as limiting as having too much.  If a DM planned dino themed adventures on an island and all of a sudden the PCs decide to go do X and X is something that the DM hadn't planned on using as an adventure, then it's very likely the DM has nothing prepared to help him handle X.  For some DMs that might be OK, but (IME at least) the vast majority of DMs handle the situation by trying to somehow finagle the "story" so that even attempting to do X first requires that the PCs complete adventure #3, which the DM already had prepared.  So while the DM had arranged things so that there is a logical reason to do adventure #3, it still means the PCs don't get to do X, like they wanted.

For example, let's say X is "building a boat and sailing around the island to map it".  The DM doesn't have the coastline mapped out or any coastal encounters planned because he's planned only "inland" dino encounters.  So he rules that building a boat requires the skills of the local native tribe, who just happen to demand the PCs do "Dino-themed Adventure #3" that the DM already had prepared before they'll lend a hand.  I'm not saying it's impossible to wing an exploration of the island's coast, but it's not easy and (again IME) the vast majority of DMs shy away from it.  So to me at least the idea of eschewing "world-prep" to focus exclusively on "adventure-prep"  reminds me of the old adage about failing to plan being the same as planning to fail.


----------



## rounser

> If a DM planned dino themed adventures on an island and all of a sudden the PCs decide to go do X and X is something that the DM hadn't planned on using as an adventure, then it's very likely the DM has nothing prepared to help him handle X.



I think that this is a function of D&D gameworlds being too large for their own good.  If 95% of the world doesn't contain adventures to discover, why is it there for the PCs to "wander out of the prepared area" into unless everyone's an improv savant (which they're not)?  I suspect that it's for a sense of epic - sprawling empires and thousands of miles of terrain make for a grand idea, but the D&D "gameboard" is probably much more useful if it's smaller...in the same way that traditional D&D conventions have more difficulty handling wilderness as an adventure location than a dungeon.

This is a quantitative versus qualitative scenario - I think a couple of hundred square miles of setting packed to the gills with adventure is far superior to thousands of miles of vacuum, with a few macro level ideas to fill that void, _especially_ as of 3E, when a dozen adventures are enough to catapult PCs to 20th level.  What you're proposing is understandable one if you come from the "big big big world" school of campaign design, which is by far the traditional majority approach to the topic, but I'd suggest that this model is flawed as well.  Say, half a dozen dungeons and a few event-based adventures and the campaign is done - it really doesn't require much space.

While on the topic: Thunder Rift for 4E default setting!


----------



## Hussar

True, it would require some cooperation on the part of the players.  The adventures would have to be structured such that the players actually buy into the theme and don't simply walk away from it to go somewhere else.  Although, honestly, I was thinking that you would have a number of side trek adventures on hand for just this occasion.

I guess I really don't think that it's that hard to predict players.  If I stick them on the island and they buy into the campaign, it's generally not all that hard to predict what they will do.  How they do it may be much more difficult, but the what usually isn't.

I have a 2e book kicking around here somewhere called A Heroes Tale.  It's a collection of 10 or so one shot adventures all linked by a common element - the orb of chaos or something like that.  The DM is encouraged to simply drop these into his ongoing campaign at various points as a side arc to the main camp.  It's a book I really like actually - who'da thunk a 2e module could be good?  

That's the approach I'm more thinking of.  Not just a single series of one shot adventures, but, a meat and potatoes series of adventures in the main arc - exploring the Dino Island as the main theme - with a number of side threads and one offs that can be dropped in as needed.

But, your point is well taken.  If the players really decide to abandon the campaign in favour of what they want to do, then there isn't much to recommend this approach.  However, IME, it's not too tricky to drop some signposts on the way to nudge players into directions you want to go.  

Note, I'm not talking about locking them down onto rails.  But, dropping hooks or other bits that entice the players in various directions.  Someone called it shepherding rather than railroading.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> World building is defined as building your own world.  Not just what is needed for the adventures, but, a whole world.




I don't know if that quote from the DMG equates to building a *whole* world. After all, they define "world" as simply: "...a consistent environment for the campaign." Further, my impression from both approaches they recommend (Inside Out and Outside In) is that regardless of where you start, the farther away from the action you are the less detail you should create. With Inside Out you start detailed and get less so as you move farther away, with Outside In you start vague and drill-down to specifics around where the adventures occur. Neither of those sound like striving to create a *whole* world.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> We have to develop adventures.  I'm suggesting that the common method of setting first may be less efficient than adventure first.




In theory you don't have to do either. I'd agree though that you'll _generally _have more luck putting adventure over setting/worldbuilding. But that doesn't make worldbuilding bad or superfluous.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm thinking that it's far more expedient to have a complete campaign first and then go back.  But, that's pretty work intensive as well and runs all sorts of risks, like heavy handed railroading.  I do realize that.




Personally I'd rather have a bunch of low-level adventures prepared in a decent setting. That way you give the players options on where the want to go and you can develop more adventures after they have chosen a path. IMO this is the best way to avoid wasted work and potential railroading. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Let the world building elements come out of the adventure, rather than starting with them first.  Like Star Trek or pretty much any other long lived series, let the world building elements accrete over time.  To continue the analogy, write the Star Trek stories first and then go back and apply any world building that you feel is warranted.




That certainly is an effective method, but you have to have done a little world-building beforehand to establish that you are playing Star Trek adventures. You have to do enough to establish that setting. One of the issues I've had in this thread is that some people seem to think that even this is too much worldbuilding and is straight-jacketing the types of adventures you can have. I suggest that by not establishing theme or setting in the hopes of being able to do whatever adventure you want, then whatever "setting" results has to be pretty generic and vague by necessity. This point seems to be met with outrage and claims that you don't need worldbuilding to have depth and avoid being generic. But, again, that really hinges on the definition of worldbuilding. Bleh.


----------



## Hussar

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Personally I'd rather have a bunch of low-level adventures prepared in a decent setting. That way you give the players options on where the want to go and you can develop more adventures after they have chosen a path. IMO this is the best way to avoid wasted work and potential railroading.




I've done pretty much that approach as well most of the time.  The problem, for me, comes not at the beginning, but months down the road as campaign after campaign comes to a stuttering halt.  I've had it happen to me as a DM and as a player.  

Honestly, the World's Largest Dungeon is the first successful campaign I've run in years.  By successful I mean a campaign that had closure instead of simply petering out.  I know, for myself, that the strain of keeping ahead of the disaster curve of coming to the session with nothing is a lot of stress.  

Having a solid arc with lots of backup relieves a lot of that stress.



> but you have to have done a little world-building beforehand to establish that you are playing Star Trek adventures. You have to do enough to establish that setting.




Oh, I agree.  You cannot get completely away from world building really, any more than you can completely get away from desserts.    You're right.  You really do have to do some. 

There is a danger here though of conflating theme with setting.  Space exploration is a theme.  The Trek Universe is the setting.  I could come up with a number of adventures based on the theme of space exploration and not refer to the Trek Universe in the slightest. After I have my campaign set, then I can go back and maybe add in some stuff as needed.



			
				Rounser said:
			
		

> This is a quantitative versus qualitative scenario - I think a couple of hundred square miles of setting packed to the gills with adventure is far superior to thousands of miles of vacuum, with a few macro level ideas to fill that void, especially as of 3E, when a dozen adventures are enough to catapult PCs to 20th level




I'm not sure if I agree with this Rounser.  Are you saying that smaller settings are inherently better?  That I disagree with strongly.  There's nothing wrong with the idea of having 500 square miles of action packed locations, so long as you don't mean that they have to be contiguous.  A campaign which features travel along a Silk Road style set up will have a huge area from end to end, but, the actual adventure areas will be only as large as they need to be.

Just like in Star Trek where we skip over all that boring travel time between episodes, we can do the same thing in an adventure first campaign.


----------



## rounser

> Just like in Star Trek where we skip over all that boring travel time between episodes, we can do the same thing in an adventure first campaign.



I suppose it depends if you prefer a campaign where travel is skipped, or where wilderness exploration is a big part of the main event.  I like the idea of small wilderness areas that are treated similarly to an outdoors dungeon, a bit like Forest of Doom if you know that Fighting Fantasy book.  

For D&D purposes, there's several big problems with wilderness as an adventuring environment in terms of a place to explore as you would a dungeon:

1) It's big.  Really big.  Way too much to detail at encounter level.
2) There are no discrete areas in the same way a dungeon room or corridor can be assigned a number and detailed, so some sort of compromise like hexes or fudging it (PCs run into the cairn no matter where they travel over the plains) seem to be called for.
3) There are no walls, so you can't channel PCs into areas appropriate for their level, nor make sure they don't go off the map, or completely bypass detailed areas.

The nearest compromise I can seem to make on these points is to make the wilderness small, bounded by rift walls (although an island or plateau is probably a better solution), hexed into discrete areas, and scale the status quo locations to suit the current PC level.

This is all campaign style stuff, but IMO "dungeonesque" wilderness exploration is a megafun, often overlooked way to play the game.  Most folks would prefer to skip it as you mentioned above, or run exactly one wandering monster encounter between destinations ala that OOTS parody....probably for the reasons I detailed above.


> Are you saying that smaller settings are inherently better?



No, just that it's very easy to run a campaign in a very small area indeed if you want to, because 3E D&D PCs level so darn fast.  You might be 1/12th of the way to level 20 after a single dungeon, for instance, which puts the utility of detailing continents in a slightly different perspective when viewed in that light.


----------



## Hussar

Rounser said:
			
		

> No, just that it's very easy to run a campaign in a very small area indeed if you want to, because 3E D&D PCs level so darn fast. You might be 1/12th of the way to level 20 after a single dungeon, for instance, which puts the utility of detailing continents in a slightly different perspective when viewed in that light.




Y'know, that's a very good point.  It actually doesn't take that many adventures to run a PC up from 1st to 20th.  My WLD campaign only took 8 regions to go to 16th level and that was with an awful lot of death.  You could do an entire 1-20 campaign in about 10 adventures easily.  

Food for thought.

But, on the point about the 500 square mile campaign, I know that's just a number you tossed out, but, that's really, really small.  We're talking a circle with a radius of about 12 miles.  Half a days walk  It would be very difficult to put challenges in there for 1st level PC's and 20th level PC's.


----------



## Raven Crowking

rounser said:
			
		

> No, just that it's very easy to run a campaign in a very small area indeed if you want to, because 3E D&D PCs level so darn fast.  You might be 1/12th of the way to level 20 after a single dungeon, for instance, which puts the utility of detailing continents in a slightly different perspective when viewed in that light.





I agree with this assessment, and it is one of the reasons that I think this edition tends to lead one rather aggressively into a particular playstyle.  Note, however, that not everyone playinging 3.X uses the 3.X XP paradigm.  I don't.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> And I agree with this 100%.  I have stated repeatedly that there is a huge grey area in the middle of what is absolutely needed and what is completely irrelevant.  Realistically, you can't really get away with doing zero world building.  You just can't.  You have to do some.
> 
> What I've been very badly trying to explain is that you can approach it in a different direction.  Let the world building elements come out of the adventure, rather than starting with them first.  Like Star Trek or pretty much any other long lived series, let the world building elements accrete over time.  To continue the analogy, write the Star Trek stories first and then go back and apply any world building that you feel is warranted.




First off, I don't think it is possible to run a game in which world building elements do not accrete over time.   No matter how much prep work you do, the players tend to take you on angles that you haven't thought of before, or even ask questions to which there is no prepared answer.  So, I would say that allowing details to accrete is mandatory.



> Actually, the TV or movie approach is perhaps closer to what I'm getting at.  TV or movies don't have the time to spend on large amounts of exposition detailing the history and other world building goodies that we all love.  So, in any given episode of Star Trek, you get snippets of world building, but, not a whole lot at once.  In a novel, you can just add page count and go into details that aren't terribly necessary, but, lots of people seem to enjoy.




In a TV show, of course, the script tells the actors what to do, so there is a limited degree to which this is possible.

Look at your dino island suggestion again, and take it in light of the Bottom-Up-Top-Down methodology I suggested earlier.

First you create your initial adventure location (what you would call creating your initial adventure).  Then you examine what that location implies, and make outline notes on it (in this case, make a rough map of the island, come up with some other major locations that NPCs and PCs might know about, and roughly one-line a few other villages -- name, rough form of government, maybe name of ruler....there are DM aids you could roll for this stuff out of, taking you 10 minutes at the most).  I would also add some qualifiers to the map, personally, from Wildscape, so that I know what hazards (disease, biting insects, tangled undergrowth, quicksand) individual areas might have.  This would take about an hour or so to do, but results in a world where the PCs _can_ choose to map the island from a ship.

I, for one, don't think that desiring to map the island from a ship is the same as not buying into the campaign setting.  Knowledge is power, and most D&D players IME know this.  Divination spells are likely to see use, even at low levels, to gain whatever information is available.  Since the players have no means of knowing what is important, and what is not important, to the adventure at hand they tend to want to know all sorts of things that might not be immediately relevant.

Better yet, my mapping the island made me include some shark-haunted reefs on a whim.  Now that I am looking at that map, though, I have a great idea for an adventure that takes the PCs to the ruins beneath that reef, discovering exactly _why_ sharks congregate there.  So, I write a brief outline of that location.  I do the same for several other locations that interested me when doing the map prep.

Now I go back to my initial adventure.  I lay hints, seeds, and clues about the locations I've outlined.....something which is impossible if I only focus on the one adventure.  These hooks occur organically in play, so that when the PCs finally get to the shark-haunted reef, they have a sense of what it is as well as what they hope to accomplish there.  Or they have a sense that the reef is a place to avoid, and their fear of it means that I never develop it beyond an outline.

By the time I'm changing the Volcanic Caverns from outline to adventure location, I might be seeding hints about the world beyond the island, which by this time exists in outline and rough map form.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Note, however, that not everyone playinging 3.X uses the 3.X XP paradigm.  I don't.




I don't either - sounds like a good topic for a poll.


----------



## gizmo33

Hussar said:
			
		

> Hommlet and Orlane are both poster children really for excessive world building.  Detailing every inhabitant in the town is really just far too much IMNSHO.




I've actually used alot of that information in the 25 or so years that I've had the module.  Maybe not in it's original form, but between Hommlet and it's imitators IMC.  I run a simulationist style game - I don't design plots with any sort of firm structure.  This means that (although it's rare in my adult years) it was possible that a thief in the party will decide to ransack someone's cottage for some quick cash (for example), and I don't say "hey, you can't do that 'cause it doesn't follow the plot".  Or PCs who are about to fight some goblins at the outskirts of town might go to the latest farmhouse to see if the inhabitants have weapons and would be willing to help.  Some DMs would just say "um, nobody's home" or "you guys are heroes, you're not supposed to do that".  Having sample village households has helped adjucate these things and made me feel comfortable with my imaginary environment.


----------



## Ourph

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, your point is well taken.  If the players really decide to abandon the campaign in favour of what they want to do, then there isn't much to recommend this approach.




I'm not sure I would call mapping the coastline of Dino-Island vs. exploring the Dino-related adventures the DM has already set up "abandoning the campaign".  There are always going to be campaign-related activities the players embark on that the DM who has spent all of his time developing only adventures hasn't planned out.  Whereas the DM who has spent the extra time developing the "extraneous" information about Dino-island generally has some resources at his disposal for when the PCs go off the reservation.



> However, IME, it's not too tricky to drop some signposts on the way to nudge players into directions you want to go.
> 
> Note, I'm not talking about locking them down onto rails.  But, dropping hooks or other bits that entice the players in various directions.  Someone called it shepherding rather than railroading.



Railroading/Shepherding is fine for some groups, but for others the distinction may be moot.  I think we can both agree that if your preference is to run a true "sandbox" campaign, developing adventures to the exclusion of setting/world isn't the way to go unless you are VERY comfortable improvising setting/world-building during actual play.  My personal experience is that most DMs are much more comfortable improvising encounters than they are improvising setting/world elements during the game (primarily because the rulebooks have always provided DMs with tons of tools for on-the-fly encounter development).  As a result, it seems to me that spending the majority of pre-game prep time on the element of the game that's easiest to improvise during play is probably a mismanagement of the DM's resources.


----------



## Hussar

I'm not sure if that's fair to say that encounter development on the fly is the easiest to improvise.  It might be at very low levels, but, the common complaint in campaigns over about 12th level is the sheer amount of fiddly bits you have to keep track of.  While I know I could improvise an encounter with 1d6 dire rats, I don't think I could do the same with 1d6 elite fiendish venomous cryohydras.  

But, yes, if you want to run a "sandbox" campaign, then the ideas I'm putting forth are certainly not the way to go.  Honestly, from my own point of view, I don't think I would enjoy such a campaign.  When I've played in that style of campaign, it invariably grinds to a slow, stuttering halt as the party wanders aimlessly from disconnected element to disconnected element.  I know that it can be done right.  I've just had very bad experience with playing and attempting to run them.  

I realize that many people don't follow RAW exactly for xp, but, I did a poll a while back about how fast people leveled and it did appear that most people do follow RAW.  Levelling in 2 or 3 sessions most of the time.

Bear with me for a second while I try to organize my own thoughts.  I've kinda got three points in mind that need to be connected.

First off, we can be fairly sure that most campaigns only last between 1 and 1.5 years.  Numerous polling shows this.  While I know there are multiyear campaigns out there, for most of us mere mortals, 18 months seems to be the half life of a campaign.

Secondly, again according to polling I've seen on Enworld, most people shift campaign setting with each new campaign.  Most people end an eight month Forgotten Realms camp and move on to a homebrew.  When they finish that, they move over to Eberron.  After that, maybe Kalamar or whatever.  The point is, there is not all that much setting loyalty in many groups.

Thirdly, and this goes back to the xp bit, you can craft a 1st to 20th level campaign in about 8 adventures. By RAW it takes about 20-25 encounters to go up two levels.  Assume for a moment that you overbuild on the assumption that the players aren't going to hit every room and we can ballpark about 40 encounters at the high end for a 2 level adventure.  40 encounters is a fairly doable number.

Now, combine all three of those points - an average 1-20 level campaign is only going to last about 18 months and then the players are going to move on to a different setting.  Suddenly developing large swaths of setting isn't all that important.  

Make 8 adventures plus maybe a half dozen one shots and you have a full, 20 level campaign.  

Suddenly, campaign design looks a whole lot easier to me.



> First off, I don't think it is possible to run a game in which world building elements do not accrete over time. No matter how much prep work you do, the players tend to take you on angles that you haven't thought of before, or even ask questions to which there is no prepared answer. So, I would say that allowing details to accrete is mandatory.




Agree 100%



			
				RC said:
			
		

> Better yet, my mapping the island made me include some shark-haunted reefs on a whim. Now that I am looking at that map, though, I have a great idea for an adventure that takes the PCs to the ruins beneath that reef, discovering exactly why sharks congregate there. So, I write a brief outline of that location. I do the same for several other locations that interested me when doing the map prep.




I guess my point is to instead detail out the shark reef as an adventure and then come up with a way to link that to the adventure before it and after it.  Or, make the adventures recursive enough that you could do the adventure after it and come back to Shark Reef.

When I said not buying into the campaign, I was perhaps stating things too strongly.  But, think of it this way, the original hook  is heading into the jungle to investigate the disappearance of the Chieftain's daughter.  The players turn to you and say, "Naw, we want to build a raft and sail around the island."  To me, that's not buying in to the campaign.

Now, hopefully, the campaign arc would include more than these simple examples.  Hopefully, as I mentioned before, you could make the adventures recursive so you could part of A then part of B, followed by going back to A then off to D, finding D too hard and moving back to C and so on and so forth.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Secondly, again according to polling I've seen on Enworld, most people shift campaign setting with each new campaign.  Most people end an eight month Forgotten Realms camp and move on to a homebrew.  When they finish that, they move over to Eberron.  After that, maybe Kalamar or whatever.  The point is, there is not all that much setting loyalty in many groups.




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



> When I said not buying into the campaign, I was perhaps stating things too strongly.  But, think of it this way, the original hook  is heading into the jungle to investigate the disappearance of the Chieftain's daughter.  The players turn to you and say, "Naw, we want to build a raft and sail around the island."  To me, that's not buying in to the campaign.




See, to me that's not buying into an _adventure hook_.  Not buying into the campaign is "We want to build a raft and leave the island".  I am strongly of the camp that players should have multiple hooks, and multiple possible adventures.


----------



## Campbell

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Raven Crowking

Campbell said:
			
		

> 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

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Raven Crowking

Interesting responses to both polls so far.  I'd say that the vast majority seem to reuse campaign settings, and it seems to be true across the board.  The "play once and dump" campaign setting norm seems to be an Internet myth.

OTOH, I notice that (as of this time) 60% of your respondents seem to maintain the same setting from campaign to campaign.

Honestly, neither of these results is what general EN World chatter has led me to believe.  I had expected the 3rd Ed reuses to be less frequent, and the changing campaigns to be more frequent.

Both thus far show that the effort used to create a setting last beyond the confines of a single campaign for the majority of EN Worlders in any event.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Interesting responses to both polls so far.  I'd say that the vast majority seem to reuse campaign settings, and it seems to be true across the board.  The "play once and dump" campaign setting norm seems to be an Internet myth.
> 
> OTOH, I notice that (as of this time) 60% of your respondents seem to maintain the same setting from campaign to campaign.
> 
> Honestly, neither of these results is what general EN World chatter has led me to believe.  I had expected the 3rd Ed reuses to be less frequent, and the changing campaigns to be more frequent.
> 
> Both thus far show that the effort used to create a setting last beyond the confines of a single campaign for the majority of EN Worlders in any event.




Well, currently, it's about 50/50 but that's splitting hairs.

To be fair though, if I answered your poll absolutely honestly, I'd have to say yes to all three as well since I have reused pretty much every setting that I've used once.  But, generally, it's been use it a couple of times and then move on.  

I wonder how much the reuse factor is a result of the work/money put into it.  I'm not saying that it is, I just wonder if it's possible that one of the reasons people reuse settings is because they've either put a lot of time and/or money into that setting and want to see some sort of results for that.  

In any case, I would say that there is a significant portion of gamers out there that aren't setting faithful.  For those gamers, perhaps taking a setting first approach is another way to go.


----------



## Hussar

I am not sure but I think my last poll was flawed.  So, I'm trying again, with This Poll - Would you use a new setting for your next campaign?.  Hopefully that will show better how setting loyal people are.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, currently, it's about 50/50 but that's splitting hairs.




Well, it changes as it goes on.  However, your poll assumes a change in campaign, and (as I said earlier) the value of campaign setting work is not in its _continuous_ use (or we could have a poll saying "Do you ever stop playing?" to "prove" that any effort was wasted) but in whether or not that setting material is _used for more than one campaign_.



> I wonder how much the reuse factor is a result of the work/money put into it.  I'm not saying that it is, I just wonder if it's possible that one of the reasons people reuse settings is because they've either put a lot of time and/or money into that setting and want to see some sort of results for that.




Could be.  But I think Gygax had some insight into why you might reuse a campaign setting when he wrote about world development in the 1e DMG.



> In any case, I would say that there is a significant portion of gamers out there that aren't setting faithful.  For those gamers, perhaps taking a setting first approach is another way to go.




It depends, again, on if "setting faithful" means "never doing anything else" or "continually going back to the same setting".  Slightly more than half of your poll's respondents said that they do not change settings, the overwhelming majority of mine said they reuse settings.

I would say that puts the "setting faithful" at a very high majority.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> I am not sure but I think my last poll was flawed.  So, I'm trying again, with This Poll - Would you use a new setting for your next campaign?.  Hopefully that will show better how setting loyal people are.




That one's even worse!



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If you were to start a new campaign tomorrow, would you use a different setting?
> Yes, and this includes using different locations within the same world
> No, I would use a different setting than I am using now.




The question is "Would you use a different setting?"

If I say Yes, then I would use a different setting.

If I say No, then "I would use a different setting than I am using now".


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Well, even despite the flaws to your newest poll, 70% seem to have some sort of setting loyalty.  What conclusions do you draw?


----------



## Old Gumphrey

I lol'd because this is the biggest thread on the page and the topic is "time management in game design".


----------



## I'm A Banana

> I lol'd because this is the biggest thread on the page and the topic is "time management in game design".




s'true!



> Well, even despite the flaws to your newest poll, 70% seem to have some sort of setting loyalty. What conclusions do you draw?




Me? Nothing too exceptional. If the link between setting loyalty and loving worldbuilding is a true link, it just shows that 70% of D&D players are great clomping nerds who have fun building fictional worlds, and, of course, who think their world is the best of them all for their group (and are probably right).   

I think a much truer poll to my point would be something along the lines of "what's the longest time you've spent in one campaign setting?" But even then, ENWorld is kind of emblematic of great clomping D&D nerds, so I wouldn't be astonished at all to find it being a high percentage spending a lot of time in their homebrew setting. I mean, we are spending our free personal time debating the finer points of semantics and the benefits and pitfalls of being a great clomping nerd about your homebrew setting. On an online message board. We aren't just D&D nerds, we're D&D Super-Nerds, even those of us who *don't* suffer from the particular propensity to setting porn. 

So it does little to disprove my construct of:

 Worldbuilding isn't an essential ingredient for a good D&D game
 Worldbuilding can be fun for us nerdy types
 People should do as much worldbuilding as they want, as much as is fun for them
 Doing more worldbuilding doesn't make your setting any better than a setting that does little or no worldbuilding. Worldbuilding itself is not worthy of praise just because of what it is. 
 Too much worldbuilding can be a very bad thing, resulting in powerless players and DMs who are more interested in their campaign setting than in running a D&D game


----------



## Hussar

RC - If I answered your poll honestly, I would be forced to say yes in all three editions as well.  But, that's because in 1e I ran Dragonlance twice, I ran my homebrew a couple of times in 2e and, out of the six campaigns I've been involved in in 3.5 edition, I've use Scarred Lands twice.

But, you are right, my second poll is a screw up.  lol

What it says to me, is that about a 1/3 of DM's aren't all that concerned with setting and are more than willing to move on to a new setting with each campaign.  

I never said that this idea was for everyone.  Heck, the idea of setting first has been so ingrained into the mindset of gamers I'd be shocked if the results of my poll were any different.  

My point is that common wisdom may be mistaken.  That setting isn't anywhere near as important as people make it out to be.  That if you craft decent adventures, setting can pretty much go sit in the corner.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> What it says to me, is that about a 1/3 of DM's aren't all that concerned with setting and are more than willing to move on to a new setting with each campaign.




1/3 of DMs being willing to move on?  It shows that 1/3 of DMs don't necessarily set their campaigns within the same world back-to-back, but that doesn't mean that they don't revisit it again after a break....something my poll shows is quite consistent (certainly more than 2/3rds of DMs set multiple campaigns in the same setting).

Beyond which, changing settings affects the amount of _use_ you get from the setting, but doesn't demonstrate how much you care about the setting _while you're using it_.



> I never said that this idea was for everyone.  Heck, the idea of setting first has been so ingrained into the mindset of gamers I'd be shocked if the results of my poll were any different.




Shocked?  I thought you believed that setting loyalty was a myth until we ran those polls?!?!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Worldbuilding isn't an essential ingredient for a good D&D game




Disagree.  Of course, that really depends upon what you call "worldbuilding".



> Worldbuilding can be fun




FIFY.



> People should do as much worldbuilding as they want, as much as is fun for them




Agree.



> Doing more worldbuilding doesn't make your setting any better than a setting that does little or no worldbuilding.




Exactly as adding more ketchup to your hamburger doesn't make it more ketchupy.    

If the worldbuilding elements you add to your setting improve the setting (i.e., are "good" worldbuilding elements), then by necessity they improve the setting.  It's a tautological argument.  Any work of any type that you do which contributes to the game _contributes to the game_ and therefore makes it better.



> Too much worldbuilding can be a very bad thing, resulting in powerless players and DMs who are more interested in their campaign setting than in running a D&D game




Disagree.

The amount of worldbuilding done has little or nothing to do with the problem that you describe.


----------



## Hussar

> something my poll shows is quite consistent (certainly more than 2/3rds of DMs set multiple campaigns in the same setting).




I've already shown how your poll is skewed.  I show up as running multiple campaigns in the same setting despite running the majority of my campaigns in multiple settings.  

You are guilty of the same mistake that I made - simply creating a binary poll for  behaviour that is anything but binary.  All you've shown is that people are likely to use a given setting more than once.  I'll buy that.  In 10 years of playing 2e, I'd say the vast majority of people reused a setting at least once.

But, my point is, it becomes self fufiliing. You spend the time and/or money developing a setting, you want to get your money's worth and justify the effort.  So, you reuse the setting.  Thus you spend more time in a setting, spending more money and/or effort to expand that setting, thus creating an even larger need to justify the time and expense.

Just to clarify btw, I never said "play once and dump".  That was your interpretation, not mine.  I said that multiyear campaigns in a single setting were a minority.  I also said that I thought that people do move from setting to setting fairly often.  That's a far cry from "play once and dump".  The fact that a third of people thought they'd move to a different setting does show that setting gypsies are hardly a tiny minority.  I am a bit surprised though, I would have thought it was higher.

I've shown (thankfully I think people were able to read past my butchering of the language) that about a third of people intend to jump to a new setting in their next campaign.  Sure, they might come back in the campaign after that, but, that's not my point.

My point is, if you don't spend all that time and/or money on the setting, then there is no need to come back.  If you instead spend all that time/money on adventures and then just hang them together with the barest threads of setting, you can run campaign after campaign, drastically changing setting, without doing any more work.

As I said, you only need about 8 adventures to run a 20 level campaign.  Heck, 8 adventures could easily run a "sweet spot" campaign of 3rd-12th.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> I've already shown how your poll is skewed.  I show up as running multiple campaigns in the same setting despite running the majority of my campaigns in multiple settings.




How about a simple Yes/No poll then:

In your experience, is play enhanced by a well-developed setting?

EDIT:  And here it is:  http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=197852


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How about a simple Yes/No poll then:
> 
> In your experience, is play enhanced by a well-developed setting?
> 
> EDIT:  And here it is:  http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=197852




My prediction is an overwhelming Yes vote.  80-90%.  Because, as I've said repeatedly, we've been beaten over the head to accept the idea that "THOU SHALT WORLDBUILD".  Grandaddy Tolkien did it, thus IT SHALL BE DONE.   But, we shall see.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:
			
		

> My prediction is an overwhelming Yes vote.  80-90%.  Because, as I've said repeatedly, we've been beaten over the head to accept the idea that "THOU SHALT WORLDBUILD".  Grandaddy Tolkien did it, thus IT SHALL BE DONE.   But, we shall see.




This so smacks of "You don't know any better, but I can show you the TRUE way to play."  

It's almost like you're claiming gamers are kids and don't really know what they enjoy in a game.  Just find this comment baffling and a little elitist


----------



## Old Gumphrey

You're baffled that gamers can be elitist? Do you know any gamers? It's like 3 in 4 gamers are elitist.


----------



## Imaro

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> You're baffled that gamers can be elitist? Do you know any gamers? It's like 3 in 4 gamers are elitist.





Lol


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> My prediction is an overwhelming Yes vote.  80-90%.  Because, as I've said repeatedly, we've been beaten over the head to accept the idea that "THOU SHALT WORLDBUILD".  Grandaddy Tolkien did it, thus IT SHALL BE DONE.   But, we shall see.




My prediction is an overwhelming Yes vote as well.  Because, in the experience of 80-90% of the people voting, _play is enhanced by a well-developed setting_.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> My point is, if you don't spend all that time and/or money on the setting, then there is no need to come back.




There, we agree.  But I would add, if you instead spend all that time/money on adventures and then just hang them together with the barest threads of setting, then there is no need to come back...to the table.


----------



## Hussar

Sorry Imaro.  I didn't mean to come off as being elitist.  My point is that we've been conditioned for years to think that setting MUST BE DONE.  The DMG talks about it, umpteen pages in Dungeon and Dragon talks about it.  Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material shows it.  Popular fantasy does it.

It's not really surprising that everyone buys into this.

What's funny is comments like RC's where doing only the barest amount of setting is A BAD THING.  That if you were to focus on adventures and ignore most of the setting stuff, there would be no point in gaming at all.

Heck, RC, didn't you take me to task a few pages back for saying that posters were saying EXACTLY what you just said?  Refresh my memory, but I believe that several people told me that NO ONE said that putting setting on the back burner makes for a bad game.

Yet, that's precisely what you just said.

So who's being elitist?  Me for suggesting that most of the setting work that gets done is superfluous or RC for suggesting that if you don't do a "well developed setting" that it just isn't worth playing?

Of course, the problem now is, what is a "well developed setting"?  Is the GDQ series a well developed setting?  If I were to play through them as written, would it be a bad experience because of a decided lack of world background?

Do I need to know the entire history of Greyhawk in order to run Savage Tide?  How much can I ignore?  Do I even have to set it in Greyhawk to make it a good experience?

Does the Isle of Dread become a worse experience if you ignore the first couple of pages?

If I took whiteout to the map in White Plume Mountain and crossed off Dragotha and replaced it with "Here Be Dragyns", would that make for a less satisfying experience?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Sorry Imaro.  I didn't mean to come off as being elitist.  My point is that we've been conditioned for years to think that setting MUST BE DONE.  The DMG talks about it, umpteen pages in Dungeon and Dragon talks about it.  Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material shows it.  Popular fantasy does it.
> 
> It's not really surprising that everyone buys into this.




Or, possibly, there is a reason that DMG talks about it, umpteen pages in Dungeon and Dragon talk about it, and so on.



> What's funny is comments like RC's where doing only the barest amount of setting is A BAD THING.  That if you were to focus on adventures and ignore most of the setting stuff, there would be no point in gaming at all.
> 
> Heck, RC, didn't you take me to task a few pages back for saying that posters were saying EXACTLY what you just said?  Refresh my memory, but I believe that several people told me that NO ONE said that putting setting on the back burner makes for a bad game.




No one that I know of suggests that the adventures shouldn't be created.  No one that I know of suggests that it is more important to name the barmaids in the inn than it is to develop the moathouse that the PCs are probably going to loot.

However, this is a very different thing from including "only the barest amount of setting".

Consider it like this, if you will:  A story requires both conflict and context.  If you only create context without conflict, you'll have a dud.  If you only create conflict without context, the conflict is meaningless.  In which case, there is no pull to return to the book, or (in the case of an RPG) the table.



> So who's being elitist?  Me for suggesting that most of the setting work that gets done is superfluous or RC for suggesting that if you don't do a "well developed setting" that it just isn't worth playing?




If that's elitist, then I'm an elitist.  I have no interest in bad games.



> Of course, the problem now is, what is a "well developed setting"?  Is the GDQ series a well developed setting?  If I were to play through them as written, would it be a bad experience because of a decided lack of world background?




Again, you conflate "setting" with "world background".

You don't need to know the entire history of Greyhawk in order to run Savage Tide.  However, knowing something about the structure of the place where it begins isn't a bad thing.  The Isle of Dread, like King Kong, attempts to create a contrast between "civilization" and a "lost world" setting.  If you ignore that contrast, it certainly can become a worse experience....unless you replace the thematic elements with something else.  And, yes, if you took whiteout to the map in White Plume Mountain and crossed off Dragotha and replaced it with "Here Be Dragyns", it would make for a less satisfying experience.

At least IM(not so)HO.


----------



## Hussar

> If that's elitist, then I'm an elitist. I have no interest in bad games.




And, of course, here's the assumption that I've talked about before.  That, unless you spend hours developing (or lots of money) some fantasy world, your campaign will be doomed to being a bad game.

I asked a while back, and I think it got lost in the wash, if this is why you, RC, believed that the WLD needed so much work to be playable.  See, I finished my WLD campaign.  I think we had lots of fun.  The fact that my players are interested in coming back to another campaign seems to be an indication that things were not so bad.

Yet, beyond the very bare bones that's included in the WLD, I did pretty much no world building.

I've become fairly convinced that most of what we've bought into is simply clomping nerdism.  That the idea that we need all this setting is necessary for a "deep" experience.  

Oh, hey, I realize I'm swimming against the current here.  There's thousands of pages of world building stuff out there just for D&D, never mind other RPG's.  A very large part of the industry is based around the concept that WE MUST HAVE SETTING.  

Is it really so hard to believe that perhaps conventional wisdom is mistaken?  That a new approach to campaign design, given example very well in things like the Adventure Paths, might just be a better way to go?


----------



## FickleGM

I only want to chime in and say that I think that RC and Hussar can both be correct, depending on the DM.  As I said in RC's poll, I think that the amount of development required to have a good game may depend on the DM.  For someone like me, more setting detail will enhance the gaming session, because of the amount of improv that I do.  So, I would personally fall on RC's side of the argument.  That doesn't mean that I can't see that for other DMs, very little setting information is needed, as the session planning will provide plenty of detail for a good game.


----------



## Hussar

FickleGM said:
			
		

> I only want to chime in and say that I think that RC and Hussar can both be correct, depending on the DM.  As I said in RC's poll, I think that the amount of development required to have a good game may depend on the DM.  For someone like me, more setting detail will enhance the gaming session, because of the amount of improv that I do.  So, I would personally fall on RC's side of the argument.  That doesn't mean that I can't see that for other DMs, very little setting information is needed, as the session planning will provide plenty of detail for a good game.




Hush you.  Being reasonable in this discussion will get you flogged with a wet noodle while being given a wedgie by a large hippo.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> And, of course, here's the assumption that I've talked about before.  That, unless you spend hours developing (or lots of money) some fantasy world, your campaign will be doomed to being a bad game.




Yeah, like that other old chestnut that you have to spend hours developing (or lots of money) some adventure, or your campaign will be doomed to being a bad game.  Or that one about spending hours playing.



> I asked a while back, and I think it got lost in the wash, if this is why you, RC, believed that the WLD needed so much work to be playable.




Nah, WLD doesn't meet my standard for _adventure_ prep (although I can certainly accept that it meets someone else's standard).  I would want to spend a lot of time rewriting the descriptive text and making the empty rooms and hallways more interesting.  I'd also want to turn some of the "generic" wandering encounters into more fully-fleshed and ready-to-run encounters.

The one part of my normal world-creation routine that I'd have to do with the WLD is seed areas with hints about what is happening in other areas.



> Is it really so hard to believe that perhaps conventional wisdom is mistaken?




It isn't hard to believe that conventional wisdom may be mistaken.  Conventional wisdom can be shown to be mistaken about a great many things.  However, it should be noted that even after it has been shown to be mistaken, it can still come around and bite you in the arse, because your "proof" that conventional wisdom was mistaken might end up revolving around (1) a misunderstanding of what conventional wisdom says, or (2) a misunderstanding on the part of conventional wisdom as to _why_ something is good or bad, so that disproving the _why_ doesn't disprove the benefit/harm.

OTOH, apart from repeated assertation that conventional wisdom is wrong, I don't see that you have provided any evidence whatsoever on which to examine the merits of the claim.  I might have missed said evidence however, so if you could enumerate it for me, I'll be happy to look at it.    

If you and yours find Adventure Paths more satisfying than sandbox play, you should go for adventure paths.  The idea that adventure paths don't have worldbuilding (including, of course, the worldbuilding elements inherent in the game, including but not limited to spells, monsters, magic items, races, classes, and equipment) is a bit naive, though.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

FickleGM said:
			
		

> I only want to chime in and say that I think that RC and Hussar can both be correct, depending on the DM.  As I said in RC's poll, I think that the amount of development required to have a good game may depend on the DM.  For someone like me, more setting detail will enhance the gaming session, because of the amount of improv that I do.  So, I would personally fall on RC's side of the argument.  That doesn't mean that I can't see that for other DMs, very little setting information is needed, as the session planning will provide plenty of detail for a good game.





I certainly grant that the _amount of worldbuilding_ required to create a well-developed setting is conditional.



To use KM's earlier analogy, if a good campaign equals 4, 1+3 (where 1 is worldbuilding, and 3 is improv) or 3 + 1 might make good games.  What I do not believe is that 0 + 4 or 4 + 0 make good campaigns.  The whole is more than the sum of its parts.


----------



## Hussar

> If you and yours find Adventure Paths more satisfying than sandbox play, you should go for adventure paths. The idea that adventure paths don't have worldbuilding (including, of course, the worldbuilding elements inherent in the game, including but not limited to spells, monsters, magic items, races, classes, and equipment) is a bit naive, though.




I've already stated that you have to do some world building.  I've stated that rather emphatically actually.  That it is pretty much unavoidable.  

You asked for specific examples of world building being something of a bad thing.  Here's a few:


Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material, most of which gathers dust
A Greyhawk paralyzed by its own canon, whose fans will crucify any attempt to bring in anything new, good or bad.
DM's so in love with their own setting that they cannot adapt to their player's wishes
Settings where the setting is so strong that the players cannot effect any changes
Campaign after campaign dying stuttering deaths because the DM spent lots of time figuring out the history of his world and not enough actually crafting adventures

But, of course, you will brush all this off as simply DM problems and could never, possibly be a problem in approach.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> Heck, RC, didn't you take me to task a few pages back for saying that posters were saying EXACTLY what you just said?  Refresh my memory, but I believe that several people told me that NO ONE said that putting setting on the back burner makes for a bad game.
> 
> Yet, that's precisely what you just said.




I agreed that you should do what is needed for your group to have fun. If that means adventure first, so be it; if it means setting first, well there you go. I did concede that I consider giving the PCs something to do is a higher priority than detailing the places they probably won't go; however, I also stated that there needs to be some worldbuilding done to hold my attention. I would likely not be interested in a campaign where:



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If you instead spend all that time/money on adventures and then just hang them together with the barest threads of setting, you can run campaign after campaign, drastically changing setting, without doing any more work.




If the adventure was good I'd play until its conclusion. But I would not be interested in playing campaign after campaign in a world with "the barest threads of a setting" where the setting was drastically changed. That does not create any consistency to me and destroys verisimilitude. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Oh, hey, I realize I'm swimming against the current here. There's thousands of pages of world building stuff out there just for D&D, never mind other RPG's. A very large part of the industry is based around the concept that WE MUST HAVE SETTING.




I thought your definition was that setting was the good end of the spectrum and that you *did* need it, since it is "where the action happens". Now we don't need it? Where does the action happen?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> See, I finished my WLD campaign. I think we had lots of fun.




While I think fun is the first priority, it doesn't say much in the context of this debate. People can have fun playing checkers. It proves nothing about the merits of worldbuilding.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> I've already stated that you have to do some world building.  I've stated that rather emphatically actually.  That it is pretty much unavoidable.
> 
> You asked for specific examples of world building being something of a bad thing.  Here's a few:
> 
> 
> Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material, most of which gathers dust
> A Greyhawk paralyzed by its own canon, whose fans will crucify any attempt to bring in anything new, good or bad.
> DM's so in love with their own setting that they cannot adapt to their player's wishes
> Settings where the setting is so strong that the players cannot effect any changes
> Campaign after campaign dying stuttering deaths because the DM spent lots of time figuring out the history of his world and not enough actually crafting adventures
> 
> But, of course, you will brush all this off as simply DM problems and could never, possibly be a problem in approach.




Well, all but the first two are a problem with the DM. The second is a problem with rabid fanboys. The first I don't see as an issue.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Well, all but the first two are a problem with the DM. The second is a problem with rabid fanboys. The first I don't see as an issue.




Thanks for saving me the effort of saying the same, only less concisely, Darth!   

EDIT:  Hussar, I would also add, as an obvious one:  DMs who don't do enough worldbuilding, so that their adventures lack context or meaning, or so that the PCs are not allowed some choice in what adventures to follow.


----------



## gizmo33

Hussar said:
			
		

> Sorry Imaro.  I didn't mean to come off as being elitist.  My point is that we've been conditioned for years to think that setting MUST BE DONE.




No we haven't.  That's ridiculous actually.  Your position on this, as I've already pointed out, comes with a built-in narrative that allows you to dismiss arguments to the contrary based on ad-hominem statements.  IMO this conversation is more respectful if you dispense with the fanciful speculations regarding other people's psychology.

People find world-building helpful when it comes to running their games, for reasons that have already been described.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The DMG talks about it, umpteen pages in Dungeon and Dragon talks about it.  Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material shows it.  Popular fantasy does it.
> 
> It's not really surprising that everyone buys into this.




It's not really surprising that people write in complete sentences either.  Your logic of cause and effect is bizarre.  The situation you're describing is indistinguishable from a "good practice".  Everyone does it, so therefore, it must be the result of brainwashing.  For example - breathing.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> That if you were to focus on adventures and ignore most of the setting stuff, there would be no point in gaming at all.




I don't agree with what you're describing here.  Focusing on adventures and ignoring setting is just a difference of balance.  I think for certain kinds of gaming it's probably a better way to play (tournaments for example).  In any case, I don't think that proving that world-building is evil is logically related to whether good adventure design is part of good DMing, because I think that it is.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> So who's being elitist?  Me for suggesting that most of the setting work that gets done is superfluous or RC for suggesting that if you don't do a "well developed setting" that it just isn't worth playing?




Another point of basic logic - there is no "either - or" decision here - you are very much capable of being elitist irrespective of RCs statements.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If I took whiteout to the map in White Plume Mountain and crossed off Dragotha and replaced it with "Here Be Dragyns", would that make for a less satisfying experience?




There is no particular bit of "fluff" that anyone can point to and say "this elemental is vital to the adventure."  I can't be there to conduct your game sessions for you.  

For example, let's say PCs capture Sir Bluto sans Pite from one of the White Plume encounter areas.  In my experience as a player, I find it unlikely that you're going to be able to ad-lib the interrogation past a certain point where it's going to be believable.  I would imagine the sensible approach would be to use the world-building details to flesh out the encounter.  Say that Bluto collects potion components for Thingizzard, or expound upon the "River of Blood Mass Murder Case" referenced in the module.  With out world building information, all Bluto can say is "uh, I sit here at encounter area 15 and try to kill PCs".

I can't point to which elements you're going to use, because that depends on the interaction with and decisions of the players as well.  Pointing to one particular element and saying "do I need this or not" is missing the point.  It's like me pointing to a carrot and asking "if I eat this, will it make me healthy".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, of course, you will brush all this off as simply DM problems and could never, possibly be a problem in approach.




Well, then, let us examine these and determine if they are a problem in approach.



> Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material, most of which gathers dust




There is certainly a problem in approach with _purchasing_ thousands of pages of material that you have no intention of using.  OTOH, if you purchase thousands of pages of adventures you have no intention of using, you have the same problem.  I would agree that you have a problem in approach if you choose to write thousands of pages of material that you have no intention of using, as well.



> A Greyhawk paralyzed by its own canon, whose fans will crucify any attempt to bring in anything new, good or bad.




There is certainly a problem in approaching the world as a static environment that cannot change, or in mistaking the world you have purchased (if you do) as something that still belongs to the people you purchased it from, as opposed to something that you can modify to suit your needs.



> DM's so in love with their own setting that they cannot adapt to their player's wishes




If you mean that they have a concept that precludes Care Bears and animated LEGO Men, then I don't see this as a problem at all.  If you mean that they have a concept that precludes elves, I don't see this as a problem at all.  If you mean that the DM should give the players whatever they wish, simply because they wish it, I would consider _that_ a problem of approach.



> Settings where the setting is so strong that the players cannot effect any changes




There is certainly a problem in approaching the world as a static environment that cannot change.  Of course, this problem occurs far more frequently in adventure design (where it is called "railroading"), and I wouldn't seriously suggest that adventure design is bad as a result.



> Campaign after campaign dying stuttering deaths because the DM spent lots of time figuring out the history of his world and not enough actually crafting adventures.




Yep.  If you have campaign after campaign dying stuttering deaths, you might want to consider that you are approaching DMing in the wrong way.


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Disagree. Of course, that really depends upon what you call "worldbuilding".




I think that we can all pretty much agree on the DMG's definition as the current running definition for the game. Hussar has made a very cogent point time and again that worldbuilding is stuff done for setting beyond what is needed in next game session. Under that definition, with the recognition that no setting stuff is needed in the next game session (because you can make it up as you go), you can run a D&D game without any worldbuilding, yet still benefit from the aspects of depth and verisimilitude that worldbuilding enables you to gain.

I'm willing to cede I think about more at the session than gets used at the session, so I guess, under that definition, I do world build. I just don't spend time outside of the game session doing it. Perhaps that is an acceptable way to phrase it?



> FIFY.




Intense curiosity about otherwise pointless minutiae is one of the defining mental characteristics of the modern American Nerd. The details of nonexistent worlds are pretty exemplary of pointless minutiae. Worldbuilding, as Harrison points out, is concerned with details of nonexistent worlds. Presto-chango, those interested in the details of nonexistent worlds are defining examples of modern American Nerds.

Unless we're going to argue semantics on *that*, too.  Of course, I suppose arguing semantics on what a "nerd" is is exemplary of intense curiosity about otherwise pointless minutiae...

Dork if you do, dork if you don't, it seems.   



> Exactly as adding more ketchup to your hamburger doesn't make it more ketchupy.




Wrong.

Exactly as adding more ketchup to your hamburger doesn't make it a BETTER hamburger.



> If the worldbuilding elements you add to your setting improve the setting (i.e., are "good" worldbuilding elements), then by necessity they improve the setting. It's a tautological argument. Any work of any type that you do which contributes to the game contributes to the game and therefore makes it better.




But worldbuilding doesn't always contribute to a game. There are scads of examples in this thread alone about worldbuilding that was pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game. A world built so that it couldn't accommodate swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap). 

Adding more ketchup doesn't make the burger better unless you REALLY like ketchup. I believe a lot of D&D players *really* like world building (and are spectacular nerds because of it). There's nothing wrong in it, but don't suggest that my burger is worse if I don't have any ketchup on it, and don't tell me that I need ketchup to have a real hamburger, and don't presume that unless I can cook you a delicious hamburger without ketchup that my position is somehow illogical.

That is the subtle arrogance of many who are big fans of worldbuilding. Like overzealous ketchup addicts, they claim that any burger without it can't possibly be as good as a burger with it, without realizing that tastes, as it were, are completely subjective.

Ketchupy is not better, it's just more ketchup. More worldbuilding detail isn't deeper, it's just more detail. Depth does not flow from the amount of off-hand comments about elven tea ceremonies you can rifle off. 



> Disagree.
> 
> The amount of worldbuilding done has little or nothing to do with the problem that you describe.




Once again, you assume that others can't speak for their own games. This makes it impossible to hold a cogent debate because whenever someone demonstrates evidence, one who feels that others can't speak for their own games questions whether or not it is really evidence, which leads to all sorts of wonderful thread-padding semantics discussions but does very, very little to actually address the heart of the point, which is that many DMs have been more interested in their own world than in a D&D game, thus hurting the game.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think that we can all pretty much agree on the DMG's definition as the current running definition for the game. Hussar has made a very cogent point time and again that worldbuilding is stuff done for setting beyond what is needed in next game session.




Except that isn't the definition of worldbuilding provided in the DMG. And that Hussar actually *has* advocated preparing material beyond what is needed for the next session. 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm willing to cede I think about more at the session than gets used at the session, so I guess, under that definition, I do world build. I just don't spend time outside of the game session doing it. Perhaps that is an acceptable way to phrase it?




And that seems to be working for your gaming group. Excellent. Keep it up. Don't assume it will work for everyone though.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Intense curiosity about otherwise pointless minutiae is one of the defining mental characteristics of the modern American Nerd. The details of nonexistent worlds are pretty exemplary of pointless minutiae. Worldbuilding, as Harrison points out, is concerned with details of nonexistent worlds. Presto-chango, those interested in the details of nonexistent worlds are defining examples of modern American Nerds.




Well I hope that you consider yourself a nerd right along side the worldbuilders, because as far as the rest of the world is considered, we're all nerds.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But worldbuilding doesn't always contribute to a game. There are scads of examples in this thread alone about worldbuilding that was pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game.




And this makes worldbuilding inherently bad how?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A world built so that it couldn't accommodate swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap).




Yup. Assuming it isn't just one player that wants to play that warforged.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That is the subtle arrogance of many who are big fans of worldbuilding. Like overzealous ketchup addicts, they claim that any burger without it can't possibly be as good as a burger with it, without realizing that tastes, as it were, are completely subjective.




Agreed. And how does that make worldbuilding bad?




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> More worldbuilding detail isn't deeper, it's just more detail. Depth does not flow from the amount of off-hand comments about elven tea ceremonies you can rifle off.




So what does depth mean in this context? What is it?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ...very little to actually address the heart of the point, which is that many DMs have been more interested in their own world than in a D&D game, thus hurting the game.




THAT is the heart of the point? If so, then it isn't much of a point. It also does nothing to show how worldbuilding is bad. As has been stated, one can do absolutely no worldbuilding, but create a crappy adventure and the campaign is still just as bad. OTOH, a DM can do nothing but worldbuild and the players could have fun exploring that world and being a part of (or even the main force behind) the changes and events of said world. 

Like you said, enjoyment is subjective and a matter of taste. The first priority of any D&D game should be for all to enjoy themselves. But that doesn't make worldbuilding any worse than adventure design.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Except that isn't the definition of worldbuilding provided in the DMG. And that Hussar actually *has* advocated preparing material beyond what is needed for the next session.




Semantics arguments bore me.



> And that seems to be working for your gaming group. Excellent. Keep it up. Don't assume it will work for everyone though.




Show me where I did.



> Well I hope that you consider yourself a nerd right along side the worldbuilders, because as far as the rest of the world is considered, we're all nerds.




Read my posts.



> And this makes worldbuilding inherently bad how?




Read my posts.



> Agreed. And how does that make worldbuilding bad?




No, it makes insisting that worldbuilding is inherently beneficial bad, just as insisting that ketchup inherently makes better burgers is bad. Or, more accurately, _arrogant_.



> So what does depth mean? What is it?




A big topic. Perhaps you should start another thread?



> THAT is the heart of the point? If so, then it isn't much of a point. It also does nothing to show how worldbuilding is bad. As has been stated, one can do absolutely no worldbuilding, but create a crappy adventure and the campaign is still just as bad. OTOH, a DM can do nothing but worldbuild and the players could have fun exploring that world and being a part of (or even the main force behind) the changes and events of said world.




It is the current heart of the matter, AFAIAC. And yes, good games from from 356 page setting bibles and good games from from 100% improv, and bad games come from 356 page setting bibles and bad games come from 100% improv. We've been over this. My problem, for the last few pages, has been an insistence that world building inherently makes better ("richer," "deeper," "more immersive," "greater verisimilitude") games.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Semantics arguments bore me.




Well inconsistent arguments confuse _me_. Besides, without semantics this thread would have been 5 pages long.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Show me where I did.




You've claimed that improv is a skill that anyone can develop. You've pointed out how much time it saves you not having to prepare beforehand. Perhaps I have inferred where there is no inference, but it has come across to me as advocating it as a superior approach. 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Read my posts.




Again, sorry if I've misinterpreted, but I was reacting to your point that I quoted. You associated being a nerd with an obsession with detail, yet you claim to avoid working out that many details. It just came across to me that you were thereby exempting yourself from the definition.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> No, it makes insisting that worldbuilding is inherently beneficial bad, just as insisting that ketchup inherently makes better burgers is bad. Or, more accurately, _arrogant_.




This comes back to the much debated definition of worldbuilding. If we claim that definition to simply include establishing a consistent setting, then I'm sorry, but I do consider that to be inherently beneficial. I guess that makes me arrogant. 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A big topic. Perhaps you should start another thread?






			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It is the current heart of the matter, AFAIAC. And yes, good games from from 356 page setting bibles and good games from from 100% improv, and bad games come from 356 page setting bibles and bad games come from 100% improv. We've been over this. My problem, for the last few pages, has been an insistence that world building inherently makes better ("richer," "deeper," "more immersive," "greater verisimilitude") games.




I can't argue your second point without defining depth in the context of a campaign, so I guess I have to leave it at that.


----------



## Imaro

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think that we can all pretty much agree on the DMG's definition as the current running definition for the game. Hussar has made a very cogent point time and again that worldbuilding is stuff done for setting beyond what is needed in next game session. Under that definition, with the recognition that no setting stuff is needed in the next game session (because you can make it up as you go), you can run a D&D game without any worldbuilding, yet still benefit from the aspects of depth and verisimilitude that worldbuilding enables you to gain.
> 
> I'm willing to cede I think about more at the session than gets used at the session, so I guess, under that definition, I do world build. I just don't spend time outside of the game session doing it. Perhaps that is an acceptable way to phrase it?




Yes, by Hussar's definition you are worldbuilding...if it doesn't relate to the adventure it's worldbuilding.  The medium, your mind as opposed to a piece of paper doesn't change this, neither does the actual time in which it takes place.  I don't really see the difference in what your expousing here and "worldbuilding".  To me it's sort of like the difference between someone who does math problems in their head and someone who uses scratch paper to work it out physically.  They're both doing mathematics.  





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Intense curiosity about otherwise pointless minutiae is one of the defining mental characteristics of the modern American Nerd. The details of nonexistent worlds are pretty exemplary of pointless minutiae. Worldbuilding, as Harrison points out, is concerned with details of nonexistent worlds. Presto-chango, those interested in the details of nonexistent worlds are defining examples of modern American Nerds.
> 
> Unless we're going to argue semantics on *that*, too.  Of course, I suppose arguing semantics on what a "nerd" is is exemplary of intense curiosity about otherwise pointless minutiae...
> 
> Dork if you do, dork if you don't, it seems.




Actually I would argue that intense curiosity about meaningless minutae is a human characteristic.  That differs only in so much as what it pertains to.  I know plenty of people who can spout off sport statistics, top designers and what they make, different artist and they're works, 80's cartoons.  So the whole "only nerds" thing is really a fallacy dependant moreso on where your desire for minutae falls in relationship to the majority of people.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Wrong.
> 
> Exactly as adding more ketchup to your hamburger doesn't make it a BETTER hamburger.
> 
> 
> 
> But worldbuilding doesn't always contribute to a game. There are scads of examples in this thread alone about worldbuilding that was pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game. A world built so that it couldn't accommodate swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap).
> 
> Adding more ketchup doesn't make the burger better unless you REALLY like ketchup. I believe a lot of D&D players *really* like world building (and are spectacular nerds because of it). There's nothing wrong in it, but don't suggest that my burger is worse if I don't have any ketchup on it, and don't tell me that I need ketchup to have a real hamburger, and don't presume that unless I can cook you a delicious hamburger without ketchup that my position is somehow illogical.




I really think the analogy is better suited to...

bun=game rules(holds everything together)
meat=adventures( it's the actual "meat" of the burger)
worldbuilding=condiments( they're flavor and different people like different ones)

Now, there's a wide majority of people who can eat a burger and be content, it nourishes you, stops the hunger pains, etc.  They can even eat the meat without a bun...freeform interactive storytelling without actual rules.  Now the question is are the condiments necessary. No.  Will certain condiments enhance the burger for the majority of people? Yes.  The trick is figuring out what "condiments" your players enjoy and focussing on those.
Do they like new organizations they might join later(w/new feats and abilities)?
Do they like interacting and creating relationships with the NPC's around them?
Do they enjoy your particular take on the history and customs of a particular(or even all) race(s)?

Just like the various playstyles(problem solver...hack n' slasher...etc.), which should shape how you design your adventures, player prefrences have to be considered in worldbuilding as well.  Otherwise, yes you do end up with wasted effort.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That is the subtle arrogance of many who are big fans of worldbuilding. Like overzealous ketchup addicts, they claim that any burger without it can't possibly be as good as a burger with it, without realizing that tastes, as it were, are completely subjective.
> 
> Ketchupy is not better, it's just more ketchup. More worldbuilding detail isn't deeper, it's just more detail. Depth does not flow from the amount of off-hand comments about elven tea ceremonies you can rifle off.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you assume that others can't speak for their own games. This makes it impossible to hold a cogent debate because whenever someone demonstrates evidence, one who feels that others can't speak for their own games questions whether or not it is really evidence, which leads to all sorts of wonderful thread-padding semantics discussions but does very, very little to actually address the heart of the point, which is that many DMs have been more interested in their own world than in a D&D game, thus hurting the game.




You condemn RC and then make the blanket statement of "many DM's have been more interested in their own world than in a D&D game..."  Where?  Is this your experience, because I haven't been unlucky enough to have a DM like that.  It's a subjective thing period and is more dependant on the DM than any function of worldbuilding itself.

I think that those who say "worldbuilding" is a waste, totally ignore those who do like ketchup, or onions, or cheese, or mayo, or whatever.  Like I said you can have just a burger and it does accomplish the necesary function of food...but if given the option I'll take mine with cheese, grilled onions and some ketchup and mustard.  Personally as playing D&D is suppose to be for enjoyment I as a player or DM would rather play a game(eat a burger) with the type of worldbuilding(condiments) I enjoy.  I'll even suffer through the elemnts that interest someone else, just like in an adventure, because it's a social game.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> You've claimed that improv is a skill that anyone can develop. You've pointed out how much time it saves you not having to prepare beforehand. Perhaps I have inferred where there is no inference, but it has come across to me as advocating it as a superior approach.




Read specifically the parts where I say that people should do as much worldbuilding as is fun for them.

There is no superior approach. Looking for one is looking for Witches in Salem. You'll only find what you want to be there.



> This comes back to the much debated definition of worldbuilding. If we claim that definition to simply include establishing a consistent setting, then I'm sorry, but I do consider that to be inherently beneficial. I guess that makes me arrogant.




Ah, but you're don't hold that arrogant opinion, do you? So I guess that definition can't possibly be the one I'm using, can it? What definition, I wonder, could possibly include an idea that isn't inherently beneficial. Perhaps is is back in those posts of mine...perhaps...



> I can't argue your second point without defining depth in the context of a campaign, so I guess I have to leave it at that.




I'm sure you've got a pretty good idea of "campaign depth" in your head. Why not, in absence of encyclopedic definition, use your head? Rest assured, if it's off-base from my own, I will elaborate on my own so that you can see how a rational person can arrive at my conclusions. 

Leaving it and taking me at face value works for me, though.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Yes, by Hussar's definition you are worldbuilding...if it doesn't relate to the adventure it's worldbuilding. The medium, your mind as opposed to a piece of paper doesn't change this, neither does the actual time in which it takes place. I don't really see the difference in what your expousing here and "worldbuilding". To me it's sort of like the difference between someone who does math problems in their head and someone who uses scratch paper to work it out physically. They're both doing mathematics.




I can accept that, and, in that light, I can see how worldbuilding can be seen as essential, or at least an unavoidable consequence of an imaginative mind (which is pretty essential for a D&D game). I agree, if worldbuilding is defined as Hussar and the DMG define it, a world is built, one way or the other, in a similar way to doing math in your head or on paper -- the same conclusion is reached. 



> Actually I would argue that intense curiosity about meaningless minutae is a human characteristic. That differs only in so much as what it pertains to. I know plenty of people who can spout off sport statistics, top designers and what they make, different artist and they're works, 80's cartoons. So the whole "only nerds" thing is really a fallacy dependant moreso on where your desire for minutae falls in relationship to the majority of people.




You could also phrase this by saying: "Everyone's a nerd about something."

But, Harrison in the OP is discussing people who are nerds about imaginary worlds, and uses "nerds" to describe them. If worldbuilding is interest in the minutiae of imaginary worlds, then any worldbuilding is being a nerd.

So RC wasn't incorrect in removing "for us nerds" in my post, but neither was my post broken for containing it in the first place, so he was incorrect in thinking that it needed to be fixed.



> I really think the analogy is better suited to...
> 
> bun=game rules(holds everything together)
> meat=adventures( it's the actual "meat" of the burger)
> worldbuilding=condiments( they're flavor and different people like different ones)
> 
> Now, there's a wide majority of people who can eat a burger and be content, it nourishes you, stops the hunger pains, etc. They can even eat the meat without a bun...freeform interactive storytelling without actual rules. Now the question is are the condiments necessary. No. Will certain condiments enhance the burger for the majority of people? Yes. The trick is figuring out what "condiments" your players enjoy and focussing on those.
> Do they like new organizations they might join later(w/new feats and abilities)?
> Do they like interacting and creating relationships with the NPC's around them?
> Do they enjoy your particular take on the history and customs of a particular(or even all) race(s)?
> 
> Just like the various playstyles(problem solver...hack n' slasher...etc.), which should shape how you design your adventures, player prefrences have to be considered in worldbuilding as well. Otherwise, yes you do end up with wasted effort.




Largely agreed. Any disputes I have are minor enough to not bother wasting words on at the moment. 



> You condemn RC and then make the blanket statement of "many DM's have been more interested in their own world than in a D&D game..." Where? Is this your experience, because I haven't been unlucky enough to have a DM like that. It's a subjective thing period and is more dependant on the DM than any function of worldbuilding itself.




I direct you to the other posts in this thread relating about DMs who have chosen world over game first and foremost. To supplement that, I give examples like "a DM whose world forbids swashbuckling warforged ninjas when the group wants to play swashbuckling warforged ninjas." I do have my own anecdotes, but I don't really think they're necessary -- the point has been well illustrated. 



> I think that those who say "worldbuilding" is a waste, totally ignore those who do like ketchup, or onions, or cheese, or mayo, or whatever. Like I said you can have just a burger and it does accomplish the necesary function of food...but if given the option I'll take mine with cheese, grilled onions and some ketchup and mustard. Personally as playing D&D is suppose to be for enjoyment I as a player or DM would rather play a game(eat a burger) with the type of worldbuilding(condiments) I enjoy. I'll even suffer through the elemnts that interest someone else, just like in an adventure, because it's a social game.




I don't believe I see anyone saying worldbuilding is a waste. I do believe I see people claiming it's not essential (which would only be true of a certain type of worldbuilding -- namely the extensively pre-prepared kind). I see people claiming that it's not always good. I see many claims that it isn't as important as many hold it up to be. There is truth in all of those statements. But a waste? Certainly nothing which adds to the fun of you and your group is a waste.

You're right, yes, that people will find the particular condiments that they like. And some people like it without condiments, or perhaps would rather take a bite and then put on whatever tastes good and is in arm's reach at the moment. And finding the happy medium for the group is what makes the game good.


----------



## Imaro

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I direct you to the other posts in this thread relating about DMs who have chosen world over game first and foremost. To supplement that, I give examples like "a DM whose world forbids swashbuckling warforged ninjas when the group wants to play swashbuckling warforged ninjas." I do have my own anecdotes, but I don't really think they're necessary -- the point has been well illustrated.




The funny thing is that I see just as many threads saying that a certain amount of worldbuilding is necessary for fun...also that the time spent worldbuilding should be better spent on adventure design...ie a waste of time.  This is definitely a "playstyle" issue as opposed to an issue created through worldbuilding. The same way adventure design itself isn't responsible for making a DM railroad the PC's...a particular adventure might be designed this way but it is not inherent to adventure design.





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I don't believe I see anyone saying worldbuilding is a waste. I do believe I see people claiming it's not essential (which would only be true of a certain type of worldbuilding -- namely the extensively pre-prepared kind). I see people claiming that it's not always good. I see many claims that it isn't as important as many hold it up to be. There is truth in all of those statements. But a waste? Certainly nothing which adds to the fun of you and your group is a waste.




But for those who only enjoy a hamburger w/cheese...or w/some grilled onions...isn't it then necessary.  If I play roleplaying games in general for a certain experience does it not become necessary.  Let's take adventure design as an example, one could say you don't need a certain type of encounter in your adventure to play a game of D&D, right?  Where this breaks down is the fact that you actually do.  If your players love combat then combat encounters are necessary to keep them playing, otherwise they will get bored and quit or the game will fall apart.  Thus they are necessary for these people to play.  The same can be applied to worldbuilding.

Also why is pre-prepared "not essential"  If a DM doesn't have the skills, energy, quickness, or whatever to improvise his worldbuilding...isn't it then essential if this is what the players desire from the game?


----------



## Darth Shoju

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> My problem, for the last few pages, has been an insistence that world building inherently makes better ("richer," "deeper," "more immersive," "greater verisimilitude") games.






			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm sure you've got a pretty good idea of "campaign depth" in your head. Why not, in absence of encyclopedic definition, use your head? Rest assured, if it's off-base from my own, I will elaborate on my own so that you can see how a rational person can arrive at my conclusions.




OK, well then let's use a statement by Hussar as the basis, since it represents what I would suspect to be a lack of depth (it really depends what Hussar means by "the barest threads of setting", but for the hypothetical example lets assume the worst):



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If you instead spend all that time/money on adventures and then just hang them together with the barest threads of setting, you can run campaign after campaign, drastically changing setting, without doing any more work.




Let's say the adventure is to go into a dungeon and recover a relic of some sort. The party starts in a nearby village and has to travel to the dungeon. The DM has done no worldbuilding beyond what is present in the adventure. He is also not gifted at improv. I as a player have some questions:

ME: Ok what nations are there? Where can my character be from?
DM: There are nations for all of the races in the PHB.
ME: Ok...what are the human nations like?
DM: I don't know...what kind of nation do you want to be from?
ME: Well, can I be from one that is kind of like ancient China?
DM: Sure.
ME: How does my nation get along with the other nations?
DM: That isn't important in the adventure.
ME: Ok. 

So I make a human priest and do what I can to make him represent a culture based on ancient China. We start the session in the town. Again, I have some questions:

ME: Is there a branch of my church in this town?
DM: The adventure doesn't say...I'll say no. It's too far away.
ME: Ok, are there _any _churches in the town?
DM: Just one.
ME: Ok, I go there. I'm going to talk to the priest to get a feel for his religion.
DM: It just says his name, level, and that he is a priest of an agricultural deity. 
ME: Ok, my religion venerates nature spirits so we should get along well.
DM: Sure.
ME: Is the town facing any problems that I could help with before we head to the dungeon?
DM: It doesn't say...so, no.
ME: Ok

As the party prepares to head to the dungeon, we ask what the trip there will entail.

DM: You have to go east through the Forest of Endless Death.
ME: That sounds unpleasant. Can we go around the forest to the south?
DM: The map doesn't show what is there. So I'll say no.
ME: Why not?
DM: Because there is an impassable desert there, ok? 
ME: What about to the north?
DM: More desert.
ME: The forest is in the middle of the desert?
DM: Yup. 
ME: Ok...

After a perilous journey through the forest and a decent little dungeon crawl, the party finds the relic. The DM's next adventure that he purchased features finding an island where some pirates hid some treasure. The DM decides to drop the hook for that one in the dungeon. He says that we find a clue that indicates some pirates took some treasure from the dungeon and hid it.

ME: What kind of clue is it?
DM: Ummm...a journal.
ME: Who wrote it?
DM: A pirate.
ME: What was his name?
DM: Blackbeard.
ME: Really? Why did he leave his journal behind?
DM: He dropped it.
ME: Ok. What else does it say?
DM: It says where to find the island where they are hiding the treasure.
ME: Ok. I guess we have to go back through the Forest of Horrible Dying and back to town before we can get to the coast.
DM: It's the Forest of Endless Death and no, that would take too long. You can just go south to the town that starts the next adventure. It is on the coast.
ME: I thought there was an impassable desert to the south?
DM: Oh. Well, no that is too inconvenient. It is just some grassy hills.
ME: Ok....

Now, that dungeon could have been pretty fun. The pirate adventure could be a blast. In the above example the DM had enough setting to run the adventure, and he certainly did well to ensure the players had something to do that session. But I just don't feel that campaign is as deep as one where the DM did some worldbuilding beforehand.  If he had (or had used a published setting), he could have answered many of the questions raised during the session that didn't directly pertain to the adventure. He could have had enough info to give my priest something interesting to do while the party is prepping for the journey. He could have let us go around the forest. He could have setup the hook for the next adventure in a better way. Now this is certainly a fairly extreme example, but to me it illustrates how worldbuilding can add depth.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Let me throw my opinion in here by bringing up popular video games.

Diablo II - this is the perfect example of placing the adventure over the world.  Sure there are cities and NPCs but the game is more or less designed for you to run around, kill things, and take their loot.  There is just enough background story to put you in front of the next wave of creeps.  It jumps striaght to the action and who doesn't want action?

Edler Scrools 4 - this game is all about the world being bigger then the adventure.  Sure you can save the world that would be just the begining of things you can do.  There are tons of places to go, people to meet, and things to experience!  Every place you go is alive in its own sense.


----------



## Greg K

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I direct you to the other posts in this thread relating about DMs who have chosen world over game first and foremost. To supplement that, I give examples like "a DM whose world forbids swashbuckling warforged ninjas when the group wants to play swashbuckling warforged ninjas."




Well, a DM is not the player's slave and should not run a game that he or she does not enjoy. If the players want something different than the DM wants to run,  let someone else step up and DM.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Greg K said:
			
		

> Well, a DM is not the player's slave and should not run a game that he or she does not enjoy. If the players want something different than the DM wants to run,  let someone else step up and DM.




QFMFT


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think that we can all pretty much agree on the DMG's definition as the current running definition for the game. Hussar has made a very cogent point time and again that worldbuilding is stuff done for setting beyond what is needed in next game session.




That's what I mean by "depends on what you mean".  Those are two seperate (and mutually exclusive) definitions.

Under the "worldbuilding is anything not used in the session" definition you can certainly have great depth and verisimilitude....because you are not calling the worldbuilding used during that session "worldbuilding" but something else.



> Wrong.
> 
> Exactly as adding more ketchup to your hamburger doesn't make it a BETTER hamburger.




Disagree.  If the worldbuilding elements you add to your setting improve the setting (i.e., are "good" worldbuilding elements), then by necessity they improve the setting.  It's a tautological argument. Any work of any type that you do which contributes to the game contributes to the game and therefore makes it better.

This is similar to the problem, btw, with saying that you can have a game that is as deep and rich without developing consistent details.  Most people I know _define_ depth and richness of a game by its consistent details.



> But worldbuilding doesn't always contribute to a game. There are scads of examples in this thread alone about worldbuilding that was pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game. A world built so that it couldn't accommodate swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap).




Adventure building doesn't always contribute to a game.  Adventure building can be pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game.  An adventure built so that it couldn't accommodate fighting swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want to fight swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap).  You shouldn't design an adventure with fiendish gnolls; you should just design adventures that the players _want_.  If they want a specific magic item, put it in the room they ask to find it in.  If they decide in the middle of a pirate adventure that they want to explore a remote asteroid space station, only adventure design that can accommodate this is "good" adventure design.



> Adding more ketchup doesn't make the burger better unless you REALLY like ketchup. I believe a lot of D&D players *really* like world building.




FIFY.

You know, the same point can be made without insulting people.    



> There's nothing wrong in it, but don't suggest that my burger is worse if I don't have any ketchup on it, and don't tell me that I need ketchup to have a real hamburger, and don't presume that unless I can cook you a delicious hamburger without ketchup that my position is somehow illogical.




Let's see.  You say that a lot of D&D players really like ketchup, but we shouldn't presume that it is illogical to say that therefore, for the vast majority, a burger without ketchup is inferior to a burger with ketchup, even though you are unable to demonstrate a burger without ketchup that is equal to a burger with ketchup.

And we are not to view your position as illogical.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Once again, you assume that others can't speak for their own games. This makes it impossible to hold a cogent debate because whenever someone demonstrates evidence, one who feels that others can't speak for their own games questions whether or not it is really evidence, which leads to all sorts of wonderful thread-padding semantics discussions but does very, very little to actually address the heart of the point, which is that many DMs have been more interested in their own world than in a D&D game, thus hurting the game.





Do I assume that others can't speak for their games?

I assume that you cannot tell me how good your game is in relation to mine, because you don't have the experience to do so -- just as I cannot say that my game is thousands of times better than yours.  How could I possibly know that?

If you say you saw a lion in the forest, and describe it as having antlers and a white tail, however, I feel that I am fully justified in telling you that most people call that animal a "deer".  I might be wrong in that assessment -- you might have seen a lion.  You might be wrong about the antlers and the white tail.  You might have seen the first of a new breed of mutant lions.  But the logical conclusion is that what you are calling a "lion" is what everyone else calls a "deer".

Similarly, if you post an adventure design or a DM problem as an example of a worldbuilding problem, you shouldn't be surprised when someone says "That's not a lion, that's a deer".  It doesn't mean that they know your game better than you do; it means they're using more common terminology.


RC


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That's what I mean by "depends on what you mean".  Those are two seperate (and mutually exclusive) definitions.
> 
> Under the "worldbuilding is anything not used in the session" definition you can certainly have great depth and verisimilitude....because you are not calling the worldbuilding used during that session "worldbuilding" but something else.




This was never the definition and you know it.  Please stop misrepresenting my point.  My point was that anything that has next to no chance of appearing in a session is worldbuilding.  Thus, the fact that there is a plantation owner with a marriagable daughter a days ride from Sasserine is world building.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the adventure and would take a great deal of work to slot in.

Again, there is no cut off point.  Please stop trying to find one.  Just because I cannot define the cut off point between fantasy and science fiction does not invalidate either term.  The same way as the lack of a definitive cut off point between setting and world building does not invalidate my point.



> This is similar to the problem, btw, with saying that you can have a game that is as deep and rich without developing consistent details.  Most people I know _define_ depth and richness of a game by its consistent details.




World building does not equate with consistency.  Heck, lots of world building contradicts what has come before in RPG's.



> Adventure building doesn't always contribute to a game.  Adventure building can be pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game.  An adventure built so that it couldn't accommodate fighting swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want to fight swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap).  You shouldn't design an adventure with fiendish gnolls; you should just design adventures that the players _want_.  If they want a specific magic item, put it in the room they ask to find it in.  If they decide in the middle of a pirate adventure that they want to explore a remote asteroid space station, only adventure design that can accommodate this is "good" adventure design.




Nice straw man.  We've already covered the idea that the players have to buy into the game.  No amount of world building would allow you to do what you've outlined here either so it's a complete non-starter.

Also, since when does good adventure design equate with giving players whatever they want when they want it?  And, if that were true, how would having world building change that?



> Let's see.  You say that a lot of D&D players really like ketchup, but we shouldn't presume that it is illogical to say that therefore, for the vast majority, a burger without ketchup is inferior to a burger with ketchup, even though you are unable to demonstrate a burger without ketchup that is equal to a burger with ketchup.
> 
> And we are not to view your position as illogical.




Again, it's not a question of world building being bad.  We've been over this.  World building is superfluous quite often and generally self indulgent.  But, it's rarely bad.  It doesn't hurt the game, but, IMO, it also adds surprisingly little for the effort put into it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> This was never the definition and you know it.




Please read the KM post to which I am responding.  That definition comes from him, not from me.



			
				KM said:
			
		

> Hussar has made a very cogent point time and again that worldbuilding is stuff done for setting beyond what is needed in next game session.




I am responding to what KM wrote, not what you wrote.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> World building does not equate with consistency.  Heck, lots of world building contradicts what has come before in RPG's.




So, you don't believe that, for many people, the _point_ of worldbuilding is consistency?    

This is like saying that, because lots of adventures are bad, adventures in general are not intended to be good.



> Nice straw man.  We've already covered the idea that the players have to buy into the game.  No amount of world building would allow you to do what you've outlined here either so it's a complete non-starter.




It does nothing more than show the problem with the position I was responding to.

Neither good adventure design nor good worldbuilding equates with giving players whatever they want when they want it.


----------



## Hussar

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> OK, well then let's use a statement by Hussar as the basis, since it represents what I would suspect to be a lack of depth (it really depends what Hussar means by "the barest threads of setting", but for the hypothetical example lets assume the worst):




How about we don't assume the DM is a slack jawed moron and actually is a reasonable person?  Might make things a bit more realistic.  Instead of our knuckle dragger, let me show you how it could go in this "worst case scenario".




> Let's say the adventure is to go into a dungeon and recover a relic of some sort. The party starts in a nearby village and has to travel to the dungeon. The DM has done no worldbuilding beyond what is present in the adventure. He is also not gifted at improv. I as a player have some questions:




Reasonable assumptions.  Note, that you can have a great deal of setting detail without world building.  You have allowed the DM to detail the setting for the adventure, so we'll work with that.



> ME: Ok what nations are there? Where can my character be from?




As an aside, has anyone ever asked you this as a DM?  I can't think of a single time I've ever had a player ask me this.  Heck, it's usually an uphill battle to get the players to remember the name of the world we are playing in.



> DM: There are nations for all of the races in the PHB.
> ME: Ok...what are the human nations like?
> DM: I don't know...what kind of nation do you want to be from?
> ME: Well, can I be from one that is kind of like ancient China?
> DM: Sure.
> ME: How does my nation get along with the other nations?
> DM: That isn't important in the adventure.
> ME: Ok.




Let me rephrase that in the context of someone who is putting adventure first:

Me:  Ok what nations are there? Where can my character be from?
DM:  Well, I'm trying something a little different in this campaign.  What do you have in mind?
Me:Well, can I be from one that is kind of like ancient China?
DM:  Hrm, sounds interesting.  What kind of class are you thinking of?
Me:  Cleric.
DM:  So, like a Shujenja?
Me:  Naw, I want to stick with straight cleric, but, I'm thinking more of a Buddhist sort of approach.
DM:  Ok, that sounds fine.  You don't really need a god with that, so, we'll just use a force.  We'll have to hammer out a couple of domains, but that shouldn't be a problem.  Really, I hadn't intended for any sort of Asian stuff in here, but, not a problem.  We can simply say you are a fish out of water, from far away.  Take a free language in something no one speaks.  You'll be responsible for coming up with the religious trappings you feel comfortable with.  You are a cleric, so, you should have some clerical duties, but, I trust you, so I'll leave that in your hands.



> So I make a human priest and do what I can to make him represent a culture based on ancient China. We start the session in the town. Again, I have some questions:
> 
> ME: Is there a branch of my church in this town?
> DM: The adventure doesn't say...I'll say no. It's too far away.
> ME: Ok, are there _any _churches in the town?
> DM: Just one.
> ME: Ok, I go there. I'm going to talk to the priest to get a feel for his religion.
> DM: It just says his name, level, and that he is a priest of an agricultural deity.




DM:  Umm, I gotta ask, why?
Me:  Well I want to get into my character.
DM:  No, I mean, why are you messing about with this NPC?  He's not important, and you're never likely to see him again.  Why are you wasting the entire table's time with this?  What do you want to get out of it?
ME:  Ummm....



> ME: Ok, my religion venerates nature spirits so we should get along well.
> DM: Sure.
> ME: Is the town facing any problems that I could help with before we head to the dungeon?
> DM: It doesn't say...so, no.
> ME: Ok




There's a problem with this?  You, a complete stranger, walk up to a person in a town and ask if there are any problems.  And you expect people to just pony up and drop plot hooks?  Because you both happen to be clerics?  At least gimme a gather information check, something, anything.  Because, reading this, it looks perfectly reasonable to me.



> As the party prepares to head to the dungeon, we ask what the trip there will entail.
> 
> DM: You have to go east through the Forest of Endless Death.
> ME: That sounds unpleasant. Can we go around the forest to the south?
> DM: The map doesn't show what is there. So I'll say no.
> ME: Why not?
> DM: Because there is an impassable desert there, ok?
> ME: What about to the north?
> DM: More desert.
> ME: The forest is in the middle of the desert?
> DM: Yup.
> ME: Ok...




Again, we have the assumption that without detailed world building we are automatically railroading.  Sorry, that's not true.  World building and rail roading have nothing to do with eachother.  Heck, my world built map could actually have this information on it and be precisely the same railroad.

Now, since we're going adventure first, a better solution would be something like this:

DM:  Is there anything you need to do in town besides supplies shopping?
Players:  Nope, we're good.  Just gotta buy that hard tack and oats for the horses.
DM:  You stand in awe in front of the entrance of X.  Vast stone columns lie broken like toys in front of a massive cave...
Players:  Huh?  What's going on?
DM:  Look, when you watched Raiders of the Lost Arc, how much time did Indie spend in a shop getting food and stuff.
Players:  Can't really remember.
DM:  Right.  Told you this was going to be different.  You're in front of X.
Players:  You mean we don't have to ponce about for three hours haggling with horse merchants like in Bob's campaign?
Bob:  Hey!
DM:  That's right.  Straight to the action.  Just like a Conan novel.  Just like Star Trek.  
Players:  Hrmm...



> After a perilous journey through the forest and a decent little dungeon crawl, the party finds the relic. The DM's next adventure that he purchased features finding an island where some pirates hid some treasure. The DM decides to drop the hook for that one in the dungeon. He says that we find a clue that indicates some pirates took some treasure from the dungeon and hid it.




Again, let's not assume complete incompetence on the part of the DM.  If the DM is a blathering idiot, no amount of world building is going to help him either.  



> ME: What kind of clue is it?
> DM: Ummm...a journal.




Hang on, you said that the DM prepped the setting presented within the adventure.  I would consider major plot hooks to be part of that.  



> ME: Who wrote it?
> DM: A pirate.
> ME: What was his name?
> DM: Blackbeard.
> ME: Really? Why did he leave his journal behind?




Quick change on this:

DM: Well, it's a journal so it doesn't really say.  It's not like there's an entry - Day 37 Decided to leave my journal behind.



> ME: Ok. What else does it say?
> DM: It says where to find the island where they are hiding the treasure.
> ME: Ok. I guess we have to go back through the Forest of Horrible Dying and back to town before we can get to the coast.
> DM: It's the Forest of Endless Death and no, that would take too long. You can just go south to the town that starts the next adventure. It is on the coast.
> ME: I thought there was an impassable desert to the south?
> DM: Oh. Well, no that is too inconvenient. It is just some grassy hills.
> ME: Ok....




Again, we have the assumption that without world building you force railroads, AND, now we have the assumption that the setting cannot possibly be consistent, that the setting is completely dependent on the whim of the DM at the time.  Sorry, doesn't follow.  



> Now, that dungeon could have been pretty fun. The pirate adventure could be a blast. In the above example the DM had enough setting to run the adventure, and he certainly did well to ensure the players had something to do that session. But I just don't feel that campaign is as deep as one where the DM did some worldbuilding beforehand.  If he had (or had used a published setting), he could have answered many of the questions raised during the session that didn't directly pertain to the adventure.




Because wasting the entire table's time on insignificant setting trivia is a good thing?  Let me ask this, how many players, without meta game knowledge, would ask if there were any marriageable daughters around Sasserine?  Part of prepping the adventure would be anticipating reasonable questions.  



> He could have had enough info to give my priest something interesting to do while the party is prepping for the journey.




Or, he could have realized that splitting up the party so that one player could hog lots of air time was pointless and since the scenes in the town were pretty much all exposition, he wanted to get to the action before Ted went to sleep.



> He could have let us go around the forest.




Of course, this assumes that there was anything in the forest.  How is this different than RC's assertion that good adventure design should kow tow to the players?  If the players expect to find adventure around every hill, why bother making more than three hills?



> He could have setup the hook for the next adventure in a better way.




I'll agree with that.  And, given that he would have all eight of his adventures lined up, along with half a dozen side treks, BEFORE the campaign started, I would think that it isn't a large assumption that he would have set some better hooks.



> Now this is certainly a fairly extreme example, but to me it illustrates how worldbuilding can add depth.




Well, no.  It did illustrate your assumptions rather well though.

Can world building add depth?  Of course it can.  I would be an idiot to say that Forgotten Realms doesn't have depth.  Good grief, it has so much depth it has its own gravity well.  But, at the end of the day, who cares?  Most of it is irrelevant.  Square windows and all that.


----------



## Hussar

RC said:
			
		

> Neither good adventure design nor good worldbuilding equates with giving players whatever they want when they want it.




Now THAT I agree with.


----------



## Hussar

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Hussar
> This was never the definition and you know it.
> 
> 
> Please read the KM post to which I am responding. That definition comes from him, not from me.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by KM
> Hussar has made a very cogent point time and again that worldbuilding is stuff done for setting beyond what is needed in next game session.
> 
> 
> I am responding to what KM wrote, not what you wrote.
> 
> RC




Oops.  Heh.  MIssed that bit.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Oops.  Heh.  MIssed that bit.




No worries.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> How about we don't assume the DM is a slack jawed moron and actually is a reasonable person?




Can we make the same assumption when the DM is doing worldbuilding?    



> As an aside, has anyone ever asked you this as a DM?  I can't think of a single time I've ever had a player ask me this.  Heck, it's usually an uphill battle to get the players to remember the name of the world we are playing in.




Yes.  Regularly.



> Me:  Naw, I want to stick with straight cleric, but, I'm thinking more of a Buddhist sort of approach.
> DM:  Ok, that sounds fine.  You don't really need a god with that, so, we'll just use a force.  We'll have to hammer out a couple of domains, but that shouldn't be a problem.  Really, I hadn't intended for any sort of Asian stuff in here, but, not a problem.  We can simply say you are a fish out of water, from far away.  Take a free language in something no one speaks.  You'll be responsible for coming up with the religious trappings you feel comfortable with.  You are a cleric, so, you should have some clerical duties, but, I trust you, so I'll leave that in your hands.




How is this not worldbuilding?



> DM:  Umm, I gotta ask, why?
> Me:  Well I want to get into my character.
> DM:  No, I mean, why are you messing about with this NPC?  He's not important, and you're never likely to see him again.  Why are you wasting the entire table's time with this?  What do you want to get out of it?
> ME:  Ummm....




This strikes me as odd.  The answer to the DM's question is obvious....because the player would enjoy role-playing his character talking to the cleric of the town.  You could just as easily have said:

ME: Ok, are there any dungeons near the town?
DM: Just one.
ME: Ok, I go there. I'm going to kill monsters and take their stuff.
DM: Umm, I gotta ask, why?
Me: Well I want to get into my character.
DM: No, I mean, why are you messing about with this dungeon? It's not important, and you're never likely to see it again. Why are you wasting the entire table's time with this? What do you want to get out of it?
ME: Ummm....​
It is, IMHO, up to the _players_ to decide what is important to their _characters_.  If the DM wants his plot hook to be important, it is up to the DM to make it relevant and engaging.  The player, in wanting to talk to the town cleric, is attempting to give the DM the opportunity to engage him in the setting.  This is a perfect opportunity to drop in plot hooks that the player will actually care about.  The DM, who hasn't done his homework, instead attempts to imply that there is something wrong with the player for trying to engage in a setting which (unfortunately) is non-existent.

IMHO, _*this*_ is the clearest problem related to approach in worldbuilding that has yet to surface in this thread.



> Again, we have the assumption that without detailed world building we are automatically railroading.  Sorry, that's not true.  World building and rail roading have nothing to do with eachother.  Heck, my world built map could actually have this information on it and be precisely the same railroad.




I agree with this.

However, your above example -- telling the players what is, and what is not, important to them -- is classical railroading.

You can do wonderful worldbuilding and railroad....DragonLance is the classic example.  You can do minimal worldbuilding and avoid railroading.  The odds are good, though, that the more prepared you are for actions outside your session plans, the less likely you are to railroad.



> Now, since we're going adventure first, a better solution would be something like this:
> 
> DM:  Is there anything you need to do in town besides supplies shopping?
> Players:  Nope, we're good.  Just gotta buy that hard tack and oats for the horses.
> DM:  You stand in awe in front of the entrance of X.  Vast stone columns lie broken like toys in front of a massive cave...
> Players:  Huh?  What's going on?
> DM:  Look, when you watched Raiders of the Lost Arc, how much time did Indie spend in a shop getting food and stuff.
> Players:  Can't really remember.
> DM:  Right.  Told you this was going to be different.  You're in front of X.
> Players:  You mean we don't have to ponce about for three hours haggling with horse merchants like in Bob's campaign?
> Bob:  Hey!
> DM:  That's right.  Straight to the action.  Just like a Conan novel.  Just like Star Trek.
> Players:  Hrmm...





DM:  Is there anything you need to do in town besides supplies shopping?
Players:  Nope, we're good.  Just gotta buy that hard tack and oats for the horses.
DM:  You stand in awe in front of the entrance of X.  Vast stone columns lie broken like toys in front of a massive cave...
Players:  Huh?  What's going on?
DM:  Look, when you watched Raiders of the Lost Arc, how much time did Indie spend in a shop getting food and stuff.
Players:  Can't really remember.
DM:  Right.  Told you this was going to be different.  You're in front of X.
Dave:  Wait a second.  My character is a druid.  If we don't do the wilderness journey, then half my schtick is gone.
Bob:  Hey!  I'm a bard.  Half my schtick is interacting with people.
DM:  That's right.  Straight to the action.  Just like a Conan novel.  Just like Star Trek.  
Dave:  Hrmm.  You don't read much Conan, do you?*​
* I just reread the first Conan story, and there is tremendous amout of worldbuilding in it.  In one scene, Conan is drawing a map and discusses the layout of the world to the north in a fair amount of detail, although it has nothing to do with the story.  In another early Conan story, Conan needs magical help to cover a vast distance quickly -- while we don't see the actual travelling, we are told what happened in the intervening time.  Certainly travel time is part of Conan's world.



> Again, let's not assume complete incompetence on the part of the DM.  If the DM is a blathering idiot, no amount of world building is going to help him either.




Maybe.  But I wouldn't enjoy the game you're describing.  (I realize that others might, however.)



> DM: Well, it's a journal so it doesn't really say.  It's not like there's an entry - Day 37 Decided to leave my journal behind.




QFT.

That struck me as odd, too.

As a DM, I love the answer, "You don't know, do you?" or "Who are you asking?"    



> Again, we have the assumption that without world building you force railroads, AND, now we have the assumption that the setting cannot possibly be consistent, that the setting is completely dependent on the whim of the DM at the time.  Sorry, doesn't follow.




Without world building the setting is completely dependent on the whim of the DM at the time.  That seems to follow to me.  Can you explain why it doesn't?  



> Of course, this assumes that there was anything in the forest.  How is this different than RC's assertion that good adventure design should kow tow to the players?




Um...RC's assertion is that good adventure design should NOT kowtow to the players.


----------



## Hussar

> How is this not worldbuilding?




By your own definition this isn't world building.  How is this moving from generic to specific?  We have a nameless force (not even a god) as the patron of the cleric (which we mechanically HAVE to have - the force, not the cleric), any and all duties and whatnot of the cleric is entirely left in the player's hands.  Other than the bare minimum dictated by mechanics - picking domains, what world building have we done here?  His home isn't named and is "very far away".  Other than a vague "somewhat Chinese" we don't have much of anything here.

Don't conflate theme with world building.  The character has a theme - Asian monk/fish out of water.  He has pretty much no detail.



> It is, IMHO, up to the players to decide what is important to their characters. If the DM wants his plot hook to be important, it is up to the DM to make it relevant and engaging. The player, in wanting to talk to the town cleric, is attempting to give the DM the opportunity to engage him in the setting. This is a perfect opportunity to drop in plot hooks that the player will actually care about. The DM, who hasn't done his homework, instead attempts to imply that there is something wrong with the player for trying to engage in a setting which (unfortunately) is non-existent.




And, fair enough.  This goes back to the assumption that our DM isn't incompetent.  If he is, then, well, there isn't much we can do about it.  The response - no, there's nothing really going on - is perfectly reasonable.  Sure, the DM could also use the cleric as a source of plot hooks, and, I agree, that would likely be the best way to go.  Without knowing more of the specifics of the adventure, it's pretty hard to tell either way.



> However, your above example -- telling the players what is, and what is not, important to them -- is classical railroading.




Hang on, I didn't say that.  I asked the player what he was intending to achieve.  Granted, I didn't ask it very nicely, but, that is what I asked.  I assumed that there were actual plot hooks being given to the players and then Mr Cleric has gone walkabout in town looking for something to do while the other players gather supplies, since that was Darth Shoju's comment.

If, OTOH, the players are fumbling about in the dark, then, yes, you would be exactly right.  Again, without more information, it's pretty hard to tell.



> DM: Right. Told you this was going to be different. You're in front of X.
> Dave: Wait a second. My character is a druid. If we don't do the wilderness journey, then half my schtick is gone.
> Bob: Hey! I'm a bard. Half my schtick is interacting with people.
> DM: That's right. Straight to the action. Just like a Conan novel. Just like Star Trek.
> Dave: Hrmm. You don't read much Conan, do you?*




Hang on.  One second ago, you were saying that players shouldn't get what they want whenever they want it.  Yet, now, we've got the players in an uproar because I've moved the action away from their supposed spotlight.  

Which is it?  Should I be constantly rewriting adventures to dovetail nicely with the PC's?  Or should the PC's be created with some idea of the themes of the adventures I intend to run?  Let's not forget here, I'm advocating that the entire campaign arc be created in advance.  If our campaign is going to be about dungeon crawls looking for artefacts and someone's making a druid, there's possibly been a miscommunication.  Never mind that the bard isn't going to be talking to many people in the bloody forest of death anyway.  He's pretty much screwed in either case.

Unless, of course, I should rewrite my world building to suit the players.

On the Conan bit, I'll admit, I've never read the originals.  Only the De Camp versions.  The first story in that version has Conan running half naked through the wilderness trying to escape wolves.  Comments on how much Conan someone has read would depend on which author we'd like to compare no?  

In any case, you still get the point without having to get too pedantic about it.



> Without world building the setting is completely dependent on the whim of the DM at the time. That seems to follow to me. Can you explain why it doesn't?




Umm, no.  We've already established that the setting required by the adventure is created.  I've assumed that there were no encounters in the Forest of Death and done a nice cut scene.  I could easily have included a nice map of the Forest and set encounters there as well.  It is not too far of a stretch to think that the setting for our adventure would include at least a basic idea of the town and the surrounding countryside on the way to X.  Pretty much like Keep on the Borderlands.  Since that's almost guaranteed to come up in play, I would call that setting.  



> Um...RC's assertion is that good adventure design should NOT kowtow to the players.




I think I got mixed up when you were answering KM and not me.  Sorry, not sure where I was going with that.  That was a bloody long post.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> By your own definition this isn't world building.  How is this moving from generic to specific?




The player comes up with the details of the force, the religious trappings, and duties, all of which are moving from generic to specific.



> Hang on, I didn't say that.  I asked the player what he was intending to achieve.  Granted, I didn't ask it very nicely, but, that is what I asked.  I assumed that there were actual plot hooks being given to the players and then Mr Cleric has gone walkabout in town looking for something to do while the other players gather supplies, since that was Darth Shoju's comment.




Where does Darth's example suggest that the cleric has "gone walkabout in town looking for something to do while the other players gather supplies"?



> Hang on.  One second ago, you were saying that players shouldn't get what they want whenever they want it.  Yet, now, we've got the players in an uproar because I've moved the action away from their supposed spotlight.
> 
> Which is it?  Should I be constantly rewriting adventures to dovetail nicely with the PC's?  Or should the PC's be created with some idea of the themes of the adventures I intend to run?




The DM is responsible for creating the setting in which the play takes place.  That includes locations, NPCs, adventure hooks, etc., etc.  Player input into this process can (and probably should) be solicited at each juncture, but the DM is not required to give the players what they want simply because they want it.  In fact, doing so would quickly make the game boring as it loses the tension between desire and the quest to achieve desire.

However, as soon as play begins, the players have an absolute right to have their characters attempt whatever they want.  If they want to experience travel, the DM shouldn't simply shift scenes to avoid it, nor should the DM tell them they can't talk to NPCs because he hasn't got a clue what's going on in his world.

That's just bad DMing, and a failure to create a setting expansive enough to meet player needs.



> Let's not forget here, I'm advocating that the entire campaign arc be created in advance.  If our campaign is going to be about dungeon crawls looking for artefacts and someone's making a druid, there's possibly been a miscommunication.  Never mind that the bard isn't going to be talking to many people in the bloody forest of death anyway.  He's pretty much screwed in either case.




The bard wanted to talk to people in the town, along with the cleric.    

Anyway, this is why the design method you're advocating can so easily lead to a railroad.  If your campaign setting is the WLD, once the PCs are in that dungeon, they are allowed to attempt anything they like within the confines of the setting.  That they won't necessarily succeed isn't important; setting provides context and meaning to the decisions they make, and failure of some attempts is good in terms of providing both.  A druid is out of luck because the setting is a dungeon crawl.

However, if your setting is a larger world, where the PCs are supposed to go from adventure to adventure, ignoring anything that interests them but doesn't interest you enough to develop, you're running a railroad.  If the adventure starts in a town, exploring that town is fair play.  If the hook leads to a dungeon past a menacing forest, exploring that menacing forest -- or the means to go around that menacing forest -- is fair play.

And, let's not forget, you can have an agreed-upon railroad.  "Let's play STAP" is an agreed-upon railroad.  "Let's play WLD" is not (IMHO) unless you try to force the PCs to go to the areas you want them to.



> On the Conan bit, I'll admit, I've never read the originals.  Only the De Camp versions.  The first story in that version has Conan running half naked through the wilderness trying to escape wolves.  Comments on how much Conan someone has read would depend on which author we'd like to compare no?




You should read the originals if you can.  The De Camp versions were what I started with, too, but I was very glad when I was able to actually read Howard's stories as they were attended.



> Umm, no.  We've already established that the setting required by the adventure is created.  I've assumed that there were no encounters in the Forest of Death and done a nice cut scene.  I could easily have included a nice map of the Forest and set encounters there as well.




I believe that this is what Darth supposed in his example; that there were encounters planned, that the players tried to end-run around them, and that the DM forbid that because it fell outside the planned adventure.  He can correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.    



> I think I got mixed up when you were answering KM and not me.  Sorry, not sure where I was going with that.  That was a bloody long post.




Like I said, no worries.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Re:  WLD & Worldbuilding elements:

For the most part, WLD as a campaign setting has sufficient worldbuilding elements to run, even though they are scattered throughout the text and would be more useful if gathered into a DM Cheat Sheet.

This isn't a setting large enough for reuse with the same players, note.  Once the initial campaign is done, there's going to be a lot of material that didn't make it into play, but the layout of the campaign setting is such that it would be difficult to reuse it without making substantial changes (such as porting a section wholesale into another campaign world).

WLD is a _small_ campaign world, but for my purposes it is certainly a _complete_ campaign world.  With some real development of flavour text and adventure elements, WLD could rock.  In fact, it will rock, because I'm going to include it inside my regular campaign as a place that can be entered and left like a normal dungeon.  It'll mean some real changes, but any encounter I like that my changes renders unworkable can always be used elsewhere.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Just a preamble, but the point of my post was to explain how worldbuilding adds depth and verisimilitude, since that is what KM was taking exception to. I wasn't really commenting on Hussar's abilities as a DM since I don't know anything about them. The DM in my example is purely hypothetical. I also would like to point out that I thought I established that he was pretty good at running the dungeon crawl, just bad at improv. I didn't really think of him as a useless lout.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> How about we don't assume the DM is a slack jawed moron and actually is a reasonable person?  Might make things a bit more realistic.  Instead of our knuckle dragger, let me show you how it could go in this "worst case scenario".




RC made a valid point here. Why is it that when the DM slavishly adheres to the adventure as written (thereby restricting player interaction) it is a problem with the DM, while if the DM slavishly adheres to his setting/worldbuilding (thereby restricting player interaction) it is a problem with worldbuilding and NOT the DM? 




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> As an aside, has anyone ever asked you this as a DM?  I can't think of a single time I've ever had a player ask me this.  Heck, it's usually an uphill battle to get the players to remember the name of the world we are playing in.




This is one of the first things I look at as a player when making a character. Ditto for most of the folks I play with (with a couple exceptions, although I suspect they would find it odd if there was no info on the world available too).




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Let me rephrase that in the context of someone who is putting adventure first:
> 
> Me:  Ok what nations are there? Where can my character be from?
> DM:  Well, I'm trying something a little different in this campaign.  What do you have in mind?
> Me:Well, can I be from one that is kind of like ancient China?
> DM:  Hrm, sounds interesting.  What kind of class are you thinking of?
> Me:  Cleric.
> DM:  So, like a Shujenja?
> Me:  Naw, I want to stick with straight cleric, but, I'm thinking more of a Buddhist sort of approach.
> DM:  Ok, that sounds fine.  You don't really need a god with that, so, we'll just use a force.  We'll have to hammer out a couple of domains, but that shouldn't be a problem.  Really, I hadn't intended for any sort of Asian stuff in here, but, not a problem.  We can simply say you are a fish out of water, from far away.  Take a free language in something no one speaks.  You'll be responsible for coming up with the religious trappings you feel comfortable with.  You are a cleric, so, you should have some clerical duties, but, I trust you, so I'll leave that in your hands.




While I'd appreciate the opportunity to flesh out my character's religion, it doesn't do much to develop the setting we are playing in (I still know nothing about the world I'm playing in). Of course, being a fish out of water character, that would make sense. Might be off-putting for the other players though. 

And for the record, I was going for a more Taoist-type priest, but that is neither here nor there.




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> DM:  Umm, I gotta ask, why?
> Me:  Well I want to get into my character.
> DM:  No, I mean, why are you messing about with this NPC?  He's not important, and you're never likely to see him again.  Why are you wasting the entire table's time with this?  What do you want to get out of it?
> ME:  Ummm....
> 
> There's a problem with this?  You, a complete stranger, walk up to a person in a town and ask if there are any problems.  And you expect people to just pony up and drop plot hooks?  Because you both happen to be clerics?  At least gimme a gather information check, something, anything.  Because, reading this, it looks perfectly reasonable to me.




If a DM responded to me in that fashion it would be the last night I gamed in one of his sessions. Taking five minutes to give me some interaction with an NPC and flesh out the setting is not going to derail the session. If anything it can help to fill the time while other players are looking up what they are going to buy for the trip (of course, I'd only be exploring this element if I was ready to go...I'm not going to hold up things after I'm done talking to the NPC b/c I haven't even looked at supplies yet). 




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, we have the assumption that without detailed world building we are automatically railroading.  Sorry, that's not true.  World building and rail roading have nothing to do with eachother.  Heck, my world built map could actually have this information on it and be precisely the same railroad.




Well I'm working on the assumption that the DM hasn't done any worldbuilding. The adventure map doesn't detail what is north and south of the forest and the DM is bad at improving. He doesn't want to try and figure out the trip around the forest and he wants the PCs to go through the encounters in the forest the adventure details. I'm trying to prove how worldbuilding brings depth vs going with "the barest threads of a setting". I'd say having options in completing your objective is indicative of depth.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, since we're going adventure first, a better solution would be something like this:
> 
> DM:  Is there anything you need to do in town besides supplies shopping?
> Players:  Nope, we're good.  Just gotta buy that hard tack and oats for the horses.
> DM:  You stand in awe in front of the entrance of X.  Vast stone columns lie broken like toys in front of a massive cave...
> Players:  Huh?  What's going on?
> DM:  Look, when you watched Raiders of the Lost Arc, how much time did Indie spend in a shop getting food and stuff.
> Players:  Can't really remember.
> DM:  Right.  Told you this was going to be different.  You're in front of X.
> Players:  You mean we don't have to ponce about for three hours haggling with horse merchants like in Bob's campaign?
> Bob:  Hey!
> DM:  That's right.  Straight to the action.  Just like a Conan novel.  Just like Star Trek.
> Players:  Hrmm...




I'm not really seeing how that is _necessarily _better. If your group just wants to do a dungeon crawl and isn't interested in anything else then I'd say that is probably the best approach. If your group likes a bit of a build-up before the dungeon then I'd say you might want to flesh out the stuff provided in the adventure a bit. 

When I ran Forge of Fury (or started to), I knew my group preferred the actual dungeon crawling to not be terribly protracted, so I wrote up some build-up before it that involved traveling with a ranger and a stop at an inn for the night. The inn had some interesting encounters come of it (thanks to a bit of worldbuilding beforehand) and generated a side-quest to foil some local vampires (that were actually human bandits pretending to be vampires-never thought I'd get use out of Terrible Trouble at Tragidore). I was also able to put a bit more development of the legends of the dwarven hold they were traveling to throughout the lead-up. When we got to the actual dungeon, the group felt like it was a living breathing location rather than a static dungeon (important to my group of gamers). 




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Quick change on this:
> 
> DM: Well, it's a journal so it doesn't really say.  It's not like there's an entry - Day 37 Decided to leave my journal behind.




Well, if I were running this I would have done some worldbuilding beforehand and worked with the info provided in the pirate adventure (assuming it has some minimal info on the pirates themselves). I've implied that this plot hook was tossed in by the DM and isn't a feature of the next adventure as written. Since he didn't do any worldbuilding he couldn't really answer anything about the clue beyond "it leads to the next adventure". If I was putting in a hook like this, I'd know who wrote the journal (probably not detailed in the next adventure since I invented this plot hook myself), why he wrote it and a little bit about the contents of it. I'd probably put some thought into the last journal entry since it can tell a lot about the setup for the next adventure (including some clues as to why the journal was left behind). If I had the time (and this would be a low priority), I'd probably even write out some of the pertinent journal entries as the NPC to add some flavour. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, we have the assumption that without world building you force railroads, AND, now we have the assumption that the setting cannot possibly be consistent, that the setting is completely dependent on the whim of the DM at the time.  Sorry, doesn't follow.




I'm going with this part of your quote here (emphasis mine): 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> ...you can run campaign after campaign, *drastically changing setting*, without doing any more work.




Now, I'll admit I am being a bit facetious here; my example is certainly an extreme one, but it is meant to illustrate how not paying heed to worldbuilding can lead to inconsistency. As far as the definition in the DMG is concerned, part of the point of worldbuilding is to ensure consistency. AFAIC, if you are ensuring your setting is consistent, then you are doing some worldbuilding. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Because wasting the entire table's time on insignificant setting trivia is a good thing?  Let me ask this, how many players, without meta game knowledge, would ask if there were any marriageable daughters around Sasserine?  Part of prepping the adventure would be anticipating reasonable questions.




How is anything I suggested there insignificant setting trivia? I don't see how making the setting seem real is trivial-in fact it is the very definition of verisimilitude and the point I am driving at. Now if the group of players consider talking to NPCs a waste of time then I'd say it would be a bad idea to give the NPCs personality and character. But then again, I doubt I could play in that environment for long. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Or, he could have realized that splitting up the party so that one player could hog lots of air time was pointless and since the scenes in the town were pretty much all exposition, he wanted to get to the action before Ted went to sleep.




So the party must always act in unison otherwise time is being wasted? If the players are interested in the town how is it simply exposition? And who said the cleric was looking to "hog lots of air time"? If the DM had done some worldbuilding beforehand, he could have handled a lot of what came up (since he isn't gifted at improv). I'm talking stuff like:

-A quick map of the world. A brief note on the major nations and where the core races fit in. This could be done in a page (two if you count the map itself).
-A more detailed map of the area where most of his adventures are going to be taking place. Assuming he is using unrelated adventures and not an AP, this will ensure consistency and allow him to know what possible ways the PCs might go to get where they need to be.
-A few details of the town they start in beyond what level of cleric it has and the max sell price for magic items. *What is the chief industry of the town?* Let's say it has orchards. When the PC cleric asks about the agricultural challenges of the town, the NPC could say a) Not much, the apple harvest (or whatever) looks good this year. b) Not so great; we're having a lot of trouble with giant beetles. Either answer is just fine and both provide depth to the setting. The second can even be an adventure hook the party could look into. *What influence does the only church have on the town?* This could dictate how the NPC reacts to the PC cleric. If they are the only religion in town because they chase out all others, then he will be defensive towards the PC. If not, then he might be glad to have another nature-oriented priest around. 

Again, this is depth. Is it required for a dungeon crawl? Nope. Like I've said depends on what your group wants to do.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Of course, this assumes that there was anything in the forest.  How is this different than RC's assertion that good adventure design should kow tow to the players?  If the players expect to find adventure around every hill, why bother making more than three hills?




Well, it was my assumption that the adventure had encounters in the forest. My bad for not making that clear up front.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Can world building add depth?  Of course it can.  I would be an idiot to say that Forgotten Realms doesn't have depth.  Good grief, it has so much depth it has its own gravity well.  But, at the end of the day, who cares?  Most of it is irrelevant.  Square windows and all that.




Well my point of my post was to explain what I meant by "depth" in the context of D&D and how it relates to worldbuilding. If you don't value depth then it doesn't really matter then does it? But again, that is matter of taste and the subjective definition of "fun". I could have fun playing tiddly winks but that speaks nothing to the point of depth. Frankly, at the end of the day, *I* care about depth (although I'm not really a FR fan for other reasons). And that isn't any less valid than someone who doesn't and is looking to kill and take stuff. "Irrelevant" is dependent on your objectives and I wouldn't go tossing it around as a universal truth.


----------



## nethervoid

I didn't read the whole thread, so this has got to be a restate, but I HAD to say:

Tolkien must be a total idiot.


----------



## Hussar

> Originally Posted by Hussar
> ...you can run campaign after campaign, drastically changing setting, without doing any more work.
> 
> 
> Now, I'll admit I am being a bit facetious here; my example is certainly an extreme one, but it is meant to illustrate how not paying heed to worldbuilding can lead to inconsistency. As far as the definition in the DMG is concerned, part of the point of worldbuilding is to ensure consistency. AFAIC, if you are ensuring your setting is consistent, then you are doing some worldbuilding.




Note, I did say campaign, not adventure.  Campaign, at least I think, is defined as more than a single adventure.  The setting can be drastically changed between campaigns, but, within a given campaign, that's just bad.  A long ways back I mentioned that if you turn left into the throne room in chapter 2, you should turn left again in chapter 4.  



			
				RC said:
			
		

> However, as soon as play begins, the players have an absolute right to have their characters attempt whatever they want. If they want to experience travel, the DM shouldn't simply shift scenes to avoid it, nor should the DM tell them they can't talk to NPCs because he hasn't got a clue what's going on in his world.




And, of course, you should take your players into account when designing adventures as well.  That's just good sense.  Designing a campaign of nothing but dungeon crawls when your players hate dungeon crawls is bad.  World building or not isn't going to help here.

As far as letting the players do world building - hey, if it floats their boat, why not?  I'm talking about the DM allocating his resources better.  Letting someone else do the work sounds good to me.

Ok, y'know what, if you something done half assed, you should do it yourself.  Take a look at what I'm trying to do over there.  I don't know if it will pan out.  It may very well not.  But, I'm going to give it a shot.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> Note, I did say campaign, not adventure.  Campaign, at least I think, is defined as more than a single adventure.  The setting can be drastically changed between campaigns, but, within a given campaign, that's just bad.  A long ways back I mentioned that if you turn left into the throne room in chapter 2, you should turn left again in chapter 4.




I guess I kinda had it in my head that you were using the same characters in different campaigns or setting them in the same setting. Upon reflection, I guess each campaign would likely have different characters so changing the setting won't be a real issue, since the implication is that it is a different world from campaign to campaign (particularly since the world isn't really that fleshed out in this archetype). It makes more sense to me now. 

But I still stand by my point.


----------



## Hussar

Really, you could still use the same world.  It wouldn't matter all that much since so little of the world is fleshed out beyond a few locations specific to a given campaign.

Just to go back a second about what RC said about world building and clerics.  To me, the difference is the same as the difference between what's in the PHB (the entire core pantheon in about one page) and S. K. Reynold's fantastic Core Belief articles in Dragon.  I love those articles.  They are well written and interesting.

They are, OTOH, pretty much superfluous to the game though.  You can play a very good game without doing anything more than what's in the PHB.  You don't need 15 page writeups about each god.  I like them, I do, but, they are pretty indulgent.  Again, I think RC is looking for a definitive cut off point.  You have to have some information about the diety in order to play.  That's a given.  On the other end of the scale though, you have the Core Belief's articles.


----------



## Hussar

Interestingly enough, as I read Wolgang Baur's articles on adventure building, I noticed this point:



> Simple Backstory: Most DMs and designers hate to hear it, but much of the time lavished on history and background is wasted energy. Players never find out who dug the tomb, how the wizard was betrayed by her apprentice, or why the assassin guild changed sides and disappeared. Working on backstory doesn't improve the gameplay experience for anyone but the bards and scholars obsessed with legends or lore. Unless it connects directly to action in the current timeframe (and the PCs have a way of learning it), skip the involved history. Save that for sourcebooks.
> 
> This is not to say cut it all. Details of which faction can be turned against another, which guard might take a bribe, or what the villain ultimately plans to do if the party doesn't stop him are all appropriate. Make sure your backstory is recent and relevant; avoid anything that starts "Thousands of years ago..."




Which is pretty much exactly what I've been saying.  Nice to know that I'm not completely alone in this.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Hussar said:
			
		

> Which is pretty much exactly what I've been saying.  Nice to know that I'm not completely alone in this.




Is anyone here really advocating that the DM give priority to information that isn't going to benefit the campaign?


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Is anyone here really advocating that the DM give priority to information that isn't going to benefit the campaign?




World building doesn't always benefit the campaign.

Unless the players are deeply interested in the minutiae of your imaginary land of make-believe, the cut-off point is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak -- where the history meets the adventure.


----------



## Darth Shoju

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> World building doesn't always benefit the campaign.
> 
> Unless the players are deeply interested in the minutiae of your imaginary land of make-believe, the cut-off point is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak -- where the history meets the adventure.




Right. And like I said, if it doesn't benefit the campaign, then it shouldn't have a higher priority over what _does_. That philosophy stands for either worldbuilding-first or adventure-first. If you are designing an adventure path based on a specific theme for a group that wants to game in a sandbox-style campaign then that is just as much of a waste of time as excessive worldbuilding.


----------



## Emerikol

I think the original blogger isn't even right about writing.  Some great writers are painstaking in their world building while others basically seat of the pants it.  Great writers are numbered in both ranks.  It depends on your tastes which stories you like.

And, a campaign in my opinion benefits greatly from a well designed world.  You of course don't design every detail but you start at the beginning with a laser focus and gradually the knowledge gets a bit less defined as you go outward.   

I can see it done both ways successfully.  But where the players are playing I find you need to know if I'm going to enjoy it as a player.


----------



## Hussar

Holy threadomancy Batman!!!

Fun thread though.  I remember this one.  

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.


----------



## Imaculata

Hussar said:


> Holy threadomancy Batman!!!
> 
> Fun thread though.  I remember this one.
> 
> 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.




I don't agree with this at all. I think world building can really help with the internal consistency of the campaign setting. And I think a lot of players can appreciate a campaign more when it feels that the world was well thought out. And with that I mean that there are believable religions, cultures and nations that inhabit the fictional world of the DM.


----------



## DRF

Imaculata said:


> I don't agree with this at all. I think world building can really help with the internal consistency of the campaign setting. And I think a lot of players can appreciate a campaign more when it feels that the world was well thought out. And with that I mean that there are believable religions, cultures and nations that inhabit the fictional world of the DM.




Jeez man I just want to kill some goblins in a cave.


----------



## Imaculata

DRF said:


> Jeez man I just want to kill some goblins in a cave.




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. 
For example:

My players cared that the region in which my campaign takes place had a history with a notorious pirate captain, who died due to an intricate plot by various important characters. They cared because that same pirate captain would eventually be brought back to life, and now they had an undead pirate captain to deal with. The various historical events tie directly into the events that the players are currently involved with, and it ties into their backstories.

Now maybe you don't care a lot about things like storytelling and character backstories, but I do, and so do my players. In my experience, good world building helps good storytelling. This doesn't mean that the players need to be bored to death with the royal family tree going back 6 generations, or the history of each and every temple. But they care about the balance of power in my setting; who is in charge of what, and why.

Just because you have a lot of lore to your setting, doesn't mean it is good lore, or makes for a good story (I'm looking at you World of Warcraft). However, some amount of world building definitely helps to bring your story to life. This doesn't mean that a DM needs to write the next silmarillion.


----------



## Eltab

Hussar said:


> 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

Imaculata said:


> 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

Eltab said:


> 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

Celebrim said:


> 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

I'm A Banana said:


> 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

I'm A Banana said:


> 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

Gilladian said:


> 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!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Caliburn101 said:


> 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...




Well, having posted that too enjoy world building, and having GMed for over 40 years as well, I tend to disagree. That is, I don't find that world building improves my game. In fact it probably constrains my freedom to frame scenes for players which would most effectively address their agenda, to put it in Pemerton's terms.


----------



## Caliburn101

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, having posted that too enjoy world building, and having GMed for over 40 years as well, I tend to disagree. That is, I don't find that world building improves my game. In fact it probably constrains my freedom to frame scenes for players which would most effectively address their agenda, to put it in Pemerton's terms.




That is of course subject to the style of game one runs. Detailed homebrew creations would indeed be a bridge too far for some.

For myself, I like to have depth of culture, religion, race, heritage, geography, magic, social constructs and government types etc. I usually run a 'Session 0' or it's equivalent to establish what the broad-brush elements are that the group want to see, which of course already creates some enthusiasm and sense of ownership from the players. it is also _their_ world right from the start...

Once that is all in, the players can integrate their backgrounds far more into the world, and their personal and group stories can be woven into the narrative far more. One only has to look at the massive popularity of Game of Thrones to see how character and world can interact to great effect, or at Babylon 5 to see how deep and hidden 'cosmology' and ancient history can profoundly drive plot and drama.

If you run a more casual or episodic type of game, then the characters would naturally take the lead, and you can have their backgrounds (and whatever they want to put into those) shape their environment. That is a perfectly sound basis for a game. It is also of course possible to create the gameworld on the fly in a reiterative way, but in my experience, for this to work really well, it requires a great deal of experience as a GM - but then you clearly have that! 

Nevertheless, from my personal point of view, there is greater potential for successful 'suspension of disbelief' and increased 'buy-in' from players when they feel the gameworld makes inherent sense, is interesting and has a depth they can interact in.

Saving the village from orcs is what adventurers are about. However, I do find there tends to be more catharsis involved when that village is part of a Kingdom and a world the players are invested in, and they can see how their actions impact subsequent events, places and NPCs, rather than being just the next module on the way to 20th level.


----------



## pemerton

Caliburn101 said:


> One only has to look at the massive popularity of Game of Thrones to see how character and world can interact to great effect
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you run a more casual or episodic type of game, then the characters would naturally take the lead, and you can have their backgrounds (and whatever they want to put into those) shape their environment. That is a perfectly sound basis for a game. It is also of course possible to create the gameworld on the fly in a reiterative way, but in my experience, for this to work really well, it requires a great deal of experience as a GM
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Saving the village from orcs is what adventurers are about. However, I do find there tends to be more catharsis involved when that village is part of a Kingdom and a world the players are invested in





Caliburn101 said:


> 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



It's probably true that worldbuilding is not a big part of causal games; but I don't think the converse need be true. I think it's quite possible to have a game in which the players are invested in the fiction, and interact with the world, but this does not rest heavily on GM world building.

I'm also not sure that GM experience is that important. Maybe more important is a good sense of tropes and genre, and a good ability to read player signals. System can also make a difference (eg by making it easier or harder for the players to send signals; and by making it easier or harder to introduce elements into the fiction that respond to them).


----------



## Dire Bare

I couldn't get through all 109 pages of this resurrected thread, so if I bring up some points already discussed, sorry . . .

1) Worldbuilding isn't binary in its absence or presence, but rather is a continuum from light to heavy. I can't imagine any D&D product or game that doesn't include at least a minimum of worldbuilding, the core D&D rulebooks certainly give us a light touch of worldbuilding that are probably pretty common in a lot of home games.

2) Different products and different styles of games, including different degrees of worldbuilding, exist for gamers with different preferences. If you enjoy strong worldbuilding, or if you prefer a light touch, as long as you and your group are having fun its all good. Worldbuilding isn't wasted effort if the person doing the work is enjoying themselves.

3) Even when it comes to narrative fiction, worldbuilding can be valuable. Tolkien is a great example, his notes on the world of Middle-Earth exceed in word-count his published stories, including the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. But Tolkien enjoyed worldbuilding, and generations of fans have enjoyed diving deep into Middle-Earth lore. Not all fans, of course, some just read the Lord of the Rings novels (or watched the movies) and called it good. Do you need a working knowledge of the elvish language or the history of Durin's folk to enjoy the novels? Of course not, but for some, it most certainly adds to the experience.

As a DM, I enjoy worldbuilding itself as a hobby, and much of what I've created never sees a game table, although sometimes the depth of background has served to deepen the experience for my players. As a player, and a fan of literature and movies, I enjoy deeply realized worlds and nerding out over the details . . . up to a point (some of Greenwood's earlier articles on the minutiae of Realmslore were too much for me, but I know other fans enjoyed it). I've also ran, and played in, some very "light" games (in regards to worldbuilding) that were tons of fun.

So, anyone who categorically states that worldbuilding is a waste of time, in gaming or fiction, is full of it!


----------



## Hussar

Viewing this thread in light of events of the past several years, pretty much demonstrates to me that world building is far more negative than positive.  It's limiting to creativity because, once you start with all the world building and accumulating all that game lore, people become EXTREMELY attached to it and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any and all changes to that lore.

IOW, world building leads to the lore police gate keeping the game and standing in the way of any new ideas from entering.  It's stifling and stagnating.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Viewing this thread in light of events of the past several years, pretty much demonstrates to me that world building is far more negative than positive.  It's limiting to creativity because, once you start with all the world building and accumulating all that game lore, people become EXTREMELY attached to it and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any and all changes to that lore.
> 
> IOW, world building leads to the lore police gate keeping the game and standing in the way of any new ideas from entering.  It's stifling and stagnating.




How so?

I mean, I follow what you’re saying, but in what way does this happen? Do you mean in a home game between the players and a DM? Or do you mean about established lore of published worlds in a canonical sense? 

And why would lore be changed? Do you mean in a retcon manner or more just natural change due to in game action and events (a nation switching from a tyrranical monarchy to a republic because some heroes toppled the overlord, etc.)?


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> How so?
> 
> I mean, I follow what you’re saying, but in what way does this happen? Do you mean in a home game between the players and a DM? Or do you mean about established lore of published worlds in a canonical sense?
> 
> And why would lore be changed? Do you mean in a retcon manner or more just natural change due to in game action and events (a nation switching from a tyrranical monarchy to a republic because some heroes toppled the overlord, etc.)?




I was more referring to official canon.  4e got absolutely crucified for not following earlier edition canon (even when it actually DID follow earlier canon, people insisted that their interpretations of earlier canon were canonical).  The canon police come out of the woodwork as soon as any change is proposed - "You can't change this because in some article in Dragon 128, this random author established that this other thing is true"!!!  "OMG!!! Blue dragons can't possibly live near coastlines!!! They live in deserts!!!!".

And, it's almost always self serving.  5e changes canon all over the place, yet the world builders out there don't seem to mind too much.  Kobolds are slaves to dragons?  Really?  Since when?  Since when do dragons keep slaves?  Isn't this the kind of intrusive world building that 4e was criticised for?  Oh, right, those self-same people like 5e, so, world building changes are okay, so long as they happen to like the edition.

I much, much prefer AD&D's approach to the whole thing where world building is extremely limited and there is virtually no lore associated with anything.  Saves me the time and trouble re-writing and ignoring vast swaths of the book.  And allows for new ideas and new takes to have room to grow without being stomped into the ground by the clod stomping Nerd boots.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Caliburn101 said:


> Saving the village from orcs is what adventurers are about. However, I do find there tends to be more catharsis involved when that village is part of a Kingdom and a world the players are invested in, and they can see how their actions impact subsequent events, places and NPCs, rather than being just the next module on the way to 20th level.




I tend to think that the adventurers are 'about' some sort of conflict, which generally exposes some type of beliefs or agenda which is the generation of that conflict, much as with literary and other dramatic forms. So, I would say that "this village is my home, I will defend it to the death" might be a belief, and that would certainly go well with "saving the village from orcs." OTOH there could be other needs and agendas. I can perfectly well imagine a character which is going to actively help the orcs, although he might only want CERTAIN PEOPLE to get their clocks punched (perhaps). Even in the case of just 'bad guy orcs' questions arise of mercy, who's really the good guy, etc. These are all good stuff to drive a dramatic story! 

Now, do you need a lot of deep backstory, and does it even help? I don't think the divide is necessarily 'casual' vs 'serious' or whatever. I mean, I'm pretty dedicated, but aside from the quirk I have about my D&D game world, I rarely do any world building. If I do, then its usually a genre refinement exercise in concert with the players.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hussar said:


> I was more referring to official canon.  4e got absolutely crucified for not following earlier edition canon (even when it actually DID follow earlier canon, people insisted that their interpretations of earlier canon were canonical).  The canon police come out of the woodwork as soon as any change is proposed - "You can't change this because in some article in Dragon 128, this random author established that this other thing is true"!!!  "OMG!!! Blue dragons can't possibly live near coastlines!!! They live in deserts!!!!".
> 
> And, it's almost always self serving.  5e changes canon all over the place, yet the world builders out there don't seem to mind too much.  Kobolds are slaves to dragons?  Really?  Since when?  Since when do dragons keep slaves?  Isn't this the kind of intrusive world building that 4e was criticised for?  Oh, right, those self-same people like 5e, so, world building changes are okay, so long as they happen to like the edition.
> 
> I much, much prefer AD&D's approach to the whole thing where world building is extremely limited and there is virtually no lore associated with anything.  Saves me the time and trouble re-writing and ignoring vast swaths of the book.  And allows for new ideas and new takes to have room to grow without being stomped into the ground by the clod stomping Nerd boots.




I'm more sympathetic to world building in general than you are, just because it CAN be fun. OTOH I too have a bad taste in my mouth from the whole 5e experience of basically "we throw up our hands and surrender, nothing but the (not so) Great Wheel can ever be canon in D&D!" It seemed quite sad. 4e's cosmology had a huge amount of good stuff to offer, but ANATHEMA! Feh! 

IMHO GW is a very nice example of backstory that doesn't bring gifts.


----------



## Imaculata

Hussar said:


> It's limiting to creativity because, once you start with all the world building and accumulating all that game lore, people become EXTREMELY attached to it and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any and all changes to that lore.




I have never experienced this in any of my games (which are pretty heavy on worldbuilding). Isn't the DM in charge of the lore? Why would the players try and police the DM's lore?



Hussar said:


> I was more referring to official canon.  4e got absolutely crucified for not following earlier edition canon (even when it actually DID follow earlier canon, people insisted that their interpretations of earlier canon were canonical).  The canon police come out of the woodwork as soon as any change is proposed - "You can't change this because in some article in Dragon 128, this random author established that this other thing is true"!!!  "OMG!!! Blue dragons can't possibly live near coastlines!!! They live in deserts!!!!".




So what I get from this, is the impression that you're mostly against official D&D lore (in other words, when WotC does world building). But that is very different from a DM doing world building for his own campaign setting. If I say that my campaign has dragons that don't keep slaves, and that don't talk, no one is going to complain about it. It's my setting, I can do what I want.


----------



## pemerton

Imaculata said:


> Isn't the DM in charge of the lore? Why would the players try and police the DM's lore?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If I say that my campaign has dragons that don't keep slaves, and that don't talk, no one is going to complain about it. It's my setting, I can do what I want.



I think this raises one key question (maybe _the_ key question) about the relationship between worldbuilding and RPGing.

_Shared fiction_ is at the heart of RPGing: the GM describes some situation to the players; the players declare actions for their PCs; those actions are resolved; new fiction is thereby established.

What is the relationship between this collective endeavour, and one participant's sole authorship of a whole lot of stories?


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I think this raises one key question (maybe _the_ key question) about the relationship between worldbuilding and RPGing.
> 
> _Shared fiction_ is at the heart of RPGing: the GM describes some situation to the players; the players declare actions for their PCs; those actions are resolved; new fiction is thereby established.
> 
> What is the relationship between this collective endeavour, and one participant's sole authorship of a whole lot of stories?




Isn't this for the gaming group to decide?  I mean honestly we have games that run the gamut from sole world authorship by the GM to games that create the world as an equal endeavor shared by all players, so I would assume groups would choose to play games that fit their particular needs.  Now whether the flagship game of the hobby should swing one way or the other on this axis is a different question.  As it stands 5e has optional rules for co-authorship of the world in the DMG, but I'm not sure I  thiknk the game would be be best served by that being the default.  OAN, but related I don't think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s proposed fiction less D&D would be anywhere near as popular as D&D currently is, the game is best served (from a sales perspective) in getting people invested in the default lore... for different and experimental lore you have various camapign settings.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I don't think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s proposed fiction less D&D would be anywhere near as popular as D&D currently is



I think this is probably true.

I also think that "lore" is not the same thing as worldbuilding. _That kobolds tend to serve dragons_ doesn't tell us anything about the existence, location etc of any particular dragon, nor any particular kobold.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> I think this is probably true.
> 
> I also think that "lore" is not the same thing as worldbuilding. _That kobolds tend to serve dragons_ doesn't tell us anything about the existence, location etc of any particular dragon, nor any particular kobold.




Nevertheless, if that's part of the local setting, then it definitely is world building because it helps define characteristics and relationships in the world that other campaigns may not incorporate. You don't have to be defining specific creatures to be worldbuilding. This is even more obviously true if you establish lore in contrast to the default expectations of the game or players. For example, describing halflings as cannibals certainly was a worldbuilding aspect of Dark Sun lore even though it didn't describe any specific location or individual halfling.


----------



## Campbell

Shared fiction does not (or at least need not) imply shared world building. We can value the here and now instead. Make the game more about what is happening right now than appreciation of someone else's individual creativity.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I think this is probably true.
> 
> I also think that "lore" is not the same thing as worldbuilding. _That kobolds tend to serve dragons_ doesn't tell us anything about the existence, location etc of any particular dragon, nor any particular kobold.




Could you elaborate more on this?  I'm honestly not seeing how this wouldn't be a part of worldbuilding.  I feel like you're saying it's not granular enough to be worldbuilding... but then we get into questions of how granular must it be before it satisfies the criteria... I would also ask if you don't consider this worldbuilding, what do you consider it?


----------



## Imaro

Campbell said:


> Shared fiction does not (or at least need not) imply shared world building. We can value the here and now instead. Make the game more about what is happening right now than appreciation of someone else's individual creativity.




What do you mean by "shared fiction"?

EDIT: I would also say if you are playing in an exploratory game, then appreciation of someone else's individual creativity could be the (or at least part of the) experience players are looking for.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> Nevertheless, if that's part of the local setting, then it definitely is world building because it helps define characteristics and relationships in the world that other campaigns may not incorporate. You don't have to be defining specific creatures to be worldbuilding. This is even more obviously true if you establish lore in contrast to the default expectations of the game or players. For example, describing halflings as cannibals certainly was a worldbuilding aspect of Dark Sun lore even though it didn't describe any specific location or individual halfling.





Imaro said:


> Could you elaborate more on this?  I'm honestly not seeing how this wouldn't be a part of worldbuilding.  I feel like you're saying it's not granular enough to be worldbuilding... but then we get into questions of how granular must it be before it satisfies the criteria... I would also ask if you don't consider this worldbuilding, what do you consider it?



Every element in a RPG has fictional meaning - that what's distinguishes a RPG from a boardgame or wargame.

As soon as you set out parameters for PC build, you are establishing "lore" in the sense of patterns of fictional elements (eg there will be armoured knights, or barbarians who fighter with great axes unarmoured, or officers in an Imperial Interstellar Navy, or whatever it might be).

But I don't think that really counts as world building. Likewise deciding that kobolds are min-dragons who serve dragons.

None of that establishes any actual setting or stage for the action of a RPG to take place on. Which is to say it doesn't create a world.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Every element in a RPG has fictional meaning - that what's distinguishes a RPG from a boardgame or wargame.
> 
> As soon as you set out parameters for PC build, you are establishing "lore" in the sense of patterns of fictional elements (eg there will be armoured knights, or barbarians who fighter with great axes unarmoured, or officers in an Imperial Interstellar Navy, or whatever it might be).
> 
> But I don't think that really counts as world building. Likewise deciding that kobolds are min-dragons who serve dragons.
> 
> None of that establishes any actual setting or stage for the action of a RPG to take place on. Which is to say it doesn't create a world.




Ok again maybe I'm not grasping this but in establishing armoured knights or barbarians with great axes we are in fact establishing part of the world...that these things exist in said world.  How is that not worldbuilding?  Likewise deciding that kobolds are mini-dragons who serve dragons dictates the culture of kobolds (as a whole) in your particular world.  I get you don't consider it worldbuilding but I feel like you haven't given a coherent reason as to why this doesn't count.  I also think it might help if you provide some examples of what you do consider worldbuilding to contrast.

EDIT: I feel like you as well as [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] are making definitive statements but not really defining your reasoning behind them.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> Every element in a RPG has fictional meaning - that what's distinguishes a RPG from a boardgame or wargame.
> 
> As soon as you set out parameters for PC build, you are establishing "lore" in the sense of patterns of fictional elements (eg there will be armoured knights, or barbarians who fighter with great axes unarmoured, or officers in an Imperial Interstellar Navy, or whatever it might be).
> 
> But I don't think that really counts as world building. Likewise deciding that kobolds are min-dragons who serve dragons.
> 
> None of that establishes any actual setting or stage for the action of a RPG to take place on. Which is to say it doesn't create a world.




In the examples you mention - you're establishing that there is an Imperial Interstellar Navy (and an Empire, for that matter), that there are barbarians who prefer greataxes and eschew armor, and that there are armored knights. None of those are necessarily givens in any particular setting. Star Trek, for example, doesn't have an Imperial Interstellar Navy - at least not on the Federation side - so you're clearly not doing a far future utopian/Star Trek campaign. A campaign based around the Three Musketeers is unlikely to have greataxe-wielding barbarians or armored knights (in the traditional Medieval Romance or Game of Thrones mode anyway)  so you're probably not doing a campaign like that. By establishing the parameters of the setting, you *are* worldbuilding.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> In the examples you mention - you're establishing that there is an Imperial Interstellar Navy (and an Empire, for that matter), that there are barbarians who prefer greataxes and eschew armor, and that there are armored knights. None of those are necessarily givens in any particular setting. Star Trek, for example, doesn't have an Imperial Interstellar Navy - at least not on the Federation side - so you're clearly not doing a far future utopian/Star Trek campaign. A campaign based around the Three Musketeers is unlikely to have greataxe-wielding barbarians or armored knights (in the traditional Medieval Romance or Game of Thrones mode anyway)  so you're probably not doing a campaign like that. By establishing the parameters of the setting, you *are* worldbuilding.





Imaro said:


> Ok again maybe I'm not grasping this but in establishing armoured knights or barbarians with great axes we are in fact establishing part of the world...that these things exist in said world.  How is that not worldbuilding?  Likewise deciding that kobolds are mini-dragons who serve dragons dictates the culture of kobolds (as a whole) in your particular world.  I get you don't consider it worldbuilding but I feel like you haven't given a coherent reason as to why this doesn't count.  I also think it might help if you provide some examples of what you do consider worldbuilding to contrast.



I think I have two reasons for disagreeing with this.

One is about the relationship between commercial products and actual play. I bought the 4e Monster Manual. I use it as my default source of lore for my main 4e game - I told the players that at the start of the campaign (ie "I want to run a default 4e game - who's in?"), and have stuck to it. The MM tells me that orcs worship Gruumsh, so that's the default in my game.

But there has not been a single occurence of an orc in that campaign. There have been goblins, and hobgoblins, and bugbears; ogres and various sorts of giants; I think some troglodytes; but no orcs (and no kobolds, lizardfolk, xvarts, and probably other fairly common humanoids I'm forgetting). So does the world in fact contain Gruumsh-worshipping orcs at all? Who knows? A disposition to say "yes" should it ever come up, because that's what the book says, isn't the same as it actually having come up in play.

(The same reasoning applies to PC build elements. Do wardens exist in the world of my 4e game? Who knows? No player has ever built one, and I've never used a warden-type character as a NPC.)

The second reason follows on from the first: as far as RPGing is concerned, until some concrete situation is established in which some PCs are present, the game isn't happening. And worldbuilding in the RPG context therefore has to be in service of that. So long as it stays at the abstract level ("Kobolds serve dragons") then no setting for play has been established. It's just the GM daydreaming to him-/herself. (Maybe the daydream gets written down in a notebook. It's still just a daydream.)

Once something gets written down about a dragon being _here_, or having done _this_ thing in the past, with kobolds being involved in _this_ way - now we have setting that can feed into situation, which is how I would think about RPG worldbuilding.


----------



## Imaculata

So then what is world building exactly? Lets try and narrow it down.

I'm sure there are a few things that we can agree on, that fit into the world building category. For example, adding a history to your world, would fall under world building in my opinion. A good example of this would be how Game of Thrones has a fictional history, from the very recent (The Mad King) to very long ago (The First Men). When the DM writes a history for his fictional campaign world, I feel this is part of world building.

Do religions fit in the world building category? Or only under specific conditions? 

Are any deities that you make up for a homebrew campaign setting, automatically world building?


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I think I have two reasons for disagreeing with this.
> 
> One is about the relationship between commercial products and actual play. I bought the 4e Monster Manual. I use it as my default source of lore for my main 4e game - I told the players that at the start of the campaign (ie "I want to run a default 4e game - who's in?"), and have stuck to it. The MM tells me that orcs worship Gruumsh, so that's the default in my game.
> 
> But there has not been a single occurence of an orc in that campaign. There have been goblins, and hobgoblins, and bugbears; ogres and various sorts of giants; I think some troglodytes; but no orcs (and no kobolds, lizardfolk, xvarts, and probably other fairly common humanoids I'm forgetting). So does the world in fact contain Gruumsh-worshipping orcs at all? Who knows? A disposition to say "yes" should it ever come up, because that's what the book says, isn't the same as it actually having come up in play.




Yes the world does because you stated that the lore of 4e was default.  The only way the world doesn't contain these orcs is if you stated or state at some point that the default orcs do not exist in your world. 



pemerton said:


> (The same reasoning applies to PC build elements. Do wardens exist in the world of my 4e game? Who knows? No player has ever built one, and I've never used a warden-type character as a NPC.)




Again I disagree... if everything in the 4e default lore was only a possibility in your world why not state that from the beginning... in other words until it's established anything and everything is up for grabs?  Why declare that the 4e lore is default when in fact it seems (at least by what you are posting here) that the 4e lore is only one of many possible versions of lore?  It seems you are just confusing the issue by proclaiming it as the default but then only making that the case once it's been introduced in play, what's the point?  Just state that there is no set lore and it's established during play.



pemerton said:


> The second reason follows on from the first: as far as RPGing is concerned, until some concrete situation is established in which some PCs are present, the game isn't happening. And worldbuilding in the RPG context therefore has to be in service of that. So long as it stays at the abstract level ("Kobolds serve dragons") then no setting for play has been established. It's just the GM daydreaming to him-/herself. (Maybe the daydream gets written down in a notebook. It's still just a daydream.)




I disagree.  You seem to be implying if not outright stating that the game isn't happening unless there's a concrete situation in which PC's are present but IMO that's not the case. 

 As an example character creation and leveling up don't meet this criteria and yet it is a part of playing the game (or another example from 4e...quest creation by players doesn't fit your prescribed definition and yet it is definitely a part of playing the game for some).  In the same way a GM creating his world is (at least for some GM's) playing the game though it does not fall into your prescribed notion of what that should be.  Both the players and GM have portions of the game that they are involved in that don't necessarily fall into this narrow definition. 



pemerton said:


> Once something gets written down about a dragon being _here_, or having done _this_ thing in the past, with kobolds being involved in _this_ way - now we have setting that can feed into situation, which is how I would think about RPG worldbuilding.




Eh now you have specific history.  While part of worldbuilding I think worldbuilding itself is much broader than creating history.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> I think I have two reasons for disagreeing with this.
> 
> One is about the relationship between commercial products and actual play. I bought the 4e Monster Manual. I use it as my default source of lore for my main 4e game - I told the players that at the start of the campaign (ie "I want to run a default 4e game - who's in?"), and have stuck to it. The MM tells me that orcs worship Gruumsh, so that's the default in my game.
> 
> But there has not been a single occurence of an orc in that campaign. There have been goblins, and hobgoblins, and bugbears; ogres and various sorts of giants; I think some troglodytes; but no orcs (and no kobolds, lizardfolk, xvarts, and probably other fairly common humanoids I'm forgetting). So does the world in fact contain Gruumsh-worshipping orcs at all? Who knows? A disposition to say "yes" should it ever come up, because that's what the book says, isn't the same as it actually having come up in play.
> 
> (The same reasoning applies to PC build elements. Do wardens exist in the world of my 4e game? Who knows? No player has ever built one, and I've never used a warden-type character as a NPC.)
> 
> The second reason follows on from the first: as far as RPGing is concerned, until some concrete situation is established in which some PCs are present, the game isn't happening. And worldbuilding in the RPG context therefore has to be in service of that. So long as it stays at the abstract level ("Kobolds serve dragons") then no setting for play has been established. It's just the GM daydreaming to him-/herself. (Maybe the daydream gets written down in a notebook. It's still just a daydream.)
> 
> Once something gets written down about a dragon being _here_, or having done _this_ thing in the past, with kobolds being involved in _this_ way - now we have setting that can feed into situation, which is how I would think about RPG worldbuilding.




I think that would indicate a fairly idiosyncratic definition of worldbuilding. I suspect for a good many of us, by defining the game as Default 4e and having an inclination to say Yes to inclusion and will to use the default settings, you've effectively done worldbuilding. Even selecting prebuilt campaigns and lore is worldbuilding your campaign simply by making that choice rather than making other choices.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> I think I have two reasons for disagreeing with this.
> 
> One is about the relationship between commercial products and actual play. I bought the 4e Monster Manual. I use it as my default source of lore for my main 4e game - I told the players that at the start of the campaign (ie "I want to run a default 4e game - who's in?"), and have stuck to it. The MM tells me that orcs worship Gruumsh, so that's the default in my game.
> 
> But there has not been a single occurence of an orc in that campaign. There have been goblins, and hobgoblins, and bugbears; ogres and various sorts of giants; I think some troglodytes; but no orcs (and no kobolds, lizardfolk, xvarts, and probably other fairly common humanoids I'm forgetting). So does the world in fact contain Gruumsh-worshipping orcs at all? Who knows? A disposition to say "yes" should it ever come up, because that's what the book says, isn't the same as it actually having come up in play.
> 
> (The same reasoning applies to PC build elements. Do wardens exist in the world of my 4e game? Who knows? No player has ever built one, and I've never used a warden-type character as a NPC.)
> 
> The second reason follows on from the first: as far as RPGing is concerned, until some concrete situation is established in which some PCs are present, the game isn't happening. And worldbuilding in the RPG context therefore has to be in service of that. So long as it stays at the abstract level ("Kobolds serve dragons") then no setting for play has been established. It's just the GM daydreaming to him-/herself. (Maybe the daydream gets written down in a notebook. It's still just a daydream.)
> 
> Once something gets written down about a dragon being _here_, or having done _this_ thing in the past, with kobolds being involved in _this_ way - now we have setting that can feed into situation, which is how I would think about RPG worldbuilding.




I don’t think the distinction you are making here is significant. Kobolds serving Infyrana in Dragon Mountain is far more specific, but it’s just as subject to having to be introduced in play as the basic kovolds serve dragons as general bit of lore. Both are simply concepts or ideas. 

If your assessment is that worldbuilding only happens once these elements come up in actual play, and that the GM thinking them up ahead of time, or the group deciding to play in a specific setting with those default assumptions do not actually constitute worldbuilding, then it applies to both examples, the general and the specific.

If my PCs hear mention of kobolds, and they then ask about what they are, they can learn a broad detail or a specific. 

Either one is worldbuilding. It establishes the elements of the fictional world and the relationships of those elements to one another.


----------



## Mallus

Celebrim said:


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



Raven Crowking?! I... I... I can't believe I'm about to write this, but so do I. My recollection is me & RC disagreed on almost everything, but I'd love to play in one of his games if given the chance or just go out for a beer and a conversation about nerdery. He had a passion for the hobby that enlivened this place (even if his specific arguments might have had me reaching for a flask of flaming oil, metaphorically-speaking). 



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



I don't mind the more recent arguments as much, but yeah, agree with this, too. 

Re: M. John Harrison: in the years since this thread started he completed his "Kefahuchi Tract" series - Light, Nova Swing, and Empty Space: A Haunting. If you're curious to see an elaboration of his blog post, these novels provide one. The ironic thing is they contain some fabulous worldbuilding, even down to the kind of made-up terminology that SF fans (myself included) gravitate towards. He may not _like_ worldbuilding, but he added to my inner dork lexicon things like _K-Ship_, _rickshaw girl_, and _entradista_. Words that share a space with _ornithopter_, _Guild Navigator_, and _Sardaukar_ and the rest of the Dune-isms that I'll carry with me for the rest of my life, odd little treasures from someone else's imagination.

The three novels, taken together, make an argument about the uses and limitations of SF as a genre. And regardless of whether you agree with the argument, it's made using relentless lovely prose and sheer inventiveness. Harrison is one of the best prose writers working in SF. Up there with Gibson, Delany, Wolfe, Cordwainer Smith, Vance, John Crowley, and the rest that I regard but am presently forgetting.


----------



## Celebrim

Mallus said:


> Raven Crowking?! I... I... I can't believe I'm about to write this, but so do I.




This is the standard I use to judge a poster.

Do you offer content?  If someone yells, "Help!", are you sure to find that poster in the thread, offering up some useful constructive advice or something that you can use to make your game go?

Raven Crowking was simply the most helpful, most generous, most overflowing with ideas poster ENWorld has ever had.  Sure, in this thread, he was mostly contrarian, but RC at his finest was just some guy that would come and say, "Sure, I'll help your game."  And honestly, even his contrarianism in this thread is still I think RC saying, "This won't help your game."



> Re: M. John Harrison: in the years since this thread started he completed his "Kefahuchi Tract" series - Light,...




I mentioned this in the thread, but on two separate occasions I have checked out 'Light' from the library based on book reviews or glowing recommendations of this book I had to read, and I get the book home, open it up and realize after a few pages that I've tried to read this book before.  Three times now, and I've never been able to get further than 30 pages or so.  I can scarcely think of a book that has made me less interested in completing it, but a few years will go buy, the title of the book will drop out of my head, and I'll end up trying again because of the hype.

I enjoy prose smiths, but I'd probably have to plod back to the library before you'd convince me Harrison is one, because I have no recollection of anything he said just wowing me.  I have a bunch of Wolfe on the shelf, Vance's complete works, and among others a signed copy of Delany that I got when I went to hear him speak in person.  And of course Vonnegut is fun, at least in small doses, and also Mieville or Letham.  But if you don't have a good story, I'm really not that interested.  All the pretty sentences in the world aren't worth anything, if they don't add up to something more than themselves.  And likewise, at least by my aesthetic standards, a bunch of ordinary sentences that put together make the sort of story cavemen would tell each other around a campfire in the dark night of the world is a higher pinnacle of storytelling achievement than any number of deconstructions of what it means to have a story.  I can appreciate writerly craftsmanship, but I love stories.

There must be something about the James Tiptree award that I can't fathom.  For example, "The Knife of Never Letting Go" is on my short list for dumbest books every written.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Imaculata said:


> I have never experienced this in any of my games (which are pretty heavy on worldbuilding). Isn't the DM in charge of the lore? Why would the players try and police the DM's lore?



It's the GM's attachment to the lore which is the problem. Here is born all the illusionism, GM force, etc. No Myth play CANNOT by definition suffer from this. I mean, yes, a GM can railroad and lie and whatever in order to monopolize all the narrative control of where the game goes, but he's got no iron in that fire, 'cept ego. Years of backstory is a pretty big incentive to all sorts of deviltry.



> So what I get from this, is the impression that you're mostly against official D&D lore (in other words, when WotC does world building). But that is very different from a DM doing world building for his own campaign setting. If I say that my campaign has dragons that don't keep slaves, and that don't talk, no one is going to complain about it. It's my setting, I can do what I want.




Again though, if the players decide their characters are going to overthrow the 'Great Kingdom' and you don't like the implications of that, all of a sudden 10 dozen crazy roadblocks show up, but if you DO like the idea, its on rails. This is so typical its really unremarkable. 

At least if its WotC doing the world building, they have no more agenda than 'this could be fun' or at least 'it will sell a lot'. GMs need not really be invested in that stuff, even if they use it. Not to say it can't create issues, but there are, plainly, some uses to lore. I mean, running a Story Now game with 'Minimal Myth' I still can find D&D-type lore pretty handy for framing. It also helps establish genre conventions.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

pemerton said:


> Every element in a RPG has fictional meaning - that what's distinguishes a RPG from a boardgame or wargame.
> 
> As soon as you set out parameters for PC build, you are establishing "lore" in the sense of patterns of fictional elements (eg there will be armoured knights, or barbarians who fighter with great axes unarmoured, or officers in an Imperial Interstellar Navy, or whatever it might be).
> 
> But I don't think that really counts as world building. Likewise deciding that kobolds are min-dragons who serve dragons.
> 
> None of that establishes any actual setting or stage for the action of a RPG to take place on. Which is to say it doesn't create a world.




Its establishing genre and milieu, which certainly verge into setting, and also influencing tone (IE lore that includes wacky kazoo playing clowns that fight undead is quite different from orcs and goblins). Clearly there's still things like history, geography, politics, locations, events, characters, etc. that would all make up the 'meat' of a classic setting. Clearly you don't have a setting without that stuff, as WoG and FR clearly demonstrate (two settings which use virtually identical lore, often share lore, and yet are clearly distinct in some ways). 

In some cases the combination of 'lore' and mechanics can also virtually define the setting. This is most clearly illustrated by Classic Traveler, where the Imperium simply 'emerges' from the combination of mechanical systems for character generation, adjudication of various activities (trading, bribing, finding patrons), and creation of local setting details (subsector mapping, system mapping, planet mapping, creation of local flora and fauna, etc.). If you simply follow these rules, a subsector of the Third Imperium WILL emerge! Some things are left open, exactly what the Empire IS, etc. but its society and economy, and some aspects of its military/government, are very clearly defined in terms of their effects on the PCs and their environment. I mean, you can spin things differently, but you have to consciously frame things in a way that produces a different interpretation, and even then some things are really pretty hard-coded (IE Social Standing as a basic character stat and its meaning).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

billd91 said:


> In the examples you mention - you're establishing that there is an Imperial Interstellar Navy (and an Empire, for that matter), that there are barbarians who prefer greataxes and eschew armor, and that there are armored knights. None of those are necessarily givens in any particular setting. Star Trek, for example, doesn't have an Imperial Interstellar Navy - at least not on the Federation side - so you're clearly not doing a far future utopian/Star Trek campaign. A campaign based around the Three Musketeers is unlikely to have greataxe-wielding barbarians or armored knights (in the traditional Medieval Romance or Game of Thrones mode anyway)  so you're probably not doing a campaign like that. By establishing the parameters of the setting, you *are* worldbuilding.




Well, now I'll take [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s side of this discussion. Again, compare WoG with FR. They utilize almost entirely the same lore. They have the same overall cosmology, same lists of creatures, etc. Yet they are not the same world, at all. Sure, "there are armored knights in my world" says SOMETHING, like chunks of hand-made mild steel plate are effective protection, and thus weapons technology is pretty limited. Clearly it says there's some region where a class of people serve as heavily-armored soldiery. Depending on the amount of detail it might define a system of honor, preferred types of weapons and steeds, and possibly even some social details. That still leaves a WIDE field for the actual building of a world! I mean, 'armored warrior with a code of honor' could describe any of 20 different historical societies spanning a period of time as wide as 1000 years or more.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t think the distinction you are making here is significant. Kobolds serving Infyrana in Dragon Mountain is far more specific, but it’s just as subject to having to be introduced in play as the basic kovolds serve dragons as general bit of lore. Both are simply concepts or ideas.
> 
> If your assessment is that worldbuilding only happens once these elements come up in actual play, and that the GM thinking them up ahead of time, or the group deciding to play in a specific setting with those default assumptions do not actually constitute worldbuilding, then it applies to both examples, the general and the specific.
> 
> If my PCs hear mention of kobolds, and they then ask about what they are, they can learn a broad detail or a specific.
> 
> Either one is worldbuilding. It establishes the elements of the fictional world and the relationships of those elements to one another.




In my mind there's a HUGE difference between "that which may be true" (things which are included in the genre) and things which are ESTABLISHED to be true. The former are simply potential, the later have assumed canonical status and become incorporated within the narrative which makes up the game. 

Now, something could be 'tentatively established' as in it could be RUMORED that a dragon exists which has kobold minions. In this case perhaps kobolds are simply legends within the campaign, but their existence as legends is canonical, and the legend could shape the player's decisions. Still, this is not quite the same as 'we met a kobold and had it for dinner'.


----------



## Psion

Imagine my surprise and wandered by the site and saw a green flag indicating a thread I had posted in decades (okay, A decade) ago.

*Sips whiskey and reminisces about the good ol' days.*


----------



## billd91

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, now I'll take [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s side of this discussion. Again, compare WoG with FR. They utilize almost entirely the same lore. They have the same overall cosmology, same lists of creatures, etc. Yet they are not the same world, at all. Sure, "there are armored knights in my world" says SOMETHING, like chunks of hand-made mild steel plate are effective protection, and thus weapons technology is pretty limited. Clearly it says there's some region where a class of people serve as heavily-armored soldiery. Depending on the amount of detail it might define a system of honor, preferred types of weapons and steeds, and possibly even some social details. That still leaves a WIDE field for the actual building of a world! I mean, 'armored warrior with a code of honor' could describe any of 20 different historical societies spanning a period of time as wide as 1000 years or more.




Just because those particular building blocks aren’t very specific doesn’t mean they aren’t building blocks.


----------



## Hussar

I guess for me I do draw a distinction between worlds building and setting building. And there is no hard line between them. One shades into the other. 

For me, setting is anything you need. You have throat warbler mangroves in your game?  Cool. Those need to be defined and in doing so lore will be added to the game. Of course. 

However three thousand word essays a la Dragon magazine Ecology of articles are pretty much a waste of time. Fun to read but largely just a waste of time. 

Far more useful would be a three thousand word article detailing four or five example encounters. 

So no, I do not want a lore less dnd. That’s not what I’m saying. But afaic, things like Forgotten Realms setting books are just a waste of space that would be much better served with practical supplements.


----------



## Hussar

Just a point about would D&D be as popular without the world building.  I'd offer a counter example: 5e D&D.  Arguably the most popular or at least in the top 2 versions of D&D.  Yet, the entire 5e line consists of what, 8 campaign length modules, a single (fairly short) setting guide, and a character option book.

Not a lot of world building going on there.  It's a far, far more practical approach to the game that we haven't seen since 1e, which, also, had very, very little in the way of world building.  Based on evidence, I'd say that versions of the game that delved hard into world building were considerably less successful than versions which focused on more practical supplements.


----------



## Caliburn101

Hussar said:


> Just a point about would D&D be as popular without the world building.  I'd offer a counter example: 5e D&D.  Arguably the most popular or at least in the top 2 versions of D&D.  Yet, the entire 5e line consists of what, 8 campaign length modules, a single (fairly short) setting guide, and a character option book.
> 
> Not a lot of world building going on there.  It's a far, far more practical approach to the game that we haven't seen since 1e, which, also, had very, very little in the way of world building.  Based on evidence, I'd say that versions of the game that delved hard into world building were considerably less successful than versions which focused on more practical supplements.




Which has been made massively popular by Critical Role (amongst others) and their Tal'Dorei gameworld book flies off he shelves.

Also, the Forgotten Realms is the default world and that already has a great deal of 3rd edition material whose sales are not captured in your consideration as it is 90% cross-compatible.


----------



## Hussar

Caliburn101 said:


> Which has been made massively popular by Critical Role (amongst others) and their Tal'Dorei gameworld book flies off he shelves.
> 
> Also, the Forgotten Realms is the default world and that already has a great deal of 3rd edition material whose sales are not captured in your consideration as it is 90% cross-compatible.




But, 90% of the FR material has little or nothing to do with the Sword coast.  And it certainly isn't needed to play nor is it particularly even referenced.  2e, 3e and 4e banged out source book after source book and none of those editions came anywhere near what 5e is doing.  Now, I'm certainly not going to say that lack of world building is the primary, only or even a main reason.  There are all sorts of reasons why 5e is doing so well.  But I'd say it's a reason.

I mean, the Tal'Dorei book is sitting about #4000 on Amazon.  Respectable, sure.  But, not even in the same league as what any of the last 3 WotC adventures are selling.  Hoard of the Dragon Queen is selling better and it's 4 years old.  Would you say Hoard is "flying off the shelves"?

"Flying off the shelves" for a 3pp, is basically a Tuesday for WotC.


----------



## Caliburn101

Hussar said:


> But, 90% of the FR material has little or nothing to do with the Sword coast.  And it certainly isn't needed to play nor is it particularly even referenced.  2e, 3e and 4e banged out source book after source book and none of those editions came anywhere near what 5e is doing.  Now, I'm certainly not going to say that lack of world building is the primary, only or even a main reason.  There are all sorts of reasons why 5e is doing so well.  But I'd say it's a reason.
> 
> I mean, the Tal'Dorei book is sitting about #4000 on Amazon.  Respectable, sure.  But, not even in the same league as what any of the last 3 WotC adventures are selling.  Hoard of the Dragon Queen is selling better and it's 4 years old.  Would you say Hoard is "flying off the shelves"?
> 
> "Flying off the shelves" for a 3pp, is basically a Tuesday for WotC.




Oh come now, you have no objective proof that 'lack of world building' is a factor in 5th Ed's success. You have at most a feeling coloured by a pre-established point of view.

You also didn't address my main point - that as FR is the default gameworld for 5th Ed. and there is already a huge amount of material out there for it, including all the post-launch sales of pdfs etc. of the 3rd Ed. material from Drivethru rpg being used.

I am a member of the biggest D&D club in the biggest city in the UK, and you see 5th Ed. being played in FR first, Tal'D second and homebrews third. There are no casual 'a setting isn't used' groups. Not one that I have seen at meets or on the group boards.

The title of the thread is "Why Worldbuilding is Bad".

You have rather drifted away from that to say it isn't necessary and 'doesn't add much' based on your significant experience. 5th Edition's success is indeed due to a lot of things, but having it's adventures set in a gameworld is one of them.

I disagree with your contentions based on a lot of my personal experience. We are not going to agree on this, except to say that the game is fine when run short term in an undefined world.

But you always need a world with all that brings with it for a long term campaign that gets the same kind of buy-in the many, many fans have for the CR performances.

You and I are old guard - the new wave of players coming in as never before do not expect a 'popcorn and bubblegum' game from what I have seen - they want immersion.

Arguing that good world-building or setting doesn't make a game more satisfying is kinda illogical. After all, a game without a decent setting with it's attractions and strengths still has every single one of those strengths but much more besides when a good setting is added.

That's just a self-evident fact.

In the end we are all involved in a storytelling with rules hobby. Every campaign is a freeform fantasy novel played out between the members of the group.

When was the last time you read a fantasy novel without a setting, or enjoyed a fantasy story of novel-length without getting into the details of the world and how it affected the drama?

The same things that make a fantasy novel good also make a game good - and that includes an immersive and engaging world for the story to play out in.

In rpg'land, one only has to look at the most successful and enduring games and count how many have a detailed setting or settings front and centre as part of their offering to see this clearly demonstrated.


----------



## pemerton

Imaculata said:


> So then what is world building exactly? Lets try and narrow it down.
> 
> I'm sure there are a few things that we can agree on, that fit into the world building category. For example, adding a history to your world, would fall under world building in my opinion. A good example of this would be how Game of Thrones has a fictional history, from the very recent (The Mad King) to very long ago (The First Men). When the DM writes a history for his fictional campaign world, I feel this is part of world building.
> 
> Do religions fit in the world building category? Or only under specific conditions?
> 
> Are any deities that you make up for a homebrew campaign setting, automatically world building?



I'll confine my reply to _setting that is for the purposes of RPGing_.

If the history, or the religions, _don't factor into play_ - aren't a feature of the actual situations that the PCs find themselves in and hence which the players are engaging with - then I don't think it counts as _RPG setting_/_RPG wourldbuilding_ - because no world has been built in which RPGing is taking place!

A concrete example: _many_ years ago now (1990 or thereabouts?), I worked on religions for my GH game. I developed an idea which presented the churches of St Cuthbert, Tritherion, Pholtus, Celestian, Fharlanghn and others (some not canonically from GH, like Issek of the Jug) as various denominations within a single religious tradition.

_This mattered to the game_, as it established a series of setting elements that factored into the way the situation in the City of Greyhawk and neighbouring lands was established. The players understood that there was a common religion riven by theological differences that produced political conflict, and they sometimes exploited that conflict in their action declarations for their PCs. Some ritual aspects of these denominations also mattered in play: for instance, some of the denominations were splinter sects or sub-sects of St Cuthbert's church and so lacked their own clergy, remaining dependent upon the Cuthbertians for liturgical services. At various points the PCs would come upon particular statutes or other ritual paraphernalia which reflected these ritual practices, and draw inferences from them, or use these interdependencies as pressure points (eg blackmailing the Cuthbertian hierarchy with the threat of revealing some of the sects to whom they were providing liturgical services).

Now at this time I was an undergraduate philosophy student, and I wrote up an account of the _actual theological differences_ among these denominations: so Cuthbertian theology rests on common-sense realism; the church of Tritherion and Pholtus have competing, highly intellectualised notions about how ideas (which are sourced in the higher realm) relate to the mundane world (the Tritherion-worshippers being broadly Kantian with hints of Locke; the Pholtus worshippers broadly Platonist, to the extent that their canoncial scripture was called _The Theocracy_). To the best of my recollection, none of this ever came out in, or mattered to, play. It was me going through a series of intellectual exercise about imaginary theologies which was, really, a chance for me to test my comprehension of the relationships between, and especially the points of disagreement between, the philosophers whose work I was studying at the time.

I just re-read the document (some time between then and now I typed it up from the handwritten original), and I still think it's quite clever. But I don't think it's a RPG setting. It's me, sitting then in a carrel in the University library, and now sitting at my computer, imagining a set of theological disputes that covers the broad terrain and the major moves in the European (pre-20th century) philosophical tradition. The fiction isn't _shared_.



Imaro said:


> Yes the world does because you stated that the lore of 4e was default.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if everything in the 4e default lore was only a possibility in your world why not state that from the beginning



This is getting into "angels on the head of a pin" territory. But proceeding nevertheless: saying to the gang that I want to GM a "default 4e" game means that I am telling them what cosmology I'm interested in, that we can treat the stuff in the PHB about dwarves having been subjugated by giants, hating orcs, etc, as given. It's not a statement about the metaphysical nature of an imaginary entity ("the gameworld") - it's a statement about expectations, permissions etc at the table.

And it produced the desired result - I got players building PCs with various sorts of connections to the default backstory - Raven Queen worshippers, a refugee from a sacked city wanting to restore the greatness of Nerath, a fey warlock who had entered into a pact after an encounter with Corellon in a forest grove, etc.

Had I wanted to mention orcs at some point, that would not have been controversial. But I never have, and no PC has ever gone looking for any. (It turned out, in our game, that the dwarves of the northern ranges mostly fight against goblins and hobgoblins who worship Bane, not against Orcs who worship Gruumsh.) So does the world contain orcs? Who knows? - it's just never come up. The same is true of some gods (I don't think Avandra has ever come up either) and, as I already posted, some sorts of magical traditions (such as Wardens).

A disposition to allow an element into the gameworld if someone wants it (which is what "let's play a default 4e game" signals) isn't the same thing as actually establishing that the world contains those elements.



hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t think the distinction you are making here is significant. Kobolds serving Infyrana in Dragon Mountain is far more specific, but it’s just as subject to having to be introduced in play as the basic kobolds serve dragons as general bit of lore. Both are simply concepts or ideas.



This depends a bit on how setting is used at the table - but if _Dragon Mountain_ is actually a place on a map which is, in some sense, canonical, then this looks like the making of a decision to say a certain thing should the nature of Dragon Mountain come up as a topic in play; plus, in all likelihood, a decision to make Dragon Mountain come up as a topic in play.

It doesn't _have_ to be: maybe Dragon Mountain and its inhabitants are as abstracted from the reality of play as my theological musings in my old GH game. But as a matter of practicalities, I think decisions made about particular dragons at particular places with particular kobolds servitors are less likely to have that character.


----------



## pemerton

Caliburn101 said:


> Arguing that good world-building or setting doesn't make a game more satisfying is kinda illogical. After all, a game without a decent setting with it's attractions and strengths still has every single one of those strengths but much more besides when a good setting is added.
> 
> That's just a self-evident fact.
> 
> In the end we are all involved in a storytelling with rules hobby. Every campaign is a freeform fantasy novel played out between the members of the group.



Actual novelists establish setting as part of the process of writing. There's no reason why that can't be done in RPGing.

A pre-authored setting can undermine what might otherwise be a strength in a game: for instance, it can rule out the possibility of certain actions (for the PCs) which otherwise might have been possible.


----------



## Riley37

Hussar said:


> But, 90% of the FR material has little or nothing to do with the Sword coast.  And it certainly isn't needed to play nor is it particularly even referenced.




This differs from my experience with 5E. Maybe I'm an outlier?

I started playing 5E, after years away from D&D, in Adventurer's League at the Friendly Local Game Store. I had zero previous contact with FR. But I became interested in the politics of Phlan, because that's the setting. One of the early intro adventures - for some people, their first session of 5E - involves a hidden temple, run by members of the Phlan city guard who practice a hardcore splinter cult of Bane. Okay... what's Bane? If this is Bane extremism, and the guy running the city is a more moderate worshipper of Bane, then how do those differ? Wait, his line used to be Zhentarim... there's a Zhentarim capital? Well, dang, how far away is it, could we maybe form useful links with NPCs at Zhentil Keep? Wait, there's no contact with Zhentil Keep - what happened?

That's just as a player. Then I started DMing the weekly AL game, and if there's a cleric in the party, I need *some* understanding of their deity to feel like I'm properly supporting their roleplaying. There's an NPC who offers the party a mission; that NPC has a Harpers symbol; a PC might double-check - so it it *possible* for a non-Harper to falsely present themself as a Harper? Yes, there's a way, but I spent a while on Candlekeep before I found it.

Then the AL table filled up, eight players every Monday with a waitlist, so I spun off a home game, and it snowballed from there once I was writing my own scenarios and trying to keep them consistent with what players could reasonably expect if they'd read Salvatore.


----------



## Hussar

Caliburn101 said:


> /snip
> 
> they want immersion.




I don't pretend to know what "they" want.  And, frankly, you have no idea either.



> Arguing that good world-building or setting doesn't make a game more satisfying is kinda illogical. After all, a game without a decent setting with it's attractions and strengths still has every single one of those strengths but much more besides when a good setting is added.
> 
> That's just a self-evident fact.




That would be true IF people had unlimited time.  Unfortunately, most of us don't.  And, I've seen far, far too many DM's who mistake world building for campaign.  We used to call them "Tour Des Realms" games where all you do is wander around making the appropriate oohing and awwing noises over the wonderful creativity of the DM.

No thanks.  Given the choice of two campaigns - both good campaigns, one with considerable world building (say, one of the Paizo AP's, for example) and one without, I'll take without every single time.


----------



## Caliburn101

Hussar said:


> I don't pretend to know what "they" want.  And, frankly, you have no idea either.




If you accept that rpg'ing is a form of storytelling, then it is actually very well established as to 'what they want'.

Effective 'suspension of disbelief', 'immersion' (which serves the prior need) and 'catharsis', which is more complete when a good story achieves immersion. Characterisation and good story arc too of course, but it's all the right elements that combine to make a story great.

I am not a mind reader, and I haven't surveyed everyone involved, but then the above requirements of a persons enjoyment of a story are not mine, they are the collective experience of humanity and how it tells and experiences stories. There are any number of books you can read on the subject, starting from study of the ancient Greek playwrights onwards.

As for the "Tour Des Realms" GMs you describe. Yikes - has that been the majority of your experience? Because I cannot recall one I have experience of. If so I can understand your position entirely. But then, aren't they just bad GMs, and exceptions to boot?

If so, it's a little unfair perhaps to judge my point based only on exceptions.

Once again, the thread is about world building being bad. Your point seems to be about GMs being bad using their homebrew creation as the vehicle for being bad. One could just as easily have a bad experience with a GM that can't roleplay interesting NPCs or railroads the players through overly-linear plots. In fact I would argue having standalone adventures not set in a world where the GM has some information about what might happen if the adventurers go 'off-piste' leads to more railroading, not less.

But hey ho. One can only judge by one's experience, and if yours has taught you that home-brewers are bad GMs, and their games are to be avoided, that's a great shame.


----------



## Hussar

Who said anything about home brewers?

Doesn't really matter IME.  Home brewer or published setting - DM's who spend extended efforts in world building make games that I don't want to play in.  And, honestly, the same goes for fiction.  My favorite genre fiction is short story or maybe novelette.  Full length fantasy novel?  Outside of a couple of authors, I haven't read a full length fantasy novel (or those bloody door stoppers that publishers keep banging out) in many years.

To me, George R.R. Martin is in desperate need of an editor to tell him NO.  I skip entire chapters of his books without losing anything actually important.  Read the first two or maybe three books (it was some omnibus edition that someone gave me as a present), once, skipping pages and will never read it again.  Can't even be bothered watching the TV show, it turned me off that much.

I'm simply not interested.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Just a point about would D&D be as popular without the world building.  I'd offer a counter example: 5e D&D.  Arguably the most popular or at least in the top 2 versions of D&D.  Yet, the entire 5e line consists of what, 8 campaign length modules, a single (fairly short) setting guide, and a character option book.
> 
> Not a lot of world building going on there.  It's a far, far more practical approach to the game that we haven't seen since 1e, which, also, had very, very little in the way of world building.  Based on evidence, I'd say that versions of the game that delved hard into world building were considerably less successful than versions which focused on more practical supplements.




Another point I think you're glossing over is for the first time in history all of the previous setting material is available for purchase... so if you want more FR it's easy enough to buy any of the previous edition's  sourcebooks.  Honestly it was a pretty smart move for a company trying to keep it's officially released book count down.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> This is getting into "angels on the head of a pin" territory. But proceeding nevertheless: saying to the gang that I want to GM a "default 4e" game means that I am telling them what cosmology I'm interested in, that we can treat the stuff in the PHB about dwarves having been subjugated by giants, hating orcs, etc, as given. It's not a statement about the metaphysical nature of an imaginary entity ("the gameworld") - it's a statement about expectations, permissions etc at the table.
> 
> And it produced the desired result - I got players building PCs with various sorts of connections to the default backstory - Raven Queen worshippers, a refugee from a sacked city wanting to restore the greatness of Nerath, a fey warlock who had entered into a pact after an encounter with Corellon in a forest grove, etc.
> 
> Had I wanted to mention orcs at some point, that would not have been controversial. But I never have, and no PC has ever gone looking for any. (It turned out, in our game, that the dwarves of the northern ranges mostly fight against goblins and hobgoblins who worship Bane, not against Orcs who worship Gruumsh.) So does the world contain orcs? Who knows? - it's just never come up. The same is true of some gods (I don't think Avandra has ever come up either) and, as I already posted, some sorts of magical traditions (such as Wardens).
> 
> A disposition to allow an element into the gameworld if someone wants it (which is what "let's play a default 4e game" signals) isn't the same thing as actually establishing that the world contains those elements..




Well first let me say with, IMO, your nebulous distinction between what is or isn't workdbuilding... I think we are already in "angels on the head of a pin" territory and this newly defined way of looking at default only strengthens that view.  To me this is you saying one thing... 4e is the default world... but in reality meaning something totally different... Nothing is default until it's been established in play.  Again I'll ask why not just state that from the beginning?   If 4e was your default then anything not established as diverging would  by "default" be based on 4e lore instead you've basically said anything not  established in play based on 4e lore is well... nothing, that seems like the opposite of default. 

On a tangential note...I'm curious are your players allowed to change things about the world before they start playing?  In other words if a player stated he wanted to play a dwarf but instead of them having been enslaved by giants he'd rather their history revolve around enslavement by orcs, or aboleths... would that be ok with you?


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Actual novelists establish setting as part of the process of writing. There's no reason why that can't be done in RPGing.




And some world build before writing... I don't think one method or the other has been proven to give objectively better stories



pemerton said:


> A pre-authored setting can undermine what might otherwise be a strength in a game: for instance, it can rule out the possibility of certain actions (for the PCs) which otherwise might have been possible.




But this is assuming a pre-authored setting isn't designed to rule out the possibility of certain actions because it makes the game better (for playing in that particular setting).   In other words your statement here seems to be predicated on bad setting design as opposed to good setting design where any restriction in choice would be, presumably, to enhance gameplay in said setting.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> And some world build before writing... I don't think one method or the other has been proven to give objectively better stories



Well, the poster to whom I replied seem to be asserting that worldbuilding _in advance_, presumably by the GM, is going to improve the richness of the RPG experience. 

I deny that.

If you think that neither method in relation to novels has been proven to be better, then presumably you accept at least the weak version of my claim, namely, that the claim that worldbuilding in advance _must_ enrich the RPG experience is unproven.

(Obviously I am also intending a stronger version of my claim also, but I don't think you would agree with that.)



Imaro said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arguing that good world-building or setting doesn't make a game more satisfying is kinda illogical. After all, a game without a decent setting with it's attractions and strengths still has every single one of those strengths but much more besides when a good setting is added.
> 
> That's just a self-evident fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pre-authored setting can undermine what might otherwise be a strength in a game: for instance, it can rule out the possibility of certain actions (for the PCs) which otherwise might have been possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this is assuming a pre-authored setting isn't designed to rule out the possibility of certain actions because it makes the game better (for playing in that particular setting).   In other words your statement here seems to be predicated on bad setting design as opposed to good setting design where any restriction in choice would be, presumably, to enhance gameplay in said setting.
Click to expand...


I don't know what _better game_ and _enhance gameplay_ mean in this context.

Obviously, perhaps tautologically, the constraints that a setting establishes in respect of action declaration _will enhance the fidelity of the gameplay to the setting_. But it's not a self-evident fact (as per the quote I responded to) that this is simply an addition to the strengths of a game without a strong setting. It's clearly a change, a new constraint.

Personally I find the appeal of _fidelity to setting_, as an element of gameplay, to be rather modest. Particularly if, by "setting", we are talking about not broad tropes, genre elements and labels (like "City of Greyhawk", "Suel Empire" etc) but are talking about the sorts of details (geographic minutiae, historical minutiae, NPC locations and motivations, etc) that one typically finds in published setting books.



Imaro said:


> Well first let me say with, IMO, your nebulous distinction between what is or isn't workdbuilding
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To me this is you saying one thing... 4e is the default world... but in reality meaning something totally different... Nothing is default until it's been established in play.  Again I'll ask why not just state that from the beginning?



Well, all I can report is that no one in my group found what I said "nebulous" or had any confusion. Nor has any confusion emerged in the course of play.

I suspect that if you asked one of my players (the player of the invoker/wizard) whether there are orcs in the gameworld he would answer "yes" - because he knows there are goblins and hobgoblins, and I think he's fairly casual about distinguising them from orcs (or perhaps believes that I am, which I am in non-D&D games, and so is projecting that onto this campaign). If you asked the player of the drow sorcerer, I think he'd be more likely to say "I'm not sure." Not because he's not aware of orcs as something in the Monster Manual, but because I think he's more sensitive to what has or hasn't come out in play.

But frankly, "Do you want to play a default 4e game?" simply doesn't mean - at least in my langauge - "Do you want to play a game in which we take for granted that everything mentioned in a 4e book is part of the gameworld?" It means _do you want to play a game in which the assumption is that everything in default 4e, especially the PHB which is what you're working from as a player, is permitted; and in which the basic setting conceits are the core 4e ones._

If half-orcs were a PC race in the PHB then probably it would be taken for granted that there are orcs in the world - but half-orcs aren't such a race. (They turn up in PHB2, which came out after our game had started.) So orcs are ambiguous. Likewise wildens shifters and shardminds.



Imaro said:


> If 4e was your default then anything not established as diverging would  by "default" be based on 4e lore



But all this means is that if orcs turn up, they're 4e orcs as described in the 4e MM. It doesn't mean that we're committed to orcs showing up.

The point is even easier to see if we look not at orcs - are fairly generic D&D monster - but (say) all the devourer variants which (for me, at least) are new to 4e. Are there all these devourer undead in the gameworld? Well, none of the players have ever raied them (I suspect that the players have never heard of devourers, unless they've looked through the MM). I haven't thought of devourers for years until this post - I looked through the MM to find a monster I'd never used and don't think about because it's not part of my intuitive "GM's palette".

Saying "We're going to play a default 4e game" can't _possibly_ mean _And the gameworld contains this monster that none of us have ever heard of or even think about except when reminded by those pages of the MM_.



Imaro said:


> instead you've basically said anything not  established in play based on 4e lore is well... nothing, that seems like the opposite of default.



I really don't understand why you're making such a big deal of this - but to reiterate, if an orc shows up it will be a 4e orc. If a devourer shows up it will be a devourer as per the 4e MM.

This is about permissions and expectations - stuff in the 4e MM and PHB is clearly not off limits, and the world those books present is our world. But "the world those books present" is not synomous with _every single thing they say_. Presentation is at least in part about audience uptake, and if no one takes up orcs, or devourers, then we're not committed to them being part of the world.

I don't think that's very confusing or ambiguous.



Imaro said:


> are your players allowed to change things about the world before they start playing?  In other words if a player stated he wanted to play a dwarf but instead of them having been enslaved by giants he'd rather their history revolve around enslavement by orcs, or aboleths... would that be ok with you?



Well, it's not really part of playing a default 4e game, so it's a request to depart from the default. Enslavement by orcs would seem pretty lame, and so I can't imagine any of my players going with that. Enslavement by aboleths would be weird for different reasons, and would probably only make sense if someone wanted to play a dwarf battlemind or similar (but PHB3 wasn't out when we started our campaign, so this was never going to come up).

So to give an actual example: page 130 of the 4e PHB says that a fey pact warlokc has

forged a bargain with ancient, amoral powers of the Feywild. Some are primitive earth spirits, grim and menacing; some are capricious wood, sky, or water spirits; and others are incarnations of seasons or natural forces who roam the faerie realm like wild gods. They bestow magic that ranges from feral and savage to wondrous and enchanting.​
So I don't think it's canonical that feypact warlocks can have a pact with Corellon (by default Corellon is a god, not an amoral power of the Feywild), but that was one of the starting PCs in the game.


----------



## Caliburn101

pemerton said:


> Actual novelists establish setting as part of the process of writing. There's no reason why that can't be done in RPGing.
> 
> A pre-authored setting can undermine what might otherwise be a strength in a game: for instance, it can rule out the possibility of certain actions (for the PCs) which otherwise might have been possible.




Yes, it can be developed as the game progresses, nothing in that fact makes worldbuilding 'bad'.

Yes, it can undermine a game, just as any other factor, poorly chosen and run by the GM or players can undermine a game. Likewise, it can greatly enrich a game in a way not other factor can, because no other factor is the same as worldbuilding.

Ergo, worldbuilding isn't bad, and assuming it will be bad and then not doing it because of that is an illogical as not including other aspects of the game.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Well, the poster to whom I replied seem to be asserting that worldbuilding _in advance_, presumably by the GM, is going to improve the richness of the RPG experience.
> 
> I deny that.
> 
> If you think that neither method in relation to novels has been proven to be better, then presumably you accept at least the weak version of my claim, namely, that the claim that worldbuilding in advance _must_ enrich the RPG experience is unproven.
> 
> (Obviously I am also intending a stronger version of my claim also, but I don't think you would agree with that.)




I do agree with the statement you made above which is a totally different one from the premise of this thread, mainly that worldbuilding is bad.  Which as I interpret it means that worldbuilding in general is actively harmful to playing rpg's. 

 As an example of a case where I found non-preauthored worldbuilding enjoyable...one of my favorite authors, Michael Moorcock, wrote his Elric stories without worldbuilding beforehand.  Now I will readily admit when the original stories are read in succession there are a few consistency issues but nothing I would say is a major detraction from mye enjoyment of the stories or reading them as a whole. 

Again though, I just want to clarify I in no way think worldbuilding is objectively bad,  I also don't think forgoing worldbuilding is objectively bad for rpg's.  It's a style thing and honestly I think it would probably be a better conversation if both sides were more open to discussing the positives as opposed to trying to prove which one is better.  Starangely enough in the threads I've seen discussing this the premise always starts with worldbuilding as a negative even when disguised as trying to ascertain it's positives.  Thus why I tend to defend worldbuilding vs. the non-worldbuilding style of play.  



pemerton said:


> I don't know what _better game_ and _enhance gameplay_ mean in this context.
> 
> Obviously, perhaps tautologically, the constraints that a setting establishes in respect of action declaration _will enhance the fidelity of the gameplay to the setting_. But it's not a self-evident fact (as per the quote I responded to) that this is simply an addition to the strengths of a game without a strong setting. It's clearly a change, a new constraint.




Why are you assuming I am talking about a game without a strong setting?  You were commenting on a pre-authored setting, right?  I think it goes without saying that if you are choosing to have no setting... well restrictions around setting would serve little or no purpose since a setting doesn't exist.



pemerton said:


> Personally I find the appeal of _fidelity to setting_, as an element of gameplay, to be rather modest. Particularly if, by "setting", we are talking about not broad tropes, genre elements and labels (like "City of Greyhawk", "Suel Empire" etc) but are talking about the sorts of details (geographic minutiae, historical minutiae, NPC locations and motivations, etc) that one typically finds in published setting books.




And I can respect that but I don't think you could definitively state that the majority of people feel that way or even that setting fidelity is objectively bad for rpg's.  That's what I think most in this thread are taking umbrage with... the statement that it is bad in a general sense for rpg's... again in a general sense.



pemerton said:


> Well, all I can report is that no one in my group found what I said "nebulous" or had any confusion. Nor has any confusion emerged in the course of play.




How long have you guys played together.  I'm sure your group knows you well enought to know what is meant.  I wonder if it was a group of strangers say an AL game would more explanation be needed?



pemerton said:


> I suspect that if you asked one of my players (the player of the invoker/wizard) whether there are orcs in the gameworld he would answer "yes" - because he knows there are goblins and hobgoblins, and I think he's fairly casual about distinguising them from orcs (or perhaps believes that I am, which I am in non-D&D games, and so is projecting that onto this campaign). If you asked the player of the drow sorcerer, I think he'd be more likely to say "I'm not sure." Not because he's not aware of orcs as something in the Monster Manual, but because I think he's more sensitive to what has or hasn't come out in play.




Yeah this kind of supports the whole familiarity thing...



pemerton said:


> But frankly, "Do you want to play a default 4e game?" simply doesn't mean - at least in my langauge - "Do you want to play a game in which we take for granted that everything mentioned in a 4e book is part of the gameworld?" It means _do you want to play a game in which the assumption is that everything in default 4e, especially the PHB which is what you're working from as a player, is permitted; and in which the basic setting conceits are the core 4e ones._




What is default 4e.  In 4e everything is core and that's what I am basing a "default" 4e game on.  You seem to have, just like with worldbuilding a very narrow and specific (to you) definition of what default means.  Yes your players through their familiarity with you probably instinctively understand what you mean but I don't think you could assume strangers would understand what your "default 4e" means.



pemerton said:


> If half-orcs were a PC race in the PHB then probably it would be taken for granted that there are orcs in the world - but half-orcs aren't such a race. (They turn up in PHB2, which came out after our game had started.) So orcs are ambiguous. Likewise wildens shifters and shardminds.
> 
> But all this means is that if orcs turn up, they're 4e orcs as described in the 4e MM. It doesn't mean that we're committed to orcs showing up.




I'm not sure what Orcs showing up have to do with it.  What if a character decided to talk about orcs to someone going off what the MM states?  Weren't there knowledge checks in 4e that told you exactly what you know about said creatures?  Should he or she  not assume this knowledge based on their rolls... especially in a default 4e game?   



pemerton said:


> The point is even easier to see if we look not at orcs - are fairly generic D&D monster - but (say) all the devourer variants which (for me, at least) are new to 4e. Are there all these devourer undead in the gameworld? Well, none of the players have ever raied them (I suspect that the players have never heard of devourers, unless they've looked through the MM). I haven't thought of devourers for years until this post - I looked through the MM to find a monster I'd never used and don't think about because it's not part of my intuitive "GM's palette".
> 
> Saying "We're going to play a default 4e game" can't _possibly_ mean _And the gameworld contains this monster that none of us have ever heard of or even think about except when reminded by those pages of the MM_.




Why can't it?  The whole point of a default setting is so that we don't have to go piece by piece and affirm everything... if not then what's the point (serious question here)?



pemerton said:


> I really don't understand why you're making such a big deal of this - but to reiterate, if an orc shows up it will be a 4e orc. If a devourer shows up it will be a devourer as per the 4e MM.




I'm not making a big deal out of it I'm trying to understand this and it isn't making sense to me.  So 4e monsters as written in the monster manual do exist in your world and thus are part of building your world... right?  You seem to be stating that nothing exists until it shows up but there are other ways orcs or devourers could come up in the game... if no matter what they will always be 4e MM versions then I would say you're doing pre-authored worldbuilding.  Now whether the players experience all aspects of said worldbuilding is a different beast all together.



pemerton said:


> This is about permissions and expectations - stuff in the 4e MM and PHB is clearly not off limits, and the world those books present is our world. But "the world those books present" is not synomous with _every single thing they say_. Presentation is at least in part about audience uptake, and if no one takes up orcs, or devourers, then we're not committed to them being part of the world.
> 
> I don't think that's very confusing or ambiguous.




It's only confusing or ambiguous because on the one hand you set the expectation that the 4e world is default, but then claim it's not pre-authored worldbuilding but in the same breath you're clearly stating that when introduced you will use the pre-authored lore for these creatures... how is that not ambiguous?  How is that not pre-authored worldbuilding?



pemerton said:


> Well, it's not really part of playing a default 4e game, so it's a request to depart from the default. Enslavement by orcs would seem pretty lame, and so I can't imagine any of my players going with that. Enslavement by aboleths would be weird for different reasons, and would probably only make sense if someone wanted to play a dwarf battlemind or similar (but PHB3 wasn't out when we started our campaign, so this was never going to come up).
> 
> So to give an actual example: page 130 of the 4e PHB says that a fey pact warlokc has
> forged a bargain with ancient, amoral powers of the Feywild. Some are primitive earth spirits, grim and menacing; some are capricious wood, sky, or water spirits; and others are incarnations of seasons or natural forces who roam the faerie realm like wild gods. They bestow magic that ranges from feral and savage to wondrous and enchanting.​
> So I don't think it's canonical that feypact warlocks can have a pact with Corellon (by default Corellon is a god, not an amoral power of the Feywild), but that was one of the starting PCs in the game.




So really default can be changed depending on the needs and desires of your players... do you put limits on what can or can't be changed.  Just a note this is more a tangent I am personally interested in around your gameplay style than anything to do with out larger discussion.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Why are you assuming I am talking about a game without a strong setting?



I'm explaining my post to which you responded. A different poster asserted that if a game without setting is good, then a game _with_ setting will be better, because it has all the previous good things _plust_ the good things that setting brings.

I am disputing that claim: adding a setting is likely to impose constraints on permissible or effective action declarations, and that is not self-evidently a thing that makes the game better. If _fidelity to setting_ is regarded as a good thing, then it might improve the game, but _fidelity to setting_ is not self-evidently good or fun. It depends on what one is looking for in a RPG.



Imaro said:


> I don't think you could definitively state that the majority of people feel that way



I make no such claim. But the fact that there are some people who feel that way (I know I'm not the only one, not even the only one in this thread), it follows that it is not self-evident that adding strong setting can only improve a game. Which is what I was disputing.



Imaro said:


> How long have you guys played together. I'm sure your group knows you well enought to know what is meant. I wonder if it was a group of strangers say an AL game would more explanation be needed?



My current group fused two groups, after some friends moved overseas, to start the 4e game in 2009. Most of us have know most of us since the early 90s at least. If I was talking to strangers maybe I'd have to say something different; in the abstract I have no idea. But I'm also not sure why it mattes. I mean, suppose that one player assume the world includes orcs because that's what they take the default to be, and another thinks there must be no orcs because in 30 levels of fairly wide-ranging play the PCs have never met any, why does it matter? What is at stake in knowing whether or not, up in Plato's heaven, the gameworld includes orcs?



Imaro said:


> You seem to have, just like with worldbuilding a very narrow and specific (to you) definition of what default means.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The whole point of a default setting is so that we don't have to go piece by piece and affirm everything... if not then what's the point (serious question here)?



"Default" means something like "in the absence of further specification." And in the context of RPGing, it's most importantly about _permissions_. 4e's "everyting is core" is mostly about permissions, not about what is deemed to exist in the shared fantasy.

So in saying it's a default 4e game, I'm saying "If you use stuff in the PHB, it won't be out of place and I'm ready to incorporate it. And if you're wondering what I'm going to be dong on the GM side, well it will draw from the MM and the core cosmology." But I'm not promising that one day there'll be an encounter with a devourer, or a swordwing.



Imaro said:


> You seem to be stating that nothing exists until it shows up but there are other ways orcs or devourers could come up in the game



The phrase "until it shows up" isn't mine; it's yours. Obviously if a player takes ranks in "orc lore" (not a real thing in 4e, but I hope you'll let me use it for illustrative purposes), then it is established that there are orcs in the world. What I'm saying is that, as best I can recall, orcs have never come up - and I'm even more confident about devourers - and that therefore leaves it an open question whether or not there are orcs in the gameworld.

Likewise, if a player in my 4e game wanted to play a shardmind then of course s/he could, but I can tell you that, when I think about what exists in that campaign world, shardminds aren't on my mental list!

Whereas, even though no one during play has ever _met_ a metallic dragon, I think it's not doubtful that they exist in some form, because Bahamut is definitely established as an existing god of the setting, and the PCs have met dragonborn.



Imaro said:


> So really default can be changed depending on the needs and desires of your players... do you put limits on what can or can't be changed.  Just a note this is more a tangent I am personally interested in around your gameplay style than anything to do with out larger discussion.



I dunno - the issue of "limits" hasn't really come up, but I don't have players who want to play space rangers in a fantasy campaign.

Another example I thought of involves orcs. The 4e PHB says that dwarves war with orcs. Whereas from the very start of our game, for reasons to do with the initial set up, it was clear that the dwarves war with goblins and hobgoblins.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

billd91 said:


> Just because those particular building blocks aren’t very specific doesn’t mean they aren’t building blocks.




Yeah, I think we're into semantic fine lines on this part. I would call a monster manual a 'game resource' not 'world building' and I wouldn't, obviously, have a problem with it. Particularly since any such book is just "here's stuff you could use." As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] says, you could say "I'll only use MM monsters" and its still not really world building in the sense that you haven't defined how or where or if any of them are actually to be found in your world, just that all the monsters in it are a proper subset of the ones in the MM (which technically means there could be none at all).

Does saying that tend to help elicit a specific kind of world? Yeah, probably so! To that extent there's some very slight world building that might be said to be implicit in it, but I'd call it more 'genre definition' and point out that by your definitions genre almost doesn't exist, its all world building.


----------



## billd91

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Does saying that tend to help elicit a specific kind of world? Yeah, probably so! To that extent there's some very slight world building that might be said to be implicit in it, but I'd call it more 'genre definition' and point out that by your definitions genre almost doesn't exist, its all world building.




Why wouldn't both genre and worldbuilding exist? Depending on the genre, picking a particular one actually says a lot about the way the world behaves and what sorts of heroes or villains would be appropriate. For example, choosing to play a 4-color silver age superhero campaign means quite a bit even before you pick a city to be the main base of action and come up with a stable of regular villains to catch. By picking that particular genre, you're defining the world to be substantially different from an iron age, grittier superhero game. And, as I see it, any time you're making those decisions, you're in the process of world building. It's just more from a top-down direction rather than a bottom-up direction. Pemerton just seems to acknowledge the bottom-up direction as worldbuilding, but he's missing a whole chunk of the worldbuilding spectrum by doing so.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

billd91 said:


> Why wouldn't both genre and worldbuilding exist? Depending on the genre, picking a particular one actually says a lot about the way the world behaves and what sorts of heroes or villains would be appropriate. For example, choosing to play a 4-color silver age superhero campaign means quite a bit even before you pick a city to be the main base of action and come up with a stable of regular villains to catch. By picking that particular genre, you're defining the world to be substantially different from an iron age, grittier superhero game. And, as I see it, any time you're making those decisions, you're in the process of world building. It's just more from a top-down direction rather than a bottom-up direction. Pemerton just seems to acknowledge the bottom-up direction as worldbuilding, but he's missing a whole chunk of the worldbuilding spectrum by doing so.




It feels like you changed to parameters some. It was worldbuilding when Pemerton chose to say "everything in the 4e books will be free game to use" but its 'genre' when you say BASICALLY what feels to me like the same thing by calling it a 'silver age superhero campaign'. Now, in neither case have either of you established a locale or any specific characters, nor any plot elements, etc. You have certainly defined the TYPES of things you will find in either place, but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] still might not have orcs, and you might have the Silver Surfer or not.


----------



## billd91

AbdulAlhazred said:


> It feels like you changed to parameters some. It was worldbuilding when Pemerton chose to say "everything in the 4e books will be free game to use" but its 'genre' when you say BASICALLY what feels to me like the same thing by calling it a 'silver age superhero campaign'. Now, in neither case have either of you established a locale or any specific characters, nor any plot elements, etc. You have certainly defined the TYPES of things you will find in either place, but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] still might not have orcs, and you might have the Silver Surfer or not.




No parameters have changed. I feel I just addressed this in my last post, so apparently I'll have to repeat myself. Picking a genre can say *a lot* about the world so it's not like the two ideas of genre and worldbuilding are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Imaculata

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Again though, if the players decide their characters are going to overthrow the 'Great Kingdom' and you don't like the implications of that, all of a sudden 10 dozen crazy roadblocks show up, but if you DO like the idea, its on rails.




That is *not* a world building issue, its a railroading issue.

World building is about where the campaign takes place. Its history, its culture(s) and beliefs. Worldbuilding has nothing to do with what is going to happen during the course of the campaign, apart from giving motivation and backstory to the various characters that inhabit that world.


----------



## Imaculata

I apologize btw for making two separate posts for this, they could have been one.



pemerton said:


> I just re-read the document (some time between then and now I typed it up from the handwritten original), and I still think it's quite clever. But I don't think it's a RPG setting. It's me, sitting then in a carrel in the University library, and now sitting at my computer, imagining a set of theological disputes that covers the broad terrain and the major moves in the European (pre-20th century) philosophical tradition. The fiction isn't _shared_.




But doesn't this world building (because I do believe this IS world building) inform the way you play the various clergy that the players may meet? When the players have questions about these religions, does it not inform the dialogue that you present to them?

I don't see how this would constrict or limit creativity, as some have posed.


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> Now at this time I was an undergraduate philosophy student, and I wrote up an account of the _actual theological differences_ among these denominations: so Cuthbertian theology rests on common-sense realism; the church of Tritherion and Pholtus have competing, highly intellectualised notions about how ideas (which are sourced in the higher realm) relate to the mundane world (the Tritherion-worshippers being broadly Kantian with hints of Locke; the Pholtus worshippers broadly Platonist, to the extent that their canonical scripture was called _The Theocracy_). To the best of my recollection, none of this ever came out in, or mattered to, play. It was me going through a series of intellectual exercise about imaginary theologies which was, really, a chance for me to test my comprehension of the relationships between, and especially the points of disagreement between, the philosophers whose work I was studying at the time.




(1) If that process was helpful to you in your real-world academic progress, and/or your development of your personal principles...

...and that process also made your D&D game less fun for any players who hold the position of "I won't play at the tables of DMs who worldbuild"...

then *that process was worthwhile*. IMNSHO your development as a gentleperson and a scholar, weighs more utiles-per-point than your entertainment value to a few other people, for a few of the hours you've spent playing D&D.

(2) if I came along, joined your table, and wanted to play a cleric of Cuthbert, and all I (as a player) knew about Cuthbert was that he's good and there's a Cuthbert artifact mace, and you then offered me a multi-page explanation of the theology my character had been taught, I would have read it. I might have decided that my character was a loyal member of the Cuthbertian church but secretly thought that the Tritherionist teachings made more sense on certain specific topics. Maybe, at some point, this would have emerged in my character's dialogue with NPCs or with fellow PCs. So does *some* of that time at your carrel, *become* worldbuilding, as one element or another reaches the table? In that case, each page is *potential* worldbuilding, and IMO that increases its value.



pemerton said:


> This is getting into "angels on the head of a pin" territory.




Does the Cuthbertian estimate of how many angels, agree with the Tritherionist answer? Enquiring minds want to know! But I don't care what Pholtus says, because f*** those shadow-in-a-cave posers. They can sit in a circle, in their ivory tower, and... sorry, I digress.

I played a cleric of Cuthbert, in the late 80s, and I feel bad now, for not knowing how many angels can dance on the head of the pin. Around the same time, one of the best GMs I've ever known, had a very personal relationship with his worldbuilding. He once mentioned that he'd been pondering his setting, during a lecture, and emerged with few notes on the lecture but several pages on elvish heraldry. He didn't *expect* any human to *ever* see them. So when he started a new campaign, the following semester, I asked to play an Elvish scholar. The DM smiled, and handed me a copy of the document. It included some common symbols, illustrations of the heraldic devices of various Elven noble houses and religious orders, and explanations of how each particular combination of the symbols represented the ideals of that group. At the first session, maybe a week later, I showed the other players a sketch of my character's shield. I dunno whether any of them realized that they could have learned something from her shield if they'd only known how to read it. Another player was running an Elven warrior princess, but was not inclined to such subtleties.

I am confident that no other player at the table had *less* fun, in that campaign, as a result of that shield. From then on, its only role at the table was its numerical bonus to my character's defenses in combat.

There is a difference between "herbal tea is bad" and "forcing herbal tea down your player's throats, when they're clearly not enjoying the process, and expecting them to praise your tea-brewing skills, is bad". I agree with the latter, not with the former. Same with worldbuilding.


----------



## pemerton

Imaculata said:


> But doesn't this world building (because I do believe this IS world building) inform the way you play the various clergy that the players may meet? When the players have questions about these religions, does it not inform the dialogue that you present to them?
> 
> I don't see how this would constrict or limit creativity, as some have posed.



I hope it's OK if I take this in two stages.

First, about limits - which means, for the sake of discussion, I'll treat what I did as worldbuilding even though I don't think it is (that'll be the second stage). I don't think what I wrote up limits _my_ creativity. It does limit the creativity of my players, should one of them want to play a priest, theologian etc of one of these religions - eg if what I wrote down is (both at the table, and in the fiction) canonical, then the player is not free to have his/her PC truthfully contradict it.

Is that a problem? Not far upthread [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] posted something about this - I can't remember his words, but I glossed it as _fidelity to setting_ - and so I can restate the question as, "Is a constraint which requires the players to be true to the setting a problem?" I think some RPGers answer this question "No" (for them), and I tend to answer "Yes" (for me). (I've put in the brackets because, presumably, no one is worried about what other players at other tables prefer - we're talking about how we want to do it at our tables.)

I suspect my tastes are minority ones. But I also suspect perhaps not quite as minority as one might think just looking at the preponderance of setting material in RPG publishing.

There is also nuance, which is also relevant. For instance, upthread - again in the discussion with [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - I distinguished different types or "degrees"/"levels" of fidelity to setting. I'm currently GMing and playing in Burning Wheel games set in GH. I have a stack of GH material (original folio, original boxed set, FtA boxed set, the Roger E Moore reboot, the 3E reboot). My GM has some maps and notes he downloaded onto a tablet from some wiki hosted by I-don't-know-who. But we both use the setting in much the same way: it establishes general geography, gives us some names for stuff (like places, some important personages, etc), gives us some tropes (Suel mages, hidden pyramids in the Bright Desert, etc), and the like.

_This_ doesn't limit the sort of creativity we want to exercise in play, because in fact it gives us ways of describing the moves we want to make. For instance, there is a well-established pulp-type, S&S-type trope of "desert tribesmen" (think anything from Conan through Tintin through Lawrence of Arabia). So when my GM's PC (playing in my game) was stuck in the Bright Desert he wanted to find some desert folk to help him. But he didn't declare his action in the generic terms "This is a S&S-ish game, and desert tribesmen are a S&S trope, so I want to meet some." Rather, he said "Everyone knows that Suel Nomads are thick as thieves in the Bright Desert: I want to make a Circles check to meet some."

This is an example of high-level worldbuilding enhancing the play experience, and facilitating creativity, by establishing a vocabulary in which genre-relevant, fun and trope-y moves can be made using a vocabulary and a set of shared conceptions established by the world building.

But to work it also depends on some further things: the _player_ needs to know the stuff (so it can't be that the presence of Suel nomads in the Bright Desert is a secret reserved to the GM); and it depends on the worldbuilding being high-level. Too much granularity - eg the GM has plotted the location of every Suel encampment in the Desert - and then instead of a pithy action declaration with the goal of establishing a fun, trope-y moment, we get a hexcrawl to find the hex where the GM established a nomad camp, which wasn't what the player was looking for at all!

The same sort of thing could come up in relation to theology. My PC (in my GM's game) is a knight of a holy order, and has a modest rank in Doctrine skill. In due course I'm probably going to want to make up doctrine for my god, and do stuff with it. I wouldn't be that impressed if, at that point, my GM pointed me to something he'd written up which already spelled out all the doctrines of my god, leaving me with no room to play my own conception of my character.

Which takes me to the second stage: why I think my theology document is not worldbuilding. I'll copy and sblock-paste a little bit, which will (I hope) help explain this:

[sblock]In CY 260 a young thinker and cleric of Allitur in these new lands wrote a treatise on government. Pholtus called his work _The Theocracy_. In that work he argued that rule should be by those with the best knowledge of the just and the god, and that these were those who contemplated it daily, ie the clergy. The bishops are to be appointed by the Supreme Prelate (who, knowing the good, is best able to judge the worth of potential appointees), and in turn, on the death of the Supreme Prelate, elect a successor from their number (for as a college they certainly have the capacity to know which of them is most meritorious). Pholtus also wrote on the nature of justice, arguing that that behaviour is just which is in accordance with the law. The law, in turn, is that which is eternal and necessary, ie the rational relations holding between the forms. These relations are able to be known by pondering those forms, which in turn can be known by looking to the essences of the empirical objects that are their copies. Thus, the law is imminent in the world. The heavenly bodies are exemplars of this - eternal and divine law in action. Justice, authority and punishment are likewise aspects of the imminent law. . . .

Theologically, the ideas promulgated by Trithereon are developments of the ideas set forth in _The Theocracy_. In reflecting on Pholtus's injunction to discover the forms, and the relations between them, by studying the real objects which copy them, Trithereon objected that essences are not in fact properties of objects, but rather of mortal concepts, which mortals then apply to objects when they think and talk (this pragmatic idea has its origins in other philosophers of Aerdy, whose influence had travelled into Nyrond and Urnst). Trithereon then argued that, as it is the concepts of mortal thinkers that give real structure to the world, so mortal thinkers are the highest worldly thing. The divinity, in turn, is that thing that created mortals that is outside the empirical world. Thus, concluded Trithereon, no individual, in so far as they are a user of concepts and thus a shaper of the world, is subject to any mortal government but their own.

This radical doctrine has been accepted by few (and certainly by no figures of authority) in its totality. The two natural responses have been to deny the status of the peasantry as thinkers, or (by the more liberal) to maintain that the peasantry, by their own executive act, have subordinated themselves to the government of their superiors.  Nevertheless, it was influential in generating unrest in the County, and establishing such feelings on an intellectual basis, and it certainly had some influence on Nyrond's eventual decision (in CY 450) to withdraw its troops from Urnst.[/sblock]

Now I'm talking about a campaign that ran from 1990 to the end of 1997, so recollection is inevitably hazy. But theological questions of this sort simply didn't come up in that game. And the stuff that I wrote doesn't really make any difference to how the clergy are presented, as it is already grounded in the basic presentation of these deities in the GM materials (eg Pholtus's clergy are LN and stern; Tritherion is CG and preaches freedom; St Cuthbert clocks people on the head with a cudgel if he thinks they're being too intellectualist; etc). The staff in the sblock is just something that ended up being for my own amusement.

A later campaign with the same group _did_ integrate metaphysical/theological questions (about the relationship between divine promises, karma, freedom and obligation) into play. But precisely because of that, it wouldn't have worked for me to just read out answers to the questions from something I wrote up unilaterally. The PCs in that game included a warrior monk; a martial arts monk of a rather intellectualist order; a fox in human form who had once been a ruler of an animal kingdom, but had broken certain laws and hence been sent down to earth as punishment; a middle-class warrior who was courting a noble dragon against the wishes of her sea lord and storm lord parents; and a younger cousin of a once-great house that had fallen on hard times but was trying to reestablish itself, who ended up outdoing his more prominent older cousin (also a PC) in marrying a wizard whom he rescued, and with her establishing a family line that (as was narrated in the "endgame" denouement of the campaign) ended up being the key to ensuring certain dangerous entities remained trapped in the voidal realm beyond time and space.

All those players had something to say about the metaphysical questions I mentioned, and views about how they should be resolved. This was the stuff - not the only stuff, but one important component of the stuff - of play. 

I hope this example als helps illustrate of why I think that, if the GH theology I wrote up _had _crossed over in to worldbuilding (because that sort of stuff actually had come up in play), then it would probably have had an unhappy limiting effect.


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> if I came along, joined your table, and wanted to play a cleric of Cuthbert, and all I (as a player) knew about Cuthbert was that he's good and there's a Cuthbert artifact mace, and you then offered me a multi-page explanation of the theology my character had been taught, I would have read it. I might have decided that my character was a loyal member of the Cuthbertian church but secretly thought that the Tritherionist teachings made more sense on certain specific topics. Maybe, at some point, this would have emerged in my character's dialogue with NPCs or with fellow PCs. So does *some* of that time at your carrel, *become* worldbuilding, as one element or another reaches the table? In that case, each page is *potential* worldbuilding, and IMO that increases its value.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> played a cleric of Cuthbert, in the late 80s, and I feel bad now, for not knowing how many angels can dance on the head of the pin. Around the same time, one of the best GMs I've ever known, had a very personal relationship with his worldbuilding. He once mentioned that he'd been pondering his setting, during a lecture, and emerged with few notes on the lecture but several pages on elvish heraldry. He didn't *expect* any human to *ever* see them. So when he started a new campaign, the following semester, I asked to play an Elvish scholar. The DM smiled, and handed me a copy of the document. It included some common symbols, illustrations of the heraldic devices of various Elven noble houses and religious orders, and explanations of how each particular combination of the symbols represented the ideals of that group. At the first session, maybe a week later, I showed the other players a sketch of my character's shield. I dunno whether any of them realized that they could have learned something from her shield if they'd only known how to read it. Another player was running an Elven warrior princess, but was not inclined to such subtleties.
> 
> I am confident that no other player at the table had *less* fun, in that campaign, as a result of that shield. From then on, its only role at the table was its numerical bonus to my character's defenses in combat.



I'll agree that each page is potential worldbuilding - in that, in advance of what actually happens, it remains an open possibility that it might get picked up in play.

With one qualification, which is also related to the question of whether that increases its value: if you like that sort of thing in play, then its value is increased by its potential to be picked up in play; whereas if you incline to my preferences, then the risk (which is what we call negative potentials) that it gets picked up perhaps _reduces_ its value!

I should add that, back then, I was less clear as a GM on the connection between technqiues used and desirable outcomes attained (I broadly knew what sorts of outcomes I wanted, but was still a bit muddled about technique due to having read the wrong advice manuals). So the risk may have been real! But now I think I'd be able to distinguish between my own imaginings and what might unfold in the back-and-forth of actual play.

Your Elven heraldry story is fun. I've never run a game in which heraldry mattered except as the barest colour, and can't imagine that ever changing, so to me that seems about the lightest possible touch of worldbuilding. (The working out of the ideals of the noble houses, implicit in sketching the devices, is a bit less light touch.) I put it in the same category as giving names to towns, lands and peoples.

Of course not everyone may share my perception of these things as light touch! (Eg if you're playing a hexcrawl-type game, then the GH map isn't just light-touch colour; it's the laying out of the basic mechanical parameters of play. I can't think at the moment what the analogue of that for heraldry would be, but there must be one. And in my reply just upthread of this one I give an example of non-light touch theology.)



Riley37 said:


> If that process was helpful to you in your real-world academic progress, and/or your development of your personal principles...
> 
> ...and that process also made your D&D game less fun for any players who hold the position of "I won't play at the tables of DMs who worldbuild"...
> 
> then *that process was worthwhile*. IMNSHO your development as a gentleperson and a scholar, weighs more utiles-per-point than your entertainment value to a few other people, for a few of the hours you've spent playing D&D.



Well, it was amusing at least, and probably not a waste of time for thinking about that stuff! And I don't actually think it had any adverse effects on play - so win/win!


----------



## Caliburn101

Imaculata said:


> That is *not* a world building issue, its a railroading issue.
> 
> World building is about where the campaign takes place. Its history, its culture(s) and beliefs. Worldbuilding has nothing to do with what is going to happen during the course of the campaign, apart from giving motivation and backstory to the various characters that inhabit that world.




Very well said.

Most of the criticism here is based eithet on the assumption that "my experience of a world-building GM was bad, so worldbuilding is bad" or the erroneous assumption that a GM running a game in a gameworld badly (either railroading or road blocking player agency) is doing it because worldbuilding leads to this...

... erm, NO.

Bad GMs lead to bad GM'ing and they can railroad you or block you even _easier_ in a less defined campaign setting.


----------



## Riley37

Darth Shoju said:


> Let's say the adventure is to go into a dungeon and recover a relic of some sort. The party starts in a nearby village and has to travel to the dungeon. The DM has done no worldbuilding beyond what is present in the adventure. He is also not gifted at improv. I as a player have some questions:
> 
> ME: Ok what nations are there? Where can my character be from?
> DM: There are nations for all of the races in the PHB.
> ME: Ok...what are the human nations like?
> DM: I don't know...what kind of nation do you want to be from?
> ME: Well, can I be from one that is kind of like ancient China?
> DM: Sure.
> ME: How does my nation get along with the other nations?
> DM: That isn't important in the adventure.
> ME: Ok.
> 
> So I make a human priest and do what I can to make him represent a culture based on ancient China. We start the session in the town. Again, I have some questions:
> 
> ME: Is there a branch of my church in this town?
> DM: The adventure doesn't say...I'll say no. It's too far away.
> ME: Ok, are there _any _churches in the town?
> DM: Just one.
> ME: Ok, I go there. I'm going to talk to the priest to get a feel for his religion.
> DM: It just says his name, level, and that he is a priest of an agricultural deity.
> ME: Ok, my religion venerates nature spirits so we should get along well.
> DM: Sure.
> ME: Is the town facing any problems that I could help with before we head to the dungeon?
> DM: It doesn't say...so, no.




Darth Shoju wrote that about a decade ago. It was a strawman, but at least it provided a starting point, for others to counter with other ways that session could have gone. For better or worse, for richer or poorer, with the DM or the player to blame, because too much worldbuilding or not enough.

For this thread to successfully and usefully "WISE FWOM YOU GWAVE", maybe we would benefit from updated strawman examples. Or better yet, actual examples, from "My DM did this and I walked away", to "I did this, and one player walked away, but the rest of them loved the campaign."

In the meantime, D&D now has a 5E PHB, and the passage on humans lists nine human ethnicities from Forgotten Realms! So *already* we have divergence on the outcome which results when the DM says "Just what you see in the PHB, pal".

My $.02:

"ME: Ok...what are the human nations like?
DM: I don't know...what kind of nation do you want to be from?"

Good jorb, DM! You expressed interest in what your players want! Which is not the same thing as always answering YES. (No, you cannot haz a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.) Was it really necessary to point out the difference between "showing interest" and "always saying yes, to anything"? You tell me.

ME: How does my nation get along with the other nations?
DM: That isn't important in the adventure.

Partial credit, strawman DM with neither worldbuilding nor improv skills. Alternative answers include...

DM 1: You are from so far away, that the topic will not arise, unless some other player wants their character to be from the equivalent of ancient Japan. If so, we'll take that as the baseline for how you get along.

DM 2: That's currently a blank page. Do you have an interest in establishing personal trust despite national enmity, or something like that?

DM 3: Everything changed, when your nation attacked.
(The ancient psuedo-Sino-nation is now the Fire Nation.)

ME: Is the town facing any problems that I could help with before we head to the dungeon?
DM: It doesn't say...so, no.

DM 1: They're worried about that relic. The sooner your party finds it, the better. If you don't, maybe it could fall into the wrong hands.
(DM 1, writing a note to self: BBEG is on the trail of the relic. He will arrive in two days. I'll stat him up later. If the PCs emerge from the dungeon on Day Two, then "Again, we see there is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away. And you thought I'd given up.")

DM 2: "That's also a blank page. Hey, other players, anyone wanna suggest a problem?
READY PLAYER TWO: "One of the villagers is sick."
DM 2: "Yeah, we'll go with that. Did you prepare Lesser Restoration, and if so, do you spend the spell slot?"

DM 3: "He says they have no problems. They have no problems of any kind. They have never had any problems of any kind. Everything is fine. Everything is JUST FINE. The local cleric then points out that it's time for you to go, so you can reach the dungeon before nightfall."
(DM 3 to self: Maybe I'll think of a problem later.)
READY PLAYER TWO: "Roll insight!"
DM 3: "You're not there. This is cleric-to-cleric professional courtesy. Wait your turn for the spotlight."

As you can see, DM 1 is "Get back on those rails, I got a dungeon for you to explore", while DM 2 is a heavyweight sand-boxer, and DM 3 is my version of the happy medium.

So... how could this be improved by worldbuilding?

Or is this the optimum D&D session, which has successfully averted all the problems which follow from worldbuilding?

Or something else?


----------



## Imaculata

pemerton said:


> A later campaign with the same group _did_ integrate metaphysical/theological questions (about the relationship between divine promises, karma, freedom and obligation) into play. But precisely because of that, it wouldn't have worked for me to just read out answers to the questions from something I wrote up unilaterally. The PCs in that game included a warrior monk; a martial arts monk of a rather intellectualist order; a fox in human form who had once been a ruler of an animal kingdom, but had broken certain laws and hence been sent down to earth as punishment; a middle-class warrior who was courting a noble dragon against the wishes of her sea lord and storm lord parents; and a younger cousin of a once-great house that had fallen on hard times but was trying to reestablish itself, who ended up outdoing his more prominent older cousin (also a PC) in marrying a wizard whom he rescued, and with her establishing a family line that (as was narrated in the "endgame" denouement of the campaign) ended up being the key to ensuring certain dangerous entities remained trapped in the voidal realm beyond time and space.
> 
> All those players had something to say about the metaphysical questions I mentioned, and views about how they should be resolved. This was the stuff - not the only stuff, but one important component of the stuff - of play.
> 
> I hope this example als helps illustrate of why I think that, if the GH theology I wrote up _had _crossed over in to worldbuilding (because that sort of stuff actually had come up in play), then it would probably have had an unhappy limiting effect.




But wouldn't you agree that just because you wrote a ton of stuff on the theologies of the various religions, that doesn't mean that you as a DM are forced to deny the players of having any input into how their character's faith is played out.

One does not exclude the other. You could write a TON of lore, and still be open to player input. And you could write no lore at all, and be very restrictive. I still don't see why one would necessarily lead to the other.


----------



## pemerton

Caliburn101 said:


> Bad GMs lead to bad GM'ing and they can railroad you or block you even _easier_ in a less defined campaign setting.



I don't think this is true at all. It depends on the system and techniques being used.


----------



## pemerton

Imaculata said:


> But wouldn't you agree that just because you wrote a ton of stuff on the theologies of the various religions, that doesn't mean that you as a DM are forced to deny the players of having any input into how their character's faith is played out.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You could write a TON of lore, and still be open to player input.



Can you say more about what you mean by "input"?

I can say that, in practical terms, when eventually I start to form some views about my PC's order's doctrine, I don't want the GM to hand me a page of notes but then solicit my input on what I do or don't like about it. I'll establish my own doctrine. (And the GM can either say "yes", or make me roll a skill check: if I fail the roll, the doctrine isn't going to be quite what I hoped it would be!)

In the description of one of my campaigns that I quoted, when I say that the theology and metaphysics were (part of) the stuff of play, I don't just mean that the players cared. I mean that the truth of this stuff was being worked out by playing the game. Can the laws of karma be circumvented? The players came up with a way of doing just that. It also involved acting contrary to a divine promise, although that promise wasn't one any of the PCs had made. But this saved the world, rather than ended it. It could have ended up the other way if some actions had turned out differently; and the method of circumventing the laws of karma was come up with only at the last minute - the warrior-monk was about to sacrifice himself to ensure karmic continuity.

In this context, _player input_ just means _players declaring actions for their PCs_. Not negotiating at some meta-level about what's true in the fiction. And writing tons of lore doesn't really add much to the play in this context.



Imaculata said:


> you could write no lore at all, and be very restrictive. I still don't see why one would necessarily lead to the other.



Well, a GM who just makes stuff up as they go along, sometimes saying "yes" and sometimes saying "no" and sometimes calling for checks, probably isn't going to run a great game. (But I think [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] once played under a GM who did something like this and _did_ run a great game.)

But I'm not talking about edge cases. When I GM, or play, a RPG, I'm looking for a certain sort of experience. Part of that is that the truth about the fiction, the "stuff" of the setting, comes out via play rather than out-of-play discussion and negotiation.

There are some exceptions: starting a campaign needs some out-of-play discussion (which system? which setting? what are the PC backgrounds?). But mostly I want action declarations. To give another example: the PCs in my Classic Traveller game had learned that the inhabitants of a certain planet which (not entirely coincidentally) was likely to be their next stop had mixed alien/human origins. One of the PCs has as his goal to travel the Imperium trying to discover aliens and alien artefacts - so naturally he was intrigued by this.

When the PCs arrived in orbit about the world in question (Enlil) they first debated among themselves (at the table, the players had this debate) because it would cost the shipowner money to stay in orbit for a day rather than continue on (ships aren't free to buy and operate) and the owner had no real interest in the aliens. A compromise was reached whereby those going down onto the planet would pay the owner. Then the next question was "How do we find signs of alien origins?" The players (as their PCs, and also drawing on their own experiences as (non-interstellar) travellers) thought that their must be tourist markets, and so got relevant information about these from the starport and then flew their shuttle down to one such market, where they proceeded to check out local trinkets hoping to find signs of alien manufacture or other influence.

This is the players _having input_, but it's in the form of action declaration ("We get tourist information from the starport"), not meta-level negotiation about what is or isn't in the setting. If the action declaration was completely outrageous (eg utterly genre-breaking - like looking for a tourist bureau in a standard D&D game) then some meta-level negotiation might be unavoidable, to reach consensus on something less outrageous. But in my experience that doesn't happen very often.

If the existence of a tourist bureau seemed possible but unlikely, or if I (as GM) thought that it would make a good pressure point in the game, then I could call for a check (probably Admin, maybe Streetwise, depending on ingame context including eliciting more information from the players about what their PCs are doing). But in this particular case I just said "yes", because it didn't seem that it would add anything to play to have the PCs fail to find a tourist market and look for alien trinkets.

The action declaration needs a little bit of worldbuilding to give framing and context (in Traveller this is mostly handled via random world generation) but tons of notes, in this context, would be either pointless or even counterproductive. (I mean, never in a hundred years of GMing would I have thought about the PCs going to tourist markets to look for trinkets, until it actually came up in play.)

I hope it's clear I'm not saying that every RPGer should want to give this sort of priority to action declaration. It's just what I enjoy in RPGing.


----------



## Aldarc

Caliburn101 said:


> Most of the criticism here is based eithet on the assumption that *"my experience of a world-building GM was bad, so worldbuilding is bad*" or the erroneous assumption that a GM running a game in a gameworld badly (either railroading or road blocking player agency) is doing it because worldbuilding leads to this...
> 
> ... erm, NO.
> 
> Bad GMs lead to bad GM'ing and they can railroad you or block you even _easier_ in a less defined campaign setting.



From the perspective of my own experiences, I would suggest that the quote is less a matter of "worldbuilding is bad," but, rather, it is a matter of "too much self-indulgent worldbuilding can be a red flag for other issues." So the entire enterprise of worldbuilding must be approached with some degree of cautionary self-awareness. In itself, worldbuilding does not lead to railroading. As you say, railroading can happen "in a less defined campaign setting," as the issue is "bad GM'ing." However, overindulgent worldbuilding enterprises can exhibit symptoms to those that are also found in some strains of railroading outbreaks. Because part of the underlying potential issues for both worldbuilding and railroading is the degree to which the GM will impose authorial control over the game, its world, and its players. It's a fear that the GM is not there to describe the game and its world for the players, but, rather to prescribe it for their own indulgence. Again, I don't think that "worldbuilding is bad." But it should be approached with caution such that it does not become a case of the GM fapping to their own creativity and then getting mad when the players don't care as deeply for it, are critical, or destroy "their" story.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> From the perspective of my own experiences, I would suggest that the quote is less a matter of "worldbuilding is bad," but, rather, it is a matter of "too much self-indulgent worldbuilding can be a red flag for other issues." So the entire enterprise of worldbuilding must be approached with some degree of cautionary self-awareness. In itself, worldbuilding does not lead to railroading. As you say, railroading can happen "in a less defined campaign setting," as the issue is "bad GM'ing." However, overindulgent worldbuilding enterprises can exhibit symptoms to those that are also found in some strains of railroading outbreaks. Because part of the underlying potential issues for both worldbuilding and railroading is the degree to which the GM will impose authorial control over the game, its world, and its players. It's a fear that the GM is not there to describe the game and its world for the players, but, rather to prescribe it for their own indulgence. Again, I don't think that "worldbuilding is bad." But it should be approached with caution such that it does not become a case of the GM fapping to their own creativity and then getting mad when the players don't care as deeply for it, are critical, or destroy "their" story.




Yeah but that's the problem with the thread.  Worldbuilding (like everything else including no worldbuilding) is bad when taken to the extreme and used with bad gaming practices isn't really a revelation or even something to be discussed (since i don't think anyone is arguing against this specific statement.  The problem is in these threads this extreme is presented as why worldbuilding is bad but when presented with extremes on the other side of the spectrum (no worldbuilding) we get posters who then proceed to argue that either it doesn't happen that way in their game or we are arguing against their style in bad faith.  Well either we are talking about a good GM'd game in both styles or we are talking about the extremes and bad GM'ing in both styles but presenting one as default for a particular style but using the other for the style you happen to favor accomplishes nothing.


----------



## Imaculata

pemerton said:


> Can you say more about what you mean by "input"?




What I mean with input in this case, is the following:

Lets say the DM has done a ton of worldbuilding. He has created the entire pantheon of gods, and their respective religions. But he has also gone beyond that, and also written in depth about the various theologies of these religious groups, and what rites they perform.

Now lets say a player wants to play a priest of one of these faiths. But for his priest he wants to have some say (or 'input' if you will) regarding how his priest exercises his faith. The question of input is thus, *can he do that?* 

If the DM has decided that the priests in his campaign worship all the commonly accepted gods, can an exception be made by the DM for a player who wants to dedicate his priest to one specific god?

If the answer is 'no', then I think we've reached an edge case where the world building gets in the way of a possible shared fiction. If the answer is 'yes', then I feel the player does have some 'input' in regards to the world building.


----------



## pemerton

Imaculata said:


> If the answer is 'no', then I think we've reached an edge case where the world building gets in the way of a possible shared fiction. If the answer is 'yes', then I feel the player does have some 'input' in regards to the world building.



That's the sort of "meta-level" thing I mentioned in my post. It's not personally how I like to approach things - it seems to put too much of the action into pre-play negotiation, rather than letting it actual come out in the play of the game.

Other's mileage may (and I think does) vary.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> The problem is in these threads this extreme is presented as why worldbuilding is bad but when presented with extremes on the other side of the spectrum (no worldbuilding) we get posters who then proceed to argue that either it doesn't happen that way in their game or we are arguing against their style in bad faith.



This is certainly not accurate in relation to my posts. I've spelled out in some detail (mostly in replies to  [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION]) what I want in a RPG - for instance, that I want stuff like religous doctrine, dispositions of NPCs, details of what might be found where, etc to _come out in the play of the game_, rather than to be decided in advance of play by meta-level negotiation among the game participants.

That's a reason why worldbuilding is "bad" for me (other than the sort of "high level" stuff I've talked about, like giving names to places and setting out some basic history to hang the genre tropes on). And this reason has nothing to do with whether someone is a good or bad GM. I'm talking about _techniques for RPGing_, not GM skill or good faith.


----------



## MNblockhead

11 years and 2,000 posts. 

The fact that I even tried to skim through this thread indicates a sickness. 

I am a world builder because I enjoy it. It is a hobby onto itself that integrates many interests: history, anthropology, geology, fantasy literature, folklore, religious studies, sociology, and more. 

I don't use a lot of what I build in my games and I make up a lot on the fly or a day or two before the adventure. I start building on the macro and reactively create adventures as-needed on the micro. 

2000 posts that can be summed up as "you don't need to spend a lot of time world building to run a great campaign, but if you enjoy doing it, have at it!"


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Vanuslux said:


> Sooooooo...by this logic Tolkien is a boring nerd?




Lots of folks say that exact thing. 

IMO every single sentiment in the quotes text of the OP is completely wrong, but I’m tired of the debate.


----------



## gamerprinter

Okay, another one of those gigantic threads I won't read (too much to read), but only looked at the first post, so undoubtably someone else has already said this, but...

I'm a big fan of World Building, so cannot possibly see it as a bad thing. If you're running a purely sandbox game and your players are doing most of the story-telling, sure a complete world build is unnecessary to serve a pure sandbox. And the OP discusses from the point of view of a novel author, rather than a setting designer, so I'm sure that has merits in that limited framework to novels. But as a small 3PP for Pathfinder/Starfinder, building settings (world-building) is a major part of what I do and publish. So I find World Building intrinsic to building the worlds we run our game in.

No matter who much effort you put in including deep nuance into a setting, a GM/setting creator can never fully document everything there is. So there's plenty of room for individual GMs and even players to add to the world. So I don't see a detriment, in that way, to a world building exercise.

As a GM only, world building is half my fun in being a GM in the first place. Some may not care for world-building, and that's fine, but for me, it's something I have to do, and love doing it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Imaculata said:


> That is *not* a world building issue, its a railroading issue.
> 
> World building is about where the campaign takes place. Its history, its culture(s) and beliefs. Worldbuilding has nothing to do with what is going to happen during the course of the campaign, apart from giving motivation and backstory to the various characters that inhabit that world.




What I'm saying is, is it is *fostered by* world building. There's all this 'stuff' that the GM has imagined and planned on, and then the PCs go and invalidate 90% of it (which is EXACTLY what PCs, especially high level ones, will do every time). This is classic, almost expected even. So, you can say its a 'railroading problem', and that's technically correct, but its not really getting to the root of the thing.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Caliburn101 said:


> Very well said.
> 
> Most of the criticism here is based eithet on the assumption that "my experience of a world-building GM was bad, so worldbuilding is bad" or the erroneous assumption that a GM running a game in a gameworld badly (either railroading or road blocking player agency) is doing it because worldbuilding leads to this...
> 
> ... erm, NO.
> 
> Bad GMs lead to bad GM'ing and they can railroad you or block you even _easier_ in a less defined campaign setting.




I don't really like to take this kind of position, because it feels to me like its saying effectively "you can't criticize this technique because there's this perfect version of it somewhere that avoids this problem." If its a problem, repeatedly, in real games in the real world, then IMHO its a problem with the technique! You may well avoid that problem by dint of expert play, but MANY campaigns have sunk upon that rock! 

I mean, any absolutist pronouncements, like the initial premise of this thread, are always fraught. To say 'nobody should world build' is of course idiotic. I mean, I recommend against it and then I do it myself! I don't actually feel a need to be self-consistent or act in the 'best' way possible. I just do what I like to do, particularly when it comes to pastimes. So I wouldn't actually condone dismissing world building, but that isn't the same thing as saying its beyond criticism because people like it or it produces good results sometimes. IME No Myth play actually has fewer problems.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Riley37 said:


> Darth Shoju wrote that about a decade ago. It was a strawman, but at least it provided a starting point, for others to counter with other ways that session could have gone. For better or worse, for richer or poorer, with the DM or the player to blame, because too much worldbuilding or not enough.
> 
> For this thread to successfully and usefully "WISE FWOM YOU GWAVE", maybe we would benefit from updated strawman examples. Or better yet, actual examples, from "My DM did this and I walked away", to "I did this, and one player walked away, but the rest of them loved the campaign."
> 
> In the meantime, D&D now has a 5E PHB, and the passage on humans lists nine human ethnicities from Forgotten Realms! So *already* we have divergence on the outcome which results when the DM says "Just what you see in the PHB, pal".
> 
> My $.02:
> 
> "ME: Ok...what are the human nations like?
> DM: I don't know...what kind of nation do you want to be from?"
> 
> Good jorb, DM! You expressed interest in what your players want! Which is not the same thing as always answering YES. (No, you cannot haz a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.) Was it really necessary to point out the difference between "showing interest" and "always saying yes, to anything"? You tell me.
> 
> ME: How does my nation get along with the other nations?
> DM: That isn't important in the adventure.
> 
> Partial credit, strawman DM with neither worldbuilding nor improv skills. Alternative answers include...
> 
> DM 1: You are from so far away, that the topic will not arise, unless some other player wants their character to be from the equivalent of ancient Japan. If so, we'll take that as the baseline for how you get along.
> 
> DM 2: That's currently a blank page. Do you have an interest in establishing personal trust despite national enmity, or something like that?
> 
> DM 3: Everything changed, when your nation attacked.
> (The ancient psuedo-Sino-nation is now the Fire Nation.)
> 
> ME: Is the town facing any problems that I could help with before we head to the dungeon?
> DM: It doesn't say...so, no.
> 
> DM 1: They're worried about that relic. The sooner your party finds it, the better. If you don't, maybe it could fall into the wrong hands.
> (DM 1, writing a note to self: BBEG is on the trail of the relic. He will arrive in two days. I'll stat him up later. If the PCs emerge from the dungeon on Day Two, then "Again, we see there is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away. And you thought I'd given up.")
> 
> DM 2: "That's also a blank page. Hey, other players, anyone wanna suggest a problem?
> READY PLAYER TWO: "One of the villagers is sick."
> DM 2: "Yeah, we'll go with that. Did you prepare Lesser Restoration, and if so, do you spend the spell slot?"
> 
> DM 3: "He says they have no problems. They have no problems of any kind. They have never had any problems of any kind. Everything is fine. Everything is JUST FINE. The local cleric then points out that it's time for you to go, so you can reach the dungeon before nightfall."
> (DM 3 to self: Maybe I'll think of a problem later.)
> READY PLAYER TWO: "Roll insight!"
> DM 3: "You're not there. This is cleric-to-cleric professional courtesy. Wait your turn for the spotlight."
> 
> As you can see, DM 1 is "Get back on those rails, I got a dungeon for you to explore", while DM 2 is a heavyweight sand-boxer, and DM 3 is my version of the happy medium.
> 
> So... how could this be improved by worldbuilding?
> 
> Or is this the optimum D&D session, which has successfully averted all the problems which follow from worldbuilding?
> 
> Or something else?




I think my answer to Darth Shoju is that there's a piece missing. We're playing Story Now No Myth, right? So where are the character's backstories? At least assign them a goal, a belief, a relationship, or some sort of character trait like a strength, weakness, etc. Where is the genre and theme? I guess this is 'D&D' in a sort of notional way, but can we have a theme? I wouldn't even start play without those, it would be like playing without players, kinda pointless.

So when the players start asking questions, they should have answers to some of them in their backstory already (and being No Myth I see no reason why they shouldn't have pretty much carte blanc on their own backstories, just stick to the genre and maybe talk to each other to avoid any huge inconsistencies). 

Beyond that I'm going to want to a) 'say yes' to allow some momentum to build. Let the players come up with some plans and make a few moves that start to commit them to a path in the fiction. b) lets frame up a scene that pushes them. The human priest from fantasy China sees some children treating an old man badly. He's highly offended as his belief system has a core concept of filial piety and respect for the old! He sees that the children are richly dressed, does he chastise them and risk offending someone powerful? Maybe the old man deserves what he's getting? Once I know something about the characters I have a RICH vein of things to mine from to rope them in, build up a story and a place around them which they can relate to. 

Now, the question becomes, what does this adventure do for us? I'd have to figure out how to interest the PCs in it, if I was going to use it, by finding some scenes in the thing that can be profitably used as framing. However, I CAN do that because I have some sort of basis to go on, backstory at least.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

pemerton said:


> That's the sort of "meta-level" thing I mentioned in my post. It's not personally how I like to approach things - it seems to put too much of the action into pre-play negotiation, rather than letting it actual come out in the play of the game.
> 
> Other's mileage may (and I think does) vary.




So, instead, maybe you would just get to playing and when the character declined to venerate other gods than his own, or when he put forth his notion of complete dedication as a virtue to someone, then you would be framing a scene that tested the character's belief. Perhaps he would get into trouble, or maybe he would find that there were some other secret adherents to this concept, etc. The player chose, and now play is going to decide how things are. 

I'd like to note that this is also partly an answer to the criticism that No Myth play makes exploration of the world impossible. I'd think that this sort of thing is exactly a type of exploration. The facts may be partly invented by the explorers, but its still a type of discovery, and with several participants you will still mostly be learning about what other people think.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

pemerton said:


> This is certainly not accurate in relation to my posts. I've spelled out in some detail (mostly in replies to  @_*Imaculata*_) what I want in a RPG - for instance, that I want stuff like religous doctrine, dispositions of NPCs, details of what might be found where, etc to _come out in the play of the game_, rather than to be decided in advance of play by meta-level negotiation among the game participants.
> 
> That's a reason why worldbuilding is "bad" for me (other than the sort of "high level" stuff I've talked about, like giving names to places and setting out some basic history to hang the genre tropes on). And this reason has nothing to do with whether someone is a good or bad GM. I'm talking about _techniques for RPGing_, not GM skill or good faith.




I appreciate the GM advice of Dungeon World more and more on this front. It talks about having some general idea of things, of creating 'factions' (groups, causes, organizations) and 'fronts' (zones of real or potential conflict) and building very general maps. Not so much defining where everything is as providing some basic framework to hang choices on.


----------



## Ilbranteloth

Emirikol said:


> DM's would do well to heed this advice.  I've been in campaigns where DM's sit around and design places where PC's will never go and never interact with meanwhile ignoring the most important thing:  THE ADVENTURE.   It's like designing a dungeon with a bunch of rooms that arent' accessable not related to any plot or interesting exploration whatsoever.  It's like starting a campaign at first level and starting your levelled dungeon design at the 30th level of the underdark.   If it's not part of the plot, don't waste your time.  Time is precious.
> 
> That said, a DM must consider that he needs to present enough information for players to feel that they are "somewhere else."  Those things would include:  MAP, list of countries, short bio on any countries that the PC's may know something about, and LOCAL rumors that the PC's might know something about.
> 
> I've seen it done in Living Greyhawk.  Triads neglecting scenario quality for nonsense things like pointless metaorgs and "behind the scenes" plot design.
> 
> If the players are never going to see it.  DON'T BOTHER.
> 
> Ever read a scenario where the background is 52 pages long, but the scenario is only 8 pages and it's all about NPC motivations for the otyough and green slime and their symbiotic relationship with each other (or other such useless nonsense)?
> 
> The DM needs to balance his time carefully.
> 
> jh
> P.s.  (all caps for emphasis..not shouting) I'VE WASTED HUNDREDS OF HOURS ON WORLD DESIGN AND TOTALLY AGREE THAT IT'S NOTHING COMPARED TO THE ADVENTURE..FOR WHICH WORLD DESIGN HAS LITTLE EFFECT UPON THE QUALITY OF THE ADVENTURE.
> ..




But this implies that the DM is driving the plot. I’d recommend the opposite, that the DM be responsible for the world (and potential plot hooks and background themes and schemes) and let the players focus on the plot through their characters’ goals, decisions and actions.

When the players drive the plot, the DM needs to be able to react and respond, and for me that prep is what allows me to do that consistently. 

I do recommend short notes and ideas, weather than paragraphs and paragraphs of info, but sometimes that is fun as a hobby in itself. I use things I wrote 20 years ago that haven’t come into play until now. And those notes aren’t set in stone until they enter play. They are tools to aid my improv in response to the players. 

Those behind the scenes plots need not be fully fleshed out, but they provide fodder for adventure hooks to let the PCs decide what’s important to them.

Beyond that, I find world building in a published setting even more useful for immersion. I don’t restrict my players reading. Having a shared reference helps the world come together in a way that is difficult to replicate entirely through play. For example, if I were to tell you my game is pitted against the empire, with help from wookies, droids, and various potential dangers include jawas and sand people, and the campaign starts in the cantina at Mos Eisley, there are lots of things that immediately come to mind for most people, and it allows us to spend less time creating the immersion or integrating the PCs in the world, and more time adventuring.


----------



## Hussar

MNblockhead said:


> /snip
> 
> 2000 posts that can be summed up as "you don't need to spend a lot of time world building to run a great campaign, but if you enjoy doing it, have at it!"




And that's fair enough.

But, unlike [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], I think that whenever this sort of thing comes up, I see the exact opposite of what he does- the basic advice is always world building first.  If you're a good DM, you're going to world build and anyone who doesn't spend the time doing it is, by implication anyway, a bad DM.

Like was said earlier, to me, it's a red flag.  I've almost never enjoyed a game where the DM has this extensive setting, whether homebrew or published.  It's too restrictive for me.  I don't enjoy it.  I'd much rather the players have far more input into the game world and I wish my players would be more pro-active about it.  You want griffon cavalry in the game for whatever reason?  Sure, let's talk about that.  How can we bring that in?  You want to play a war forged monk in my pirates campaign?  Sure, let's talk about that.  How can we bring that in?

Now, granted, there are times when I have put my foot down and said no.  My current campaign was an experiment where none of the PC's could play any class that has cantrips.  I wanted to run a low magic campaign.  It worked very well, IMO, and I think it was a pretty strong success.  But, outside of that restriction, I wasn't too fussed about whatever the players wanted to play.

In most of my campaigns though, it's, "Well, what do you want?  Let's make a setting where that can happen."

World building, AFAIC, can go hang.


----------



## Riley37

Imaculata said:


> Lets say the DM has done a ton of worldbuilding. He has created the entire pantheon of gods, and their respective religions. But he has also gone beyond that, and also written in depth about the various theologies of these religious groups, and what rites they perform.
> 
> Now lets say a player wants to play a priest of one of these faiths. But for his priest he wants to have some say (or 'input' if you will) regarding how his priest exercises his faith. The question of input is thus, *can he do that?*
> 
> If the DM has decided that the priests in his campaign worship all the commonly accepted gods, can an exception be made by the DM for a player who wants to dedicate his priest to one specific god?
> 
> If the answer is 'no', then I think we've reached an edge case where the world building gets in the way of a possible shared fiction. If the answer is 'yes', then I feel the player does have some 'input' in regards to the world building.




Let's test this against a particular scenario which I have constructed specifically for the purpose of getting the answers I want.

As the initial seed for the campaign, I asked each player to come up with a person who would be on a boat which ran scenic tours. They came up with various concepts. The skipper of the boat; passengers such as a Science! inventor-professor, a beautiful movie star, a millionaire and his wife, etc.; I was kinda disappointed that no one chose to play a stowaway. Oh well. Anyways, what starts as a three-hour tour becomes a shipwreck, and the story explores their survival on a remote island.

After a while, one of the regulars wants to bring a friend into the group. I agree that one more castaway could end up on the island. The friend wants to play a priest. We discuss the priest's religion.

He wants to play a Protestant priest, and he wants one of the rites to be... uh... something that Protestants don't do, nor Catholics, nor Orthodox, nor Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. I tell him, no, sorry, the rites of *all* those variations are already established, and there is no available design space in that area. He can invent a new religion, and give it whatever rites he wants, but then it won't be a religion that any of the other PCs have ever heard of. Heck, even if he imports Bokononism from "Cat's Cradle", some specifics of that have been nailed down as canon.

So if we play any game with in which the setting starts with the real world, plus the specifics of the PCs and the parts of the world immediately involved in their adventures - cloak and dagger, Westerns, etc. - then have we "reached an edge case where the world building gets in the way of a possible shared fiction"? Because of how thoroughly the real world has already been documented? I mean, look at Wookipedia, or Candlekeep for Forgotten Realms, or Memory Alpha for Star Trek, and all three of those combined don't nail down as many details as Wikipedia.


----------



## Imaculata

Riley37 said:


> So if we play any game with in which the setting starts with the real world, plus the specifics of the PCs and the parts of the world immediately involved in their adventures - cloak and dagger, Westerns, etc. - then have we "reached an edge case where the world building gets in the way of a possible shared fiction"? Because of how thoroughly the real world has already been documented? I mean, look at Wookipedia, or Candlekeep for Forgotten Realms, or Memory Alpha for Star Trek, and all three of those combined don't nail down as many details as Wikipedia.




Obviously if you set your campaign in the real world, you're not doing much world building. The setting is predefined by reality to a large extent. The rules regarding how religions work in this setting are not built by you, they already exist. So this is a terribly flawed example.


----------



## Afrodyte

Hussar said:


> Like was said earlier, to me, it's a red flag.  I've almost never enjoyed a game where the DM has this extensive setting, whether homebrew or published.  It's too restrictive for me.  I don't enjoy it.  I'd much rather the players have far more input into the game world and I wish my players would be more pro-active about it.




Honestly, a lot of folks who do a lot of extensive worldbuilding in RPGs (when not paid to do so) would be better served by writing and publishing their epic fantasy novels instead. It'd be far less frustrating and far more likely to be engaged by the audience in a meaningful way.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> And that's fair enough.
> 
> But, unlike @_*Imaro*_, I think that whenever this sort of thing comes up, I see the exact opposite of what he does- the basic advice is always world building first.  If you're a good DM, you're going to world build and anyone who doesn't spend the time doing it is, by implication anyway, a bad DM.




Can you show me a recent thread where the premise starts off with "choosing not to world build makes you a bad DM"?  Right now there are 2 threads on the first page and they are based on the premise that worldbuilding is bad or that worldbuilding needs to be justified.  I'm open to admiting it may be a bias on my part but I can't find a thread whose premise is that a DM is bad because he doesn't worldbuild, I only see that as a reaction to these types of threads...


----------



## Imaro

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't really like to take this kind of position, because it feels to me like its saying effectively "you can't criticize this technique because there's this perfect version of it somewhere that avoids this problem." If its a problem, repeatedly, in real games in the real world, then IMHO its a problem with the technique! You may well avoid that problem by dint of expert play, but MANY campaigns have sunk upon that rock!
> 
> I mean, any absolutist pronouncements, like the initial premise of this thread, are always fraught. To say 'nobody should world build' is of course idiotic. I mean, I recommend against it and then I do it myself! I don't actually feel a need to be self-consistent or act in the 'best' way possible. I just do what I like to do, particularly when it comes to pastimes. So I wouldn't actually condone dismissing world building, but that isn't the same thing as saying its beyond criticism because people like it or it produces good results sometimes. IME No Myth play actually has fewer problems.




Yes but then it has to swing both ways.  For example if I say... hey consistency can be a major issue when one is creating the world in play as opposed to having some of it pre-authored and your reply is... well my group doesn't have issues with consistency when we play this way it's the same thing.  I think an issue arises in discussion when you then in turn cite these example of bad play from the style you don't prefer and the same answer isn't deemed sufficient to answer said criticisms... so again it's either that we are discussing potential issues with both or we are discussing the perfect version of both whats disingenuous is to assume the perfect version for the style you prefer while extolling the failures of the flawed version of the style you do not.


----------



## billd91

AbdulAlhazred said:


> What I'm saying is, is it is *fostered by* world building. There's all this 'stuff' that the GM has imagined and planned on, and then the PCs go and invalidate 90% of it (which is EXACTLY what PCs, especially high level ones, will do every time). This is classic, almost expected even. So, you can say its a 'railroading problem', and that's technically correct, but its not really getting to the root of the thing.




I utterly disagree that worldbuilding is the root of the problem. At most, it's another avenue for the problem of the GM's inability to let go of what he wants to manifest itself. The problem is full on a railroading problem.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Yes but then it has to swing both ways.  For example if I say... hey consistency can be a major issue when one is creating the world in play as opposed to having some of it pre-authored and your reply is... well my group doesn't have issues with consistency when we play this way it's the same thing.



Here's a diffrence between the two cases you cite: it seems to me that most of the posters who are expressing these concerns about consistency as a major issue are not basing that on actual experience, but rather on conjecture. Whereas [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] is attributing his claim to actual experience.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Here's a diffrence between the two cases you cite: it seems to me that most of the posters who are expressing these concerns about consistency as a major issue are not basing that on actual experience, but rather on conjecture. Whereas [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] is attributing his claim to actual experience.




Honestly I think this is irrelevant.  I'm not sure why the anecdotal evidence of a single poster (or even a few posters), especially on a board that's not representative of most people who actually play the game, is considered any stronger than theoretical problems which can easily be extrapolated?  Now for the record I've experienced this in play, with the other DM of my group who tends to resort to this method when pressed for time but I'm not sure why me stating that makes it more valid? 

And since we are going with experiences with the "no-worldbuilding playstyle" ... I've also experienced when the players don't want to improvise world details (I often see this with either casual gamers or those new to rpg's) and it's forced on them by a DM who thinks this is the best way to run a game (or hasn't pre-authored things)... It's as painful to watch as pulling teeth, usually brings the game to a halt and IMO isn't enhancing play for that particular person at this point.


----------



## Imaro

billd91 said:


> I utterly disagree that worldbuilding is the root of the problem. At most, it's another avenue for the problem of the GM's inability to let go of what he wants to manifest itself. The problem is full on a railroading problem.




I'd go even further and contend that eschewing  pre-authored content doesn't safeguard a game form the GM directing play towards what he wants... he can do it in either playstyle.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Honestly I think this is irrelevant.  I'm not sure why the anecdotal evidence of a single poster (or even a few posters), especially on a board that's not representative of most people who actually play the game, is considered any stronger than theoretical problems which can easily be extrapolated?



I'm fairly sceptical of conjecture about how a RPG will play made by players who have never even read its rules, or the rules for a similar game, let alone had experience of playing it or seeing how it plays.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I'm fairly sceptical of conjecture about how a RPG will play made by players who have never even read its rules, or the rules for a similar game, let alone had experience of playing it or seeing how it plays.




Okay... I'm unaware of a specific game we are speaking about, I thought the discussion was around worldbuilding vs. nonworldbuilding in a general sense...

Also now that I've stated my experiences... is all of your skepticism around whether these issues can happen gone?


----------



## Riley37

Imaculata said:


> So this is a terribly flawed example.




I mentioned, at the start, that it was a particular scenario which I constructed specifically for the purpose of getting the answers I want. On another hand, at least it was a flawed example, rather than a categorical assertion that no table could EVER have fun doing D&D this way or that way.



Imaculata said:


> Obviously if you set your campaign in the real world, you're not doing much world building.




Oh, my sweet summer child, may your innocence never be broken.

Then again, it'll get broken sooner or later, so let's get it over with:

https://entertainment.theonion.com/novelist-has-whole-:):):):):):)-world-plotted-out-1819572899


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> Your Elven heraldry story is fun. I've never run a game in which heraldry mattered except as the barest colour, and can't imagine that ever changing, so to me that seems about the lightest possible touch of worldbuilding. (The working out of the ideals of the noble houses, implicit in sketching the devices, is a bit less light touch.) I put it in the same category as giving names to towns, lands and peoples.




In a D&D story set in the Forgotten Realms, if the party encounters a mounted armored warrior at the crossroads, with a shield displaying heraldic insignia which includes the Lord's Alliance symbol, that's a factor in the "Identify: Friend or Foe" process. Which in turn could be a factor in whether there's a surprise round.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Imaro said:


> Yes but then it has to swing both ways.  For example if I say... hey consistency can be a major issue when one is creating the world in play as opposed to having some of it pre-authored and your reply is... well my group doesn't have issues with consistency when we play this way it's the same thing.  I think an issue arises in discussion when you then in turn cite these example of bad play from the style you don't prefer and the same answer isn't deemed sufficient to answer said criticisms... so again it's either that we are discussing potential issues with both or we are discussing the perfect version of both whats disingenuous is to assume the perfect version for the style you prefer while extolling the failures of the flawed version of the style you do not.




I think there is SOME difference between saying "I don't have this problem" and saying "My technique should not be criticized for X because only a Scottsman would have that problem." Now, do these two positions often seem to merge and people state one and mean the other? Yeah, probably, at least sometimes, but you shouldn't criticize my position because someone did that! 

As far as the consistency thing itself goes... 

I think the degree to which pre-authorship of material and backstory (world building) 'creates consistency' is often vastly overrated and overstated. I think most settings, whether homebrew or published, aren't all that internally consistent. They may be consistent in some surface areas (maybe) like having a consistent map, and maybe they have consistent descriptions of locations, NPCs, etc. (maybe). Beyond that I find they are mostly pretty inconsistent. There's little, if any, way to enforce consistency on NPCs in play for instance, so they often act in unpredictable and GM-serving ways, or just in ways that are completely unrealistic, violate their descriptions, etc. In terms of things making 'logical sense', I don't think that happens much. So I'm not sure I see consistency as some sort of great virtue. 

Nor do I see ease of play for the GM as a really great virtue. Obviously if I made up something last night before play, then its pretty fresh in my mind, and maybe it could be easier to lay it out. However, in my campaign I have 6 large notebooks, MANY loose maps and things, as well as a LARGE harddrive folder and a very extensive Wiki that are all full of stuff. Just to research an existing topic related to things that I KNOW have come up before and have canonical answers in my game is not always a small task!


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> In a D&D story set in the Forgotten Realms, if the party encounters a mounted armored warrior at the crossroads, with a shield displaying heraldic insignia which includes the Lord's Alliance symbol, that's a factor in the "Identify: Friend or Foe" process. Which in turn could be a factor in whether there's a surprise round.



I can see that. As I said in the post to which you responded, I'm sure heraldry can be made important in all sorts of ways - I just don't myself have a good sense of what those are.

One of the interesting things about RPGing is the range of fictional elements that can be given significance by the players. My Burning Wheel PC has cooking skill, and an Instinct to always have a fire while camping. I'm not sure yet how those will come into play, but my GM is obliged (by the conventions of BW) to make them matter. In the rulebook, one example Instinct is to _always have a hidden knife on my person_, which I think a lot of RPGers could relate to. Another is to _always have the ingredients for noodle soup ready to hand_. I don't know what that game looked like, but clearly particuar dishes, and their ingredients, were more important than I can ever remember them having been in a game I played or GMed!


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> Does the Cuthbertian estimate of how many angels, agree with the Tritherionist answer?



Returning to this - I at first took it to be a humorous aside, but on the chance that it's a genuine question, here's a straightfaced answer:

The typical Cuthbertian, I think, regards the question as nonsense: similar to the refutation of Berkely's idealism by kicking a stone.

For Tritherion it's trickier. The answer is, in effect, whatever the Kantian answer is to the same question, but I don't know what Kant's account of angels is. I'll try and do something from first principles: angels are spiritual beings, not of the phenomenal realm; so they are not "constructed" by the operation of mortal cognitive architecture; so the relation of _on-ness_ (being a relation between material things located in time and space) doesn't pertain to them; so the question turns out to involve a category error. (When an angel manifests in phenomenal form so that mortals can deal with it, then the answer is "none" because the angel is bigger than the head of the pin.)

So it turns out that in an odd way the answer is the same, but arrived at via different methodologies. (Which is also one reason why Kant is my least favourite of the "great philosophers" - it seems a very complicated way of getting to a slightly banal common sense!)


----------



## Hussar

Afrodyte said:


> Honestly, a lot of folks who do a lot of extensive worldbuilding in RPGs (when not paid to do so) would be better served by writing and publishing their epic fantasy novels instead. It'd be far less frustrating and far more likely to be engaged by the audience in a meaningful way.




That's largely how I look at it.  Take the old Dragon Magazine articles "Ecology of..".  Now, these were a ton of fun to read.  I really enjoyed them.  But, from a practical standpoint, they were about as useful as a rubber hammer.  The articles ran about 3000 words - about four to six pages or so by and large.  Now, imagine, for a second that the "Ecology of" articles were written by me.

The articles would have a couple of paragraphs talking about what the critter in question is.  Fair enough, you need something to frame the game with.  You have to define what a Throat Warbler Mangrove _is_ before you can use it in the game.  But, my version would then have three to four encounters set up.  Maybe a single encounter with the critter, a lair, and then the critter with allies.  One page each, with a small map and whatnot.  Four page article, one page of information, and three pages of encounters.  

Now, if you're like me and you subscribed to Dragon, at the end of the year, you had 12 Ecology of articles that had lots of flavor, true, but, really didn't do much of anything to help you at the table.  In my version, you'd have 12 monster descriptions and about 30-40 encounters that you could plug and play in your game.  Far, far more useful IMO.



Imaro said:


> Can you show me a recent thread where the premise starts off with "choosing not to world build makes you a bad DM"?  Right now there are 2 threads on the first page and they are based on the premise that worldbuilding is bad or that worldbuilding needs to be justified.  I'm open to admiting it may be a bias on my part but I can't find a thread whose premise is that a DM is bad because he doesn't worldbuild, I only see that as a reaction to these types of threads...




This thread is predicated on the presumption that world building is good.  It's a reaction to the common wisdom that if you are a DM, you MUST world build and anyone who doesn't do it is running a bad game.  A game that lacks consistency, a game that lacks depth, etc.  You can find all sorts of quotes for those points all through this thread.  The whole REASON for having threads like this is because there is a basic presumption that if you DM, you will world build.  Heck, the Dungeon Master Guides presume it.  How much ink is spilled in any editions DMG detailing how you should build your game world?  Pages upon pages upon pages.  2ed was replete with world building stuff, to the point where the 2e Monster Manual was written with one monster per page (or sometimes more).  Compared to 1e where you'd get up to four monsters on a single page.

I mean, good grief, look at the reactions from the first page of this thread:



Raven Crowking said:


> Utter crap.
> 
> 
> RC






Ry said:


> This is very relevant advice for a sci-fi writer.
> 
> *This is terrible advice for most DMs.*
> 
> This is somewhat appropriate advice for a small number of DMs with a very particular kind of style.





robberbaron said:


> He's quite right -* if you want the players to move through the world without really being in it.*
> 
> Personally, I like to know that there is more to a gameworld than a series of dungeons, a list of maidens to be rescued/deflowered (depending upon alignment), etc. *Games I've played in which had no depth seemed little more than multiplayer Fighting Fantasy books.*
> 
> It would be interesting to have a poll on this subject.






Desdichado said:


> QFT.  Although some of my favorite sci-fi and fantasy authors defy that advice--Edgar Rice Burroughs, for instance.  J. R. R. Tolkien.  But I can see his point for an author.  It's not really relevent for GMs.  Running a game takes place in something closer to "realtime" than writing a story, so you need to have some details already in place when your players encounter them, becuase* if you have to stop to think about them when they get there, that makes for a really boring game.  It works for writing a story, but not playing a game.*






The world builders took over the hobby years ago.  What's being challenged now is the unspoken presumption that this was a good thing.


----------



## gamerprinter

Afrodyte said:


> Honestly, a lot of folks who do a lot of extensive worldbuilding in RPGs (when not paid to do so) would be better served by writing and publishing their epic fantasy novels instead. It'd be far less frustrating and far more likely to be engaged by the audience in a meaningful way.




No offense, but though I'm not "paid to do it", the exercise of world building I don't see as even slightly frustrating - it's the thing about being a GM I love most of all. Of course I love game prep too, another activity that many seem to find frustrating, but I thoroughly enjoy it. It's stage setting, creating maps, working out puzzles like matching challenges by CR to the party's level and the way the players run their characters. I would do it, and have done it, without a group that might even play it, though playing it is always more fun and engaging that not doing it.

While it's true I publish adventures, optional rules supplements, settings and even maps professionally and as my own small publisher now. You could say a lifetime of GMing and playing games lead me to eventually becoming a TTRPG publisher (mostly as 3PP for published game editions), but there was no guarantee I'd actually try - though I'm glad I did. And though I may write some kind of fiction like a short story or something, someday. I don't do world-building to write novels - an activity I really have no interest in. Funny, although I never really wanted to be an author, rather I pursued being a professional freelance cartographer, yet in work I've done for Paizo, Rite Publishing and other publishers, I found myself in the situation of... "nice map, now you need to write this gazetteer"... which I've done. I know so many wannabe authors trying to find the opportunity to get their written work published, and I haven't even tried, but am a published author.

My point is, I enjoying publishing the kind of games I play, but never want to be George R. R. Martin. World-building settings for games is what drew me into wanting to be a DM/GM in the first place - how can it be frustrating?


----------



## Afrodyte

gamerprinter said:


> No offense, but though I'm not "paid to do it", the exercise of world building I don't see as even slightly frustrating - it's the thing about being a GM I love most of all. Of course I love game prep too, another activity that many seem to find frustrating, but I thoroughly enjoy it. It's stage setting, creating maps, working out puzzles like matching challenges by CR to the party's level and the way the players run their characters. I would do it, and have done it, without a group that might even play it, though playing it is always more fun and engaging that not doing it.
> 
> While it's true I publish adventures, optional rules supplements, settings and even maps professionally and as my own small publisher now. You could say a lifetime of GMing and playing games lead me to eventually becoming a TTRPG publisher (mostly as 3PP for published game editions), but there was no guarantee I'd actually try - though I'm glad I did. And though I may write some kind of fiction like a short story or something, someday. I don't do world-building to write novels - an activity I really have no interest in. Funny, although I never really wanted to be an author, rather I pursued being a professional freelance cartographer, yet in work I've done for Paizo, Rite Publishing and other publishers, I found myself in the situation of... "nice map, now you need to write this gazetteer"... which I've done. I know so many wannabe authors trying to find the opportunity to get their written work published, and I haven't even tried, but am a published author.
> 
> My point is, I enjoying publishing the kind of games I play, but never want to be George R. R. Martin. World-building settings for games is what drew me into wanting to be a DM/GM in the first place - how can it be frustrating?




Novel is just one art form, but whatever form it takes that includes getting it in front of an audience that is not a game table, that's what I mean. Beyond the basics of genre, tone, atmosphere, theme, and aesthetic, most worldbuilding material is often of interest only to the GM. However, a lot of GMs do get a bit testy if players lack interest in the lovingly crafted worlds they created for the game. 

If writing and mapmaking and creating languages for secondary worlds in your spare time is fun for you, go ahead and get your Tolkien on. But please do not toss hundreds of pages at me and expect me to be conversant with it in order to meaningfully participate in the game.


----------



## gamerprinter

Afrodyte said:


> Novel is just one art form, but whatever form it takes that includes getting it in front of an audience that is not a game table, that's what I mean. Beyond the basics of genre, tone, atmosphere, theme, and aesthetic, most worldbuilding material is often of interest only to the GM. However, a lot of GMs do get a bit testy if players lack interest in the lovingly crafted worlds they created for the game.
> 
> If writing and mapmaking and creating languages for secondary worlds in your spare time is fun for you, go ahead and get your Tolkien on. But please do not toss hundreds of pages at me and expect me to be conversant with it in order to meaningfully participate in the game.




Well I published the Kaidan setting of Japanese Horror (PFRPG) as an imprint under Rite Publishing, 15 books in all from between 2010 and 2017, though only the GM's Guide had hundreds of pages (about 210). And now I'm creating a larger setting and a specific region within that larger setting and giving it nuance - in fact I am just upgrading my Kaidan setting to MegaCorps, Starships and Cyberpunk. And while it is Japanese, I use Japanese naming conventions. I used lots of nuance and authenticity in the original Kaidan, which I am carrying forward to my sci-fi version, but it's really new territory, so more difficult to be authentic beyond culture and myth.

I never said anything about creating languages, though - yech, something I do not even slightly care to do. If I did nothing else, though, it would be maps, my true skill and talent. The publishing is just to create and release, my second most fun activity, and a place to do maps.

Really though, in my non-published world building exercises, I don't expect my players to know hundreds of pages of anything. They get an overview - even a lie with the truth kept hidden until they are forced to engage one particular aspect or another. It's just the flesh behind the game I'm running. I've given out a 15 page hand-out to players to serve as a player setting guide, even though I had a 100 or more pages for myself. If I ran a game with you, you'd never see more than 15 pages, if that. The world-building is for me the GM, not the player, at least not all at once. By the time a campaign is run within it, then players might learn 3/4ths of what I detailed. I just like to have a good idea regarding any questions or concerns during play and to be consistent with my answers to players. They'll never see the hundreds of pages I prepared - unless I publish it, and they choose to read it, learn it and run it. They are free to only use what works for their table - I don't need anyone to depend on the canon I create for anything, it's just there if you want it.

But language design... no thanks, I don't want or need that.


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> In the rulebook, one example Instinct is to _always have a hidden knife on my person_, which I think a lot of RPGers could relate to. Another is to _always have the ingredients for noodle soup ready to hand_. I don't know what that game looked like, but clearly particuar dishes, and their ingredients, were more important than I can ever remember them having been in a game I played or GMed!




http://kol.coldfront.net/thekolwiki/index.php/Pastamancer


----------



## MichaelSomething

World building can be very helpful in fiction.  Look at how world building improved My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!

If you watch the series, you can learn a lot of things about the world like:

Hearth's Warming Eve, the holiday that celebrates the founding of Equestia.  It comes with a whole story of how the various pony races came together!
Historical figures like Starshwirl the Bearded, and the rest of the Pillars; who where the ancient heroes of legend.
How ponies activity manage the weather, as in they work to change the seasons from fall to winter, etc.
The process of making Zap apple Jam, and how a strange fruit that requires very weird rituals to produce, put Ponyville on the map.
The Legend of the Mare in the Moon, about an, uh, mare got banished to the Moon. 
Cutie Marks, the symbol that appears on ponies that help guide their destinies.

Stuff like this adds depth to the show, as well as give the writers things to use to develop it's characters.


----------



## Hussar

Whereas I view that sort of thing as filling time because the writers don’t want to be bothered with the hard stuff like plot and character development.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> This thread is predicated on the presumption that world building is good.  It's a reaction to the common wisdom that if you are a DM, you MUST world build and anyone who doesn't do it is running a bad game.  A game that lacks consistency, a game that lacks depth, etc.  You can find all sorts of quotes for those points all through this thread.  The whole REASON for having threads like this is because there is a basic presumption that if you DM, you will world build.  Heck, the Dungeon Master Guides presume it.  How much ink is spilled in any editions DMG detailing how you should build your game world?  Pages upon pages upon pages.  2ed was replete with world building stuff, to the point where the 2e Monster Manual was written with one monster per page (or sometimes more).  Compared to 1e where you'd get up to four monsters on a single page.
> 
> I mean, good grief, look at the reactions from the first page of this thread:
> 
> 
> The world builders took over the hobby years ago.  What's being challenged now is the unspoken presumption that this was a good thing.




The thread is predicated on the fact that worldbuilding is bad, it's the premise of the OP, of course those who feel that's incorrect are going to respond first (and in a strong manner, it's their playstyle being attacked with the OP) but I'm not sure how that proves anything...  I'd feel like you have a valid point if you could show me a thread where the validity of worldbuilding isn't being called into question but instead is questioning not using worldbuilding.  It shouldn't be that hard if what you are claiming is true... right?  See IMO, this feels like someone throwing the first punch in a fight but then complaining about being bullied when they are subject to retaliation for said punch.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hussar said:


> That's largely how I look at it.  Take the old Dragon Magazine articles "Ecology of..".  Now, these were a ton of fun to read.  I really enjoyed them.  But, from a practical standpoint, they were about as useful as a rubber hammer.  The articles ran about 3000 words - about four to six pages or so by and large.  Now, imagine, for a second that the "Ecology of" articles were written by me.
> 
> The articles would have a couple of paragraphs talking about what the critter in question is.  Fair enough, you need something to frame the game with.  You have to define what a Throat Warbler Mangrove _is_ before you can use it in the game.  But, my version would then have three to four encounters set up.  Maybe a single encounter with the critter, a lair, and then the critter with allies.  One page each, with a small map and whatnot.  Four page article, one page of information, and three pages of encounters.
> 
> Now, if you're like me and you subscribed to Dragon, at the end of the year, you had 12 Ecology of articles that had lots of flavor, true, but, really didn't do much of anything to help you at the table.  In my version, you'd have 12 monster descriptions and about 30-40 encounters that you could plug and play in your game.  Far, far more useful IMO.




And you have, of course, described the 4e MM1 perfectly! It has a stat block, usually a paragraph or two of general description (sometimes more depending on the monster), a table for doing lore checks that gives DCs for specific facts (which are usually in addition to the general description, though sometimes just allowing access to that by PCs), and then a sample encounter using one of the DMG templates and including the monster. Many monsters have 2-3 sub-types, allowing more flexibility in play.

This was a somewhat controversial style. Some people, like me, liked it. Others hated it. I think its one weakness was they sometimes literally forgot to actually do a basic explanation of what the monster WAS, how it was intended to look and its 'purpose' in the game. This isn't, IMHO, a flaw in the general technique of presentation though, just a criticism of specific monsters. 

MM2 dropped the encounter blocks and lore blocks, which was a dead loss. MM3 emphasized fiction and was much more illustrative of the nature of the monsters, which was good, but they STILL lacked the MM1 lore and encounter blocks, which would have added more useful stuff! It could be a page count issue of course. Now that we're SLOWLY freeing ourselves from the tyranny of the dead tree that should be less of an issue....


----------



## hawkeyefan

AbdulAlhazred said:


> In my mind there's a HUGE difference between "that which may be true" (things which are included in the genre) and things which are ESTABLISHED to be true. The former are simply potential, the later have assumed canonical status and become incorporated within the narrative which makes up the game.
> 
> Now, something could be 'tentatively established' as in it could be RUMORED that a dragon exists which has kobold minions. In this case perhaps kobolds are simply legends within the campaign, but their existence as legends is canonical, and the legend could shape the player's decisions. Still, this is not quite the same as 'we met a kobold and had it for dinner'.




Tentatively or not, these things can be established in the game. A general “kobolds serve dragons” in the same way that we in the real world know that ticks latch onto dogs, or “the kobolds of Dragon Mountain serve the ancient red wyrm Infyrana” in the same sense that the tick I just flushed down my toilet had latched onto my dog Kirby. 

General or specific, either can be established as fact. This was my point.


----------



## Sunseeker

I don't recall if I posted in this thread already, and unfortunately, the original article has been deleted (if it was recopied somewhere in this thread, great but I have no real desire to go searching for it.

I suspect the writers point was not that you should write _nothing_, but that you shouldn't write *everything* and that you should avoid unnecessary detail.  Which is a fairly sound argument.  Some DM's have details for everything and that can be interesting, but it does present a boundary to engaging with the fiction.  Some DMs have no details for _anything _and that too presents a boundary to engaging with the fiction.

If for some reason I'm wrong and the article is suggesting that you should come to the game with nothing more than a blank piece of paper, I think that's silly, for the same reason that you shouldn't come to the table with veritable volumes of world-lore.

I'm going to go back to one of my all-time favorite phrases: 


			
				Donald Rumsfeld said:
			
		

> Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.




A world should always have some known knowns.  What the kingdom you come from is called.  What sort of people live there.  If the world is highly explored or not.  - These are hard facts about the world.  They are known, and they are typically easily knowable.  The kind of things you wouldn't call for checks for.

A world should also have some known unknowns.  What that kingdom _over there_ is like.  What the total population of elves is.  - These are soft facts about the world.  They may be knowable, or they may not (but you can learn that you cannot learn it).  These elements are best when penciled in, subject to change if necessary, and not detailed in case the players never move in the direction of this information.

A world should also have some unknown unknowns.  These can be player-authored elements, or some area of the world the DM hasn't really gotten around to yet.  These can be elements that exist only in limited time windows.  These can be precipitated elements derived from player engagement with the world.  

The problem with sci-fi vs fantasy in the authors context is that sci-fi has a low bar for something being a "known known".  How a space-ship works can be readily derived from a diagram, which itself is readily available.  The general level of knowledge is high.  In the same sense that what the average person knows _now_ is far beyond what even some of the smartest people knew 5000 years ago.  Access to new knowledge is easy and transmission of information is direct (say, on a flash drive), as opposed to rare and indirect (oral tradition).  It is difficult to create a hard sci-fi setting and then say "Well you can't know that!" or "Nobody knows that!" because that is so incredibly rare.

Some settings try.  Star Wars tries.  But Star Wars has always sort of danced around between hard and soft sci-fantasy.  Star Wars attempts to have "unknown unknowns" with the (aptly named) Unknown Regions.  But educated guesses turn it into a "known unknown" fairly quickly.

Star Trek simply says "We haven't learned that yet." but once they reach the information they _can_ learn it.  Almost everything in Star Trek would be a "known unknown".  Largely for no other reason than the level of knowledge is high enough to assimilate (buh-dun tish!) the information quickly.

Sci-fi in this regard does not really suffer from a plentiful level of available information, since in sci-fi settings the characters typically have the capacity to learn, absorb and generally understand greater quantities of information much faster.

Fantasy on the other hand falls apart when too much is detailed in and too much of that detail is readily available to the players.  Questions start being raised about how, if they know of black powder, do they not have guns?  Or how we have such detailed knowledge of foreign kingdoms without readily available methods of information transmission (like even a newspaper!).  And because the characters themselves often lack the capacity to learn and absorb volumes of complex information.

That all said, "detailing in" is a natural outcome of expanding the lore, which is why some older settings feel less approachable with how much information has already been detailed in.  Consider for example how much we know of the Star Trek universe from the Original Series, compared to how much we know about the universe from Voyager or Deep Space Nine.  Not to mention the copious volumes of books and comics and other lore materials that have detailed in this universe.  

If the article's author is suggesting that when you come up with a new setting you leave a lot to be explored, that's great and true.  But that's not what you're going to end up with when you finish _playing_​ the setting.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> The thread is predicated on the fact that worldbuilding is bad, it's the premise of the OP, of course those who feel that's incorrect are going to respond first (and in a strong manner, it's their playstyle being attacked with the OP) but I'm not sure how that proves anything...  I'd feel like you have a valid point if you could show me a thread where the validity of worldbuilding isn't being called into question but instead is questioning not using worldbuilding.  It shouldn't be that hard if what you are claiming is true... right?  See IMO, this feels like someone throwing the first punch in a fight but then complaining about being bullied when they are subject to retaliation for said punch.




A thread called “Why No Myth Gaming Is Bad” would be met with some strong resistance, for sure.

And it should, really.

Even if we concede that worldbuilding in the sense established in the OP of this thread- that of a GM pre-authoring the vast majority of gameworld details (which is a crap definition of worldbuilding, to be honest, but here we are)- lends itself to railroading or limiting player agency, that still does not mean it cannot be used effectively and responsibly. 

Perhaps the risk of railroading and reduced player agency are two things to be wary of when worldbuilding. That’s probably a better way of expressing it. The idea that it must always be bad seems a pretty limited view.

But then I think saying that there are also similar concerns of No Myth gaming would be no less controversial. I would think the things to look out for in that regard are internal inconsistency of the fictional world and also the mosaic effect, where different elements of the world are slapped together on a whim with no forethought.

I’ve played in games where the GM and players were deciding game elements as they went along, and it was not a pleasant experience. It lacked immersion for me, and seemed very haphazard and slapped together. So this is a legit concern for me with that style.

Does that mean that I’ve figured out why “No Myth gaming is bad”?

Or have I just cited a potential issue that I have with that game style and then presented it as the only possible result?


----------



## Sunseeker

hawkeyefan said:


> A thread called “Why No Myth Gaming Is Bad” would be met with some strong resistance, for sure.
> 
> And it should, really.
> 
> Even if we concede that worldbuilding in the sense established in the OP of this thread- that of a GM pre-authoring the vast majority of gameworld details (which is a crap definition of worldbuilding, to be honest, but here we are)- lends itself to railroading or limiting player agency, that still does not mean it cannot be used effectively and responsibly.
> 
> Perhaps the risk of railroading and reduced player agency are two things to be wary of when worldbuilding. That’s probably a better way of expressing it. The idea that it must always be bad seems a pretty limited view.
> 
> But then I think saying that there are also similar concerns of No Myth gaming would be no less controversial. I would think the things to look out for in that regard are internal inconsistency of the fictional world and also the mosaic effect, where different elements of the world are slapped together on a whim with no forethought.
> 
> I’ve played in games where the GM and players were deciding game elements as they went along, and it was not a pleasant experience. It lacked immersion for me, and seemed very haphazard and slapped together. So this is a legit concern for me with that style.
> 
> Does that mean that I’ve figured out why “No Myth gaming is bad”?
> 
> Or have I just cited a potential issue that I have with that game style and then presented it as the only possible result?




Perhaps to cut more to the question [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] asked, I think one of the reasons we probably don't see threads on "Why no worldbuilding is bad." is because complaints about them usually fall under topics like "The DM was so unprepared!" or "It felt like he didn't have anything for us to do!" or as you suggest "It all felt so cobbled together!".  The complains about a _lack_ of world build are more ephemeral, the objections are vague and varied because there is so little to focus on.  It's hard to form an objection when you don't even know what to object to!

But with objections to world building you can object to _specific_ things.  Because that's exactly the problem.  Something that should have been left open to interpretation or exploration was instead carved in stone.  Something that could have benefited from a little vaguness was instead overly specific.  This led to...feeling like we weren't really participating, feeling like we were watching a movie, feeling like we had no control or effect on things.  Notice how these common objections to over-building seem to follow a particular thread?  That's because they have something specific to object to.

So to get back to Imaro, we don't have threads on why "no worldbuilding is bad" because it is difficult to focus ones thoughts on the subject.  But if you've ever read a thread about how someone's DM didn't have their stuff together, you've read a thread objecting to no world building.


----------



## darkbard

Are you familiar, [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION], with the philosopher Slavoi Zizek's take on the Rumsfeld statement you quoted? He points out that Rumsfeld omits the fourth, and natural, category from his list, unknown knowns: those beliefs we hold without being aware of how they act upon us which shape how we act in the world. In other words, ideology.

I'm pretty sure Zizek writes about this in the introduction to The Borrowed Kettle.



shidaku said:


> The problem with sci-fi vs fantasy in the authors context is that sci-fi has a low bar for something being a "known known".  How a space-ship works can be readily derived from a diagram, which itself is readily available.  The general level of knowledge is high.  In the same sense that what the average person knows _now_ is far beyond what even some of the smartest people knew 5000 years ago.  Access to new knowledge is easy and transmission of information is direct (say, on a flash drive), as opposed to rare and indirect (oral tradition).




Here, I think, you have misstated the way you are thinking about knowledge. We know different things than ancient peoples, for sure, and we have access to a vastly greater amount of information on the whole, via literacy and information technology, but _individuals_ do not have more knowledge than our ancestors!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

hawkeyefan said:


> Tentatively or not, these things can be established in the game. A general “kobolds serve dragons” in the same way that we in the real world know that ticks latch onto dogs, or “the kobolds of Dragon Mountain serve the ancient red wyrm Infyrana” in the same sense that the tick I just flushed down my toilet had latched onto my dog Kirby.
> 
> General or specific, either can be established as fact. This was my point.




I would argue, as a general tenet of philosophy, that such things are only established by experience. Had I not experienced ticks and dogs, then I would not hold a belief about it. I could be convinced of its truth due to the fact that authority figures say it is so, which is 'good enough' for fairly conventional and non-controversial things. For extraordinary things, like dragons and kobolds, then such authority is insufficient, or must be MUCH stronger (IE the paladin that dragged back the head of the dragon? I believe him. The village elder? His 'knowledge' is no more than rumor). Of course a character could be credulous and accept rumor as truth, but its still rumor, it COULD be untrue! Ticks are unlikely to be untrue, unless they're giant ticks that live in the Forest Nobody Goes Into, then legendary. 

So, no, I don't think that, just because there's a story about something, that it is automatically established as a general 'fact'. Its a story, a tale, a rumor, or maybe at most accepted only due to its lack of fantastic character. Thus the entries in the MM MIGHT be rumors, some few of them might be accepted (the militia fought orcs 20 years ago, they can give you a first-hand account), and then there's direct experience, which is canonical due to inclusion in the narrative. Some things might be a bit gray now and then, we hear orc drums in the hills and some elves claim to have news of a town that they pillaged on the other side of the mountains. Maybe its actually goblins or something else, but we can at least suspect orcs and its having an impact on the narrative.


----------



## Sunseeker

darkbard said:


> Are you familiar, [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION], with the philosopher Slavoi Zizek's take on the Rumsfeld statement you quoted? He points out that Rumsfeld omits the fourth, and natural, category from his list, unknown knowns: those beliefs we hold without being aware of how they act upon us which shape how we act in the world. In other words, ideology.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Zizek writes about this in the introduction to The Borrowed Kettle.



I am not, I will get back to that.



> Here, I think, you have misstated the way you are thinking about knowledge. We know different things than ancient peoples, for sure, and we have access to a vastly greater amount of information on the whole, via literacy and information technology, but _individuals_ do not have more knowledge than our ancestors!




I disagree strongly.  The average _individual_ possesses a great deal more knowledge than our ancestors.  Some of that is _different_ knowledge (depending on who you ask).  But I'd probably wager that even most farmers and ranchers _now_ possess a great deal more knowledge (on the individual level) than farmers in the distant past.  

The fact that the _majority_ of people are even literate to begin with demonstrates this.  I would argue that if you took two people from relatively similar backgrounds (lets say farmers), 5000 years apart; the person from the modern times would be able to demonstrate an almost invariably larger volume of individual knowledge about farming.  

That all said, "known knowns" in a setting development sense include both what an individual knows, and what an individual knows they are able to access readily.  I may not have The Leviathan memorized, but I know I have a copy of the book and can readily re-read and re-learn it at my leisure.


----------



## darkbard

shidaku said:


> I disagree strongly.  The average _individual_ possesses a great deal more knowledge than our ancestors.




And herein is another reason why I mentioned ideology earlier. You seem to buy in to, unexamined, the myth of progress that our global western society tells itself, seeing this not only as obviously true on a grand, sweeping scale but also at the granular level of the individual.

I could point you to a hundred works of cultural anthropology that demonstrate the falsehood of your claim. I could point you to _Larding the Lean Earth_, wherein Steven Stoll recounts the lost farming techniques (lost, I might add, to a nascent chemical agricultural indistry) of eigtheenth and nineteenth century America that are only now being rediscovered by organic farmers. I could point to _Against the Grain_, wherein James C. Scott discusses the processes of early state formation, including the reduced brain size and adrenal response of domesticated animals, and the parallel reduced fitness of newly sedentary human societies. I could point you to the work Calvin Luther Martin, and Loren Eisley, and so many others have done in the study of paleolithic peoples. I could even cite Socrates's fear (in the Phaedrus) that writing would lead to a _decrease_ in human brain capacity. But first you would have to be open to recognizing the ideology that shapes our thoughts with which we are all programmed in our culture, and be willing to challenge that.

Those trained in cultural anthropology (it's not my field, though it connects, in some ways, with my own research interests) could probably direct you to even more precise sources that contradict your claims about the naive, unlettered "savage."


----------



## gamerprinter

darkbard said:


> And herein is another reason why I mentioned ideology earlier. You seem to buy in to, unexamined, the myth of progress that our global western society tells itself, seeing this not only as obviously true on a grand, sweeping scale but also at the granular level of the individual.
> 
> I could point you to a hundred works of cultural anthropology that demonstrate the falsehood of your claim. I could point you to _Larding the Lean Earth_, wherein Steven Stoll recounts the lost farming techniques (lost, I might add, to a nascent chemical agricultural indistry) of eigtheenth and nineteenth century America that are only now being rediscovered by organic farmers. I could point to _Against the Grain_, wherein James C. Scott discusses the processes of early state formation, including the reduced brain size and adrenal response of domesticated animals, and the parallel reduced fitness of newly sedentary human societies. I could point you to the work Calvin Luther Martin, and Loren Eisley, and so many others have done in the study of paleolithic peoples. I could even cite Socrates's fear (in the Phaedrus) that writing would lead to a _decrease_ in human brain capacity. But first you would have to be open to recognizing the ideology that shapes our thoughts with which we are all programmed in our culture, and be willing to challenge that.
> 
> Those trained in cultural anthropology (it's not my field, though it connects, in some ways, with my own research interests) could probably direct you to even more precise sources that contradict your claims about the naive, unlettered "savage."




Hell, look at the ancient Celts, they had no writing, but an immense skill in memorization - they had over a 1000 years of their own memorized and could call up at a moment's notice. There's plenty of knowledge and intellectual practices from long before our time, that far far exceeds anything our modernized, tech based intellect can even conceive of. I would never poo-poo the past as being somehow inconsequential compared to modern humans. We're hardly different, just lazier and stupider than many in the past. Heck look at language and writing skills from the 19th century and before - worlds better than we are today.


----------



## Sunseeker

darkbard said:


> And herein is another reason why I mentioned ideology earlier. You seem to buy in to, unexamined, the myth of progress that our global western society tells itself, seeing this not only as obviously true on a grand, sweeping scale but also at the granular level of the individual.



I am fairly well versed in ideology and rhetoric.  So for the sake of keeping this conversation brief: Pot, meet kettle.



> Those trained in cultural anthropology (it's not my field, though it connects, in some ways, with my own research interests) could probably direct you to even more precise sources that contradict *your claims about the naive, unlettered "savage."*



Don't.  Just, don't even go there.

Those were not the words I used, nor even the _implication_ I gave about historical people.  I suggested people _now_ know more than people _then_ in many areas.  The weather, for example.  Suggesting that people of the past were less well-learned on a multitude of subjects on which we are more learned of now is not to suggest that they were _savages_.  HOW DARE YOU.  

So _again_ to keep this brief: do not respond to me again until _you _have done some self-reflection, before demanding that I need to do some myself.

If you feel compelled to ignore that advice, you get this one warning: Everyone and their pet flail snail on this forum knows I am on quite friendly terms with my Ignore button.


----------



## hawkeyefan

shidaku said:


> Perhaps to cut more to the question [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] asked, I think one of the reasons we probably don't see threads on "Why no worldbuilding is bad." is because complaints about them usually fall under topics like "The DM was so unprepared!" or "It felt like he didn't have anything for us to do!" or as you suggest "It all felt so cobbled together!".  The complains about a _lack_ of world build are more ephemeral, the objections are vague and varied because there is so little to focus on.  It's hard to form an objection when you don't even know what to object to!
> 
> But with objections to world building you can object to _specific_ things.  Because that's exactly the problem.  Something that should have been left open to interpretation or exploration was instead carved in stone.  Something that could have benefited from a little vaguness was instead overly specific.  This led to...feeling like we weren't really participating, feeling like we were watching a movie, feeling like we had no control or effect on things.  Notice how these common objections to over-building seem to follow a particular thread?  That's because they have something specific to object to.
> 
> So to get back to Imaro, we don't have threads on why "no worldbuilding is bad" because it is difficult to focus ones thoughts on the subject.  But if you've ever read a thread about how someone's DM didn't have their stuff together, you've read a thread objecting to no world building.




I believe that what you’re saying is likely part of it...and yet, I gave a couple of specific points about it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I would argue, as a general tenet of philosophy, that such things are only established by experience. Had I not experienced ticks and dogs, then I would not hold a belief about it. I could be convinced of its truth due to the fact that authority figures say it is so, which is 'good enough' for fairly conventional and non-controversial things. For extraordinary things, like dragons and kobolds, then such authority is insufficient, or must be MUCH stronger (IE the paladin that dragged back the head of the dragon? I believe him. The village elder? His 'knowledge' is no more than rumor). Of course a character could be credulous and accept rumor as truth, but its still rumor, it COULD be untrue! Ticks are unlikely to be untrue, unless they're giant ticks that live in the Forest Nobody Goes Into, then legendary.
> 
> So, no, I don't think that, just because there's a story about something, that it is automatically established as a general 'fact'. Its a story, a tale, a rumor, or maybe at most accepted only due to its lack of fantastic character. Thus the entries in the MM MIGHT be rumors, some few of them might be accepted (the militia fought orcs 20 years ago, they can give you a first-hand account), and then there's direct experience, which is canonical due to inclusion in the narrative. Some things might be a bit gray now and then, we hear orc drums in the hills and some elves claim to have news of a town that they pillaged on the other side of the mountains. Maybe its actually goblins or something else, but we can at least suspect orcs and its having an impact on the narrative.




But I wasn’t talking about rumors. I was talking about a general fact or a specific fact. Exactly how they are introduced to the game can vary, and certainly they could be presented as rumor or as uncertain, but they can eually be presented as fact.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION], your post prompted a couple of thoughts in me.



shidaku said:


> If for some reason I'm wrong and the article is suggesting that you should come to the game with nothing more than a blank piece of paper, I think that's silly



If the sheet of paper was literally blank, then there wouldn't be a RPG system to use! But if we mean "turning up to a session with the rules and that's it", well I've got no problem with that, and have done it from time to time.



shidaku said:


> "detailing in" is a natural outcome of expanding the lore, which is why some older settings feel less approachable with how much information has already been detailed in.



This reminded me of Ron Edwards's comment about "karaoke RPGing":

This is a serious problem that arises from the need to sell thick books rather than to teach and develop powerful role-playing. Let's say you have a game that consists of some Premise-heavy characters and a few notes about Situation, and through play, the group generates a hellacious cool Setting as well as theme(s) regarding those characters. Then, publishing your great game, you present that very setting and theme in the text, in detail. . . .

The first time I played OTE, I had a few pages of notes on the background and nothing on the specifics. I made it all up on the spot. Not having anything written as a guide (or crutch), I let my imagination loose. You have the mixed blessing of having many pages of background prepared for you. If you use the information in this book as a springboard for your own wild dreams, then it is a blessing. If you limit yourself to what I've dreamed up, it's a curse. [quoted from Jonathan Tweet's Over the Edge]​
All I see, I'm afraid, is the curse. The isolated phrases "mixed blessing" and "(or crutch)" don't hold a lot of water compared to the preceding 152 extraordinarily detailed pages of canonical setting. I'm not saying that improvisation is better . . . than non-improvisational play. I am saying, however, that if playing this particular game worked so wonderfully to free the participants into wildly successful brainstorming during play ... and since the players were a core source during this event, as evident in the game's Dedication and in various examples of play ... then why present the _results_ of the play-experience as the _material_ for another person's experience?​
I think this phenomenon of "karaoke" is actually quite widespread. One example is the difference between spell descriptions in early D&D (preserved in Moldvay Basic) and AD&D - the latter have a whole lot of rules incorporated which seem to present the _results _of adjudication (eg what happens to a fireball in an enclosed space?) as _inputs _into subsequent play.

Unless one really _wants_ to play out the fiction someone else has written, then I think it's hard to reconcile the ultra-detail of a setting like FR, or some of the sci-fi settings, with RPGing. The "detailing in" can make it hard for game participants to exercise their creativity.


----------



## Sunseeker

pemerton said:


> @_*shidaku*_, your post prompted a couple of thoughts in me.
> 
> If the sheet of paper was literally blank, then there wouldn't be a RPG system to use! But if we mean "turning up to a session with the rules and that's it", well I've got no problem with that, and have done it from time to time.



No ideas at all for what you want to run/play?  I mean I've come to a game pretty empty-handed but I still generally have some _ideas_ for style and theme.  Now I know you run substantially more player-authored games than I do and that may relieve some of the burden, but I still suspect the article was not arguing an extreme in response to what they viewed as another extreme (not that people don't _do_ that), but that was my only point there, to come "open and flexible" rather than closed and firm.



> This reminded me of Ron Edwards's comment about "karaoke RPGing":
> This is a serious problem that arises from the need to sell thick books rather than to teach and develop powerful role-playing. Let's say you have a game that consists of some Premise-heavy characters and a few notes about Situation, and through play, the group generates a hellacious cool Setting as well as theme(s) regarding those characters. Then, publishing your great game, you present that very setting and theme in the text, in detail. . . .
> The first time I played OTE, I had a few pages of notes on the background and nothing on the specifics. I made it all up on the spot. Not having anything written as a guide (or crutch), I let my imagination loose. You have the mixed blessing of having many pages of background prepared for you. If you use the information in this book as a springboard for your own wild dreams, then it is a blessing. If you limit yourself to what I've dreamed up, it's a curse. [quoted from Jonathan Tweet's Over the Edge]​
> All I see, I'm afraid, is the curse. The isolated phrases "mixed blessing" and "(or crutch)" don't hold a lot of water compared to the preceding 152 extraordinarily detailed pages of canonical setting. I'm not saying that improvisation is better . . . than non-improvisational play. I am saying, however, that if playing this particular game worked so wonderfully to free the participants into wildly successful brainstorming during play ... and since the players were a core source during this event, as evident in the game's Dedication and in various examples of play ... then why present the _results_ of the play-experience as the _material_ for another person's experience?​




​My response to this is simply that some people are better at worldbuilding than others.  And by "better" I mean creating a world that is playable.  Some people are better at writing stories than others, these people don't usually produce terribly playable worlds (but can make fun railroads).  And some people simply want someone else to the work for them and don't care what they have to put up with to run a game.



> Unless one really _wants_ to play out the fiction someone else has written, then I think it's hard to reconcile the ultra-detail of a setting like FR, or some of the sci-fi settings, with RPGing. The "detailing in" can make it hard for game participants to exercise their creativity.



And you'll get no argument from me there.  Even in heavy-detail settings like Star Wars or Star Trek I almost invariably take my players straight to some area of the galaxy where there is little information, so that I can make stuff up and nobody gets their panties in a wad over me stepping on the lore.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

shidaku said:


> I disagree strongly.  The average _individual_ possesses a great deal more knowledge than our ancestors.  Some of that is _different_ knowledge (depending on who you ask).  But I'd probably wager that even most farmers and ranchers _now_ possess a great deal more knowledge (on the individual level) than farmers in the distant past.
> 
> The fact that the _majority_ of people are even literate to begin with demonstrates this.  I would argue that if you took two people from relatively similar backgrounds (lets say farmers), 5000 years apart; the person from the modern times would be able to demonstrate an almost invariably larger volume of individual knowledge about farming.




This stinks of cognitive bias of one sort or another, to high heaven really! 

Any 2 40 year old human beings have experienced an equal number of days of life, filled with experiences of various sorts. Your average Neolithic Farmer from 3000bc probably knows a HUGE amount about nature, his local environs, the minute details of the lives of the animals and plants he is so close to, etc. His range of experience may be geographically narrower, and his ability to control his surroundings and obtain the necessities of life may be far less if he's dropped into modern times, but tell me. If you took a modern farmer and dropped him on the Neolithic Farm, could he even grow a crop? Without a computer, a tractor, GPS, the Internet, hybrid seeds, modern herbicides, etc.? I strongly doubt it.

You seem to mistake one kind of knowledge for wisdom and discount another kind entirely. unknown known indeed!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

hawkeyefan said:


> But I wasn’t talking about rumors. I was talking about a general fact or a specific fact. Exactly how they are introduced to the game can vary, and certainly they could be presented as rumor or as uncertain, but they can eually be presented as fact.




And I am just saying, _there are no general facts_, that is a non-existent category of nature. This is another of the several things which Buddhist Philosophy has to teach. Things only exist in the specific, there is no general. You can _generalize_, take one specific fact, fit it into a pattern, and create a rule, this is what science does. The key point is you must start from specific facts, nothing, no knowledge proceeds directly from general to specific. At best we first generalize by observing specific cases and creating a hypothesis, and often a mathematical model, which provides predictive power in new situations.

So, there's no such thing as 'general knowledge of orcs', there must be SPECIFIC ORCS before there can be general knowledge of them. The existence in the MM of an entry 'orc' is not, by itself, sufficient to make orcs part of the world. I mean, its a fantasy game, you could hypothesize some sort of Platonic higher realm in which orcs exist as an orc archetype and then posit that someone 'dreamed about it' or it was 'revealed' or something like that, but now you've done some ACTUAL world building and create a specific orc fact (as well as a fairly significant element of cosmology).


----------



## Riley37

darkbard said:


> And herein is another reason why I mentioned ideology earlier. You seem to buy in to, unexamined, the myth of progress that our global western society tells itself, seeing this not only as obviously true on a grand, sweeping scale but also at the granular level of the individual.




So you say. Are are telling Shidaku, that the beliefs S. holds, cannot be beliefs which S. has examined... because anyone who examines those beliefs, without exception, will naturally and inevitably reach the same conclusions you have reached? That strikes me as an arrogant perspective.

Perhaps you should demonstrate that *you* have examined the ideology which denounces global western society, when you accuse others of failure to examine their own ideologies, and when you also jump to conclusions on which ones they practice. Motes and beams, beams and motes.



darkbard said:


> your claims about the naive, unlettered "savage."




Whoah. That is not an accusation to make without strong cause. Could you specify *exactly* where S. has made such claims, on that topic, referencing S.'s precise words, in full context?



darkbard said:


> I could even cite Socrates's fear (in the Phaedrus) that writing would lead to a decrease in human brain capacity




That fear, which you know *because you read the Phaedrus*, which you are now mentioning *by written word*, over the Internet, across millennia and from one continent to another... fellow human, your ideology has some non-trivial blind spots.

If you assert that writing has decreased *your* mental capacity, I won't argue, but get honest about Socrates and his understanding of "brain capacity". Did he follow Alcmeon's theory... or was he the source of Aristotle's belief that the heart is the seat of intelligence, the brain is a cooling mechanism for the blood, and humans are more rational than the beasts because we have a larger brain to cool our hot-bloodedness?

Some related points:

I cannot, with full confidence, claim that the *sum* of my knowledge exceeds that of, say, the Mbuti whom Colin Turnbull describes in "The Forest People". They know things I don't, and I know things they don't. 

But I do, with confidence, by direct observation and comparison, assert that the *range* of my knowledge exceeds that of my parents and my grandparents. I know about the extermination of smallpox (yay western global culture), *and* I know about the proliferation of industrial carcinogens (boo global western culture). I can draw a more accurate map of the Earth than they can, because they grew up with the Mercator projection, and I grew up with the *questioning* of the Mercator projection. I have travelled more than they did, and met a MUCH wider range of my fellow humans, because that's more readily available for me than it was for them. I play D&D, and TRPGs more advanced than D&D, *and* I also know some old-school skills such as conveying coastal landmarks by recitation of sea shanties, and I know folk tales from a much *wider* range of cultures than my parents or grandparents. I look at the Moon, and I see the "Man in the Moon" of my grandparents, and the Rabbit in the Moon from the story of Chang'e, and Neil Armstrong's footprints.

Mental illness runs in my family. I am a member of the first generation whose resources to mitigate the consequences includes formalized cognitive-behavioral techniques, and medications more specific (and less destructive) than hitting the bottle. Hand in hand with that, I'm in the first generation which can admit the family pattern, openly and without shame, or at least not as much shame. You got a problem with me calling that "progress"?

So if you wanna wax all nostalgic about the Good Old Days in which humans knew at most a thousand of their fellow humans, and only within 100 kilometers, and they used bronze tools and they *liked* it, uphill both ways, then de gustibus nil est disputandum. Make Infant Mortality Great Again! (Also death in childbirth for mothers.)

More that just a matter of taste, though: take a dozen farmers from the Bronze Age, ask them to feed a hundred people, and if you're person #83, *you gonna starve*. Take a dozen farmers from some over-industrialized agribusiness farm in the USA, allow them only the tools their great-great-grandparents used, and they'll feed more people than the first group. They'll take a day or two to get over farming without tractors, but they know what a horse-drawn plough looks like (they've seen an antique, as I have) and they'll figure out how to make one, while the Bronze Age farmers don't know that such a thing is even possible.

About a generation ago, German farmers taught a tip to farmers in India: if you don't let the fruit touch the ground as you harvest it, it lasts MUCH longer before going bad. *In the absence of any other change in methods* that means more edible food reaches more people. Whether they cut fruit off the vine with bronze sickle, iron sickle, or ergonomic stainless-steel shears, the *knowledge* to use a wheelbarrow or bag, to reduce contact with the ground - that knowledge has value independent of the hardware. The transmission of that kind of knowledge, becomes more possible, than when each human knows only some of the nearest thousand other humans.

But I digress.


----------



## Riley37

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The existence in the MM of an entry 'orc' is not, by itself, sufficient to make orcs part of the world.




True. *If* orcs are part of the setting which your table uses, then you might have more fun using the MM's description of orcs and their stats, than if you started from scratch.

Similarly, if a miniatures wargame supplement includes stats for the T-34 tank, that book is not, in the process, demanding that your wargame is set in or after WWII. If your wargame is set in 1612 and does not involve time travel, then you are free to ignore those stats. If, however, your wargame is set in 216 BCE and you wanna play out whether the presence of one T-34 on the Roman side would change the outcome of the Battle of Cannae, then you may find those stats convenient. Those stats, for orcs and for the T-34, are an *offer*, not an *imposition*.

If you tell your players that the setting is Middle Earth or a close relative, and you've also decided that orcs don't exist and never have, then the misunderstandings which ensue may reduce how much fun your players have. YMMV.


----------



## Hussar

AbdulAlhazred said:


> This stinks of cognitive bias of one sort or another, to high heaven really!
> 
> Any 2 40 year old human beings have experienced an equal number of days of life, filled with experiences of various sorts. Your average Neolithic Farmer from 3000bc probably knows a HUGE amount about nature, his local environs, the minute details of the lives of the animals and plants he is so close to, etc. His range of experience may be geographically narrower, and his ability to control his surroundings and obtain the necessities of life may be far less if he's dropped into modern times, but tell me. If you took a modern farmer and dropped him on the Neolithic Farm, could he even grow a crop? Without a computer, a tractor, GPS, the Internet, hybrid seeds, modern herbicides, etc.? I strongly doubt it.
> 
> You seem to mistake one kind of knowledge for wisdom and discount another kind entirely. unknown known indeed!




On the other hand, that Neolithic farmer wouldn’t have the first clue about any place more than maybe a few dozen miles away. The modern farmer has a pretty decent working knowledge of mist of the entire planet.


----------



## pemerton

shidaku said:


> No ideas at all for what you want to run/play?  I mean I've come to a game pretty empty-handed but I still generally have some _ideas_ for style and theme.  Now I know you run substantially more player-authored games than I do and that may relieve some of the burden, but I still suspect the article was not arguing an extreme in response to what they viewed as another extreme (not that people don't _do_ that), but that was my only point there, to come "open and flexible" rather than closed and firm.



Some systems bring more "heft" with them than others.

The experiences I was thinking of when I made my post were: starting a Burning Wheel game ; starting a Classic Traveller game (a bit of a cheat - I had rolled up two or three random worlds in advance, and so dropped them in when I needed a world - but I could have done that while the players were rolling their Pcs if I wanted to); and more than once in classic D&D (either AD&D or Moldvay).

What distinguishes these from, say, 3E D&D, is that each has a kickstart mechanicsm. In BW, the rules themselves generate PCs who are ready to go; in Classic Traveller, there is the random patron table and that - in conjunction with the implicity backstory that Traveller gives to PC - again suggestead a starting point for the game; and classic D&D uses the classic dungeon (which at a pinch can be randomly generated using Appendix A, which is what I did last time I GMed classic D&D).

When I started my Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy game, I'd pre-genned some PCs which would work either for a viking game or a Japanese game (eg one of the PCs is wolf skinchanger or fox skinchanger, depending on setting/genre; another is a swordthane or a bodyguard; etc). That's an idea as to setting, but once the players voted to go with vikings then they made up some stuff to kick things off (strange signs in the northern lights; the skinchanger having sensed trouble in the spirit world; etc) and I made up some stuff too (as they head north, they come upon a giant steading), and we went from there. Although this system doesn't bring the same degree of "kickstart" as the others I mentioned, it gives the players a lot of capacity to inject their own ideas and direction as it goes along.

So some of this is a function of experience and inclination - which is my paraphrase of what you said! - but I think some of it is also about system design and the sorts of expectations systems create. A system which brings no kickstart mechanism and doesn't give the players much capacity to inject their own stuff is probably going to be more reliant on the GM to do some heavy lifting around setting and the details of framing. As well as 3E D&D I would put RM into this category, and RQ unless you're letting Glorantha do your heavy lifting for you.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> The modern farmer has a pretty decent working knowledge of mist of the entire planet.



I'm pretty sure "mist" is a typo for "most", but it's kind-of funny because I think a lot of people's "knowledge" of places they haven't been to can be as if through a mist or distorting lens.


----------



## Riley37

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, there's no such thing as 'general knowledge of orcs', there must be SPECIFIC ORCS before there can be general knowledge of them.




Does this also apply to Rodents of Unusual Size?

Is my general knowledge of unicorns - for example, they are herbivorous mammals (ungulates or similar), their horns have anti-venom properties, they are inclined to trust virgin women - possible only if specific unicorns exist in the real world?

Perhaps you found this epistemology and the Four Noble Truths in the same package. I have tested the Four Noble Truths against my lived experience, and they hold up fairly well. I do not know a falsification test for "no knowledge proceeds directly from general to specific".


----------



## hawkeyefan

AbdulAlhazred said:


> And I am just saying, _there are no general facts_, that is a non-existent category of nature. This is another of the several things which Buddhist Philosophy has to teach. Things only exist in the specific, there is no general. You can _generalize_, take one specific fact, fit it into a pattern, and create a rule, this is what science does. The key point is you must start from specific facts, nothing, no knowledge proceeds directly from general to specific. At best we first generalize by observing specific cases and creating a hypothesis, and often a mathematical model, which provides predictive power in new situations.
> 
> So, there's no such thing as 'general knowledge of orcs', there must be SPECIFIC ORCS before there can be general knowledge of them. The existence in the MM of an entry 'orc' is not, by itself, sufficient to make orcs part of the world. I mean, its a fantasy game, you could hypothesize some sort of Platonic higher realm in which orcs exist as an orc archetype and then posit that someone 'dreamed about it' or it was 'revealed' or something like that, but now you've done some ACTUAL world building and create a specific orc fact (as well as a fairly significant element of cosmology).




Yeah, I don’t agree as this relates to worldbuilding. I think what is expected may vary from game to game and that it can be introduced in different ways. But I do think that you can introduce general facts as I’ve described. Could they be subject to change? Sure. But so can the specific knowledge.

Because it’s all made up, after all.


----------



## darkbard

Riley37 said:


> So you say. Are are telling Shidaku, that the beliefs S. holds, cannot be beliefs which S. has examined... because anyone who examines those beliefs, without exception, will naturally and inevitably reach the same conclusions you have reached? That strikes me as an arrogant perspective.
> 
> Perhaps you should demonstrate that *you* have examined the ideology which denounces global western society, when you accuse others of failure to examine their own ideologies, and when you also jump to conclusions on which ones they practice. Motes and beams, beams and motes.




Ideology doesn't simply mean any belief a person holds. Ideology means, in literary critic Terry Eagleton's definition, "The _largely concealed_ structure of values which informs and underlies our factual statements[, ...] the ways in which what we say and believe connects with the power-structure and power-relations of the society we live in" (my emphasis).

I was raised in a western (now global) narrative that has a vested interest in maintaining a narrative of progress. I have questioned that narrative, critically, and done a lot of study that has led me to different conclusions.



> Whoah. That is not an accusation to make without strong cause. Could you specify *exactly* where S. has made such claims, on that topic, referencing S.'s precise words, in full context?




Here is what Shidaku wrote:



> The problem with sci-fi vs fantasy in the authors context is that sci-fi has a low bar for something being a "known known". How a space-ship works can be readily derived from a diagram, which itself is readily available. The general level of knowledge is high. *In the same sense that what the average person knows now is far beyond what even some of the smartest people knew 5000 years ago*. Access to new knowledge is easy and transmission of information is direct (say, on a flash drive), as opposed to rare and indirect (oral tradition). It is difficult to create a hard sci-fi setting and then say "Well you can't know that!" or "Nobody knows that!" because that is so incredibly rare.




These are the terms those living within a roughly centralized state structure ("civilization") use to denigrate those outside of one. Often accompanying such terms (less knowledgable, in general) are claims of naivete (in the sense of an infantalizing pureness or goodness), illiteracy (as an explanation for lack of knowledge), and "savagery" (as being beyond the refinements of "civilization"). If these do not characterize shidaku's perspectives, then I publicly apologize. But when one makes vague and blanket statements claiming one group is better than another, (the average person today knows more than even the smartest person from 5000 years ago, in this example), the person making such a statement is setting themselves up for misunderstanding.




> That fear, which you know *because you read the Phaedrus*, which you are now mentioning *by written word*, over the Internet, across millennia and from one continent to another... fellow human, your ideology has some non-trivial blind spots.
> 
> If you assert that writing has decreased *your* mental capacity, I won't argue, but get honest about Socrates and his understanding of "brain capacity". Did he follow Alcmeon's theory... or was he the source of Aristotle's belief that the heart is the seat of intelligence, the brain is a cooling mechanism for the blood, and humans are more rational than the beasts because we have a larger brain to cool our hot-bloodedness?




My reason for referencing Plato, perhaps unclear, is that such claims of more or less knowledgable are ludicrous. Literacy no more decreased individual human knowledge, in toto, than living in our modern world increases it over our forebears! It's a question of different kinds of knowledge, not quantity of knowledge. AbdulAlhazred addressed this already, above.



> Some related points:
> 
> I cannot, with full confidence, claim that the *sum* of my knowledge exceeds that of, say, the Mbuti whom Colin Turnbull describes in "The Forest People". They know things I don't, and I know things they don't.
> 
> But I do, with confidence, by direct observation and comparison, assert that the *range* of my knowledge exceeds that of my parents and my grandparents. I know about the extermination of smallpox (yay western global culture), *and* I know about the proliferation of industrial carcinogens (boo global western culture). I can draw a more accurate map of the Earth than they can, because they grew up with the Mercator projection, and I grew up with the *questioning* of the Mercator projection. I have travelled more than they did, and met a MUCH wider range of my fellow humans, because that's more readily available for me than it was for them. I play D&D, and TRPGs more advanced than D&D, *and* I also know some old-school skills such as conveying coastal landmarks by recitation of sea shanties, and I know folk tales from a much *wider* range of cultures than my parents or grandparents. I look at the Moon, and I see the "Man in the Moon" of my grandparents, and the Rabbit in the Moon from the story of Chang'e, and Neil Armstrong's footprints.
> 
> Mental illness runs in my family. I am a member of the first generation whose resources to mitigate the consequences includes formalized cognitive-behavioral techniques, and medications more specific (and less destructive) than hitting the bottle. Hand in hand with that, I'm in the first generation which can admit the family pattern, openly and without shame, or at least not as much shame. You got a problem with me calling that "progress"?
> 
> So if you wanna wax all nostalgic about the Good Old Days in which humans knew at most a thousand of their fellow humans, and only within 100 kilometers, and they used bronze tools and they *liked* it, uphill both ways, then de gustibus nil est disputandum. Make Infant Mortality Great Again! (Also death in childbirth for mothers.)
> 
> More that just a matter of taste, though: take a dozen farmers from the Bronze Age, ask them to feed a hundred people, and if you're person #83, *you gonna starve*. Take a dozen farmers from some over-industrialized agribusiness farm in the USA, allow them only the tools their great-great-grandparents used, and they'll feed more people than the first group. They'll take a day or two to get over farming without tractors, but they know what a horse-drawn plough looks like (they've seen an antique, as I have) and they'll figure out how to make one, while the Bronze Age farmers don't know that such a thing is even possible.
> 
> About a generation ago, German farmers taught a tip to farmers in India: if you don't let the fruit touch the ground as you harvest it, it lasts MUCH longer before going bad. *In the absence of any other change in methods* that means more edible food reaches more people. Whether they cut fruit off the vine with bronze sickle, iron sickle, or ergonomic stainless-steel shears, the *knowledge* to use a wheelbarrow or bag, to reduce contact with the ground - that knowledge has value independent of the hardware. The transmission of that kind of knowledge, becomes more possible, than when each human knows only some of the nearest thousand other humans.
> 
> But I digress.




I have absolutely no desire for some kind of battle over this issue, derailing this thread further. As I say above, our knowledge today is different. I will absolutely agree if you want to say that much of our contemporary knowledge is more scientific, in the sense of repeatability and demonstrability, even that it is more *accurate* as a result, but that, again, is not a question of amount but kind.


----------



## Imaro

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, there's no such thing as 'general knowledge of orcs', there must be SPECIFIC ORCS before there can be general knowledge of them. The existence in the MM of an entry 'orc' is not, by itself, sufficient to make orcs part of the world. I mean, its a fantasy game, you could hypothesize some sort of Platonic higher realm in which orcs exist as an orc archetype and then posit that someone 'dreamed about it' or it was 'revealed' or something like that, but now you've done some ACTUAL world building and create a specific orc fact (as well as a fairly significant element of cosmology).




I disagree with this.  In stating that a particular setting is your default... whether that is 4e's Nentir Vale, D&D's Greyhawk, Tolkien's Middle Earth or World of Warcraft... you are stating that the lore around the race of orcs in your game is the same as the world you are using. I would argue the existence of an entry of orc in the MM ,with accompanying lore, for any of these settings being used as the basis of a game is very much sufficient to make orcs part of that world, at least until the time that you change or modify what an orc is in the world.

Taking this example to another media form... When starting a new character in the WoW mmorpg it is possible that as a player you would not be exposed to an orc at the beginning of the game (depending on your initial selection of race and class)... does this in fact meant that orcs don't exist in WoW?  Even though they are a racial choice and are part of the lore of the world, does the fact that you have not directly experienced them in the game mean they don't exist?  Or are they a part of that setting by default?  Has orc lore in said setting has already established their existence in the setting irregardless of whether you personally experience an orc in play?


----------



## Sunseeker

pemerton said:


> Some systems bring more "heft" with them than others.



Am I to understand this "heft" as "more pre-written world building"?
IE: the Deadland book vs. the D&D PHB?



> So some of this is a function of experience and inclination - which is my paraphrase of what you said! - but I think some of it is also about system design and the sorts of expectations systems create. A system which brings no kickstart mechanism and doesn't give the players much capacity to inject their own stuff is probably going to be more reliant on the GM to do some heavy lifting around setting and the details of framing. As well as 3E D&D I would put RM into this category, and RQ unless you're letting Glorantha do your heavy lifting for you.




Yeah, okay I get what you're saying.


----------



## Sunseeker

darkbard said:


> Ideology doesn't simply mean any belief a person holds. Ideology means, in literary critic Terry Eagleton's definition, "The *largely concealed* structure of values which informs and underlies our factual statements[, ...] the ways in which what we say and believe connects with the power-structure and power-relations of the society we live in" (my emphasis).



You might want to stop and consider for a moment that you are using a very _specific_ and in some ways ideologized definition of ideology.  You're going to most specifically run into problems with the "largely concealed" portion, because you're essentially going to start accusing people of believing something that per your definition: they are unaware they believe in.  This makes rational argumentation difficult because you essentially start off with what looks like an attack.  As you did with me.  

You'll run into problems with the whole second line of that, because again aside from being a very specific usage of ideology, it is intimately tying it not into power-structures, but _perceived_ power-structures.  Just as you assumed that I must be buying into the Western ideology of progress because I come from a western culture.

I'm not going to write you an essay on the subject, but my _advice_, and keep in mind this is coming from a political scientist, is that unless you have having a _specific_ conversation, you should avoid using _specific_ definitions.  Because, for example, the Dictionary mentions nothing about ideology being "largely concealed" nor connected to "power-structures of the society we live in".  

It helps avoid moments _exactly like this one_ where you have to stop and explain to everyone "Hey guys, maybe the reason we're not understanding each other is because I'm using this obscure definition of a word *which informs and underlies my factual statements*."



> I was raised in a western (now global) narrative that has a vested interest in maintaining a narrative of progress. I have questioned that narrative, critically, and done a lot of study that has led me to different conclusions.



Again, nothing _I_ mentioned implied a _narrative_ of progress.  Progress has been _factually made_.  To deny that we have made progress would be to deny that the sun revolves around the earth.  Western society may not be _morally_ or _ethically_ more progressive than any given ancient society in question, but that's a subjective conversation about what morals and values a culture should have that I won't be having here.  Western society may not have progressed _as much_ as some would like to claim, and that's a fair argument for another day.  Western society may have lost _specific information_ that was known only to _specific persons _long ago, and that is also a fair argument to make.  

But you cannot reasonably make the argument that progress is a myth.  



> Here is what Shidaku wrote:
> These are the terms those living within a roughly centralized state structure ("civilization") use to denigrate those outside of one. Often accompanying such terms (less knowledgable, in general) are claims of naivete (in the sense of an infantalizing pureness or goodness), illiteracy (as an explanation for lack of knowledge), and "savagery" (as being beyond the refinements of "civilization"). If these do not characterize shidaku's perspectives, then I publicly apologize. But when one makes vague and blanket statements claiming one group is better than another, (the average person today knows more than even the smartest person from 5000 years ago, in this example), the person making such a statement is setting themselves up for misunderstanding.



Again, when _you_ are operating with an ideological argument that implies deception or ignorance (again: "Largely concealed") the problem _you_ are going to run into is that _you_ are going to end up reading between the lines of what other people are writing.  Instead of asking them for clarification, you are going to use your or system of *values which informs and underlies your factual statements* to determine what they _must have been saying_.  The onus really isn't on me to clarify.  The onus is on _you _not to assume I meant one thing or another.

I made vague blanket statements because we are not having a _specific conversation_ about a _specific people_ in comparison to another group of _specific people_.  It may be an element of your ideology that Western Society _is_ a specific people but that is _again_ on *you* to explain and not assume that we are sharing in your ideology, or even assume that our ideology is the normal one, the common one or really, assume anything at all.



> My reason for referencing Plato, perhaps unclear, is that such claims of more or less knowledgable are ludicrous. Literacy no more decreased individual human knowledge, in toto, than living in our modern world increases it over our forebears! It's a question of different kinds of knowledge, not quantity of knowledge. AbdulAlhazred addressed this already, above.



And my argument remains that modern people have larger volumes, even of different kids, of knowledge than historical people.  You're also going to have to do better than Plato, a man who made a claim at a time when we had an incredibly low understanding of the human brain, to claim that literacy does not increase human knowledge, because it is _literally_ the primary transmission vector for knowledge.



> I have absolutely no desire for some kind of battle over this issue, derailing this thread further. As I say above, our knowledge today is different. I will absolutely agree if you want to say that much of our contemporary knowledge is more scientific, in the sense of repeatability and demonstrability, even that it is more *accurate* as a result, but that, again, is not a question of amount but kind.



To get this train wreck back on topic, this goes back to what I was saying about sci-fi vs. fantasy settings.

People in sci-fi settings have the general knowledge that is applicable to a multitude of situations, which is why a plethora of information is is not a negative to a sci-fi game.  The characters are assumed to have the general knowledge and general skills to, after some exploring and adventuring, obtain this information.  The characters in fantasy settings are _not_ assumed to have this kind of knowledge, they're assumed to have _specific_ knowledge which will be applicable in _specific _situations.  Fantasy characters are assumed to have what we generally call "applied knowledge".  It's not that sci-fi characters don't have and don't use this, but they're also assumed to have general knowledge.

IE: a Druid in D&D is assumed to have knowledge about nature and how to make specific medicines from it.  A Doctor in Star Trek is assumed to have knowledge about medicines and how to make them when given the right ingredients.  The former knows more applied knowledge: "Give me these 3 plants and I'll make you some medicine!"  the latter has general knowledge:  "I can make you a lot of things if you can get me ingredients."  The approaches are, in short, reversed.  If you were to ask a druid to make a specific medicine with plants to which they are unfamiliar, they likely could not.  If you were to ask a doctor to make a new medicine, they probably could, but wouldn't know what ingredients they need.


----------



## Hussar

It's kinda funny.  I have no idea how to knap flint.  I don't.  Never done it.  A neolithic farmer certainly would have that knowledge.  However, there's a bit that's being ignored.  I DO know what knapping flint is, and, in a very broad way (you whack one rock with another) have some idea how it might be done.

Flip it around, and that neolithic farmer would have zero ability to conceptualize even the most basic elements of my life. 

I could, through trial and error (and hopefully before I starved to death) figure out how to knap flint.  That neolithic farmer will never be able to conceptualize writing his name.  He simply has no way to get there.

So, I'm really rather confused by the notion that earlier peoples actually had more knowledge than modern people.  How could they?  Sure, they might be able to produce Damascus steel, fair enough.  But, modern peoples can produce a hundred different things from titanium alloys to fidget spinners that they couldn't begin to conceptualize.  And while we might not know exactly how they produced Damascus steel, we do know that it can be done and we know what it is.  They wouldn't have the first clue what teflon is, nor how to produce it.


----------



## Crusadius

I think there's a difference between WotC selling a setting and a person in a basement creating their own setting for their own campaign.

WotC are selling a product to people who don't want to spend the time to create their own setting and so must have enough details to attract buyers. The setting created by the person in the basement will never be read by anyone other than themselves, and a lot of details will never be seen by the players of the campaign they are running.


----------



## pemerton

shidaku said:


> Am I to understand this "heft" as "more pre-written world building"?



Well, this goes back to something that was being discussed a few pages ago.

I think that a system can have "heft" - in the sense of delivering PCs with some sort of orientation or incipient dramatic arc; and situations for those PCs to get involved in - without having pre-written worldbuilding.

BW PCs have lifepaths, traits, relationships, beliefs. Traveller PCs have lifepaths, sometimes spaceships, and patrons generated on a random patron table. Classic D&D doesn't have a random patron table, but there is Appendix A for random dungeons, and there are random encounter and treasure tables. 

3E or RM are very austere in comparison - neither on player nor GM side is there the same clarity of "OK, here's what you're meant to be doing _now_ to make this game happen".


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> I'm really rather confused by the notion that earlier peoples actually had more knowledge than modern people.



I don't think I saw anyone make that claim. I thought that  [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] suggested (between them) that (i) quantifying amounts of knowledge is fraught, and that (ii) earlier people were having experiences that triggered cognitive processes and belief formation at something like the same rate as contemporary people.

Longer life expectancies might be seen as a factor relevant to (ii), but that would then take as back to (i).

When it comes to discussion of changes in how knowledge is generated, accumulated, engaged with by individuals, etc, I'm a great admirer of Weber's discussion in Science as a Vocation, although I suspect darkbard (and maybe others) would want (at a minimum) to put some qualifications around Weber's own persepctive, which relies upon a ready-to-hand conception of "the savage":

Scientific progress is a fraction, the most important fraction, of the process of intellectualization which we have been undergoing for thousands of years and which nowadays is usually judged in such an extremely negative way. Let us first clarify what this intellectualist rationalization, created by science and by scientifically oriented technology, means practically.

Does it mean that we, today, for instance, everyone sitting in this hall, have a greater knowledge of the conditions of life under which we exist than has an American Indian or a Hottentot? Hardly. Unless he is a physicist, one who rides on the streetcar has no idea how the car happened to get into motion. And he does not need to know. He is satisfied that he may 'count' on the behavior of the streetcar, and he orients his conduct according to this expectation; but he knows nothing about what it takes to produce such a car so that it can move. The savage knows incomparably more about his tools. When we spend money today I bet that even if there are colleagues of political economy here in the hall, almost every one of them will hold a different answer in readiness to the question: How does it happen that one can buy something for money--sometimes more and sometimes less ? The savage knows what he does in order to get his daily food and which institutions serve him in this pursuit. The increasing intellectualization and rationalization do not, therefore, indicate an increased and general knowledge of the conditions under which one lives.

It means something else, namely, the knowledge or belief that if one but wished one could learn it at any time. Hence, it means that principally there are no mysterious incalculable forces that come into play, but rather that one can, in principle, master all things by calculation. This means that the world is disenchanted. One need no longer have recourse to magical means in order to master or implore the spirits, as did the savage, for whom such mysterious powers existed. Technical means and calculations perform the service. This above all is what intellectualization means.​


shidaku said:


> you're essentially going to start accusing people of believing something that per your definition: they are unaware they believe in.



Well, I think this aspect of  [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]'s claim - that people believe things they're not aware of believing - was evident as soon as reference was made to _unknown knowns_.

Relating Weber and ideology to worldbuilding in RPGs: I think many fantasy RPG settings are presented in a strangely rationalist fashion. There are accurate maps, accurate conceptions of history and politics, rather unified cultural and linguistic practices, etc. Even Glorantha - which makes a serious attempt at presenting a _non_-disenchanted world - suffers from this, in the sense of being presented to us in a series of more-or-less logically organised textbooks that document, in rational fashion, the non-rationalistic lives and beliefs of the Gloranthans.

How would "worldbuiding" for a fantasy RPG look if it was attempting not just to assert, but to produce an experience of, a non-disenchanted world? It couldn't start with maps and catalogues. It couldn't start with an assumption that the roll of the dice models impersonal causal forces. How would we do it?


----------



## Riley37

darkbard said:


> I was raised in a western (now global) narrative that has a vested interest in maintaining a narrative of progress. I have questioned that narrative, critically, and done a lot of study that has led me to different conclusions.




I encourage your questioning of that narrative. Especially the portions of that narrative, which people have used as a pretext to kill, enslave and otherwise mistreat others for their own advantage. Also the parts which universalize patriarchy. There's some major gaps in the consistency of those narratives. 

But you have not yet answered this question: whether you have *also* questioned, critically, the counter-narratives which boil down (losing nuance and useful aspects in that reduction) to "Down with global western civilization!" If you are interested in questioning along those lines, then I have offered you some entry points. Take what you can use, let the rest go by.



darkbard said:


> Here is what Shidaku wrote:




Shidaku did not use the term "savages". YOU brought that term into the conversation. That's a historically significant term, because colonizers have often used that term to equate "member of a non-western culture" with "less trustworthy person, more impulsively violent person, person of lesser worth, person we may kill or enslave with moral impunity". Shidaku pointed out differences in knowledge-base between people 5K years ago, and participants in this conversation. Shidaku did NOT designate anyone as a fair target for "kill them and take their stuff, they deserve it because they're just savages anyways". Shidaku did not jump from "modern people tend to know more than pre-literate people" to "one group is better than another." That part is on you, buddy. Shidaku did not justify the Roman conquest of the German tribes, nor the German arguments, centuries later, for ethically parallel conquests in Africa. If you wanna pin either of those on Shidaku, then provide something more compelling than "well, other people used that pretext, so clearly you were using it too."


----------



## Sunseeker

pemerton said:


> Well, this goes back to something that was being discussed a few pages ago.
> 
> I think that a system can have "heft" - in the sense of delivering PCs with some sort of orientation or incipient dramatic arc; and situations for those PCs to get involved in - without having pre-written worldbuilding.
> 
> BW PCs have lifepaths, traits, relationships, beliefs. Traveller PCs have lifepaths, sometimes spaceships, and patrons generated on a random patron table. Classic D&D doesn't have a random patron table, but there is Appendix A for random dungeons, and there are random encounter and treasure tables.
> 
> 3E or RM are very austere in comparison - neither on player nor GM side is there the same clarity of "OK, here's what you're meant to be doing _now_ to make this game happen".




Okay, so "heft" is more about giving players _direction_ in life, and thus, in whatever world they happen to be in.


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> this aspect of  [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]'s claim - that people believe things they're not aware of believing - was evident as soon as reference was made to _unknown knowns_.




Can we stipulate, not just claim, that people believe things they're not aware of believing? Is there anyone here, who did not already know, from the OP onwards, that people believe things they're not aware of believing?

Cognitive science and linguistics have, AFAIK, settled that question with more confidence than the question of whether light is a wave or a particle. Anyone who has walked up a flight of stairs, reached the top, and stepped on one more stair than was actually present, has experienced the disjunction.

One application to TRPG: I played, at a convention game in Hero System, an entertainer PC, whose skills included acrobatics, knife throwing, and sleight of hand. The party reached a locked door, and someone turned to me, expecting my PC to pick the lock. That player believed, *without knowing it*, that anyone who can do acrobatics and sleight of hand, also has the skills of a professional burglar, such as picking locks. That belief came from their experience with the D&D class "package deals", and their application of those assumptions to a Fantasy Hero game.

That player had apparently taken the class descriptions in the PHB, as canonical elements of *every* fantasy world in which players have characters, not just as elements of Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms.



pemerton said:


> Even Glorantha - which makes a serious attempt at presenting a _non_-disenchanted world - suffers from this, in the sense of being presented to us in a series of more-or-less logically organised textbooks that document, in rational fashion, the non-rationalistic lives and beliefs of the Gloranthans.




I once played Runequest at the table of a GM who did his best to run a setting which was universally enchanted, in which there had been an era before Time, in which the Moon was, objectively, also a giant bat. It was a lot of fun. I tried to establish a spell or item for "Detect Magic", and he said that it would invariably return a reading of "IT'S ALL MAGIC!".


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> How would "worldbuiding" for a fantasy RPG look if it was attempting not just to assert, but to produce an experience of, a non-disenchanted world? It couldn't start with maps and catalogues. It couldn't start with an assumption that the roll of the dice models impersonal causal forces. How would we do it?




AFAIK, Runequest was originally written for Homeric adventure, but there weren't enough players ready for that, to establish a playerbase, so they invented Glorantha, which compromises ur-fantasy with Tolkienesque settings.

Every map: HERE THERE BE DRAGONS
Every die roll: Looks like Ares won the argument over whether you may hit, but Athena won the argument over how much damage you could inflict.


----------



## Sunseeker

pemerton said:


> Well, I think this aspect of   @_*darkbard*_'s claim - that people believe things they're not aware of believing - was evident as soon as reference was made to _unknown knowns_.



Sure.  I disagree with that particular author that "unknown knowns" defines ideology.  There's nothing inherent to ideology that makes it particularly subconscious and the assertion that ideology is an "unknown known" seems to ignore the many ideologies that people _consciously_ subscribe to.  That's not to say you can't have _both_ subconscious and conscious ideology or that there's no such thing as subconscious ideology, but IMO, if you need to define a thing by using _two words_ such as "subconscious ideology" you are speaking about a _specific form_ of ideology and not public or known or overt ideology.  You can't simplify your statements by leaving out "subconscious" because then you're talking about something _else_.  This isn't so much of a critique of @_*darkbard*_ but more of one of the author he is quoting.  



> Relating Weber and ideology to worldbuilding in RPGs: I think many fantasy RPG settings are presented in a strangely rationalist fashion. There are accurate maps, accurate conceptions of history and politics, rather unified cultural and linguistic practices, etc. Even Glorantha - which makes a serious attempt at presenting a _non_-disenchanted world - suffers from this, in the sense of being presented to us in a series of more-or-less logically organised textbooks that document, in rational fashion, the non-rationalistic lives and beliefs of the Gloranthans.
> 
> How would "worldbuiding" for a fantasy RPG look if it was attempting not just to assert, but to produce an experience of, a non-disenchanted world? It couldn't start with maps and catalogues. It couldn't start with an assumption that the roll of the dice models impersonal causal forces. How would we do it?



I think the reason this happens is that the GM is always working from a top-down approach, which generally suggests one of two strategies for creation: start with something specific (like this one civilization you have in mind) and work out from there, or start from something general and detail inwards (like starting with a blank world map).  The problem lies in the fact that IRL, the world exists outside of the existence of the viewer.  DMs, for good or ill, attempt to model this, but even the most advanced computers cannot simulate all the processes of the world, across the whole world at once.  For that, DMs turn to dice, which is a poor adjudication method because the systems in play IRL are not based on random chance, even if they may have, eons ago, been seeded by random chance, those processes are now the result of understandable and somewhat predictable mathematics.  

But a DM can't rightly simulate that, but I think there's a strong belief within worldbuilding that, particularly in circles where Random Tables are popular, that the DM _needs to_.  And THAT I think harkens back to the OP's article, which (since I can't read it now) was hopefully arguing that DM's shouldn't been that _need_​ to simulate everything.


----------



## Riley37

Riley37 said:


> Shidaku pointed out differences in knowledge-base between people 5K years ago, and participants in this conversation. Shidaku did NOT designate anyone as a fair target for "kill them and take their stuff..."




That said, hey Shidaku, if you were referring to one particular person who lived five thousand years ago, and the ethical merits of treating him as a savage - and that person is Sargon of Akkad - then let's discuss by direct message.

Meanwhile, I see in your previous post a connection between worldbuilding and simulationism, and I think you're on an interesting line of inquiry.


----------



## pemerton

shidaku said:


> Okay, so "heft" is more about giving players _direction_ in life, and thus, in whatever world they happen to be in.



Yes, and I would add - it allows the game to actually get going. And setting, backstory etc can then arise "organically" in play.

(I put "organically" in inverted commas because it's a bit of a cheating word in this context - but hopefully my meaning is clear enough.)



shidaku said:


> I think the reason this happens is that the GM is always working from a top-down approach



Which I think is already rationalistic/intellectualised in a way that is anachronistic, and (I'll controversially add) _aesthetically self-defeating_ for (at least some) fantasy RPGing.



shidaku said:


> DMs turn to dice, which is a poor adjudication method because the systems in play IRL are not based on random chance, even if they may have, eons ago, been seeded by random chance, those processes are now the result of understandable and somewhat predictable mathematics.
> 
> But a DM can't rightly simulate that, but I think there's a strong belief within worldbuilding that, particularly in circles where Random Tables are popular, that the DM needs to.



Can dice be used in a different way, though? Instead of as a poor simulation of impersonal forces, can dice be used to generate the setting as an _enchanted_ one (in something like Weber's sense)?

To make my thoughts a little bit more concrete, one example I'm thinking of is Arthurian legend, where the knights wander through forests, and stumble upon castles inhabited by strange individuals, with there being no thought of the economy, social structure etc of these castles. Could we use the AD&D Appendix C wilderness encounter tables to help with this - they provide a chance of encountering a castle with a powerful (hence, presumably, interesing) lord, plus retainers, men-at-arms etc. Treated as a world simulation those tables give us a bizarrely densely-castled and high-levelled world; but maybe they could be used to generate content for a non-rationalised enchanted world.


----------



## Riley37

MichaelSomething said:


> World building can be very helpful in fiction.  Look at how world building improved My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!
> 
> If you watch the series, you can learn a lot of things about the world like:
> 
> Hearth's Warming Eve, the holiday that celebrates the founding of Equestria.  It comes with a whole story of how the various pony races came together!
> Historical figures like Starshwirl the Bearded, and the rest of the Pillars; who where the ancient heroes of legend.
> How ponies activity manage the weather, as in they work to change the seasons from fall to winter, etc.
> The process of making Zap apple Jam, and how a strange fruit that requires very weird rituals to produce, put Ponyville on the map.
> The Legend of the Mare in the Moon, about an, uh, mare got banished to the Moon.
> Cutie Marks, the symbol that appears on ponies that help guide their destinies.
> 
> Stuff like this adds depth to the show, as well as give the writers things to use to develop it's characters.




In a game of GURPS: MLP, would the DM narrate these things, or would they appear in the PHB (Pony Horse Book) which all players have as shared reference material, or would they actually emerge in the course of events played out at the table, over pizza? Which of those come from the GM, and which of those do players establish, adding to their table's particular implementation of the canonical Equestrian setting, uniquely and unknown to all other tables playing GURPS: MLP? Do the players learn the legend of the Mare in the Moon because the GM had an NPC narrate it, or because one of the players composed that legend, and had their PC tell that story to the other PCs?

If, after a dozen sessions, y'all want a change of pace, and shift to the "Fallout: Equestria" setting, what is the balance between GM and players, establishing what happens in the Vault in the long years before somepony emerges into the drastically-changed surface world?


----------



## Riley37

A day or two ago, I quoted Darth's example of a dialogue between DM and player, in which a player has formed the rudiments of a PC, and something funny happens on the way to the dungeon (or doesn't).

I haven't yet seen a satisfying answer, explaining why that session went as it did, as an example of the general reason why worldbuilding is bad.

Here's another bid at getting specific concrete examples into the discourse, to add clarity to our discussion about angels on heads of pins. This time, I'm sinking even lower: a question, involving the nature of orcs and Gruumsh, *from an actual D&D table, with a DM out there, in April 2018, wondering how to handle it.*

That thread will give that individual DM helpful answers, or not. Does that example also help us isolate the causal factor, the reason why worldbuilding is bad?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?631728-Cleric-of-Gruumsh-in-a-party-with-an-Elf


----------



## Sunseeker

Riley37 said:


> That said, hey Shidaku, if you were referring to one particular person who lived five thousand years ago, and the ethical merits of treating him as a savage - and that person is Sargon of Akkad - then let's discuss by direct message.



I actually had noone in particular in mind.  Though some classical philosophers came to mind when I referenced "smartest people".  But nothing in particular.



> Meanwhile, I see in your previous post a connection between worldbuilding and simulationism, and I think you're on an interesting line of inquiry.



If the concern of the original article is indeed primarily focused on "over detailing", I would argue that is only an issue from a simulationist perspective.  A more narrativist approach doesn't really care why the flowers bloom, from whence the animals came or whether the weather is based off of predictable mathematical principles or not.  A narrativist would be more interested on if the flowers blooming is relevant to the story, if the weather makes a certain setting more fitting (such as how it always seems to be gloomy and raining in Lovecraftian settings); all with little concern on if it happens to be raining today because there's a storm front that just moved in.  

A simulationist on the other hand may use random dice at every turn, or perhaps use random chance to get the ball rolling.  The former is the _worst_ kind of simulationism because it doesn't actually _simulate_ anything.  The latter leads to the DM having to figure out weather patterns and how they'll affect the snowpack and if that will wash out that one bridge the players need to cross a month from now.  



pemerton said:


> Yes, and I would add - it allows the game to actually get going. And setting, backstory etc can then arise "organically" in play.
> 
> (I put "organically" in inverted commas because it's a bit of a cheating word in this context - but hopefully my meaning is clear enough.)



Right.  In more lay terms I would say it gives the start of the game a "kick in the pants" to get moving.  I certainly know from experience that the more lackadaisical approach 3E takes can lead to characters sort of "wandering" in search, not of quests, but of _purpose_.  Which is why I almost universally stick some purpose in their faces at the start of every game.  We can railroad the first session or two to get everyone acclimated, and then open up the gates once we've developed a direction.  



> Which I think is already rationalistic/intellectualised in a way that is anachronistic, and (I'll controversially add) aesthetically self-defeating for (at least some) fantasy RPGing.



I'm very much of two minds about it.  I like and appreciate rational fantasy worlds.  I don't believe that fantasy implies a lack of rationality, but simply that it implies a different set of rules.  If we were to divvy up the human population into various humanoid species like a fantasy world has, would that change _the world_?  Would that change how humanoids form societies?  Build buildings?  Fall in love?  I don't really think so.  Fantasy worlds that "don't make sense" or are "irrational" bother me.  

But I think one of the best devices to achieve a fantasy setting is a heavy "fog of war".  Things are forgotten quickly.  Nature changes and reclaims faster than usual, perhaps _fantastically_ faster, but not in a manner that is without reason.  Mountains are raised by great wizards and destroyed by mighty dragons not because of any sort of modern conceptions, but because of a natural ebb and flow of systems and structures, amped up with magic.  

This is all a very long way of saying the players don't really need need to _know_ the whole wide world is out there, how it works, what its processes are, and so forth, even if the DM does.  Players are jaded and it is difficult to instill a sense of wonder in them, but that's a player issue, not a world-building issue.  Getting players to see the world, not through _their_ eyes, but through the eyes of their characters who are _not_ jaded, who are still awed by the great mysteries of what may lay beyond that mountain, THAT, I think is key to getting that fantasy setting feeling.



> Can dice be used in a different way, though? Instead of as a poor simulation of impersonal forces, can dice be used to generate the setting as an enchanted one (in something like Weber's sense)?
> 
> To make my thoughts a little bit more concrete, one example I'm thinking of is Arthurian legend, where the knights wander through forests, and stumble upon castles inhabited by strange individuals, with there being no thought of the economy, social structure etc of these castles. Could we use the AD&D Appendix C wilderness encounter tables to help with this - they provide a chance of encountering a castle with a powerful (hence, presumably, interesing) lord, plus retainers, men-at-arms etc. Treated as a world simulation those tables give us a bizarrely densely-castled and high-levelled world; but maybe they could be used to generate content for a non-rationalised enchanted world.



I don't know, there's a fine line between an enchanted world and an absurd one.  I have generally felt that random tables and random creation leads to an absurd world.  I don't particularly enjoy absurd worlds.  In fact I find it fantastically infuriating when a world lacks comprehensible processes.  

IMO: I'm starting to think fantasy is less about the setting and more about the perspectives of the people viewing it.  Some players may find a randomly generated world fantastical and wondrous, others may find it haphazard and frustratingly nonsensical.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hussar said:


> On the other hand, that Neolithic farmer wouldn’t have the first clue about any place more than maybe a few dozen miles away. The modern farmer has a pretty decent working knowledge of mist of the entire planet.




Oh, undoubtedly! And I am not in any sense trying to say that some guy 5000 years ago was as EDUCATED in some sense as people today. However, we need to think about PERSONS vs SOCIETY in some degree. Modern society can grow 1000 people worth of food on the work of one farmer, but that farmer is backed up by a MASSIVE infrastructure, about which he has probably got practically squat knowledge. That includes the entire energy sector which produces the massive amounts of electricity used in the Haber process to produce nitrogen fertilizer, mine phosphates, transport these things to his farm in a usable form. The oil industry which supplies the diesel fuel his tractor uses to spread the fertilizer, and the coal industry which mines the coal for the electricity, etc. etc. etc. 

Yes, our modern people have a lot of knowledge. I'm not convinced we know MORE than our ancestors in a personal sense. Our knowledge is much wider ranging, we have a broader perspective, and our society as a whole is capable of many more things. I would call all these things 'advancements' in humanity. OTOH I see no evidence that individuals are smarter or wiser than they were 1000's of years ago. It is at least an open question.


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> In a game of GURPS: MLP, would the DM narrate these things, or would they appear in the PHB (Pony Horse Book) which all players have as shared reference material, or would they actually emerge in the course of events played out at the table, over pizza? Which of those come from the GM, and which of those do players establish, adding to their table's particular implementation of the canonical Equestrian setting, uniquely and unknown to all other tables playing GURPS: MLP? Do the players learn the legend of the Mare in the Moon because the GM had an NPC narrate it, or because one of the players composed that legend, and had their PC tell that story to the other PCs?



To (perhaps) repurpose your post: the possibilities that are implicit in the questions you ask (maybe the players establish some backstory; maybe the backstory is something shared among game participants; maybe some of the "backstory" is actually the result of high-stakes action resolution) is a helpful reminder that, when comparing novels or films to RPGing, it can be (and maybe always is?) a mistake to equate _authorship_ with _GMing_.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Riley37 said:


> Does this also apply to Rodents of Unusual Size?
> 
> Is my general knowledge of unicorns - for example, they are herbivorous mammals (ungulates or similar), their horns have anti-venom properties, they are inclined to trust virgin women - possible only if specific unicorns exist in the real world?
> 
> Perhaps you found this epistemology and the Four Noble Truths in the same package. I have tested the Four Noble Truths against my lived experience, and they hold up fairly well. I do not know a falsification test for "no knowledge proceeds directly from general to specific".




I would just say that your 'knowledge of unicorns' in the real world, where they are mythical and non-existent, is NOT KNOWLEDGE! That is, it may be knowledge of folklore, and that must proceed from the existing of specific instances of folklore! Without any such you probably would have difficulty with the CONCEPT of folklore, let alone any specific example of it. 

Ironically, perhaps, though I have a healthy respect for elements of Buddhist Philosophy, I have little regard for the ideas embodied in the 'four noble truths'. I find no evidence for the existence of Nibbhana, nor of Samsara. Dukkha has a degree of truth, nothing is ever perfectly satisfying, and things are ultimately void of meaning and impermanent. This leaves the whole question of the purpose of the Eightfold Path rather in a lurch. 

Anyway, without sense experience and cognitive experience we cannot form concepts and cannot know things. This is pretty much a centerpiece of post-Kantian philosophy (example, David Hume).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Imaro said:


> I disagree with this.  In stating that a particular setting is your default... whether that is 4e's Nentir Vale, D&D's Greyhawk, Tolkien's Middle Earth or World of Warcraft... you are stating that the lore around the race of orcs in your game is the same as the world you are using. I would argue the existence of an entry of orc in the MM ,with accompanying lore, for any of these settings being used as the basis of a game is very much sufficient to make orcs part of that world, at least until the time that you change or modify what an orc is in the world.
> 
> Taking this example to another media form... When starting a new character in the WoW mmorpg it is possible that as a player you would not be exposed to an orc at the beginning of the game (depending on your initial selection of race and class)... does this in fact meant that orcs don't exist in WoW?  Even though they are a racial choice and are part of the lore of the world, does the fact that you have not directly experienced them in the game mean they don't exist?  Or are they a part of that setting by default?  Has orc lore in said setting has already established their existence in the setting irregardless of whether you personally experience an orc in play?




I didn't say that your particular (you as in your character) experience or non-experience of orcs is determinant of their status as being 'built into the world' or not. If they are actually concretely held to exist in the fantasy world, then whatever fiction makes that concrete statement is sufficient for that to be the case. I only caveat that with the proviso that it must be known by a character, and thus part of either backstory or narrative involving a character to be really canonical (anything else COULD be changed by the GM). 

If NO characters in the WoW game has any knowledge or backstory involving orcs, then indeed orcs are not part of that world, at least yet. It may be true, trivially, that WoW is understood to contain orcs, and thus there's no real contention about the statement that they exist in that world, and we can trivially assume that whatever orc-related material the GM has generated or incorporated is going to be treated as canonical. That's fine, but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s statement which kicked this off was that no orc lore was EVER used in his campaign (which is IIRC now at level 30). All he ever stated was that "anything in the books is allowed and all material will be drawn from the books." I don't think THAT ALONE makes orcs canonical! No specific orc facts exist within the game world, and thus it is an entirely undecided question and thus no act of world building WRT orcs has happened.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

(in response to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s post about Weber and the 'Disenchanted World').

Your question about how to go about world building in terms of a non-disenchanted world is a very interesting one. I didn't think to bring in Weber there, that's for sure! (but then I'm not really one to retain masses of philosophy, though I've read Weber and many others...). 

I have at least begun this very attempt. First by constructing a game which assumes from its very inception that the very nature of the world is 'magical', that there are no general 'rules of physics' by which universal workings can be discerned. Instead all things work by the effect of will, something actively drives every process, beit a god, a demon, a spirit, whatever you want to call it, or perhaps human will in the case of magic being wielded by mortals. Not that I'm specifying a very specific concept here, but just that this seems to be how pre-modern people thought about the universe they lived in, it was either literally 'alive' or actuated by some kind of external mind.

How to present this is an interesting question. Its hard to get across to players, but I think the best way is to make it inherent in the mechanics themselves.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

pemerton said:


> Can dice be used in a different way, though? Instead of as a poor simulation of impersonal forces, can dice be used to generate the setting as an _enchanted_ one (in something like Weber's sense)?
> 
> To make my thoughts a little bit more concrete, one example I'm thinking of is Arthurian legend, where the knights wander through forests, and stumble upon castles inhabited by strange individuals, with there being no thought of the economy, social structure etc of these castles. Could we use the AD&D Appendix C wilderness encounter tables to help with this - they provide a chance of encountering a castle with a powerful (hence, presumably, interesing) lord, plus retainers, men-at-arms etc. Treated as a world simulation those tables give us a bizarrely densely-castled and high-levelled world; but maybe they could be used to generate content for a non-rationalised enchanted world.




They could! Of course there are some questions which are independent of the sort of world your dice produce, which are about why you would be doing this in the first place. I think its possible that it could produce an interesting result in some cases. Arthurian Legend might well be one of them. I ran a campaign like this several years ago, and one of the issues I found was that we had trouble making the world irrational enough to conform to the genre.


----------



## pemerton

Cam Banks said:


> There's a significant proportion of any fan base that desires everything to be laid out, explained, catalogued, referenced, indexed, and explored. From my experience writing Dragonlance game material and fiction, I've come face to face with this from some of the folks who I work with. Fans come from reading the books and want it all to be explained in some Holy Grail of a game sourcebook. They want all the stats, they want all the population figures, commerce, mundane information, motives, relationships, adventure hooks, charts, and so forth.
> 
> I wrote a short story for the most recent Dragonlance anthology, and I didn't name the town it took place in, or the names of three of the characters, because it was from the point of view of a half-ogre afflicted with _feeblemind_ and it was all he could do just to focus on what was happening around him. No sooner had some of the regular message board folks read it, they wanted to know all of those details. I didn't have them, and I didn't really see a need to give them.



Looking back through the first incarnation of this thread, I found the above post by Cam Banks. I think it's a good post.



Riley37 said:


> A day or two ago, I quoted Darth's example of a dialogue between DM and player, in which a player has formed the rudiments of a PC, and something funny happens on the way to the dungeon (or doesn't).
> 
> I haven't yet seen a satisfying answer, explaining why that session went as it did, as an example of the general reason why worldbuilding is bad.



I'm not 100% sure if you're asking for actual play examples, or rather analyses of Darth Shoju's imaginary example. I can provide the former if you like, but for the moment will go with the latter.

Here's the post in question:



Darth Shoju said:


> Let's say the adventure is to go into a dungeon and recover a relic of some sort. The party starts in a nearby village and has to travel to the dungeon. The DM has done no worldbuilding beyond what is present in the adventure. He is also not gifted at improv. I as a player have some questions:
> 
> ME: Ok what nations are there? Where can my character be from?
> DM: There are nations for all of the races in the PHB.
> ME: Ok...what are the human nations like?
> DM: I don't know...what kind of nation do you want to be from?
> ME: Well, can I be from one that is kind of like ancient China?
> DM: Sure.
> ME: How does my nation get along with the other nations?
> DM: That isn't important in the adventure.
> ME: Ok.
> 
> So I make a human priest and do what I can to make him represent a culture based on ancient China. We start the session in the town. Again, I have some questions:
> 
> ME: Is there a branch of my church in this town?
> DM: The adventure doesn't say...I'll say no. It's too far away.
> ME: Ok, are there _any _churches in the town?
> DM: Just one.
> ME: Ok, I go there. I'm going to talk to the priest to get a feel for his religion.
> DM: It just says his name, level, and that he is a priest of an agricultural deity.
> ME: Ok, my religion venerates nature spirits so we should get along well.
> DM: Sure.
> ME: Is the town facing any problems that I could help with before we head to the dungeon?
> DM: It doesn't say...so, no.



My first take on this is that there is some sort of mismatch between GM and player expectations: the GM thinks that there is already an established framework for the session, which involves the dungeon and the hunt for the relic; whereas the player thinks that the framework for the session includes talking to NPC priests and seeing if the GM will provide an alternative framework for the session (ie _problems that the PC could help with before they head to the dungeon_).

I think resolving this mismatch in some fashion is probably more important than worldbuilding to help this player and GM get along (or alternatively, amicably part ways).


----------



## Shasarak

Hussar said:


> So, I'm really rather confused by the notion that earlier peoples actually had more knowledge than modern people.  How could they?  Sure, they might be able to produce Damascus steel, fair enough.  But, modern peoples can produce a hundred different things from titanium alloys to fidget spinners that they couldn't begin to conceptualize.  And while we might not know exactly how they produced Damascus steel, we do know that it can be done and we know what it is.  They wouldn't have the first clue what teflon is, nor how to produce it.




I know what Teflon is but honestly I have absolutely no idea how to produce it.  And if I did know the formula of how to make it, if I was bounced back a hundred or a thousand years could I find the ingredients that I would need to make it?

Scientists suggest that even something as "simple" as a pencil could be impossible to recreate.


----------



## Shasarak

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yes, our modern people have a lot of knowledge. I'm not convinced we know MORE than our ancestors in a personal sense. Our knowledge is much wider ranging, we have a broader perspective, and our society as a whole is capable of many more things. I would call all these things 'advancements' in humanity. OTOH I see no evidence that individuals are smarter or wiser than they were 1000's of years ago. It is at least an open question.




In my mind there is no doubt that individuals are smarter now if only because of better nutrition, increased light availability and decreased superstition.


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> Here's another bid at getting specific concrete examples into the discourse, to add clarity to our discussion about angels on heads of pins. This time, I'm sinking even lower: a question, involving the nature of orcs and Gruumsh, *from an actual D&D table, with a DM out there, in April 2018, wondering how to handle it.*
> 
> That thread will give that individual DM helpful answers, or not. Does that example also help us isolate the causal factor, the reason why worldbuilding is bad?
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?631728-Cleric-of-Gruumsh-in-a-party-with-an-Elf



I just had a look through that thread. I think some of the replies help identify what can be consequences of GM-centric worldbuilding, and "enforcement" of that in the course of actual play.

Whether those are good or bad consequences is probably a matter of taste.


----------



## Riley37

Shasarak said:


> I know what Teflon is but honestly I have absolutely no idea how to produce it.  And if I did know the formula of how to make it, if I was bounced back a hundred or a thousand years could I find the ingredients that I would need to make it?




There is a story in which a time-traveller has significant successes, at least for a while, "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" by Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens). Follow-up stories include "Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen" by Piper. There is also a reversal of that story, "Dies the Fire" by Stirling, which starts on the day that gunpowder stops exploding, electronics stop working, gasoline and kerosene burn less quickly, and airplanes fall from the sky. Society as we know it collapses, and those who can most effectively mix old technologies which still work - such as bows - with *modern* methods which still work - such as washing hands in hot soapy water before surgery - tend to thrive and prevail. 

There is also a story in which someone tries, and fails disastrously, "The Man Who Came Early" by Poul Anderson.

Common ground of those stories: on your own, no dice. If you can work with people around you, maybe, depending on what they bring to the project. In one such story, the hero manages to combine the ingredients for gunpowder, and produces a fast-burning paste, but not an actual explosive, and gives up. The local alchemist, however, observes the process, tries some variations, and discovers how to form gunpowder into kernels, and thus eventually into a useful propellant... because he didn't know the formula, nor does he know surface area ratios, but he DOES understand that texture can matter.

There is also an MMO in which you can mine teflon, if you unlock the quest. (The mine also produces vinyl ore and velcro ore; it is at the bottom of The Sea, but you cannot mine for fish.)


----------



## Shasarak

Riley37 said:


> There is a story in which a time-traveller has significant successes, at least for a while, "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" by Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens).




That is a good point: Could you even understand what the other people were saying even if you could speak "English"?  I have heard some modern day people from England whose accents were such that I could barely understand what they were saying.  How much worse would that be in King Arthurs time?


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> I'm not 100% sure if you're asking for actual play examples, or rather analyses of Darth Shoju's imaginary example.




Insofar as we participate in this thread with the Cuthbertian goal of more fun at our respective tables, then actual play examples are the richest source of useful material. Insofar as we participate in this thread with Tritherionist goals, the point was raised in post #1, answered conclusively in post #2, then refined in post #4. What are *you* doing here?



pemerton said:


> My first take on this is that there is some sort of mismatch between GM and player expectations




Yes, as with the mismatch in the sketch "Who's On First", or John Cleese at the cheese shop. The player thinks that the setting *outside the dungeon* might (or even should) have useful, interesting aspects. Perhaps even as many as the Starting Village of a typical JRPG, before the Initiating Event happens. On another hand, the DM thinks of the setting outside the dungeon as the blank-to-the-horizon non-scenery of Neo's initial return to the Matrix, except maybe there's a vending machine which contains only the items listed in the PHB, at the listed prices, in unlimited quantities. The DM looks at the PC, and sees a set of stats. Whether this LEVEL 1 CLERIC comes from pseudo-ancient-China, carries the same weight as whether the protagonist of ZORK comes from pseudo-ancient-China.

I provided three variations, with three alternate DMs, to explore some territory. But to get more Cuthbertian...

Last year, a DM decided to break out "White Plume Mountain" and run it in 5E. He asked each player to write two 5th-level characters. It was not useful for those characters to have any back story beyond their skill proficiencies, or any goals in life other than "see if we can find the three artifact weapons here, on the bizarre assumption that the person who said that they're here was actually telling the truth". The world outside the module was blank all the way to the horizon, without even a vending machine, and we understood that from square one. We arrived directly at the entrance to White Plume Mountain, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 random tavern rumors.

The same DM also runs other stories, in his homegrown setting, with lots of explorable elements, with named NPCs. He ran a session in which the PCs were the spearhead of an invasion of a city ruled by demons and demon-worshippers, and the port of that city was a major slave trade hub. My PC, a druid with the Outsider background, stayed in the city afterwards. What my character did, in the following year, to influence the city after the immediate power vacuum of the regime change, was then part of the background of the next adventure played out at the table. I had fun with it, and so did the DM. The druid's pet project, so to speak: Awaken a whale, and hire her as a tug. She would pull galleys into and out of the harbor, and the druid would provide healthcare for the whale and her calves. (I dunno the infant mortality rate for grey whales, but THIS whale got better odds.) Relevance to dungeoneering: zero. Just a fun side conversation between me and the DM, with perhaps a bonus if my character ever wanted a favor from the port authority or from merchant sailors who stopped at the port.

Is this example, of a DM who can run a story in either extreme of style, useful? To what goals?

Is it time for a spin-off thread, Why Discussion Of Worldbuilding Is Bad?


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> ...consequences of GM-centric worldbuilding, and "enforcement" of that in the course of actual play.
> 
> Whether those are good or bad consequences is probably a matter of taste.




It's a matter of taste. Okay, you've resolved the OP, we're done here. What's next?


----------



## Riley37

Shasarak said:


> That is a good point: Could you even understand what the other people were saying even if you could speak "English"?  I have heard some modern day people from England whose accents were such that I could barely understand what they were saying.  How much worse would that be in King Arthurs time?




You have found the one flaw in the realism of that novel!

On day 1, the Yankee would have only a few useful words in common with the locals; on day 10, the Yankee could hold a simple conversation; day 100, the Yankee would still have an "accent", but communication would bottleneck more often on lack of shared fundamental assumptions, than on lack of shared vocabulary. YMMV, some people learn languages and dialects faster than others.


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> Insofar as we participate in this thread with the Cuthbertian goal of more fun at our respective tables, then actual play examples are the richest source of useful material.



Well, here's one example of an opening session.



Riley37 said:


> What are *you* doing here?



(1) I enjoy talking about RPGing.

(2) I think there are some RPGers who might enjoy trying stuff that they haven't yet tried.

(3) The flip-side of (1) and (2) - I sometimes find it frustrating when posters make mistaken claims about how RPGing _must_ be.

******************

I know there are posters on these boards who feel they've learned useful things from posts I've made. And I know that I have learned useful things from other posters on these boards. (The "things" I'm talking about here mostly are various sorts of GM techniques.)


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Well, here's one example of an opening session.
> 
> (1) I enjoy talking about RPGing.
> 
> (2) I think there are some RPGers who might enjoy trying stuff that they haven't yet tried.
> 
> (3) The flip-side of (1) and (2) - I sometimes find it frustrating when posters make mistaken claims about how RPGing _must_ be.
> 
> ******************
> 
> I know there are posters on these boards who feel they've learned useful things from posts I've made. And I know that I have learned useful things from other posters on these boards. (The "things" I'm talking about here mostly are various sorts of GM techniques.)




Hey @_*pemerton*_ maybe this could be a separate thread... a wiki where various GM's can share GM'ing techniques.  I often find myself arguing against some of how you run your game but it doesn't mean I don't consider or have never tried some of them in my own game.  I just think it might be better (if that's the point of your discussion is versus proving what style is the "correct" way to run a game) a wiki thread might server better (with a less controversial title.).  I'd definitely read it though I'm not sure how much I can really contribute to it.


----------



## Aldarc

Shasarak said:


> That is a good point: Could you even understand what the other people were saying even if you could speak "English"?  I have heard some modern day people from England whose accents were such that I could barely understand what they were saying.  How much worse would that be in King Arthurs time?



Supposedly you can learn a language with conversant profiency with three months of full language immersion. But this would also mean that you would potentially be considered an idiot for at least your first three months of time travel. And this does not take into account the possibilities for multiple language proficiencies required for conversing back to any given hypothetical "King Arthurs time": e.g., Brittonic Celtic, Anglo-Saxon dialects, Latin, Frankish, Greek, etc. 

From personal experience (year 2.5 in Austria), however, that task is far more difficult when you are a native English speaker and everyone around you can speak your language well and most media uses your language as its lingua franca. So immersing yourself for three months is basically nigh impossible.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Shasarak said:


> That is a good point: Could you even understand what the other people were saying even if you could speak "English"?  I have heard some modern day people from England whose accents were such that I could barely understand what they were saying.  How much worse would that be in King Arthurs time?




I've met AMERICANS whom I couldn't understand (and I am one). My father once bought a parcel of land far up in the Adirondack National Forest in upstate New York, up beyond Old Forge (or family was part of the original colonists of that area back in the early 18th Century). There was a road that ran about half a mile out front of his land, so he went up there (this was the 1950s) to hunt. He ran into a shack out on the road, in which lived a guy and his family. They had no shoes, no electricity or running water, never had, and probably still don't to this day. The place was theirs since the day white men first set foot on that land, they were the original settlers. You could not understand one word. The youngest (of like 12) kids, who actually went to school, translated. The guy was a really awesome hunting guide, but his English was straight out of 300 years ago, and totally incomprehensible.


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> Well, here's one example of an opening session.




Wow, all that in one session? Awesome!



pemerton said:


> (3) The flip-side of (1) and (2) - I sometimes find it frustrating when posters make mistaken claims about how RPGing _must_ be.




https://xkcd.com/386/


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> https://xkcd.com/386/



Sure, there's that. There's also establishing some sort of shared understanding, culture etc in what continues to be a fairly specialised hobby. Venting frustration, connecting with like-minded hobbyists, and providing ideas/illustrations for yet further hobbyists, aren't mutually exclusive possibilities!

Here's a recent post on the 4e sub-forum:



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I was greatly influenced by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s play examples of things like players consuming magic items to power permanent (or at least highly potent) rituals or even to simply create non-standard but narratively appropriate effects.



I'm not going to say that my influencing of AbdulAlhzared's thinking about how a 4e-type game might allow improvised action declarations centred around magic items, in and of itself, justifies nearly 18,000 posts. Nevertheless, those long and sometimes challenging discussions about how 4e works are one way in which some members of the hobby (of whom I'm one) were able to get a better handle on what we were and are doing, and what we want to do.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> this could be a separate thread... a wiki where various GM's can share GM'ing techniques.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I just think it might be better (if that's the point of your discussion is versus proving what style is the "correct" way to run a game) a wiki thread might server better (with a less controversial title.).



I don't know much about wiki threads.

My own experience is that explaining techniques to someone who's not encountered them before can sometime be hard, as the audience may be making assumptions that they don't even realise they are making. This came up in the other current worldbuilding thread, where one poster read something about the GM narrating an NPC _claiming _to be a PC's parent, and just assumed that this meant the GM has decided, as a matter of worldbuidling/backstory, that the NPC _is_ the PC's parent.

So - again talking about my own experience - sometimes a lot of groundclearing can be needed to really articulate an idea.

I don't know if that is consistent with how a wiki thread would work, or not, because as I said I'm not really au fait with such a thing.


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> My own experience is that explaining techniques to someone who's not encountered them before can sometime be hard, as the audience may be making assumptions that they don't even realise they are making.




Unknown knowns, so to speak?

I question whether wiki is the best tool for the job, or a +3 Golden Hammer, but if someone invest the time to create one, I would give it a try.

Also, pemerton - in regards to your answers to my question - as you may have noticed, I'm here too, voluntarily.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Riley37 said:


> In a game of GURPS: MLP, would the DM narrate these things, or would they appear in the PHB (Pony Horse Book) which all players have as shared reference material, or would they actually emerge in the course of events played out at the table, over pizza? Which of those come from the GM, and which of those do players establish, adding to their table's particular implementation of the canonical Equestrian setting, uniquely and unknown to all other tables playing GURPS: MLP? Do the players learn the legend of the Mare in the Moon because the GM had an NPC narrate it, or because one of the players composed that legend, and had their PC tell that story to the other PCs?
> 
> If, after a dozen sessions, y'all want a change of pace, and shift to the "Fallout: Equestria" setting, what is the balance between GM and players, establishing what happens in the Vault in the long years before somepony emerges into the drastically-changed surface world?




An RPG is different from a TV show.  At the very least, I would use Tales of Equestria instead of GURPS


----------



## Riley37

MichaelSomething said:


> An RPG is different from a TV show.



Thank you for that bold statement, which has never, ever before been used to counter any point made in a conversation about TRPGs or CRPGS and their relationship with their genre, source material, or setting. If only we'd known that, decades ago, back in the 1970s when the people playing "Bunnies and Burrows" expected every game session to be *exactly identical* to a screening of "Watership Down"! (Well, some of those sessions had popcorn and soft drinks, so it wasn't a total loss.)



MichaelSomething said:


> I would use Tales of Equestria




Awesome! So what would it take, for you to answer the world building questions as if I'd asked them about "Tales of Equestria" instead of "GURPS: MLP"?

Unless "Tales" includes material for the "Fallout: Equestria" setting, then we might use some GURPS materials for Phase II. Nor would we be the first TRPGers to ever choose between (1) doing a story in a setting with the rules published for that setting, versus (2) home-brewing a GURPS implementation, and end up with the latter.


----------



## Caliburn101

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't really like to take this kind of position, because it feels to me like its saying effectively "you can't criticize this technique because there's this perfect version of it somewhere that avoids this problem." If its a problem, repeatedly, in real games in the real world, then IMHO its a problem with the technique! You may well avoid that problem by dint of expert play, but MANY campaigns have sunk upon that rock!
> 
> I mean, any absolutist pronouncements, like the initial premise of this thread, are always fraught. To say 'nobody should world build' is of course idiotic. I mean, I recommend against it and then I do it myself! I don't actually feel a need to be self-consistent or act in the 'best' way possible. I just do what I like to do, particularly when it comes to pastimes. So I wouldn't actually condone dismissing world building, but that isn't the same thing as saying its beyond criticism because people like it or it produces good results sometimes. IME No Myth play actually has fewer problems.




You miss the mark here I think. Nowhere have I said that worldbuilding is always good, it is indeed sometimes an issue. But no-one has proven the contention that 'worldbuilding is bad' per se. It has been stated, I have said it's wrong and then forced to justify my defence of it despite the fact no credible objective contention supports the proposition that it is bad.

So I am not saying you cannot criticise worldbuilding, but actually, no-one has actually done so, they have just criticised it and taken the position that it is the root cause of some problem or other which hasn't been effectively defined either.

Having a bad experience with a world building GM is unfortunate, but blaming the symptoms for disease is a mistake. Ever element of a game can be badly run, so it's the GM whose the issue. Not worldbuilding per se.

How do I know that - because I cannot precisely count now the games in which a well-realised gameworld has added to the game. I have never actually had your experience, and certainly not repeatedly enough to claim its a 'rule'. 

It really isn't, and citing exceptions as the basis for supposed truisms is I think a mistake.


----------



## pemerton

Caliburn101 said:


> I am not saying you cannot criticise worldbuilding, but actually, no-one has actually done so, they have just badmouthed it and taken the position that it is the root cause of some problem or other which hasn't been effectively defined either.



Saying that "worldbuilding is bad" is like saying that <insert random sport or game here> is bad. There are various sports and games I don't really care for (eg golf); but I've got no reason to doubt the sincerity of other's enjoyment of them (either as spectator, participant, or both).

What we _can _say is that there are connections between worldbuilding and other aspects of RPGing - especially if we are talking about worldbuilding by the GM, which I think is how it is normally thought of in the RPGing context.

For instance, worldbuilding by a GM mean that a certain amount of table time is spent having the GM tell the players stuff about the world that the GM has built - whether "big picture" stuff (about gods, politics, what counts as "normal" behaviour, etc) or "granular" stuff (like whether or not there is a shop of the sort the PC is looking for, or whether or not there is enough hay in the stable to be stacked up to the second-story window).

And it also means that some action declarations ("I search for a secret door", "I travel east until I reach the coast") have their outcome determined by the GM's worldbuilding (if the GM has decided that there is no secret door at that place, then the first PC can't succeed; if the GM has decided that there is an effectiely impassale range of mountains to the east, then the second PC can't succeed).

If the worldbuilding includes conflicts or struggles or drama that the GM (i) determines prior to and.or independently of the players and their PC building, and (ii) makes salient in play, then a further possible consequence is that some PCs are onlookers rather than participants in some of those conflicts or struggles or drama. (Eg this could happpen if the campaign starts in city X, and the big drama in city X as built by the GM is a struggle within a wizard's guild, but none of the PCs is a wizard.)

Whether these aspects of RPGing that can follow from extensive GM worldbuilding are good or bad seems like it would be relative to the tastes of particular RPGers.


----------



## Imaculata

pemerton said:


> Whether these aspects of RPGing that can follow from extensive GM worldbuilding are good or bad seems like it would be relative to the tastes of particular RPGers.




And relative to the implementation by the GM.


----------



## happyhermit

pemerton said:


> ...
> What we _can _say is that there are connections between worldbuilding and other aspects of RPGing - especially if we are talking about worldbuilding by the GM, which I think is how it is normally thought of in the RPGing context.




It seems like remarkably little is being said here though, despite all the words we spill.



pemerton said:


> For instance, worldbuilding by a GM mean that a certain amount of table time is spent having the GM tell the players stuff about the world that the GM has built ...




And without "worldbuilding" by a GM a certain amount of table time is spent having the GM tell the players stuff about the world.



pemerton said:


> And it also means that some action declarations ("I search for a secret door", "I travel east until I reach the coast") have their outcome determined by the GM's worldbuilding (if the GM has decided that there is no secret door at that place, then the first PC can't succeed; if the GM has decided that there is an effectiely impassale range of mountains to the east, then the second PC can't succeed).




Yep, most if not all people prefer some actions in some situations to be difficult or impossible. This happens through the rules of the game, table consensus, player veto, GM, etc.



pemerton said:


> If the worldbuilding includes conflicts or struggles or drama that the GM (i) determines prior to and.or independently of the players and their PC building, and (ii) makes salient in play, then a further possible consequence is that some PCs are onlookers rather than participants in some of those conflicts or struggles or drama. ...




And if those conflicts/struggles/drama arise independently of worldbuilding (they do) the exact same "issues" exist. "Player driven" games without "worldbuilding" doesn't prevent some PCs from being "onlookers", neither does "worldbuilding" in and of itself.


----------



## Hussar

Ok, specific criticisms of world building:


It takes away time from the DM that would be better spent on developing adventures.  We do not have unlimited time, and much of the world building stuff that goes on has little or nothing to do with the specific adventure that the players are doing.
Worldbuilding replaces more practical elements in supplements.  I mentioned earlier the old Dragon Magazine Ecology of articles.  Replacing them with a more here is a page of information and three to four pages of plug and play adventure material is far more useful to a DM.
Worldbuilding and particularly game lore, becomes deeply entrenched and virtually impossible to change.  The Great Wheel and attending arguments is a perfect example of this.  New ideas become judged, not on their actual value, but on how well they toe the line with what came before.
Much of world building is what I called before "Six page treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies".  As more and more world building gets piled on, less and less of anything of actual use at the table gets shoved in.
DM's sometimes mistake world building for adventure building.  The "Tour Des Realms" example that I brought up earlier where the campaign was more about showing off the DM's beautifully wrought urn rather than an actual adventure.  ((Note, this probably applies double to fantasy genre novel writers))

How's that for specific criticisms?


----------



## MichaelSomething

Riley37 said:


> Awesome! So what would it take, for you to answer the world building questions as if I'd asked them about "Tales of Equestria" instead of "GURPS: MLP"?
> 
> Unless "Tales" includes material for the "Fallout: Equestria" setting, then we might use some GURPS materials for Phase II. Nor would we be the first TRPGers to ever choose between (1) doing a story in a setting with the rules published for that setting, versus (2) home-brewing a GURPS implementation, and end up with the latter.




Wait, you were serious?

Well, if I was running an MLP RPG, the most likely scenario is that I would be running it for a bunch of Bronies.  Therefore, I would assume they all would be at least fairly familiar with the world lore.  If I were to task the PCs (pony characters) with helping in a Winter Wrap Up, they would already know more or less what was going on.  As for the Mare in the Moon, it would be a knowledge/history check of some type for the PCs to know, but I would assume the players would know what it is already.  I wouldn't have the campaign take place in Ponyville since that's the Mane 6's turf.  

I would treat Fallout: Equestria as more Fallout then Equestria.  Friendship; friendship never changes...


----------



## pemerton

happyhermit said:


> And without "worldbuilding" by a GM a certain amount of table time is spent having the GM tell the players stuff about the world.



Well, if the game is run just like a "worldbuilt" one but with the GM building the world on the fly, that will be true.

But if the game is run "no myth" or simllarly, then that won't be true.



happyhermit said:


> most if not all people prefer some actions in some situations to be difficult or impossible. This happens through the rules of the game, table consensus, player veto, GM, etc.



I was referring to a particular sort of impossibility, namely, impossibility that results from the GM making a decision, secret from the players, that there is no secret door to be found; or the GM making a decision, independently of the players, that in this land there is an impassable mountain range to the east.

The effect of these sorts of decisions is that the GM is (to some extent, the degree of which depends on the details of the case) shaping the outcomes of play in advance.

I have no idea whether or not "most people" like this. I know that all don't, because I don't and I'm one of the people. I think there are some other people who don't like it either, because they wrote RPGs designed to be run in a "no myth" or similar fashion.

And whether or not we people are numerous or not, as I said, this is a particular outcome of worldbuiding which has a definite inpact on the RPG experience, and it's an impact that I personally regard as bad.



happyhermit said:


> if those conflicts/struggles/drama arise independently of worldbuilding (they do) the exact same "issues" exist. "Player driven" games without "worldbuilding" doesn't prevent some PCs from being "onlookers", neither does "worldbuilding" in and of itself.



If the GM writes the dramas prior to play and/or independently of the players, the players have to follow the GM's hooks or else be spectators. If the players establish the dramas and hook the GM, then the dynamic of play is quite different. This, again, is a real impact that worldbuilding can have, and personally I don't like it.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> Ok, specific criticisms of world building:



For fun, let's see if I can counter these:



> It takes away time from the DM that would be better spent on developing adventures.  We do not have unlimited time, and much of the world building stuff that goes on has little or nothing to do with the specific adventure that the players are doing.



It moves this work from during play to before play starts.  You still need to know where the adventures are located, what's around them, where the nearby towns are, what the terrain is like, the distances involved, and a few boatloads of other stuff - might as well have this all nailed down ahead of time.  Then, even if you decide to drop an adventure into a somewhat random place later you've already got all the surrounding stuff you need, rather than having to do it all (and record it all!) on the fly.


> Worldbuilding replaces more practical elements in supplements.  I mentioned earlier the old Dragon Magazine Ecology of articles.  Replacing them with a more here is a page of information and three to four pages of plug and play adventure material is far more useful to a DM.



This applies only to prepublished worlds, I guess.  What we're talking about here is mostly concerning homebrew worldbuilding, I think; and if a homebrewer wants to write Ecology Of... articles for all the creatures in her world then more power to her.  I ain't gonna do it. 


> Worldbuilding and particularly game lore, becomes deeply entrenched and virtually impossible to change.  The Great Wheel and attending arguments is a perfect example of this.  New ideas become judged, not on their actual value, but on how well they toe the line with what came before.



Again this seems more relevant to pre-published worlds than homebrew.  Yes homebrew lore becomes entrenched too, but that's a good thing: it means the world is gaining traction with the players and that you've probably done it right.


> Much of world building is what I called before "Six page treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies".  As more and more world building gets piled on, less and less of anything of actual use at the table gets shoved in.



This is always a risk, but an acceptable one.  Any DM building her own world is going to tailor her write-ups to her own interests and gloss over things of little interest to her.

For example: I've written up detailed rules for ship-to-ship naval combat, because I like that sort of stuff and have a bit of knowledge.  But anything to do with horses?  Don't ask me... 



> DM's sometimes mistake world building for adventure building.  The "Tour Des Realms" example that I brought up earlier where the campaign was more about showing off the DM's beautifully wrought urn rather than an actual adventure.



World-building and adventure-building can sometimes go hand in hand - as a part of building the world you can also come up with ideas for what would be threatening it that the PCs might have to deal with.  Having a solid history for your world is hugely helpful for this!

And if a DM is smart about it (and if the world is any good!) the world will quietly show itself off during the run of play without the DM having to push it at all.



> How's that for specific criticisms?



How's that for answers? 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Well, if the game is run just like a "worldbuilt" one but with the GM building the world on the fly, that will be true.
> 
> But if the game is run "no myth" or simllarly, then that won't be true.



Technically, it won't.  But the same amount of time - or more - will be spent by the players asking for details and information about the game world so they can give their PCs some grounding.



> I was referring to a particular sort of impossibility, namely, impossibility that results from the GM making a decision, secret from the players, that there is no secret door to be found; or the GM making a decision, independently of the players, that in this land there is an impassable mountain range to the east.
> 
> The effect of these sorts of decisions is that the GM is (to some extent, the degree of which depends on the details of the case) shaping the outcomes of play in advance.
> 
> I have no idea whether or not "most people" like this. I know that all don't, because I don't and I'm one of the people. I think there are some other people who don't like it either, because they wrote RPGs designed to be run in a "no myth" or similar fashion.



That despite their best attempts those RPGs still occupy no more than a very small niche in the hobby tells me all I need to know. 



> If the GM writes the dramas prior to play and/or independently of the players, the players have to follow the GM's hooks or else be spectators. If the players establish the dramas and hook the GM, then the dynamic of play is quite different. This, again, is a real impact that worldbuilding can have, and personally I don't like it.



False dichotomy.

The players can still establish the drama and hook the DM even in a DM-built world.

Also, assuming a reasonable DM the players always have a third option other than follow hooks or be spectators; and that's to have their PCs do something else within the gameworld, as in:

DM hook A: troglodytes are raiding a coastal village 20 miles south
DM hook B: lights have recently been seen in Mad Arcandia's old tower, long thought abandoned
DM hook C: rumours are growing within certain elements of the city's population that something's not right in the sewers - a monster has moved in?
DM hook D: orcs and goblins have started attacking caravans between here and Alphasia to the east
Players' response: See those mountains to the north on the map?  We're going up there, get away from all this civilization and out into the true wildlands!
DM: runs the travel bit while quietly digging out Keep on the Borderlands... 

Lanefan


----------



## Imaculata

First of all, thanks for providing some specific criticism.



Hussar said:


> [*]It takes away time from the DM that would be better spent on developing adventures.  We do not have unlimited time, and much of the world building stuff that goes on has little or nothing to do with the specific adventure that the players are doing.




I don't think it is of concern to the players how the DM spends his time preparing his campaign. Nor do I think that you can make a reasonable case that the quality of the adventures suffers as a result of world building. I could come up with plenty of examples of ways in which the world building actually helps flesh out the finer details of an adventure, and improves storytelling, immersion and depth.



Hussar said:


> [*]Worldbuilding replaces more practical elements in supplements.  I mentioned earlier the old Dragon Magazine Ecology of articles.  Replacing them with a more here is a page of information and three to four pages of plug and play adventure material is far more useful to a DM.




I don't disagree here. But I think this is more of an inherent flaw with the way adventure modules are generally written. They overindulge in their own setting, while leaving out crucial information to run the adventure.



Hussar said:


> [*]Worldbuilding and particularly game lore, becomes deeply entrenched and virtually impossible to change.  The Great Wheel and attending arguments is a perfect example of this.  New ideas become judged, not on their actual value, but on how well they toe the line with what came before.




I don't see a problem with the DM writing out a clearly defined history for his world. I don't think the players need to have any input on this part of the campaign.



Hussar said:


> [*]Much of world building is what I called before "Six page treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies".  As more and more world building gets piled on, less and less of anything of actual use at the table gets shoved in.




This will differ per DM. When I do world building for my campaign, all of what I've written will show up at some point. So I feel this is an unfair stereotype of world building.



Hussar said:


> [*]DM's sometimes mistake world building for adventure building.  The "Tour Des Realms" example that I brought up earlier where the campaign was more about showing off the DM's beautifully wrought urn rather than an actual adventure.  ((Note, this probably applies double to fantasy genre novel writers))




This seems more of a flaw with specific DM's, rather than world building in general. To restate what I said earlier, when I write lore for my world, it always affects the adventures I build as well. The adventures are usually the reason I do world building in the first place. I want to have a reason why certain characters/cultures feel the way they do. 

*For example:*

When I started my pirate campaign, I wrote that the two countries of St. Valenz and Kturgia were at war. I didn't write why they were at war, nor did I write who the leaders of these countries were. It didn't matter at that point. 
But eventually the campaign reached a point where the players may have questions regarding who was running the country, and how the country decided who would be the next leader of a city. It was a direct consequence of the adventure the players were on. And so I came up with some names for the King of St. valenz and the Sultan of Kturgia. I also wrote that a bishop would be required to approve new local rulers, who would be an important npc that the players would have to deal with.

Over the course of the campaign I would gradually flesh out the finer details of the history of these two countries. I wrote a new expendable bad guy into the plot, for the players to fight. I came up with a vicious Kturgian pirate captain, called Karagoz. I came up with the idea that at some point Karagoz had been captured, but as part of a peace treaty between the two countries, he was set free. He immediately resumed his crimes, and the peace was short lived.

As the campaign progressed, the players eventually got into a big battle with Karagoz. I wanted to make the battle with him more interesting, so I came up with the idea of giving him a magic lamp with a genie. A genie was of the appropriate challenge, and made for a more interesting enemy, than more human pirates. Of course this meant that I had to think about how Karagoz came into the possession of the lamp. No doubt the players would ask the genie this question (and they did!), and I wanted to tie the backstory of the lamp to the history of the two countries.

So I came up with a plot where the magic lamp was actually a wedding gift, to seal a marriage between the prince and princess of the two countries. This would have guaranteed a permanent peace between the two countries, which was deliberately sabotaged by other villains in my campaign. The prince of Kturgia was slain by Karagoz, and the princess was corrupted by the big bad, while both countries pointed fingers at each other. The players still have not decided what to do with her. Will they return her to her father, and thus meet with the king of St Valenz? Do they even trust her?


----------



## Aldarc

I think one of my primary criticisms with threads about worldbuilding - and this is not aimed at anyone in particular - is that they almost always invariably devolve into people wanting to talk about _their_ homebrew worldbuilding. Though having examples are nice, it again gets to my contention that worldbuilding often comes across as self-indulgant oversharing, even when people are asking for advice about worldbuilding. People often get less actual tips, advice, or answers, but, instead, ten page long backstories provided by other posters who want their campaign bibles to be lauded and appreciated.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Aldarc said:


> worldbuilding often comes across as self-indulgant oversharing



Yes, I think you're on to something there. Talking about one's PC falls into the same category. That's an advantage to talking about game rules, artwork and other published texts we've all read - we all have equal access. Whereas played rpgs are private.

Also, it's weird that we don't have established terms to distinguish between 'roleplaying game' in the sense of a published game text and 'roleplaying game' in the sense of actual play.


----------



## Sadras

Aldarc said:


> I think one of my primary criticisms with threads about worldbuilding...(snip)... is that they almost always invariably devolve into people wanting to talk about _their_ homebrew worldbuilding.




Can we all just agree

 W_orldbuilding is not bad, however threads about worldbuilding are._


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> I think one of my primary criticisms with threads about worldbuilding - and this is not aimed at anyone in particular - is that they almost always invariably devolve into people wanting to talk about _their_ homebrew worldbuilding. Though having examples are nice, it again gets to my contention that worldbuilding often comes across as self-indulgant oversharing, even when people are asking for advice about worldbuilding. People often get less actual tips, advice, or answers, but, instead, ten page long backstories provided by other posters who want their campaign bibles to be lauded and appreciated.



Heh, that's not a bad point.  I think people are bad at relaying what they find useful in worldbuilding, so they go to examples.

In general, worldbuilding is of such varied quality and usefulness as to be almost idiosyncratic.  What works for one person doesn't work for another.  Again, hence why examples seem to be rule rather than less concrete advice.

The best advice for worldbuilding I've found yet is adapted from Apocalypse World:  hold on lightly.  That simple advice has done more for my thinking on the matter than anything else I've seen.  It doesn't say don't worldbuild, or don't plan, it just simply says that if you're more interested in staying true to what you've already written, you're going to miss big opportunities for awesome stuff in game.  So, hold onto your plans and your worldbuilding lightly and always be on the look out for the play presenting something better.

That said, I find a good bit of use in some worldbuilding.  Just like I give NPCs motivations and desires so that I can present them more authentically, I like to do the same with the world -- give it a purpose and a movement so that it becomes a living part of the game.  I do that better with some forethinking, just because that's how I work best.  I can ad lib in a framework so much better than without, and I find I do better ad libbing something new if I'm doing it via throwing out something I've already considered because there's almost always something similar to work off of and I have some kernel to still build by thoughts on instead of casting about for inspiration.  Still, my worldbuilding is usually big sweeping moments instead of details (my last "big plot" game had a bad guy that had some fully realized motivations, but nothing scripted outside of some loose ideas on how that would play out).  Details, I find, are neat if they serve a purpose.  I rarely do details except to set a theme for description, like describing the way doors are carved with dragon motifs in a dragon cultist complex.  That's just adding dragons so that the players really get that dragons are something these people care a lot about.

Ha!  I used examples! I am ironic!


Doug McCrae said:


> Yes, I think you're on to something there. Talking about one's PC falls into the same category. That's an advantage to talking about game rules, artwork and other published texts we've all read - we all have equal access. Whereas played rpgs are private.
> 
> Also, it's weird that we don't have established terms to distinguish between 'roleplaying game' in the sense of a published game text and 'roleplaying game' in the sense of actual play.




Is it?  We don't have established terms to distinguish between Monopoly the boardgame and playing Monopoly the boardgame, or football the rules vs a game of football, or Jeopardy the gameshow vs playing on Jeopardy the gameshow.  I'm not sure there's a strong indication we need a term defined to mean 'playing a X' rather than just saying 'playing a X' to differentiate.


----------



## happyhermit

pemerton said:


> Well, if the game is run just like a "worldbuilt" one but with the GM building the world on the fly, that will be true.
> But if the game is run "no myth" or simllarly, then that won't be true.




No, it's always true (or I suppose one could qualify this with in 99.9% of all rpgs or some such, but no exceptions come to mind) that the GM will spend a certain amount of time describing the world to the PCs. If a game exists where the GM never describes the existence of an NPC, what they look like, etc. and never sets a scene, etc. then I haven't seen it. Now you can choose to say "That isn't describing the world", but that wouldn't be accurate. A GM running a "no myth" game, who then describes something in the game world, is describing the game world, no matter how one spins it. 



pemerton said:


> I was referring to a particular sort of impossibility, namely, impossibility that results from the GM making a decision, secret from the players, that there is no secret door to be found; or the GM making a decision, independently of the players, that in this land there is an impassable mountain range to the east.




Sure, and I was pointing out that there are many ways a specific action will be made difficult to impossible in a ttrpg, not just "worldbuilding". I will also point out that "worldbuilding" doesn't need to make anything difficult to impossible, so the whole point is even less salient. 



pemerton said:


> The effect of these sorts of decisions is that the GM is (to some extent, the degree of which depends on the details of the case) shaping the outcomes of play in advance.




Sure they can, just like the rules do. Or the table can, etc.



pemerton said:


> And whether or not we people are numerous or not, as I said, this is a particular outcome of worldbuiding which has a definite inpact on the RPG experience, and it's an impact that I personally regard as bad.




The "definite impact" being only that a GM can choose to make certain actions difficult or impossible, on top of things made difficult or impossible by the rules, table consensus, veto powers, etc. Or they can not. Doesn't seem especially definite.



pemerton said:


> If the GM writes the dramas prior to play and/or independently of the players, the players have to follow the GM's hooks or else be spectators.




What? No! To start with "worldbuilding" =/= "GM writes the dramas", they might "write" some drama or conflict in the world but by what leap of logic does that mean they write all of it, or that the players must follow their hooks or be spectators? This is not only illogical, and wrong on it's face but it seems to show a very biased and uncharitable attitude to make that jump. 



pemerton said:


> If the players establish the dramas and hook the GM, then the dynamic of play is quite different.




And, it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but obviously the players can establish drama with or without "worldbuilding" (technically some degree of worldbuilding is necessary unless it's a group of PCs arguing in a vacuum). They do it ALL THE TIME, but they do it within the world.



pemerton said:


> This, again, is a real impact that worldbuilding can have, and personally I don't like it.




And here you shift to "can", which I appreciate. I get that you don't like it, but that shouldn't be an excuse to make unfounded leaps in logic that are clearly contradicted by evidence, or to characterize it as causing unique issues that in reality it need not cause and that many other things can cause as well. Hussar just made a bunch of criticisms without doing that sort of thing.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Ovinomancer said:


> Is it?  We don't have established terms to distinguish between Monopoly the boardgame and playing Monopoly the boardgame, or football the rules vs a game of football, or Jeopardy the gameshow vs playing on Jeopardy the gameshow.  I'm not sure there's a strong indication we need a term defined to mean 'playing a X' rather than just saying 'playing a X' to differentiate.



Well maybe it isn't weird then! But I think it causes confusion. Someone will say "D&D is X" (talking about the game text) and someone else will say "Well our game is nothing like that".


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> The best advice for worldbuilding I've found yet is adapted from Apocalypse World:  hold on lightly.  That simple advice has done more for my thinking on the matter than anything else I've seen.  *It doesn't say don't worldbuild, or don't plan, it just simply says that if you're more interested in staying true to what you've already written, you're going to miss big opportunities for awesome stuff in game.  So, hold onto your plans and your worldbuilding lightly and always be on the look out for the play presenting something better.*



With advice like that, I may have to look more closely at giving the PbtA engine a whirl. (I have picked up the Blades in the Dark off-shoot, but I have not yet had an opportunity to play it or read through it properly.) It's incredible how much we can learn from other games. 

Along similar lines, I have also appreciated Fate's Session 0 approach that actually gives players the opportunity to contribute to the worldbuilding. I found that players become more invested in the world when they are given an opportunity to invest their own ideas into the campaign. 



> That said, I find a good bit of use in some worldbuilding.



My own sense of this thread is that a lot of contention could have been averted by shifting the question from "_Why_ worldbuilding is bad" to "_How_ worldbuilding is bad." The latter question, IMHO, puts GMs who worldbuild less on the defensive, but instead shifts the focus of the symptomatic problems that can manifest in homebrew worldbuilding. 



> Ha!  I used examples! I am ironic!



That's fine as long as you are not reprinting your Campaign Setting Bible.


----------



## happyhermit

Aldarc said:


> ...
> Along similar lines, I have also appreciated Fate's Session 0 approach that actually gives players the opportunity to contribute to the worldbuilding. ...




With the right people, group worldbuilding and character creation can be just as fun as playing the game.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> I think one of my primary criticisms with threads about worldbuilding - and this is not aimed at anyone in particular - is that they almost always invariably devolve into people wanting to talk about _their_ homebrew worldbuilding. Though having examples are nice, it again gets to my contention that worldbuilding often comes across as self-indulgant oversharing, even when people are asking for advice about worldbuilding. People often get less actual tips, advice, or answers, but, instead, ten page long backstories provided by other posters who want their campaign bibles to be lauded and appreciated.






Aldarc said:


> With advice like that, I may have to look more closely at giving the PbtA engine a whirl. (I have picked up the Blades in the Dark off-shoot, but I have not yet had an opportunity to play it or read through it properly.) It's incredible how much we can learn from other games.
> 
> Along similar lines, I have also appreciated Fate's Session 0 approach that actually gives players the opportunity to contribute to the worldbuilding. I found that players become more invested in the world when they are given an opportunity to invest their own ideas into the campaign.
> 
> My own sense of this thread is that a lot of contention could have been averted by shifting the question from "_Why_ worldbuilding is bad" to "_How_ worldbuilding is bad." The latter question, IMHO, puts GMs who worldbuild less on the defensive, but instead shifts the focus of the symptomatic problems that can manifest in homebrew worldbuilding.
> 
> That's fine as long as you are not reprinting your Campaign Setting Bible.




Having played Fate, the move to Blades (which I recently started playing myself, btw, and love to pieces) shouldn't be as jarring.  The real key, I've found, is as DM both rooting for the PC and yet still beating the hell out of them.  It's a strange integrity to do both.  

There's a few ways I've seen about running scores.  Some prefer to have a general map laid out and  established and go through it for the score, others wing it and create the scenes as needed in TotM only.  The trick is to find a pacing that works for you and your group and meets their expectations.  I was moving players from D&D 5e to Blades, so I broke entirely for TotM to separation because the play is pretty different, but YMMV.  I can easily see the use of a map as a pacing mechanic -- you have to get through these rooms to here to succeed -- but it's not necessary.  I use the clocks to pace the score, using more or more complex clocks depending on the details.  The clocks mechanism of Blades is something I just fell in love with, and I occasionally find myself thinking of even other games in terms of clocks now.  They're just so flexible, especially if you adopt the idea that play can go against any clock at any time.  Example time!

So, in a theft by stealth score against a tough target, the engagement roll established a risky entry, so I placed the play outside the target building but close and in an undiscovered condition.  The issue was that there were more guards than anticipated, so the initial plan to access the kitchen window (the detail of the stealth approach) was in jeopardy.  I set down two clocks for this scene -- access the window and gain entry, a four clock, and Alarm is raised! an six clock (the numbers are the number of segments in the clock, fill the clock and it's 'thing' happens).  The Alarm clock is filled by failures, the window clock by successes.  A player declared a dash across the street to the shadows under the window.  No effort had been expended to determine the guard patrols, so I declared the action to be risky with normal results.  A failure occurs, and the Alarm clock got 2 ticks as the PC made the dash but was exposed as a guard came around the corner.  A moment away from it going pear shaped!  But, in allowing actions against any clocks, the next player declared an action to try step out and knock out the guard before an alarm was raised.  That seemed a desperate action, with limited results because the guards were a tier higher than the PCs.  This time a critical success was rolled, so the player got full success and then pushed for increased effect so guard was knocked out and dragged into an alley, removing all the ticks on the Alarm clock.  The players are still no closer to gaining access to the kitchen window (they've not advanced that clock) and now have a possible liability (an unconscious guard in the alley across the street), but they've reset the challenge of the scene back to start.

Ciocks are just awesome.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Ok, specific criticisms of world building:
> 
> It takes away time from the DM that would be better spent on developing adventures.  We do not have unlimited time, and much of the world building stuff that goes on has little or nothing to do with the specific adventure that the players are doing.




Not a specific criticism of world-building.  Let's be real one can only spend so much time on adventure building (especially if you want to customize the adventures based on the choices of the PC's).sonally speaking one adventure usually lasts my group anywhere from 2-4 sessions.... so that leaves plenty of time for world-building. Your assertion also ignores the subset of world builders who do their work before the campaign takes place leaving plenty of time for adventure building while the campaign is in progress.  

If anything this seems to be an issue with time management nd could be an issue if you spend too much time on any one thing while doing camapign/game prep. 



Hussar said:


> [*]Worldbuilding replaces more practical elements in supplements.  I mentioned earlier the old Dragon Magazine Ecology of articles.  Replacing them with a more here is a page of information and three to four pages of plug and play adventure material is far more useful to a DM.




This presupposes everyone finds the exact same things of practical use.  I can only speak for myself but I've founs fiction, setting elewments, stats, pre-built traps/monsters, etc. all useful at some point in time...  Do I find some elements more practical for my usage than others?  Yeah, sure but I don't pre-suppose everyone creates in the same way and thus what I find useful will be the same for everyone else.  When you say worldbuilding could be replaced with more practical elements you're making the pretty broad assertion that worldbuilding isn't useful on a practical level and for many that isn't true... in fact some would find your pre-made, plug and play adventure material useless at a practical level because they customize adventure material for their game and probably prefer inspiration to a pre-set encounter.  As an example...I know I never used the pre-madse encounters laid out in the 4e monster manual so for me they weren't useful at all but for others they were probably a godsend. 



Hussar said:


> [*]Worldbuilding and particularly game lore, becomes deeply entrenched and virtually impossible to change.  The Great Wheel and attending arguments is a perfect example of this.  New ideas become judged, not on their actual value, but on how well they toe the line with what came before.




Eh... I'm not sure how we judge something as subjective as camapign lore on "actual value". It's subjective and people like what they like... and yues if you change what they like to something else you should expect to get pushback.  Again not sure this is an actual criticism of worldbuilding since you're effectively saying worldbuilding is bad because some people prefer one world to another... so the solution is to what? Not have any worlds or lore? Huh?  



Hussar said:


> [*]Much of world building is what I called before "Six page treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies".  As more and more world building gets piled on, less and less of anything of actual use at the table gets shoved in.




You mean actual use by you... right?  The thing is that someone, somewhere out there is probably making an adventure their group is loving centered around elven tea ceremonies.  Let's step back and see what happens when we apply this to anything else... The more and more monsters they create the less and less of anything of actual use at the table gets shoved in... but if just one group is using one of those obscure monsters (or tea ceremonies) to enhance their game how is it a bad thing because you personally choose not to?



Hussar said:


> [*]DM's sometimes mistake world building for adventure building.  The "Tour Des Realms" example that I brought up earlier where the campaign was more about showing off the DM's beautifully wrought urn rather than an actual adventure.  ((Note, this probably applies double to fantasy genre novel writers))
> [/list]




Any criticism that starts of with sometimes isn't a good one, again this isn't a specific criticism of worldbuilding, it's your dislike for a a specific type of campaign (exploration of a world or sandbox).  The thing is that there are players who would enjoy this sort of campaign, I mean it's practically what a hexcrawl is and is probably one ofthe primary reason many buy licensed settings.  Now if there's nothing exciting in this world they are exploring well that's a problem with the type of world that was built but is not in and of itself a problem of world-building. 



Hussar said:


> How's that for specific criticisms?




2.5 to 3 out of 10 is what I'm rating it.


----------



## Afrodyte

Ovinomancer said:


> The best advice for worldbuilding I've found yet is adapted from Apocalypse World:  hold on lightly.  That simple advice has done more for my thinking on the matter than anything else I've seen.  It doesn't say don't worldbuild, or don't plan, it just simply says that if you're more interested in staying true to what you've already written, you're going to miss big opportunities for awesome stuff in game.  So, hold onto your plans and your worldbuilding lightly and always be on the look out for the play presenting something better.




This is pretty much the extent of my worldbuilding. Setting up major themes, mood, aesthetic and (most importantly) the kinds of characters who'd be ideal for the game. All of the stuff worldbuilding I actually do (as streamlined as it is) is designed to give players ideas and options to enhance the game.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Doug McCrae said:


> Someone will say "D&D is X" (talking about the game text) and someone else will say "Well our game is nothing like that".



If morrus had a nickel (or a farthing, I guess) for every time that happened, the site would be funded until it runs aground on the Y10k problem.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> It moves this work from during play to before play starts.  You still need to know where the adventures are located, what's around them, where the nearby towns are, what the terrain is like, the distances involved, and a few boatloads of other stuff - might as well have this all nailed down ahead of time.  Then, even if you decide to drop an adventure into a somewhat random place later you've already got all the surrounding stuff you need, rather than having to do it all (and record it all!) on the fly.



Why do I need to know all of this stuff? What I need to know is what is at stake, what the conflict is (IE what do the PC(s) and NPC(s) need that brings them into opposition). I need a dramatic story arc which journeys from story initiation to high and low points which establish and resolve conflict until a climax is reached, where the issues at hand are finally settled, followed by some sort of wrap up. It is surprisingly unimportant where and even when (in game world terms) these things take place.



> This applies only to prepublished worlds, I guess.  What we're talking about here is mostly concerning homebrew worldbuilding, I think; and if a homebrewer wants to write Ecology Of... articles for all the creatures in her world then more power to her.  I ain't gonna do it.



Well, I suspect most home brewers aren't really building in vast depth. No doubt there are a few exceptions...



> Again this seems more relevant to pre-published worlds than homebrew.  Yes homebrew lore becomes entrenched too, but that's a good thing: it means the world is gaining traction with the players and that you've probably done it right.



Or that the flexibility is leaving the setting!  I'm somewhat sympathetic, but I will note that when you start out with a new group of players they almost invariably have no appreciation of the groups who went before them. 



> This is always a risk, but an acceptable one.  Any DM building her own world is going to tailor her write-ups to her own interests and gloss over things of little interest to her.
> 
> For example: I've written up detailed rules for ship-to-ship naval combat, because I like that sort of stuff and have a bit of knowledge.  But anything to do with horses?  Don't ask me...



Exactly, but this is irrelevant to the interests of the PLAYERS!



> World-building and adventure-building can sometimes go hand in hand - as a part of building the world you can also come up with ideas for what would be threatening it that the PCs might have to deal with.  Having a solid history for your world is hugely helpful for this!



I used to think this, until I tried it the other way. I would never go back. The players are far more into it now than ever they were when I was putting forth my own pre-arranged list of adventure ideas.



> And if a DM is smart about it (and if the world is any good!) the world will quietly show itself off during the run of play without the DM having to push it at all.




To what end?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> That despite their best attempts those RPGs still occupy no more than a very small niche in the hobby tells me all I need to know.




And yet some of them sell quite well. OWoD, despite lacking a lot of the narrative features of modern Story Now, STILL unseated D&D and helped drive TSR out of business.

And, the truth is, ALL RPGS, regardless of their classification, that aren't D&D are just a rounding error in the historical sales of D&D. Its not a matter of 'some types of RPG are rejected', its a matter of 'if it isn't ACTUAL D&D it won't sell' to all evidence. Even games like PF, which has been fairly popular, is now pretty much entirely eclipsed in sales by 5e, to the degree that Paizo is doing a version roll, which I can only interpret as a sign that sales are seriously off.

Other 'popular' RPGs like 13a, Traveler, Eclipse Phase, Savage Worlds, the FFG Star Wars game, etc. are all not even 5 or 10% of the sales of 5e. Its just a fact, the world equates RPGs with D&D. Fantasy is the most obvious and typical genre for role play and D&D has the catalog of material, market presence, and installed player base which virtually guarantee no other style of RP is going to get much traction, except amongst people who have played a lot and are well-versed in different types of game. Many of us 'move on', and IMHO a good basic core Story Now game, maybe something like DW, would be just as popular as D&D is, were it to have been the original RPG. Anyway, its a sort of silly argument because nothing is ever going to resolve it.


----------



## Lanefan

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Why do I need to know all of this stuff? What I need to know is what is at stake, what the conflict is (IE what do the PC(s) and NPC(s) need that brings them into opposition). I need a dramatic story arc which journeys from story initiation to high and low points which establish and resolve conflict until a climax is reached, where the issues at hand are finally settled, followed by some sort of wrap up.



If that's all a campaign consists of - a single story arc - it's a campaign I'm not going to bother with.

I look for something with multiple interweaving story arcs, dealt with by multiple parties that now and then meet and merge and split, where as one story ends another is half-done and a third is just getting started, where the characters come and go but the party (or parties) is forever, where there's no time pressure and the campaign can go on for many real-world years.

For that, I'll design a world.



> It is surprisingly unimportant where and even when (in game world terms) these things take place.



Until you start trying to interweave them and need to know exactly who is where when and what happens where to see with influence if any is had on other PCs or events.  For this, quite precise tracking of time and place becomes rather essential.

Example: I as DM know Party A is spending most of the month of Eolna in Torcha (a town), training and sorting out their treasury.  While running Party B (some of whom are known to Party A) it becomes clear they too will reach Torcha around mid-Eolna...which means there's a very good chance the parties will meet and be able to swap stories and info - and characters, and players, if they want.  What this informs me as DM is that sometime soon I'll probably need to either run a joint session of both parties or be ready for a storm of emails.



> Well, I suspect most home brewers aren't really building in vast depth. No doubt there are a few exceptions...



The trick, I've learned, is to put the depth in the right areas.  History is vital.  Geography is vital to a point.  Pantheons are vital.  Cultures are vital to a point.  And the local stuff is far more vital to have in place ahead of time than the non-local stuff the PCs aren't likely to see for a while.



> Or that the flexibility is leaving the setting!  I'm somewhat sympathetic, but I will note that when you start out with a new group of players they almost invariably have no appreciation of the groups who went before them.



You're making an assumption, which in my case at least is incorrect: I don't recycle my settings.  New campaign = new setting.

But for players coming in partway through, yes there's lots of lore to catch up on.  Kind of unavoidable.



> Exactly, but this is irrelevant to the interests of the PLAYERS!



Why does that matter?  When I'm doing this stuff I don't have players yet.



> I used to think this, until I tried it the other way. I would never go back. The players are far more into it now than ever they were when I was putting forth my own pre-arranged list of adventure ideas.



Depends on your players, I suppose.  I'm not sure what would happen were I to one night look at my players and say "Hey, I've got nothing in mind as DM - what do your characters do next?".  Maybe I'll try this at some logical break point when they're in town after an adventure, see what happens. 



> To what end?



The end of having it known by all that there's a solid foundation underpinning all this.

Lanefan


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Ovinomancer said:


> So, in a theft by stealth score against a tough target, the engagement roll established a risky entry, so I placed the play outside the target building but close and in an undiscovered condition.  The issue was that there were more guards than anticipated, so the initial plan to access the kitchen window (the detail of the stealth approach) was in jeopardy.  I set down two clocks for this scene -- access the window and gain entry, a four clock, and Alarm is raised! an six clock (the numbers are the number of segments in the clock, fill the clock and it's 'thing' happens).  The Alarm clock is filled by failures, the window clock by successes.  A player declared a dash across the street to the shadows under the window.  No effort had been expended to determine the guard patrols, so I declared the action to be risky with normal results.  A failure occurs, and the Alarm clock got 2 ticks as the PC made the dash but was exposed as a guard came around the corner.  A moment away from it going pear shaped!  But, in allowing actions against any clocks, the next player declared an action to try step out and knock out the guard before an alarm was raised.  That seemed a desperate action, with limited results because the guards were a tier higher than the PCs.  This time a critical success was rolled, so the player got full success and then pushed for increased effect so guard was knocked out and dragged into an alley, removing all the ticks on the Alarm clock.  The players are still no closer to gaining access to the kitchen window (they've not advanced that clock) and now have a possible liability (an unconscious guard in the alley across the street), but they've reset the challenge of the scene back to start.
> 
> Ciocks are just awesome.




You pretty much describe my enthusiasm for 4e-style SCs. Really, the mechanics are pretty close to the same thing. I mean, you can technically introduce multiple 'clocks', but I'm betting strongly that a 'success clock' and a 'failure clock' are the very strong choice for standard template. I'm also betting that the failure clock is almost always the smaller of the two. This is just a basic function of how dramatic tension is most effectively created in play. Anyway, I'm sure it works quite well, as your example could be almost literally word-for-word the result of an SC, and I know that technique well. 

It would be interesting to see what contrasts there are in the two processes.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> If that's all a campaign consists of - a single story arc - it's a campaign I'm not going to bother with.
> 
> I look for something with multiple interweaving story arcs, dealt with by multiple parties that now and then meet and merge and split, where as one story ends another is half-done and a third is just getting started, where the characters come and go but the party (or parties) is forever, where there's no time pressure and the campaign can go on for many real-world years.
> 
> For that, I'll design a world.



I'm not seeing the logical structure of this argument. Just because I phrased my question in terms of a single 'story arc' (which is really the most basic complete dramatic unit I can refer to in this specific context) doesn't say anything about the capacity or lack of capacity to use the same technique more than once.

I think I can run 5 story arcs with Story Now as well as one.



> Until you start trying to interweave them and need to know exactly who is where when and what happens where to see with influence if any is had on other PCs or events.  For this, quite precise tracking of time and place becomes rather essential.



No, not any more than I need exact tracking of geographical locations or other things! If its dramatic for 2 people to meet, and can be established as not absurd that they could, then they do! This is perfectly acceptable in Hollywood. Heck, half the time it IS absurd and STILL nobody seems to mind.



> Example: I as DM know Party A is spending most of the month of Eolna in Torcha (a town), training and sorting out their treasury.  While running Party B (some of whom are known to Party A) it becomes clear they too will reach Torcha around mid-Eolna...which means there's a very good chance the parties will meet and be able to swap stories and info - and characters, and players, if they want.  What this informs me as DM is that sometime soon I'll probably need to either run a joint session of both parties or be ready for a storm of emails.
> 
> The trick, I've learned, is to put the depth in the right areas.  History is vital.  Geography is vital to a point.  Pantheons are vital.  Cultures are vital to a point.  And the local stuff is far more vital to have in place ahead of time than the non-local stuff the PCs aren't likely to see for a while.



Again, I would gate that on what is interesting, not some mechanistic idea of time and space. I mean, its a non-technological world, missing someone by an hour is as good as a year in most cases. Its not like you create some irredeemable cloud of unreality.



> You're making an assumption, which in my case at least is incorrect: I don't recycle my settings.  New campaign = new setting.
> 
> But for players coming in partway through, yes there's lots of lore to catch up on.  Kind of unavoidable.



Fine, but not really an advert FOR world building 



> Why does that matter?  When I'm doing this stuff I don't have players yet.



Exactly my point. 



> Depends on your players, I suppose.  I'm not sure what would happen were I to one night look at my players and say "Hey, I've got nothing in mind as DM - what do your characters do next?".  Maybe I'll try this at some logical break point when they're in town after an adventure, see what happens.



Well, I don't ever do THAT! I have them generate some character backstory at the start, and then engage that material with the first scene, and build on that for the 2nd scene, etc. The players are ALWAYS telling me what their PCs will do, but they ALWAYS have the feeling they better do SOMETHING! Or if they don't, and don't want to, then I'd narrate how things go in the world until they decide they find it engaging.



> The end of having it known by all that there's a solid foundation underpinning all this.




I honestly don't know what that means


----------



## Lanefan

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm not seeing the logical structure of this argument. Just because I phrased my question in terms of a single 'story arc' (which is really the most basic complete dramatic unit I can refer to in this specific context) doesn't say anything about the capacity or lack of capacity to use the same technique more than once.
> 
> I think I can run 5 story arcs with Story Now as well as one.



The impression I got from reading your ealier post was that you only needed one; and because of that there'd be no point building a whole world around it.



> No, not any more than I need exact tracking of geographical locations or other things! If its dramatic for 2 people to meet, and can be established as not absurd that they could, then they do! This is perfectly acceptable in Hollywood. Heck, half the time it IS absurd and STILL nobody seems to mind.



Hollywood oftentimes doesn't even try to be realistic.  Further, Hollywood is always constrained by a length-of-show time limit that simply doesn't apply in RPGs.

That said, I don't mind Hollywood-style meetings in the game provided they're not too ridiculous.  But if I know character A is at place X on a given date and character B is at place Y on that same date I know they're not going to meet.

More importantly, I need to know what effects or fallout the actions of one party might have on another; which sometimes mean I need to keep careful track of when things happen.

An example from my current game: two independent parties, members of whom knew each other, running side-along both in real time (I was running two groups a week) and game time.  Each was in a series of adventures that would, if followed up on, eventually take them to the same ruined city but on completely different missions and for completely different reasons; and there was a possibility they would meet.  Even without that, the actions of whichever one got there first would likely affect the other based on a) what they had stirred up, and b) what they had done or left behind.

As it turned out, had the two parties been there simultaneously one would probably have been wiped out by the actions of the other: the mission goal of one was in part to explore a hill with an Acropolis on top of it, or so they thought; but when they got there the Acropolis and the top of the hill was gone, sheared off by the other party a month earlier in their blundering attempts to control a "flying castle" (actually a huge extraterrestrial vessel with half a hill hanging off of it!) they had got going.  Fortunately what the other party sought was never in the Acropolis to begin with... 



> Again, I would gate that on what is interesting, not some mechanistic idea of time and space. I mean, its a non-technological world, missing someone by an hour is as good as a year in most cases. Its not like you create some irredeemable cloud of unreality.



Missing someone by an hour is as good as a year, yes; but I want to know if they missed by an hour or hit by an hour.  Even more relevant when the various parties have a common base of operations and have means of fast travel meaning people can potentially pop in at any time - I want to know who's "home" when.



> Fine, but not really an advert FOR world building



Still better than no world-building. 



> Exactly my point.



If a game world is to be presented "neutrally" then ideally it is designed without reference to any players at all...particularly if you either don't even know who your players will  be yet (my usual situation) or are designing something to be used by multiple groups who may or may not be your own (i.e. this is something you're thinking of publishing).

And ideally the world should be neutral.  By that I mean that Mt. Torgrath will still loom over the city's east flank regardless of who plays in the game; Borten the Barkeep will still be a surly old grouch whether the PCs are all Thieves or all Wizards or all Elves or whatever; Queen Terriann will still be in her 6th year on the throne having succeeded King Gorund on his death due to old age, no matter what night of the week the sessions get played; and no matter who or what you or your PC are if you send said PC into the Docklands alleys without a few levels under its belt it's very likely going to lose its belt pouch...and possibly its life.



> Well, I don't ever do THAT! I have them generate some character backstory at the start, and then engage that material with the first scene, and build on that for the 2nd scene, etc.



Where I don't worry much about PC backstory until it's clear said PCs will stick around a while...which at low levels is by no means assured....and by the time that's happened oftentimes quite a bit of backstory has come out organically through run-of-play stuff.



> I honestly don't know what that means



It means the game world has some consistency and - for lack of a better word - "solidity" to it, somewhat like reality; rather than feeling like something from a dream that morphs itself to suit whatever the dream might be.

Lanefan


----------



## TheSword

> First Rule of Dungeoncraft: Never force yourself to create more than you must.
> 
> Write this rule on the inside cover of your Dungeon Master Guide. Failure to obey the First Rule has been the downfall of too many campaigns. You shouldn't feel compelled to create more information or detail than you'll need to conduct the next couple of game sessions. When some DMs sit down to create a new campaign, they are strongly tempted to draw dozens of maps, create hundreds of NPCs, and write histories of the campaign world stretching back thousands of years. While having this sort of information at your disposal can't hurt, it probably won't help-not for a long time yet. Spending lots of time on extraneous details now only slows you down, perhaps to the point where you lose interest in the game before it starts. For now, the goal is to figure out exactly what information you'll need to conduct your first few game sessions. You can fill in the holes later, as it becomes necessary. This approach not only gets you up and playing as quickly as possible but also keeps your options open and allows you to tailor the campaign around the input of the players and the outcome of their adventures.
> —- Ray Winneger. Dragon Magazine 256




It looks like pretty good advice to me. Taken from the original Ray Winneger’s world building series that ran for over two years in Dragon Magazine back in the 90’s. Articles are all available online.


----------



## Imaculata

Lanefan said:


> It means the game world has some consistency and - for lack of a better word - "solidity" to it, somewhat like reality; rather than feeling like something from a dream that morphs itself to suit whatever the dream might be.




This is why I think world building is very important. It makes the world more believable, consistent and coherent. It can add complexity and intricacies to the plot, that wouldn't be there if it was just improvised on the spot. 

My group of players has a tendency to get invested in the world, and ask a lot of tricky questions. I like to be able to answer those questions with satisfying answers, that sometimes directly tie back into the other plots. And although I normally do not do this, this did lead me to create a simple timeline of events for the campaign. Because I want to be able to tell my players how long ago a certain war was, and it making sense given other historical events in the story.


----------



## TheSword

I suspect world building says more about what the Dungeon Master enjoys than anything else. If the DM enjoys it and has time to do it, I don’t see that there is anything to worry about. Provided the DM isn’t deluding themselves and realizes that the vast majority of their comprehensive world building won’t seen or cared about by the players.

Of course when the DM doesn’t have time, that’s when otherwise promising campaign worlds collapse under their own weight through time pressures.


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - it does help to remember though that you are something of an outlier with decades long campaigns.  Most tables don't do that.

Heck, in our past four campaigns, we've played in 4 different game worlds.  What's the point of detailing up all that stuff when a world is only going to be needed for a single campaign?  To me, the idea of joining a campaign that's been ongoing for more than six months is a complete non-starter.  I'm simply not interested.  A campaign that's intended to run for years?  No thanks.  There are too many cool ideas out there to limit myself to just one.

Which, honestly, probably colors my view more than anything.  I don't reuse game worlds.  Never have.  Game worlds are almost always one and done and campaigns last for about 18 months to 2 years.  Which means, for me, 99% of world building is a complete waste of time.


----------



## Jhaelen

Hussar said:


> Heck, in our past four campaigns, we've played in 4 different game worlds.  What's the point of detailing up all that stuff when a world is only going to be needed for a single campaign?  To me, the idea of joining a campaign that's been ongoing for more than six months is a complete non-starter.  I'm simply not interested.  A campaign that's intended to run for years?  No thanks.  There are too many cool ideas out there to limit myself to just one.



I think that just means you haven't yet found a setting that completely sucked you in.

Alas, it's true that most campaigns fizzle after a year or two. But my D&D 3e campaign lasted for over 12 years and our group agreed it was a awesome experience.
It isn't the length of the campaign that's important. It's if you feel you've fully explored the setting.

I kind of agree that a setting is at its most exciting when it's still fresh. It's why I prefer standalone novels over long series.


----------



## Imaculata

TheSword said:


> I suspect world building says more about what the Dungeon Master enjoys than anything else.




The DM doesn't just build the world for himself, he also builds it for his players.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - it does help to remember though that you are something of an outlier with decades long campaigns.  Most tables don't do that.
> 
> Heck, in our past four campaigns, we've played in 4 different game worlds.  What's the point of detailing up all that stuff when a world is only going to be needed for a single campaign?  To me, the idea of joining a campaign that's been ongoing for more than six months is a complete non-starter.  I'm simply not interested.  A campaign that's intended to run for years?  No thanks.  There are too many cool ideas out there to limit myself to just one.
> 
> Which, honestly, probably colors my view more than anything.  I don't reuse game worlds.  Never have.  Game worlds are almost always one and done and campaigns last for about 18 months to 2 years.  Which means, for me, 99% of world building is a complete waste of time.



I don't re-use game worlds* either...which means if I'm going to build one I'm then going to squeeze as much out of it as I can; as while I quite enjoy some elements of worldbuilding there's other much-more-tedious elements I'd prefer to only ever have to do once. 

* - with the exception of pantheons, which I built from the ground up once and now just tweak a bit for each world to reflect some local stuff.  If pressed, my rationale is that deities are universal, after all. 

As for length of campaign: to each their own, I guess.   And I agree: there's lots of cool ideas out there.  I just try to squash as many of them as I can into a single campaign, rather than starting over for each one.

My first restart was because the rules system in that first campaign eventually wobbled itself right off the rails, and needed some heavy tweaking (also I found myself getting more and more annoyed with the world I'd designed).  My second restart came because (among some other reasons) I simply ran out of good ideas for the second campaign.  I'm still on the third campaign, ten years in, and I and the players have more ideas than we have time to play them.  The only threats to this one are a) if people won't or can't play it any more and-or b) if the levels get high enough that the rules fall off the cliff again.


----------



## Imaculata

Lanefan said:


> I'm still on the third campaign, ten years in, and I and the players have more ideas than we have time to play them.  The only threats to this one are a) if people won't or can't play it any more and-or b) if the levels get high enough that the rules fall off the cliff again.




Same here. My players are still thoroughly engaged with my current campaign, because of the world building. They want to meet all the various cultures, and delve into the lore, to discover ancient secrets. 

Its because a lot of it is one coherent whole, that the players feel immersed. I'm not sure if my players would be having quite that same experience if I were just improvising everything. Maybe that's because I'm better at writing a world, than I am at improvising one. But as a DM you pick what ever style works best for you (and your players).


----------



## TheSword

Imaculata said:


> The DM doesn't just build the world for himself, he also builds it for his players.




That’s the point. They think they build it for the players and put all this effort in, but the reality is that most of it never gets seen by the players or they don’t care about.

For instance... you may detail the Inn of the Roaring Dragon, in the village of Blumenthal. Detail the landlord, his motivations, the crooked cellerar that’s secretly a spy for the entropy Cult, the names of serving wenches, a map of the inn, the stats for all of them and the items kept in the vault of the inn.

However...

A. The PCs may never visit Blumenthal

B. The PCs may not stop at the inn

C. They might stay but not be interested in getting to know the staff.

If any of these things are true then the three hours spent on these things was a collosal waste of time. 

Unless the GM enjoys creating it, in which case who am I to tell someone what to do with their free time.

Plan the Roaring Dragon inn when you think your characters will need to go to Blumenthal and might need to stay at an inn. Or even better plan the inn and drop it into whichever village the party stay in next. 

Build the adventure not the world. Or rather, build the world by building the adventures.


----------



## pemerton

Imaculata said:


> My players are still thoroughly engaged with my current campaign, because of the world building. They want to meet all the various cultures, and delve into the lore, to discover ancient secrets.



This is an instance of what I mean when I say that extensive world building by a GM means that a significant focus of play is having the GM tell the players stuff that the GM has made up, triggered by the actions that the players declare for their PCs. (So instead of the players looking through a GM-authored encyclopedia for the _duergar_ entry, to learn what the GM has made up about duergar the players declare as actions for their PCs that they enter certain tunnels, delve deep into the depths of the Underdark, etc.)



happyhermit said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> happyhermit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, worldbuilding by a GM mean that a certain amount of table time is spent having the GM tell the players stuff about the world that the GM has built
> 
> 
> 
> 
> without "worldbuilding" by a GM a certain amount of table time is spent having the GM tell the players stuff about the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if the game is run just like a "worldbuilt" one but with the GM building the world on the fly, that will be true.
> 
> But if the game is run "no myth" or simllarly, then that won't be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's always true (or I suppose one could qualify this with in 99.9% of all rpgs or some such, but no exceptions come to mind) that the GM will spend a certain amount of time describing the world to the PCs. If a game exists where the GM never describes the existence of an NPC, what they look like, etc. and never sets a scene, etc. then I haven't seen it. Now you can choose to say "That isn't describing the world", but that wouldn't be accurate. A GM running a "no myth" game, who then describes something in the game world, is describing the game world, no matter how one spins it.
Click to expand...


I took your initial reply to me to be attempt to contradict in some fashion.

Obviously all RPGing involves the GM saying some stuff. My point about worldbuilding is that the GM spends a certain amount of time _relaying those details to the players_. For instance, the players have their PCs wander through a town and the GM narrates stuff about it. The players ask who their PCs' friends or contacts are and the GM narrates stuff about it. The players have their PCs look for a market that might sell a desired item, and the GM narrates stuff about the town, about NPCs, etc - triggering the players to declare more actions ("OK, I ask the gate guard if there is a market in town") which result in the GM narrating more stuff.

_If the above doesn't happen_, then what was the point of the worldbuilding?

But the above sort of stuff doesn't happen in a game played closer to "no myth" style.



happyhermit said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to a particular sort of impossibility, namely, impossibility that results from the GM making a decision, secret from the players, that there is no secret door to be found; or the GM making a decision, independently of the players, that in this land there is an impassable mountain range to the east.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and I was pointing out that there are many ways a specific action will be made difficult to impossible in a ttrpg, not just "worldbuilding". I will also point out that "worldbuilding" doesn't need to make anything difficult to impossible, so the whole point is even less salient.
Click to expand...


I don't understand the point of your first sentence.

One consequence of worldbuilding is that, as a result, certain actions become impossible (eg finding a sage in this town that the GM as already decided doesn't have one). How is it relevant to that consequence of worldbuilding, and whether or not that consequence is desirable, that some other action declarations may be impossible for other reasons?

I also don't agree that worldbuilding needn't make anything difficult to impossible. The sort of thing I've just described is a natural consequence of worldbuilding. That's the whole point of it!

More generally, it can't be the case that _worldbuilding is good because it has certain consequenes_ but _worldbuilding can't be bad in virtue of certain consequences_. Either worldbuilding does or doesn't have consequences for RPGing. And if it does - which I think it does - then there is a question as to whether those consequences are good or bad given the preferences of any particular RPGer.



Imaculata said:


> This is why I think world building is very important. It makes the world more believable, consistent and coherent. It can add complexity and intricacies to the plot, that wouldn't be there if it was just improvised on the spot.



I don't agree with this.

There are methods for generating believable, consistent and coherent settings which don't involve GM worldbuilding. Likewise for complexity in storylines.

Those techniques do generally require giving up some other techniques, for instance this one:



Lanefan said:


> ideally the world should be neutral.  By that I mean that Mt. Torgrath will still loom over the city's east flank regardless of who plays in the game; Borten the Barkeep will still be a surly old grouch whether the PCs are all Thieves or all Wizards or all Elves or whatever; Queen Terriann will still be in her 6th year on the throne having succeeded King Gorund on his death due to old age, no matter what night of the week the sessions get played; and no matter who or what you or your PC are if you send said PC into the Docklands alleys without a few levels under its belt it's very likely going to lose its belt pouch...and possibly its life.



Why is this an ideal? Ideal for what? Whom?

If the goal is to have a _believable, consistent and coherent_ setting, with _complexity and intricacy_ in the storyline, _without_ having a significant focus of play being the GM telling the players stuff that s/he has made up, then the first step - as  [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has also recently been posting in this thread - is to drop any notion of "neutrality" of the setting.



Lanefan said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if the game is run just like a "worldbuilt" one but with the GM building the world on the fly, that will be true.
> 
> But if the game is run "no myth" or simllarly, then that won't be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, it won't.  But the same amount of time - or more - will be spent by the players asking for details and information about the game world so they can give their PCs some grounding.
Click to expand...


Why? I mean, what is your evidence for this?

 [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has made the point already - if the game is being run "no myth" or similar, with a non-"neutral" world, then the grounding is established without the need for the sort of details you refer to.



Lanefan said:


> The players can still establish the drama and hook the DM even in a DM-built world.
> 
> Also, assuming a reasonable DM the players always have a third option other than follow hooks or be spectators; and that's to have their PCs do something else within the gameworld, as in:
> 
> DM hook A: troglodytes are raiding a coastal village 20 miles south
> DM hook B: lights have recently been seen in Mad Arcandia's old tower, long thought abandoned
> DM hook C: rumours are growing within certain elements of the city's population that something's not right in the sewers - a monster has moved in?
> DM hook D: orcs and goblins have started attacking caravans between here and Alphasia to the east
> Players' response: See those mountains to the north on the map?  We're going up there, get away from all this civilization and out into the true wildlands!
> DM: runs the travel bit while quietly digging out Keep on the Borderlands...



And how is this an example of players driving dramatic arcs? All you have here is a GM about to set up another "neutral" hook!


----------



## darkbard

Imaculata said:


> This is why I think world building is very important. It makes the world more believable, consistent and coherent. It can add complexity and intricacies to the plot, that wouldn't be there if it was just improvised on the spot.




But hasn't [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] already addressed this a zillion times, and posted numerous and extensive play reports that support the fact that Story Now, No Myth gaming, free of the kind of world building you advocate for, can produce the same kind of believability, consistency, and coherence? Do you dispute his examples? This is not to say that your style of play _can't_ do this, of course (although doing so through decidedly different methods, some of which may deny player agency).

Why must this debate continue to run in circles? Unless there is hard counter-evidence one can provide that Story Now, No Myth gaming fails to provide believablity, consistency, and coherence, _in the face of hard evidence to the contrary_, can we just let this point rest?


----------



## Imaculata

darkbard said:


> Why must this debate continue to run in circles? Unless there is hard counter-evidence one can provide that Story Now, No Myth gaming fails to provide believablity, consistency, and coherence, _in the face of hard evidence to the contrary_, can we just let this point rest?




Last time I checked, the thread was called "*Why world building is bad*", not "*Why Story now, No Myth is good*".

I'm not here to attack other methods of play. I'm here to defend worldbuilding.


----------



## darkbard

Imaculata said:


> Last time I checked, the thread was called "*Why world building is bad*", not "*Why Story now, No Myth is good*".
> 
> I'm not here to attack other methods of play. I'm here to defend worldbuilding.




Fair enough. (And I think this thread title needlessly inflames strong responses; I much prefer its contemporary successor's "What is worldbuilding for?")

Is your opinion, then, that both traditional, heavy world-building approaches and Story Now, No Myth approaches can both achieve high levels of believability, consistency, and coherence?

If so, why do you claim



> It [world building] can add complexity and intricacies to the plot, *that wouldn't be there if it was just improvised on the spot.*




?

Your intention certainly may not be to attack other methods of play, but your contention does rest on a faulty assumption about other methods of play.


----------



## Maxperson

TheSword said:


> That’s the point. They think they build it for the players and put all this effort in, but the reality is that most of it never gets seen by the players or they don’t care about.
> 
> For instance... you may detail the Inn of the Roaring Dragon, in the village of Blumenthal. Detail the landlord, his motivations, the crooked cellerar that’s secretly a spy for the entropy Cult, the names of serving wenches, a map of the inn, the stats for all of them and the items kept in the vault of the inn.
> 
> However...
> 
> A. The PCs may never visit Blumenthal
> 
> B. The PCs may not stop at the inn
> 
> C. They might stay but not be interested in getting to know the staff.
> 
> If any of these things are true then the three hours spent on these things was a collosal waste of time.
> 
> Unless the GM enjoys creating it, in which case who am I to tell someone what to do with their free time.
> 
> Plan the Roaring Dragon inn when you think your characters will need to go to Blumenthal and might need to stay at an inn. Or even better plan the inn and drop it into whichever village the party stay in next.
> 
> Build the adventure not the world. Or rather, build the world by building the adventures.




A few campaigns ago(mine are much shorter than [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s), my players at around 3rd level arrived in a town that had a library in it.  They were asking some questions and the library was mentioned in passing, as was the old librarian.  They hit me with B & C.  They didn't go to the library and weren't interested in getting to know the staff there.  Now we fast forward several months and the party is 13th or 14th level and is having trouble finding out information on a problem.  

The Players/PCs are brainstorming ideas when one of them was like, "What about Bob?"  Being human, I don't remember everything I mention to the group about all the places they've been, so I was like, "Who's Bob?"  The player then says to me, "Remember when we were 3rd level and were in X town?  There was this library and Bob was supposed to be very helpful at finding obscure information.  Maybe we could teleport back there and see if he could help us."  

That's what world building offers.  It doesn't matter if they never go to a place.  It doesn't matter if it seems like they will never be interested.  There will be enough instances where the details you do come up with come in handy or come back to offer the players something of interest at a later date that it makes it all worthwhile.  Sure, you could create that library on the spot somewhere, complete with a librarian, but doing that doesn't offer the same kind of depth and enjoyment to the players or DM as when they remember something useful several levels later and return to take advantage of it.


----------



## Imaculata

darkbard said:


> Your intention certainly may not be to attack other methods of play, but your contention does rest on a faulty assumption about other methods of play.




No how matter good your improvisation skills are, you are not going to end up with a very complex plot that still is consistent with all the facts. There is a limit to how deep you can make the plot when you're just 'winging it'. There are some things you have to think up in advance, before running the campaign, and that is world building.

That's not to say that other modes of play can't be engaging or exciting. But when you want a world that is rich and internally consistent in its lore, you have to prepare that through world building.

World building also makes it possible to foreshadow later revelations. Because you have to first know what you're planning to reveal later on in the campaign, in order to foreshadow things properly. Those are the "AHAH!" moments for your players in a campaign, where all of a sudden all the puzzle pieces of the plot fall into place. But unfortunately it does require a lot of preparation, and you may have to over-prepare, by preparing things that the players may not come in contact with. 



> That pegleg hanging above the Marquis' office? The players know that it is supposed to be the pegleg of the dreaded pirate captain Black William, who died in the nearby strait thanks to a devious conspiracy, which the Marquis himself was a part of. They also know its a fake, because they heard a tale from his daughter about how a noble lady tried to seduce him, only to steal the pegleg, thinking it contained a treasure map. Instantly you create sympathy for this npc, who can't seem to find true  love, without someone trying to deceive him, who is only trying to find  that damn treasure. But you also give a reason for the name of the strait, and a backstory to the entire region. Plus you create anticipation, by informing the players that they never found the pirate captain's body. Could he come back as an undead?
> 
> And then many sessions later, when the players find themselves on a remote island infested with cannibals, and they find the diary of the noble lady... It's that AHAH moment, that you wouldn't get unless you had first laid the groundwork for that side plot.
> 
> And then even more sessions later, the corpse of the dreaded pirate captain is found by the players, and they also find the real map!
> 
> And then even more sessions later, the dead pirate captain is brought back to life as a ghost pirate, and they have to fight him! And they know who he is, because the entire history of the region was used to build him up as this really bad dude. It was all just a very patient and very prolonged set up. First to subvert their expectations, by having the notorious pirate captain actually be dead. And then to subvert their expectations again, by having a necromancer raise him much later in the campaign.




And this is what I'm trying to get across here: The way all of these plot points fall into place... I wouldn't be able to do that, unless I first wrote it all out. And I am skeptical that other DM's would be able to craft a similar cohesive plot line, unless they first took the time to do some worldbuilding.


----------



## TheSword

Maxperson said:


> That's what world building offers.  It doesn't matter if they never go to a place.  It doesn't matter if it seems like they will never be interested.  There will be enough instances where the details you do come up with come in handy or come back to offer the players something of interest at a later date that it makes it all worthwhile.  Sure, you could create that library on the spot somewhere, complete with a librarian, but doing that doesn't offer the same kind of depth and enjoyment to the players or DM as when they remember something useful several levels later and return to take advantage of it.




Ahh, I see. Though your adventure did take you to the location of the library so it makes sense for you to have planned the location somewhat. That they chose not to go there is a shame but I totally agree with the idea to plan a library. However the library could be detailed ready to drop in to which library sized slot you require it in. It doesn’t need to be tied to a single place.

Having a library ready to go that is relevant to your PCs is helpful. Detailing which towns in your campaigns contain libraries and which don’t and who runs them and their level is uneccessary. It makes better sense to use Schroedinger’s Library. All towns contain one and none do until the PCs get there to find out.

Otherwise campaigns end up like Volo’s guidebooks and the Campaign begins to matter more than the excellence of the adventure.


----------



## Imaculata

TheSword said:


> Having a library ready to go that is relevant to your PCs is helpful. Detailing which towns in your campaigns contain libraries and which don’t and who runs them and their level is uneccessary.




When DM's do worldbuilding for their roleplaying campaign, I think the latter is very uncommon. Why would anyone write in detail about every single building in every single town? Does anyone do that?

But if the library of a certain town is particularly of interest, or tied to a main plot or side plot, then I will definitely prepare that location. I'll write what it looks like, and who works there. I'll also try my best to come up with a look for the library that is some what original.

Here are two libraries that I prepared for my campaign. Very brief and to the point. One I prepared many sessions ago, and one is for a future session:



> *Tower of the Unblinking Eye*
> This magical library is very large, and is always very crowded. Everyone keeps silent, as is common in any library, but there are always sounds of wind chimes and breathing in the halls of this library. It is clear that the place is haunted, due to the large amount of magical knowledge contained within. The library has magical shelves, that automatically put books back in their correct place. One can often find haunting figures in tattered black robes, gliding through the halls silently. Never batting an eye, never blinking. The library uses magical candles that give off a perfectly white light, and no heat. Animated copper candle holders (shaped like hands) automatically provide extra light when reading in the library. Many of the female visitors have male assistants following them and carrying piles of books. The library has a large stained glass window overseeing the bay. A magical eye above each door, makes sure no books are stolen. The magical eyes can see through clothes and bags, and sound an alarm when people try to steal any books.






> *The Hall of Greater Learning*
> A tall library built into one of the old volcano's natural chimneys. The library curves clockwise around the Basalt Tower, is 6 stories high, and has bridges to bridge the gaps. The Librarian's Guild is aware of the interest that the local pirate leader has shown into the Eternal Depths, but do not question it, since he is now their chosen leader.


----------



## TheSword

Imaculata said:


> There is a limit to how deep you can make the plot when you're just 'winging it'. There are some things you have to think up in advance, before running the campaign, and that is world building.




Why do you have to plan these things before the campaign starts months ahead. Why not just plan what you need for the adventures next two or three sessions and then add more as the PCs progress? Surely game prep can be more nuanced than this all or nothing approach.

If your PC wants to play a cleric of the fire god, plan the fire god. If your adventure will feature a cult leader of the god of death then build the god of death. Don’t plan the whole pantheon of 20 gods and their complex inter-relationships because they will all be irrelevant if they don’t come up in the game [Unless you enjoy that kind of thing]

[Edit] I think we have crossed wire about world building. I call that adventure prep. Is one side really advocating winging it on the day with little or no prep?


----------



## Imaculata

TheSword said:


> Why do you have to plan these things before the campaign starts months ahead. Why not just plan what you need for the adventures next two or three sessions and then add more as the PCs progress? Surely game prep can be more nuanced than this all or nothing approach.




What I plan months ahead, or days ahead, will differ depending on the importance. But one does not exclude the other.



TheSword said:


> If your PC wants to play a cleric of the fire god, plan the fire god. If your adventure will feature a cult leader of the god of death then build the god of death. Don’t plan the whole pantheon of 20 gods and their complex inter-relationships because they will all be irrelevant if they don’t come up in the game [Unless you enjoy that kind of thing]




Because when my players visit the local church, and ask me what it looks like, I would like the statue to the god of death to already be there. So that things I set up very early on in the campaign, can have a planned pay off much later in the campaign. As was the case with my example of the undead pirate captain. A villain that was part of the lore since the very beginning of the campaign, but didn't actually enter the picture until much later.



TheSword said:


> [Edit] I think we have crossed wire about world building. I call that adventure prep.




World building is an important part of adventure prepping.


----------



## Celebrim

darkbard said:


> But hasn't pemerton already addressed this a zillion times, and posted numerous and extensive play reports that support the fact that Story Now, No Myth gaming, free of the kind of world building you advocate for, can produce the same kind of believability, consistency, and coherence? Do you dispute his examples?




Yes, I do as a matter of fact.  It may be possible that the 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming can produce believability, consistency, and coherence, but the poster in question does not in fact actually practice 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming but does a ton of world building and then claims that it is 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming.   That's the most infuriating thing about these ongoing threads.  What pemerton actually does is engage in heavy myth, high preparation gaming, and then if at any point he improvises anything in the process of play because he improvised that one thing he hadn't prepared for, he claims he's doing 'Story Now, No Myth'.   His examples repeatedly bear this out.   Improvising something on the fly is not the same as 'Story Now, No Myth', no matter how hard you may claim it is.

Fundamentally, that's the reason these threads are such an incoherent mess.  pemerton will spend pages detailing all of his world building and preparation, and then he'll call that 'Story Now, No Myth' in utter violation of all logic and reasonableness.  

One of the main reasons a GM will adopt a high preparation approach typical of sandbox is that it allows him to improvise things on the fly using all the work and brainstorming he did before the session.  That's one of the goals of the high preparation, top down, high myth approach.   It allows you to infer what is in the spaces you didn't fully detail, and react to things you couldn't fully expect.   

But basically, because such an approach is not fashionable, doesn't have a lot of cool buzzwords, and isn't what the cool people say that they are doing, pemerton actually runs a very traditional game - which can be proven from his examples - and then goes and claims he's engaging in some novel, fashionable, hip thing.   Fundamentally, we're dealing with a GM that used to be a very rigid GM that ran things like RoleMaster, and I think exposure to ideas like 'No Myth' inspired him to take his game in new directions and he learned things from reading those articles, but as to what he actually practices it's not actually the thing called 'No Myth'.


----------



## TheSword

Imaculata said:


> Because when my players visit the local church, and ask me what it looks like, I would like the statue to the god of death to already be there. So that things I set up very early on in the campaign, can have a planned pay off much later in the campaign. As was the case with my example of the undead pirate captain. A villain that was part of the lore since the very beginning of the campaign, but didn't actually enter the picture .




Ah that makes sense. So by that token you are preparing only what you are likely to need because the party are likely to enter the temple of the death god and see his statue. You wouldn’t then need to plan the god of the harvest, the god of war or the god of watery depths. Then you’re adding mysterious hooks that can be dropped into the campaign later on creating the illusion of depth. Which hooks you pick up and follow can depend entirely on how you feel. I am in total agreement that’s an excellent way to prep.

I don’t get the impression that is the type of world building the original article is railing against. The author objects to fantasy writers effectively writing a campaign setting guide before they start on the meat and bones of the adventure. Others are arguing for comprehensive world building first just in case the campaign goes in that direction. That’s just my impression.


----------



## Arilyn

Celebrim said:


> Yes, I do as a matter of fact.  It may be possible that the 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming can produce believability, consistency, and coherence, but the poster in question does not in fact actually practice 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming but does a ton of world building and then claims that it is 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming.   That's the most infuriating thing about these ongoing threads.  What pemerton actually does is engage in heavy myth, high preparation gaming, and then if at any point he improvises anything in the process of play because he improvised that one thing he hadn't prepared for, he claims he's doing 'Story Now, No Myth'.   His examples repeatedly bear this out.   Improvising something on the fly is not the same as 'Story Now, No Myth', no matter how hard you may claim it is.
> 
> Fundamentally, that's the reason these threads are such an incoherent mess.  pemerton will spend pages detailing all of his world building and preparation, and then he'll call that 'Story Now, No Myth' in utter violation of all logic and reasonableness.
> 
> One of the main reasons a GM will adopt a high preparation approach typical of sandbox is that it allows him to improvise things on the fly using all the work and brainstorming he did before the session.  That's one of the goals of the high preparation, top down, high myth approach.   It allows you to infer what is in the spaces you didn't fully detail, and react to things you couldn't fully expect.
> 
> But basically, because such an approach is not fashionable, doesn't have a lot of cool buzzwords, and isn't what the cool people say that they are doing, pemerton actually runs a very traditional game - which can be proven from his examples - and then goes and claims he's engaging in some novel, fashionable, hip thing.   Fundamentally, we're dealing with a GM that used to be a very rigid GM that ran things like RoleMaster, and I think exposure to ideas like 'No Myth' inspired him to take his game in new directions and he learned things from reading those articles, but as to what he actually practices it's not actually the thing called 'No Myth'.




I've read all those pemerton examples too, and have not reached your conclusion at all...

So, after all the debating in the "What is World Building For?" we decided to give "No Myth" a serious  try. I am a player in a 13th Age campaign. We are not using the world that comes with the setting. All the stories are driven by the players' backgrounds and one unique things. So far, it's working just fine and, is in fact, an intense experience. The world feels just as solid and coherent. The stories just as engaging. There is a tangibly different feel and a sense of immediacy no one expected. In other ways, it's running like any other rpg.

Does this mean, we've seen the light, and have abandoned world building? Nope. We see advantages in both styles. New GMs might usually be better off with a more classical approach, and mysteries need prep. "No Myth" works great, however, and we're having a lot of fun. 

pemerton may seem overly critical of world building, but at least he's been involved in both styles, and can therefore comment on his preferences, with experience of both under his belt. Seems like the detractors cannot.


----------



## Celebrim

Arilyn said:


> I've read all those pemerton examples too, and have not reached your conclusion at all...




Since pemerton and I stopped talking over this very point, I don't feel its fair to him to continue to debate it.   But after like the fifth thread where he described drawing a dungeon and stocking it and backgrounding it, and then described his play as some sort of revolutionary 'no myth' because in the course of play he invented one new element he hadn't fully detailed before, I decided I'd had enough.

I have no desire to argue over your personal experience.  I'm glad whatever new approaches you've adopted have led to success for your group.  Although I will say "all the stories drive by players backgrounds" doesn't in and of itself mean you are playing no myth, it just means you've given your players agency to tell the stories that they want to experience.   And you can do that within a 'no myth' framework on in a 'low myth' or 'high myth' classical sandbox.   

'No myth' literally means that the GM does not decide anything before he starts play, and on the fly changes things based on the direction of play.  All myth is created through play.   It certainly is a tangibly different feel, I'll grant you that.   What it actually does is subtly different shift in the table's aesthetics of play.   When you mention "mysteries need prep", you are actually wrong.  You can do a 'no myth' mystery.  Heck, I can do a 'no myth' mystery (although in point of fact, I never do).  What is actually going on in my opinion behind that statement is that you have certain aesthetic expectations about a mystery plot that you at some level realize that 'no myth' play would invalidate.   I encourage you, even if you disagree with me, to keep that statement in mind as you go forward with your 'no myth' play.


----------



## happyhermit

pemerton said:


> ...
> I don't understand the point of your first sentence.
> ...




It's quite simple really. Certain things will be difficult to impossible in a game, it's a part of what makes a game work/seem "real", etc. This can be accomplished in many ways; system rules, house rules, table consent, GM, etc. If you want to state a preference for more of one and less of another, that's fine as long as you realize there is nothing inherently bad about any of them. But making it seem like this is something unique to worldbuilding would be wrong of course.



pemerton said:


> More generally, it can't be the case that worldbuilding is good because it has certain consequenes but worldbuilding can't be bad in virtue of certain consequences. Either worldbuilding does or doesn't have consequences for RPGing. And if it does - which I think it does - then there is a question as to whether those consequences are good or bad given the preferences of any particular RPGer.




It can actually, because there is more than one way to worldbuild, there's more than one way to run a game with worldbuilding, and there's more than one world to build. This results in varying effects and consequences. Just like how a "no myth" game can have a lot of negative consequence for a given persons preferences, or it can not, or it can have only a few, depending on how it's actually implemented.


----------



## Ovinomancer

AbdulAlhazred said:


> You pretty much describe my enthusiasm for 4e-style SCs. Really, the mechanics are pretty close to the same thing. I mean, you can technically introduce multiple 'clocks', but I'm betting strongly that a 'success clock' and a 'failure clock' are the very strong choice for standard template. I'm also betting that the failure clock is almost always the smaller of the two. This is just a basic function of how dramatic tension is most effectively created in play. Anyway, I'm sure it works quite well, as your example could be almost literally word-for-word the result of an SC, and I know that technique well.
> 
> It would be interesting to see what contrasts there are in the two processes.




Um, no, you're kinda, pretty far off the mark.  The structure of clocks and how actions interact with them isn't like a SC.  You could using something like an SC and not use clocks, but it's not the same at all.

Clocks are used to track potential events.  They are specific.  If I set a clock for 'Alarm is raised' then, if that clock fills, the alarm is raised, no matter what action failure caused it to fill.  This differs from SCs in that the situation in an SC adapts according to the actions taken.  Clocks just are.  They can be long term, short term, personal, situation dependent, etc.

In the case above, for instance, the 'success' clock had 4 tick and the 'fail' clock had 6.  That's inverted from the SC concept.  Further, I could have added even more clocks, like 'the package leaves the building' and set that at a 10 clock to set an overall pressure on the entire score, so 1 success clock and 1 small fail clock isn't the 'usual'.  Another example, same game, is that the gang is currently almost at war with one of the neighborhoods.  That conflict is currently using a 8 segment clock where the neighborhood get 1 segment filled every downtime phase to represent their actions against the gang, and the gang can take downtime actions (or declare a score) against that clock to remove segments.  This isn't a skill roll check, but a fortune mechanic check in both directions.  If the clock fills, the neighborhood's goal is to bring the heat onto the gang and they'll gain a wanted level (the neighborhood has hired a barrister to work the courts against the gang).  If it empties, it's empty and will start refilling.  If the gang declares a score, they can eliminate the clock, but the outcome may be outright war or even a settling of difference depending on the target and outcome of the score.

Long and short, the clocks are a tool for the GM to use to put pressure on situations or to track long term events.  They aren't SC's, and how a given scene of a score plays out may be more or less like an SC in 4e.  Honestly, I think they may have similar outcomes, but the approach and intent in play is different.  There's also the problem that checks in Blades have variable outcomes, so you may be able to tick more than one clock at a time, or may tick a clock hugely in one go.  A four clock can be completely filled in one resolution by a critical success or one with a great effect.  

Actions are declared by the player and then the GM decides the position - desperate, risky, or controlled - and the effect - limited, normal, great.  The player can then modify or change actions if they don't like the situation.  If the player rolls, then the result is 1-3 failure, 4-5 succeed with complication, 6 success, more than one 6 critical (you look at the highest die roll in the pool).  Desperate actions have bad failures and complications, controlled have mild failures and complications.  Limited effect means you get part of what you want, great means you get even more than what you wanted, criticals can go super-awesome levels of impact.  Effect is set by the DM by the action and situation, and then modified by the difference in tier of the gang and the target (a tier I gang going against a tier II target is down one level of effectiveness).  This means that actions can have outsized impacts on clocks, as the number of segments filled is tied to the position and effect.  A desperate failure may fill 4 or so segments, while a controlled failure would fill but 1.  A critical success on an great effect might fill more than 5 segments on a clock.  So, a clock isn't the same as the number of successes or failures in an SC at all.


----------



## Lanefan

TheSword said:


> That’s the point. They think they build it for the players and put all this effort in, but the reality is that most of it never gets seen by the players or they don’t care about.
> 
> For instance... you may detail the Inn of the Roaring Dragon, in the village of Blumenthal. Detail the landlord, his motivations, the crooked cellerar that’s secretly a spy for the entropy Cult, the names of serving wenches, a map of the inn, the stats for all of them and the items kept in the vault of the inn.
> 
> However...
> 
> A. The PCs may never visit Blumenthal
> 
> B. The PCs may not stop at the inn
> 
> C. They might stay but not be interested in getting to know the staff.
> 
> If any of these things are true then the three hours spent on these things was a collosal waste of time.



That the game may never encounter some things that great effort went into creating is a known and accepted risk inherent to worldbuilding.  A corollary risk is the situation where the party gets to somewhere new that the DM hasn't really designed; but as it looks like the party's going to stay for a while the DM puts some effort into creating that place, and then the party leave and never go back.



> Or even better plan the inn and drop it into whichever village the party stay in next.



For something as small-scale as an inn, this is the way to go.

But if what you've designed in detail is a collection of towns and cultures around a big oasis in a desert, and the game never gets to a desert, it's kinda hard to justify just dropping it in somewhere. 



> Build the adventure not the world. Or rather, build the world by building the adventures.



This came up earlier - not sure if in this thread or another - as a "bottom-up" style of worldbuilding; and it can work really well particularly if the campaign is itself intended to be relatively small scale without much save-the-world or travel-the-world sort of content.

But if the campaign is intended to eventually take in a larger scale then I posit the world or setting needs to be built to that same scale.  Me, I usually start on a regional level (e.g. maybe the size of the west coast of North America from about LA to Juneau and inland to about a Phoenix-Denver-Edmonton line) which is where I educatedly-guess most of the campaign's adventuring will happen.  Then I go smaller, figuring out nation-states, major towns, major features, etc., then smaller still in the immediate area where the campaign will start out.  I'll also go larger, and fit the region into the greater world on the most rudimentary level along with working out astronomy, calendar, weather patterns, and other big-scale things that affect everyone.

So in my example above, if I know the campaign is going to start in Seattle I'd design the Puget Sound area in some detail and place a few adventure sites in it, with the rest of the west coast designed enough so that if the game goes there I've a notion of what they can expect.  Also, if nothing else I and the players need to know where various cultures etc. come from - where are the Elven enclaves, where are the Dwarven realms, etc. - and this kinda forces a regional approach.  But if they decide to head east of the Rocky Mountains I'll be designing on the fly, as I'll probably only have the vaguest ideas as to what exists out there.

Lanefan


----------



## Maxperson

TheSword said:


> Ahh, I see. Though your adventure did take you to the location of the library so it makes sense for you to have planned the location somewhat. That they chose not to go there is a shame but I totally agree with the idea to plan a library. However the library could be detailed ready to drop in to which library sized slot you require it in. It doesn’t need to be tied to a single place.




My players have a habit of veering off suddenly in directions I didn't expect.  If I didn't have things prepared(mainly by running FR) in areas that they are not headed to, I would be very unprepared.  



> Having a library ready to go that is relevant to your PCs is helpful. Detailing which towns in your campaigns contain libraries and which don’t and who runs them and their level is uneccessary. It makes better sense to use Schroedinger’s Library. All towns contain one and none do until the PCs get there to find out.




As I covered above, I could just drop libraries when they need them, but that lacks the same kind of depth that a detailed world provides.  The fact that the players can trust that even if this campaign isn't anywhere near Waterdeep, that they can count on the Lords running that place, and that the Yawning Portal exists adds dimension to the world.  They are aware that the world is vast and a chunk(maybe 5%) is detailed so that if they go places I will have answers for them when looking for people and places.  It gives them the sense that the world is a wider place than just what their PCs can see, and that things move without the PCs being present.



> Otherwise campaigns end up like Volo’s guidebooks and the Campaign begins to matter more than the excellence of the adventure.



I strongly disagree with this.  Those details are not more important than the adventure.  They are important TO the adventure.  The details add to the backdrop and resources available to both the DM and the players during the adventure.  Sure, I could set an adventure in a nameless city, but if I put the same adventure in Baldur's Gate, everyone at the table can draw on things like the Flaming Fists to augment it.  The details enhance, not limit things.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Obviously all RPGing involves the GM saying some stuff. My point about worldbuilding is that the GM spends a certain amount of time _relaying those details to the players_. For instance, the players have their PCs wander through a town and the GM narrates stuff about it. The players ask who their PCs' friends or contacts are and the GM narrates stuff about it. The players have their PCs look for a market that might sell a desired item, and the GM narrates stuff about the town, about NPCs, etc - triggering the players to declare more actions ("OK, I ask the gate guard if there is a market in town") which result in the GM narrating more stuff.
> 
> _If the above doesn't happen_, then what was the point of the worldbuilding?



If the above doesn't happen then what's the point of playing?



> But the above sort of stuff doesn't happen in a game played closer to "no myth" style.



Sure it does, only the GM narration is disguised as scene framing and is not drawn from pre-authored notes.  The GM still has to set the table, as it were, to give the players something to interact with even just on a scene-by-scene level; and the underlying action-resolution-narration-reaction cycle doesn't change.  The only difference is that as the game world is being created in effect on the fly through play neither the GM nor the players* can effectively plan ahead for anything beyond the relatively-immediate, which to me is a loss.

* - this is an overlooked piece here: it's not always just the GM who wants to plan ahead, sometimes players do also; in terms of where to go and what to do in what sequence and over what timespan; and having a more-concrete world really helps in doign this.



> One consequence of worldbuilding is that, as a result, certain actions become impossible (eg finding a sage in this town that the GM as already decided doesn't have one). How is it relevant to that consequence of worldbuilding, and whether or not that consequence is desirable, that some other action declarations may be impossible for other reasons?
> 
> I also don't agree that worldbuilding needn't make anything difficult to impossible. The sort of thing I've just described is a natural consequence of worldbuilding. That's the whole point of it!
> 
> More generally, it can't be the case that _worldbuilding is good because it has certain consequenes_ but _worldbuilding can't be bad in virtue of certain consequences_. Either worldbuilding does or doesn't have consequences for RPGing. And if it does - which I think it does - then there is a question as to whether those consequences are good or bad given the preferences of any particular RPGer.



That worldbuilding will have consequences in play, e.g. making it impossible to find a sage in a town that has none, is not in question.

What's in question is why this could ever possibly be seen as a bad thing...except by players who dislike not always getting what they want, for whom I have no sympathy and nothing more to say.

In real life, if I come into a town I've never been to before and look around for a shop selling crystals and incense, it's impossible for me to find one there if there isn't one there to find.  Same is true in a game world: if there's no sage, there's no sage - and that the GM has determined this ahead of time rather than it being determined on the fly by success or failure on an action declaration is irrelevant to the immedaite here-and-now result.  It IS relevant, however, to the long-term overall results: the population and distribution of sages isn't left to the whim of cumulative here-and-now random chance.



> Why is this an ideal? Ideal for what? Whom?
> 
> If the goal is to have a _believable, consistent and coherent_ setting, with _complexity and intricacy_ in the storyline, _without_ having a significant focus of play being the GM telling the players stuff that s/he has made up, then the first step - as  [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has also recently been posting in this thread - is to drop any notion of "neutrality" of the setting.



Which means no more published settings or even shared settings, then, if every setting is supposed to be uniquely built and tailored for the particular group of players/PCs being run at that time.

And how on earth would this work with any sort of shared "organized play" e.g. RPGA in the past or AL now, where characters can be and frequently are taken from one table to another?  I ask because if you want your game genre to become at all successful then like it or not it'll have to be able to support this sort of thing.

No.  The setting must be neutral.



> Why? I mean, what is your evidence for this?



Without knowledge of what's around them beyond just the framed scene the players have no information on which to base...anything.

At campaign start you frame me in a market in downtown Karnos; you provide all sorts of detail about what I can see including that there's a merchant here selling feathers.  For that immediate scene, that's fine.  But by no means is it all I need.

Where is Karnos?  What is Karnos - a mining town, a capital city, a village in the hinterlands, a seaport?  What lives here?  Who rules here, and how, and why, and for how long?  Is this a pirate town, a farming town, a military town?  Are thieves and muggers a known and frequent risk, or is the town generally safe?  What's the weather doing (beyond your saying in the framing that it's a warm sunny day) - is it likely to rain later?  Is there a drought?  What's around Karnos - desert, forest, farms, mountains?  What modes of transport are available beyond just foot, should I not find what I want here in Karnos and decide to try elsewhere?  Are there any unusual local customs or modes of dress etc. that I need to be aware of?  Etc., and I haven't even got to nation-region-world-astronomy questions yet.

If much of this wasn't provided ahead of time (i.e. this part of the world wasn't built) then I - as would, I suspect, many players - would be asking most of these questions before I ever get around to declaring an action!  Even if the questions don't directly inform my action declaration right now they'll inform my general approach later; and very little of this is stuff players should be expected to just make up on their own (and if they do then the GM has to be scribbling like a madman to record all of it in the interests of future consistency - why not just do this work beforehand when you've time to relax and think it through?)



> And how is this an example of players driving dramatic arcs? All you have here is a GM about to set up another "neutral" hook!



The players don't get to write their own adventures; it's on the DM to provide those, even when the players decide to head for the mountains just to see what's there.  The players, however, are now driving the overall story; and the DM is in react mode.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

darkbard said:


> But hasn't   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] already addressed this a zillion times, and posted numerous and extensive play reports that support the fact that Story Now, No Myth gaming, free of the kind of world building you advocate for, can produce the same kind of believability, consistency, and coherence?



Yes, he has. 







> Do you dispute his examples?



That those instances of play occurred I obviously can't dispute. 

What I can and will dispute is that this sort of play can provide a campaign that is and remains sustainable for the long term (by which I mean anything beyond just a few sessions), without a ridiculous amount of work probably done by the GM to record *everything* about the setting that comes up in play so as to be consistent should it ever be encountered again.   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's game logs - those that we've seen - are exhaustive in their mechanical detail as well as their events recording and probably do give enough info to provide at least some long-term consistency...and in this I maintain that he's so unusual as to possibly be unique. (that's supposed to be a compliment, in case you're wondering!)



> Why must this debate continue to run in circles? Unless there is hard counter-evidence one can provide that Story Now, No Myth gaming fails to provide believablity, consistency, and coherence, _in the face of hard evidence to the contrary_, can we just let this point rest?



In the immediate, it can and apparently does provide all three.  

I dispute that it can continue to do so over time, as things get forgotten or numbers/time/distance/locations shift or morph in ways they shouldn't or things get skipped between scenes that end up needing to be retconned.

And note I'm not necessarily suggesting that traditional play (including worldbuilding) doesn't have rocks of its own to run aground on.  It does, and over time I think I've probably hit them all.   But I also think it's got more versatility in what it can do or be made to do in terms of what type-style-length-size of games or campaigns it can support, which gives it the advantage.

Lan-"having just said I've hit all the rocks, just watch me find another this weekend"-efan


----------



## Imaro

Lanefan said:


> At campaign start you frame me in a market in downtown Karnos; you provide all sorts of detail about what I can see including that there's a merchant here selling feathers.  For that immediate scene, that's fine.  But by no means is it all I need.
> 
> Where is Karnos?  What is Karnos - a mining town, a capital city, a village in the hinterlands, a seaport?  What lives here?  Who rules here, and how, and why, and for how long?  Is this a pirate town, a farming town, a military town?  Are thieves and muggers a known and frequent risk, or is the town generally safe?  What's the weather doing (beyond your saying in the framing that it's a warm sunny day) - is it likely to rain later?  Is there a drought?  What's around Karnos - desert, forest, farms, mountains?  What modes of transport are available beyond just foot, should I not find what I want here in Karnos and decide to try elsewhere?  Are there any unusual local customs or modes of dress etc. that I need to be aware of?  Etc., and I haven't even got to nation-region-world-astronomy questions yet.
> 
> If much of this wasn't provided ahead of time (i.e. this part of the world wasn't built) then I - as would, I suspect, many players - would be asking most of these questions before I ever get around to declaring an action!  Even if the questions don't directly inform my action declaration right now they'll inform my general approach later; and very little of this is stuff players should be expected to just make up on their own (and if they do then the GM has to be scribbling like a madman to record all of it in the interests of future consistency - why not just do this work beforehand when you've time to relax and think it through?)




Just wanted to comment on this part of your post as it ties back to the point I think @_*Celebrim*_ was making earlier in the thread... mainly that @_*pemerton*_ doesn't play a strictly no myth game.  He's stated that he uses pre-authored content including geography, deities, names, places, etc.  I think the confusion arises because he then creates a distinction (which honestly I'm still not necessarily clear on where the line is actually drawn) between the things he pre-authors and world-building.  However my understanding on no myth gaming (and I don't claim to be an expert) is that everything is created during play.  What I feel like @_*pemerton*_ has done is created a hybrid of the two styles while claiming it's no myth which is actually serving to confuse alot of the issues.  

Personally I'd love if someone could point to some actual play video or streaming of no myth gaming... the only one I can think of that uses no myth gaming is the episode on Tabletop where they play FATE... and the only thing they establish before play is the State the game takes place in.

EDIT: Just to note the FATE game is a one shot and I am actually looking for something where it's long term


----------



## Sunseeker

I'm gonna toss out here that much as everyone wants to feel special, people are pretty much the same all over.

By that I mean, unless there is a _specific reason_ for a town, or city, or nation or geographic location to the *special*, most elements can be repeated without any harm to the game.  People tend to live where there are a variety of resources (trees, rocks, water, arable land).  Everyone needs food, clothing and shelter so there are likely bakers/butchers, clothiers and blacksmiths/lumberjacks in every town.  Most people prefer trade, so towns will almost universally have an inn and a general store (often the same building).  

Some players demand to know every different person's name in town and frankly, I smack these players upside the head when they pull this.  There's really no reason a DM needs to prep what every townsfolk's name is, it's just silly.

If you can prep a generally "lively" town and can scale it on the fly (oh there are two inns and 5 blacksmiths and 3 clothiers!) then you really only ever need to build that one town.  Again, unless the town needs to be a special snowflake for some reason, but I'd advise against that.

I live in Wyoming, about the closest you can get to "long distances between podunk towns" without traveling across Russia.  You've seen one midwest town?  You've seen them all.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Maxperson said:


> If I didn't have things prepared in areas that they are not headed to, I would be very unprepared.



 OK, that's just amusing.



Lanefan said:


> That worldbuilding will have consequences in play, e.g. making it impossible to find a sage in a town that has none, is not in question.
> 
> What's in question is why this could ever possibly be seen as a bad thing...except by players who dislike not always getting what they want, for whom I have no sympathy and nothing more to say.



 And we could be dismissed as cranky old grognards still mired in the hobby as it existed 30+ years ago, deserving of no sympathy and 'nuff said.  ;P

Obviously, it could be a bad thing for a detail to already be ruled out that'd make a better game or better story (not just a better outcome for the PCs - for instance, conversely, you might have established there's no assassins in the town, then find the PC's actions would be a more than ample motivation for an NPC to hire one, unfortunately, the nearest assassin is days away and the PCs finish screwing the NPC over before he can get the message delivered).


----------



## Maxperson

Tony Vargas said:


> OK, that's just amusing.



Why?  If I didn't have stuff prepared, when they veered way off course from where they appeared to be headed, I'd have to improvise literally everything.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Why?  If I didn't have stuff prepared, when they veered way off course from where they appeared to be headed, I'd have to improvise literally everything.



If you didn't have things prepared.... you'd be _unprepared._


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> If you didn't have things prepared.... you'd be _unprepared._




Which is true! 

That's why I have things prepared.  Running a game unprepared rarely works out well for me.


----------



## hawkeyefan

TheSword said:


> Ah that makes sense. So by that token you are preparing only what you are likely to need because the party are likely to enter the temple of the death god and see his statue. You wouldn’t then need to plan the god of the harvest, the god of war or the god of watery depths. Then you’re adding mysterious hooks that can be dropped into the campaign later on creating the illusion of depth. Which hooks you pick up and follow can depend entirely on how you feel. I am in total agreement that’s an excellent way to prep.
> 
> I don’t get the impression that is the type of world building the original article is railing against. The author objects to fantasy writers effectively writing a campaign setting guide before they start on the meat and bones of the adventure. Others are arguing for comprehensive world building first just in case the campaign goes in that direction. That’s just my impression.




This is the main problem. The complaint that is being made in the article and in this thread is, overall, not about worldbuilding so much as it is about the GM predetermining every detail of the game world before play even begins. That’s a very specific instance of worldbuilding that I don’t think is typical of what people think of when they hear the word.

 So what ends up happening is that you get one “side” made up if people defending their idea of what worldbuilding is, and the other “side” criticizizing the specific case of a GM predetermining everything about the setting ahead of time. And it just goes round and round because neither side is even in agreement on what is being discussed.

To take [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] as an example...he has said that he does not decide every detail ahead of time. In the case of the linrary, he even said it would be best to have a site like that at the ready to drop in wherever it may be needed. So even the strongest proponent of worldbuilding in this thread does not condone the extreme version sited in the OP.

At the other end of the spectrum you have [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] who admits to having some material ready ahead of time (some planets predetermined for his Traveller game, for example) so that he can drop them in as needed. 

This library and these planets sound awfully similar in use and implementation. 

The truth is thatthere is value in both approaches. Having prepared material helps a GM establish the setting and help create the story with the players’ input. Not committing so strongly to prepared material allows the GM to follow an unexpected path that may prove more interesting for the game.

But instead of acknowledging that there are strengths and weaknesses to both methods, everyone digs their heels in and picks a “side” and then argue different points at each other.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> The impression I got from reading your ealier post was that you only needed one; and because of that there'd be no point building a whole world around it.



Well, I think complexity isn't really a limitation here. I didn't really consider it. We've been tending to talk about character's and their dramas in the singular, though its understood there is a whole party. Now, if the players want to ramify their activities into a greatly complex plotline, say where they start dealing with LOTS of NPCs and complex plans and etc. then I'm going to make the PLAYERS start to keep all that straight. 



> Hollywood oftentimes doesn't even try to be realistic.  Further, Hollywood is always constrained by a length-of-show time limit that simply doesn't apply in RPGs.
> 
> That said, I don't mind Hollywood-style meetings in the game provided they're not too ridiculous.  But if I know character A is at place X on a given date and character B is at place Y on that same date I know they're not going to meet.
> 
> More importantly, I need to know what effects or fallout the actions of one party might have on another; which sometimes mean I need to keep careful track of when things happen.



I think its useful to have an idea, so you can 'tell a story about it' and it isn't confusing to anyone. OTOH I've already stated that I'm not super big on the idea that we can really 'explain' things causally in the game world. Or that is, we CAN, but these explanations aren't in any sense canonical. 100 other stories could be told that would be equally plausible. So I don't feel like I HAVE to do some detailed analysis, or keep perfect account of everything. 



> An example from my current game: two independent parties, members of whom knew each other, running side-along both in real time (I was running two groups a week) and game time.  Each was in a series of adventures that would, if followed up on, eventually take them to the same ruined city but on completely different missions and for completely different reasons; and there was a possibility they would meet.  Even without that, the actions of whichever one got there first would likely affect the other based on a) what they had stirred up, and b) what they had done or left behind.
> 
> As it turned out, had the two parties been there simultaneously one would probably have been wiped out by the actions of the other: the mission goal of one was in part to explore a hill with an Acropolis on top of it, or so they thought; but when they got there the Acropolis and the top of the hill was gone, sheared off by the other party a month earlier in their blundering attempts to control a "flying castle" (actually a huge extraterrestrial vessel with half a hill hanging off of it!) they had got going.  Fortunately what the other party sought was never in the Acropolis to begin with...
> 
> Missing someone by an hour is as good as a year, yes; but I want to know if they missed by an hour or hit by an hour.  Even more relevant when the various parties have a common base of operations and have means of fast travel meaning people can potentially pop in at any time - I want to know who's "home" when.



It just doesn't matter so much to me. I mean, depending on the relationships between the characters in the two parties in your example, it might or might not be interesting if one put the other in danger. But I'd have it happen if it was dramatic and not completely outside of any reasonable timeline. 



> If a game world is to be presented "neutrally" then ideally it is designed without reference to any players at all...particularly if you either don't even know who your players will  be yet (my usual situation) or are designing something to be used by multiple groups who may or may not be your own (i.e. this is something you're thinking of publishing).
> 
> And ideally the world should be neutral.  By that I mean that Mt. Torgrath will still loom over the city's east flank regardless of who plays in the game; Borten the Barkeep will still be a surly old grouch whether the PCs are all Thieves or all Wizards or all Elves or whatever; Queen Terriann will still be in her 6th year on the throne having succeeded King Gorund on his death due to old age, no matter what night of the week the sessions get played; and no matter who or what you or your PC are if you send said PC into the Docklands alleys without a few levels under its belt it's very likely going to lose its belt pouch...and possibly its life.
> 
> Where I don't worry much about PC backstory until it's clear said PCs will stick around a while...which at low levels is by no means assured....and by the time that's happened oftentimes quite a bit of backstory has come out organically through run-of-play stuff.
> 
> It means the game world has some consistency and - for lack of a better word - "solidity" to it, somewhat like reality; rather than feeling like something from a dream that morphs itself to suit whatever the dream might be.
> 
> Lanefan




I don't think the setting need be 'dreamlike' in order to be tailored to suite the requirements of the people playing in it. I mean, last night I made up a whole bunch of elements to be used to create an adventure (for another GM who asked if I had any ideas). Now, THESE DAYS I wouldn't do that much structuring of things, but then again its OK to think up some elements that might be appropriate given the PCs/players in hand. My point is, I spent a pretty short time on this, and IMHO it was 'ready to play' in my current style. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't seem dreamlike or shallow. There are plenty of chances for things to be elaborated and it is just really a kind of map/outline of how things COULD go, but that's enough to backstop my ad libbing.


----------



## Greg K

Tony Vargas said:


> Obviously, it could be a bad thing for a detail to already be ruled out that'd make a better game or better story (not just a better outcome for the PCs - for instance, conversely, you might have established there's no assassins in the town, then find the PC's actions would be a more than ample motivation for an NPC to hire one, unfortunately, the nearest assassin is days away and the PCs finish screwing the NPC over before he can get the message delivered).




To each their own. Personally, I don't see it as an issue. If I were to want assassins going after the party, maybe someone related to the NPCs goes to the guild and hires them several days later (or simply pays someone to track down and kill the characters). Maybe, someone goes to an official and the official sends out assassins.  Maybe, a more powerful related NPC takes it upon themselves to track down the party with the help of allies. 

Hell, in one campaign, after the party crossed the only Wizard's Guild  and killed a few low level members, I didn't have assassin's hired by them show up until several sessions later. When they did, they were accompanied by one or two guild wizards. If the party escaped or killed them them, another group would show up at a later date. It was about a year or two in real life play before the party found out how they were being tracked and it went back to the thief stealing a guild ring off one of the dead wizards on the second session of play (which was a continuation of the first night).


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> This is the main problem. The complaint that is being made in the article and in this thread is, overall, not about worldbuilding so much as it is about the GM predetermining every detail of the game world before play even begins. That’s a very specific instance of worldbuilding that I don’t think is typical of what people think of when they hear the word.
> 
> So what ends up happening is that you get one “side” made up if people defending their idea of what worldbuilding is, and the other “side” criticizizing the specific case of a GM predetermining everything about the setting ahead of time. And it just goes round and round because neither side is even in agreement on what is being discussed.




This isn't even possible.  The most detailed setting out for D&D, the Forgotten Realms, has maaaaaybe 5% of the world pre-determined.  A city the size of Waterdeep would have dozens of inns and taverns, but we know a small handful of them.  It tells us the names of the Lords of Waterdeep, but only a few names of the rest of the nobility.  People on the other side like to accuse us of pre-determining everything for some reason, but it's far from true.



> But instead of acknowledging that there are strengths and weaknesses to both methods, everyone digs their heels in and picks a “side” and then argue different points at each other.




I end up defending against the misrepresentations of the other side more than anything else.  It's a real shame, since I'd rather just have a discussion.  Discussions are hard when the one side refuses to understand what people on the other side are trying to say.


----------



## Kaodi

In one of the few in person games I ever got to play in we started playing Age of Worms in Greyhawk. I do not remember how I gained access to this information because I am not a big setting buff (for financial reasons) but I decided that I was going to be a Priest of Vathris, the hero-deity that was slain by Kyuss. I think I might have been a bit of a killjoy because my character was in a _little too deep_ with the "anguish" aspect. 

But I had a goal for that campaign which never could have actually lasted long enough for me to complete it: I had this idea that I am a bit hazy on now but I think it was: I would obtain the black spear that the distraught Vathris carries around with him which Kyuss used to kill him, then I would cast _miracle_ with some grand statement in conjunction with striking the killing blow against Kyuss and then Vathris would be reborn in my character's body. 

This idea would have been hella epic if I could have ever pulled it off. And it was an idea that was born as a natural extension of the world of Greyhawk. I probably never would have come up as anything so dramatic as a player in a generic, unspecified world. I am a bit of a fan of the idea that creativity is taking this out of the box and then building something with what you have left. Worldbuilding is an enabler of this kind of creativity. Of course some people will not need or want it. But some will.


----------



## pemerton

Imaculata said:


> No how matter good your improvisation skills are, you are not going to end up with a very complex plot that still is consistent with all the facts. There is a limit to how deep you can make the plot when you're just 'winging it'. There are some things you have to think up in advance, before running the campaign, and that is world building.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The way all of these plot points fall into place... I wouldn't be able to do that, unless I first wrote it all out. And I am skeptical that other DM's would be able to craft a similar cohesive plot line, unless they first took the time to do some worldbuilding.



Here are four actual play posts:

* The PCs travel back in time and rescue an apprentice wizard trapped in a mirror;

* The PCs, now in the present, dining with a baron whose trusted advisor is (secretly) their mortal enemy, notice that portraits of the baron's family include women who resemble the apprentice, one of whom turns out to be the baron's niece;

* The PCs "rescue" the niece, and in the course of doing so promise Kas to track down the rescued apprentice;

* The PCs, many levels later, encounter Kas and the apprentice (Jenna Osternath) fighting outside the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen, and join in.​
Degrees of intricacy/complexity/depth are hard to judge, but I think that is a series of interlinked events with a reasonable amount of each.



Imaculata said:


> World building also makes it possible to foreshadow later revelations. Because you have to first know what you're planning to reveal later on in the campaign, in order to foreshadow things properly. Those are the "AHAH!" moments for your players in a campaign, where all of a sudden all the puzzle pieces of the plot fall into place.



Well, as my posts show, this can be done in reverse, by building later episodes on earlier ones.


----------



## Riley37

MichaelSomething said:


> Wait, you were serious?




Yes. I'm serious because the only posts I find useful, are the posts in which people apply their principles to specific examples. If the specific examples available are MLP, then I'll work with that.

The posts asserting that the extremes are bad - "Without sauce, pasta is no good!" and "You've got it all wrong, without pasta, sauce is no good!" - aren't helping me. If they're helping someone else, fine.



MichaelSomething said:


> Well, if I was running an MLP RPG, the most likely scenario is that I would be running it for a bunch of Bronies.  Therefore, I would assume they all would be at least fairly familiar with the world lore.




My players would be a mix. no hardcore bronies (so far as I know) but some with zero lore and some with partial lore. In some cases, a player might ask what a Winter Wrap Up is, because the player doesn't know, and this provokes the question of whether another player should explain, out of character, catching up the player on what their character should already know; or whether it's more fun and/or plausible for that character to ask, out of honest ignorance and lack of previous experience with that part of their own culture. And then, if a player gives an in-character explanation, which differs from my understanding as Stable Master, what do? Perhaps that PC is mistaken, and they'll all find out the hard way? Or do I correct the player? Or do I change the setting to match the player's and their character's understanding?


----------



## Riley37

Hussar said:


> Ok, specific criticisms of world building:
> 
> 
> It takes away time from the DM that would be better spent on developing adventures.  We do not have unlimited time, and much of the world building stuff that goes on has little or nothing to do with the specific adventure that the players are doing.
> Worldbuilding replaces more practical elements in supplements.  I mentioned earlier the old Dragon Magazine Ecology of articles.  Replacing them with a more here is a page of information and three to four pages of plug and play adventure material is far more useful to a DM.
> Worldbuilding and particularly game lore, becomes deeply entrenched and virtually impossible to change.  The Great Wheel and attending arguments is a perfect example of this.  New ideas become judged, not on their actual value, but on how well they toe the line with what came before.
> Much of world building is what I called before "Six page treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies".  As more and more world building gets piled on, less and less of anything of actual use at the table gets shoved in.
> DM's sometimes mistake world building for adventure building.  The "Tour Des Realms" example that I brought up earlier where the campaign was more about showing off the DM's beautifully wrought urn rather than an actual adventure.  ((Note, this probably applies double to fantasy genre novel writers))
> 
> How's that for specific criticisms?




Those are, indeed, specific criticisms! So specific, that one can disagree with them on specific grounds, with examples from actual experience! At least they're not vague vapor.

Some counter-observations:

How much time I've spent, over the last twenty years, pondering a setting that I'm actually running, this year, for the first time, is *not my player's business*. I was not on their payroll during that time. If I chose to spend an accumulated total of 500 hours, over those ten years, writing notes on Setting Q, and now they demand that I should have instead spent only 100 of those hours writing those notes, and 300 hours preparing box-text, and 100 hours statting up monsters - too bad for them. They have no authority on how I spent *my* discretionary time before I even met them. Our time together at the table, is the only time they get to negotiate.

"[*]Worldbuilding and particularly game lore, becomes deeply entrenched and virtually impossible to change.  The Great Wheel and attending arguments is a perfect example of this.  New ideas become judged, not on their actual value, but on how well they toe the line with what came before."

How the funk do my players, or you, know which elements of Setting Q are deeply entrenched? The map of the Afterlife which I spent hours drawing? They won't know unless one of the PCs dies, and even then, the PC won't know how much of that map they've explored, and how much more they could find if they spent ten sessions exploring it, unless that's what they actually want to do, as a party, for the next ten sessions.

New ideas from whom? From the players? How the funk do you know that I won't shelve my 20 pages on What Dwarves Know About Metallurgy (And What They Got Wrong) if a player wants their PC to become the first dwarven smith to ever make high-grade steel? I might even handwave some transition, in which those 20 pages were the dwarven "De Re Metallica" in the previous generation, and then somehow they made exactly enough progress, during the PC's childhood, for the PC take that last breakthrough step to high-grade steel.

"Six page treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies"
I already posted about that GM who wrote six pages (or more) about Elven Heraldry. The one player (me) who was interested, got a copy of those six pages, and enjoyed them, and I designed a heraldic device for my PC's shield. No other player at the table spent ANY time on the topic. Their gaming experience was exactly the same experience that they would have had if those six pages never existed. The DM enjoyed writing it (once I wrote an elven sage PC), I enjoyed reading it and applying it to my character illustration, zero cost to anyone else. I call that Pareto-optimal. What's your beef?


----------



## pemerton

Imaculata said:


> World building is an important part of adventure prepping.





TheSword said:


> Is one side really advocating winging it on the day with little or no prep?



Well, I am saying that RPGing can be done in this style, and produce an experience that is different from one based on worldbuilding. In my own view the experience is more fun. Others obviously take a different view.

Here are three first sessions GMed in such a fashion: Burning Wheel; Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy; Classic Traveller.

Here's a 4e first session which uses Dark Sun to set up a basic framework, but used "kickers" to actually establish the action. I can't find the email I sent to my players, but it said more-or-less that Dark Sun is ferociouis desert, swords-&-sandals, with psionics, and city-states ruled by sorcerer-kings and their vicious templars. That's enough set-up to get a game going.

The posts linked to in my post just upthread of this one indicate, I think, how backstory/framing was established.

Here's another example: the basic floor plan of the Mausoluem, the riddle, and stats for creatures and some tricks/traps were written in advance. The other descriptions (eg statutes, mosaic, grave goods) were established during play.



Imaro said:


> @_*pemerton*_ doesn't play a strictly no myth game.  He's stated that he uses pre-authored content including geography, deities, names, places, etc.  I think the confusion arises because he then creates a distinction (which honestly I'm still not necessarily clear on where the line is actually drawn) between the things he pre-authors and world-building.  However my understanding on no myth gaming (and I don't claim to be an expert) is that everything is created during play.



In my experience, when talking about RPG techniques on these boards, a significant hurdle is that many assumptions are made by many posters without even noticing that they are making those assumptions.

For instance, when one posts about resolution of a player declaring "I search for a secret door", many posters take it as going without saying that the GM will, either in advance or via some on-the-fly technique (such as a die roll) decide _whether or not there is a door there to be found_. Similarly for attempts to meet up with NPCs; attempts to find libraries; musings about the purposes of the gods; discovering whether or not a NPC is willing to accept a bribe; etc.

"No myth" is not a religious doctrine, despite the words! It's an attempt to describe a technique that, at its core, rejects the above assumption. This blog gives a reasonable account of it. That particular author writes

The overall goal here is pretty simple: make more cool stuff happen per unit time. This system (at least in theory) facilitates that, with the cost that it relies on having a clear understanding of the genre you're working in.​
There are all sorts of ways to establish genre. One is to pull out Dark Sun book, let the players flip through and see the illustrations and the PC theme names, and run from there. Using a GH map to give a location to places like "generic swords & sorcery city" (ie Hardby), archtypical ruined mage's tower in some arid hills (the Abor Alz), abandoned homeland of the elven princess (Celene), etc, is in this context a way of managing genre.

What makes the contrast with worldbuidling? Here are some examples: how do we know the starting town (Hardby) has a wizard's cabal? Because a player wrote that into his PC's backstory? How do we know the world contains balrogs, and that one has possessed the PC's broher? Same answer. How do we know that there is an important leader of the cabal called Jabal? It was established by way of an action declaration by the same player. How do we know that there are catacombs? Same answer.

Why did I, as GM, describe the bazaar in Hardby as including a peddler trying to sell an angel feather? Because the same player had authored a Belief for his PC that said PC wouldn't leave Hardby without an item useful for confronting his balrog-possessed brother. Why did I, as GM, establish the feather as cursed? Because the player declared an attempt by his PC to read its aura, which failed - so the aura he read wasn't what he was hoping for! Why did I, as GM, establish that Jabal lives in a tower? Because the same player had authored an instict for his PC, _cast Falconskin if I fall_, and so it seemed appropriate to introduce a high place into the action.

Etc.

I think it is quite obvious that this is a different way of establishing setting, and a different approach to the role of setting in framing and in adjudication, from what [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] describes. Whether you want to label it "no myth", or "the standard narrativistic model" or simply "story now" doesn't seem that big a deal.

(Strangely, the main poster who seems to want to argue this point has me blocked. Hence my lack of reply to that particular poster.)


----------



## Hussar

Jhaelen said:


> I think that just means you haven't yet found a setting that completely sucked you in.
> 
> Alas, it's true that most campaigns fizzle after a year or two. But my D&D 3e campaign lasted for over 12 years and our group agreed it was a awesome experience.
> It isn't the length of the campaign that's important. It's if you feel you've fully explored the setting.
> 
> I kind of agree that a setting is at its most exciting when it's still fresh. It's why I prefer standalone novels over long series.




Not really.  I've played in lots of them over the past thirty years or so.  I've obviously had fun.  

Thing is, the "feel you've fully explored the setting" is not something I've ever been interested in.  Don't care.  Nor, IME, do players care in the slightest either.


----------



## TheSword

Okay this has probably morphed into a few different debates into one.

- No Myth vs Some Prep : I suspect this is a whole different argument than the one the original poster and article refers to. It sounds like the improv theatre equivalent to an adventure. I don’t doubt from the examples give by Pemerton it can work for some groups. Probably isn’t my cup of tea but I can see a lot of advantages.

- No Myth  vs World Building : By this I refer to detailing half a continents worth of races, cultures kingdoms, gods, locations etc, to the point of giving names, locations, and some details. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. It seems like people are trying to compare apples and oranges to me. Like trying to decide which is better a Chaucer play or a piece of improv comedy. It will depend entirely on your tastes. Criticising No Myth is like criticising comedy for not being serious enough.

- Adventure Building vs World Building : this is the position that the the original article is making I believe. That by codifying the extraneous details of that half a continent and defining them as more than a general idea you are setting artificial limits to the story going in that direction if it feels natural. For instance if you decide the elf PC has a very interesting plot line you want to follow up about an eleven artefact. Then you can have a major eleven settlement be relatively near rather than 200 miles away like you originally planned. 

At the beginning It is enough to say ‘there are elves’. If you have an elf PC then you might want to decide more, if the PCs have good reason to visit an elven settlement then sure detail it and work out how elves live and what one or two of the gods are etc. This is adventure building rather than writing a campaign setting.

I think too many of my campaigns take the form of journeys. Showing off the world. By focussing on tighter adventure building it’s less likely players will want to cross the mountains just to see what’s there. I think you can instead  spend more time making sure there are lots of things on this side of the mountains to keep them interested. While at the same time keeping space in the campaign world for something cool in the campaign world on the other side.


----------



## Lanefan

TheSword said:


> <snipped a good summary of the thread's progress>
> 
> I think too many of my campaigns take the form of journeys. Showing off the world. By focussing on tighter adventure building it’s less likely players will want to cross the mountains just to see what’s there. I think you can instead  spend more time making sure there are lots of things on this side of the mountains to keep them interested. While at the same time keeping space in the campaign world for something cool in the campaign world on the other side.



All good points except for the "showing off the world" bit, which might not be the motivation behind a journey-based campaign at all.

I suspect many campaigns are or resemble journeys because journeys are a central theme of some of the primary inspirations.  The Hobbit is largely about a journey there and back again.  LotR is largely about a journey which later splits into several journeys.  The entire Belgariad series is about, at its core, a journey.  And so on.

I completely agree about putting lots of good stuff on this side of the mountains.  Unfortunately that doesn't mean the players are going to have their PCs stay there.  

A further complication is that the DM or players might later want to run or play an adventure or series in a setting not provided on this side of the mountains...which is exactly what happened to me in my current game: my idea going in was that most if not all the adventuring would happen west of a mighty range of mountains, but in my worldbuilding I somewhat foolishly didn't put any large deserts west of said mountains and then some years later came up with ideas for a series of adventures that were set - you guessed it - in a large desert.

We - as in the players and I - made it work, but it took some contrivance.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> This isn't even possible.  The most detailed setting out for D&D, the Forgotten Realms, has maaaaaybe 5% of the world pre-determined.  A city the size of Waterdeep would have dozens of inns and taverns, but we know a small handful of them.  It tells us the names of the Lords of Waterdeep, but only a few names of the rest of the nobility.  People on the other side like to accuse us of pre-determining everything for some reason, but it's far from true.




How about “over predetermining” then? Yes, it’s a bit hyperbolic to say “all details”, but do you really not get what’s being said? A world isn’t needed before a town. Or whatever other smaller location might be in order. 

Now, I understand the value of preparation, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t overdo it. I used to do exactly that....maps and elaborate histories describing dynasties and noble houses and their secrets. I stopped doing that mostly because I no longer had the time to devote to it, and I found very little change in my game. If anything, things got better because my prep tome was by necessity focused on things that were actually coming up in play.

So even though I value preparation, I can recognize the criticism of the article, and other potential pitfalls of over preparation. 

Does that make more sense?



Maxperson said:


> I end up defending against the misrepresentations of the other side more than anything else.  It's a real shame, since I'd rather just have a discussion.  Discussions are hard when the one side refuses to understand what people on the other side are trying to say.




Sure, I get that. Little side discussions have come up, or specific points or examples are offered, and then people argue about those. But yet very little progress is made, it seems.

And that’s because both “sides” are doing the same thing you mention. 

The Story Now/ No Myth style can certainly work. It can create a game world just as rich as any other. The way it does so is not by the quantity of detail but instead the quality. The details such a game focuses on are generally more relevant to the players than the major export of Calimshan ever is in 90% of games. 

Now, that’s not to say that it must always be so. I’ve played in such games that sucked. I’m not so invested in the style that I can’t acknowledge it has weaknesses that go along with its strengths. And in my experience, most such games still use a fair amount of prep...it’s just that more of that is shifted to the players. But I think anyone who claims they don’t understand what preparation...worldbuilding, in this thread....has to offer, then they’re full of it.

I think both techniques have something to offer, and each “side” would be better served by listening and considering rather than simply insisting that their style creates a better or “realer” gameworld.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Not really.  I've played in lots of them over the past thirty years or so.  I've obviously had fun.
> 
> Thing is, the "feel you've fully explored the setting" is not something I've ever been interested in.  Don't care.  Nor, IME, do players care in the slightest either.




Clearly players do care, and quite a bit, or it wouldn't keep being brought up here in these threads.  YOU may not care, and the players YOU play with may not care, but other players very obviously do care about exploring the setting.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> How about “over predetermining” then? Yes, it’s a bit hyperbolic to say “all details”, but do you really not get what’s being said? A world isn’t needed before a town. Or whatever other smaller location might be in order.
> 
> Now, I understand the value of preparation, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t overdo it. I used to do exactly that....maps and elaborate histories describing dynasties and noble houses and their secrets. I stopped doing that mostly because I no longer had the time to devote to it, and I found very little change in my game. If anything, things got better because my prep tome was by necessity focused on things that were actually coming up in play.
> 
> So even though I value preparation, I can recognize the criticism of the article, and other potential pitfalls of over preparation.
> 
> Does that make more sense?




It does make more sense.  I also don't have as much time to prepare as I used to.  Back in the day, I created my own worlds with maps, history, etc.  These days I'm so busy that it's all I can do to do a bit of prep on adventures now and then.  That's the main reason I run my games in the Forgotten Realms.  It already has all the prep work I need done and allows me to focus on adventures within that world.

That said, I do find that there is a difference in my games.  I have to improvise a lot more which is pretty clear to the players.  My improvisation is pretty good, but it's not so smooth that you can't tell at times when its happening, which does bring down the quality a bit from where my game used to be. While my players don't mind, I'm sure my game wouldn't be one that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] would want to play in.  



> Sure, I get that. Little side discussions have come up, or specific points or examples are offered, and then people argue about those. But yet very little progress is made, it seems.
> 
> *And that’s because both “sides” are doing the same thing you mention*.




I thought I'd bold that to emphasize it.  I agree completely.  For my part, once I get frustrated with someone who continually misrepresents what I am saying or doing with my style of play, I'll begin to toss back all the same "twistings" at that person to show that it can be done to their style as well.  My hope is that they will see as they start defending what they perceive as an incorrect application to their playstyle, and come to the realization that what they are doing accomplishes nothing.



> The Story Now/ No Myth style can certainly work. It can create a game world just as rich as any other. The way it does so is not by the quantity of detail but instead the quality. The details such a game focuses on are generally more relevant to the players than the major export of Calimshan ever is in 90% of games.
> 
> Now, that’s not to say that it must always be so. I’ve played in such games that sucked. I’m not so invested in the style that I can’t acknowledge it has weaknesses that go along with its strengths. And in my experience, most such games still use a fair amount of prep...it’s just that more of that is shifted to the players. But I think anyone who claims they don’t understand what preparation...worldbuilding, in this thread....has to offer, then they’re full of it.
> 
> I think both techniques have something to offer, and each “side” would be better served by listening and considering rather than simply insisting that their style creates a better or “realer” gameworld.




I agree with this as well.


----------



## darkbard

Maxperson said:


> For my part, once I get frustrated with someone who continually misrepresents what I am saying or doing with my style of play, I'll begin to toss back all the same "twistings" at that person to show that it can be done to their style as well.  My hope is that they will see as they start defending what they perceive as an incorrect application to their playstyle, and come to the realization that what they are doing accomplishes nothing.




I can only speak for myself on this matter, but this may be why your posts sometimes come across to me as simply argumentation for argumentation's sake, no matter how twisted the logic to get there. This is why, at times, I have chosen to disengage with you: as I say somewhere upthread (or in the other worldbuilding thread), I don't feel this technique proceeds with intellectual honesty. You say you *infer* others are misrepresenting your words (as if you can, with 100% certainty, read their motives) and so you *deliberately* misrepresent back at them.

This doesn't make for fruitful discussion/analysis!


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously all RPGing involves the GM saying some stuff. My point about worldbuilding is that the GM spends a certain amount of time relaying those details to the players. For instance, the players have their PCs wander through a town and the GM narrates stuff about it. The players ask who their PCs' friends or contacts are and the GM narrates stuff about it. The players have their PCs look for a market that might sell a desired item, and the GM narrates stuff about the town, about NPCs, etc - triggering the players to declare more actions ("OK, I ask the gate guard if there is a market in town") which result in the GM narrating more stuff.
> 
> If the above doesn't happen, then what was the point of the worldbuilding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the above doesn't happen then what's the point of playing?
Click to expand...


As a player: to make choices that will express one's character and shape the outcome of whatever it is that is at stake in play. As a GM: to work with the players to establish whatever it is that is at stake in play, and then push the players (and thereby their PCs) in respect of it.



Lanefan said:


> That worldbuilding will have consequences in play, e.g. making it impossible to find a sage in a town that has none, is not in question.
> 
> What's in question is why this could ever possibly be seen as a bad thing...except by players who dislike not always getting what they want



Some people would rather have outcomes be determined by action resolution rather than dictated by the GM's hitherto-unrevealed and unilateral framing. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.



Lanefan said:


> In real life, if I come into a town I've never been to before and look around for a shop selling crystals and incense, it's impossible for me to find one there if there isn't one there to find.  Same is true in a game world



Who do you think disagrees with this? Obviously if there is no shop, then no shop can be found.

What we're discussing is how it might be established, as part of the preparation for and play of a RPG, that there is or isn't a shop.



Lanefan said:


> The GM still has to set the table, as it were, to give the players something to interact with even just on a scene-by-scene level; and the underlying action-resolution-narration-reaction cycle doesn't change.



You have participated extensively in the other worldbuilding thread. In that thread you've read the account of the bazaar- and-feather scene; and taken part in a lot of discussions about it.

Now recall how you and some other posters have said that you would handle it - include how you have been _critical_ of the idea of opening the game with the PCs at the bazaar and an angel feather being offered for sale.

The fact that the technique is something you're critical of seems to suggest that it is _not_ the same as what is involved in worldbuilding.



Lanefan said:


> if there's no sage, there's no sage - and that the GM has determined this ahead of time rather than it being determined on the fly by success or failure on an action declaration is irrelevant to the immedaite here-and-now result.



If the orc kills the PC, and the GM has decided ahead of tiem that this is what will happen, that mode of decision-making is irrelevant to the here-and-now result. Nevertheless, many RPGers think it matters to the play of the game whether the combat is resolved via the standard mechanics, or by the GM deciding the outcome in advance.



Lanefan said:


> It IS relevant, however, to the long-term overall results: the population and distribution of sages isn't left to the whim of cumulative here-and-now random chance.



Action declarations aren't normally made  on a whim - they pertain to the play of the game.

But if the players thing that the presence of a sage is plausible (and if they didn't, they wouldn't have their PCs try and find one), then that seems to settle the question of verisimilitude. Doesn't it?



Lanefan said:


> Which means no more published settings or even shared settings, then, if every setting is supposed to be uniquely built and tailored for the particular group of players/PCs being run at that time.
> 
> And how on earth would this work with any sort of shared "organized play" e.g. RPGA in the past or AL now, where characters can be and frequently are taken from one table to another?  I ask because if you want your game genre to become at all successful then like it or not it'll have to be able to support this sort of thing.



Given that there are no shortage of players who prefer APs to "story now", I don't think that published/shared settings are under any sort of threat!

Given that it is central to "story now" that there is no "_the _story", it doesn't naturally lend itself to tournament/convention-type play, although I have played in convention games that approximate to it: normally the first session is used for the players to establish their feel for the PCs while the GM sets the scene; and the second session is the crunch.



Lanefan said:


> Without knowledge of what's around them beyond just the framed scene the players have no information on which to base...anything.
> 
> At campaign start you frame me in a market in downtown Karnos; you provide all sorts of detail about what I can see including that there's a merchant here selling feathers.  For that immediate scene, that's fine.  But by no means is it all I need.
> 
> Where is Karnos?  What is Karnos - a mining town, a capital city, a village in the hinterlands, a seaport?  What lives here?  Who rules here, and how, and why, and for how long?  Is this a pirate town, a farming town, a military town?  Are thieves and muggers a known and frequent risk, or is the town generally safe?  What's the weather doing (beyond your saying in the framing that it's a warm sunny day) - is it likely to rain later?  Is there a drought?  What's around Karnos - desert, forest, farms, mountains?  What modes of transport are available beyond just foot, should I not find what I want here in Karnos and decide to try elsewhere?  Are there any unusual local customs or modes of dress etc. that I need to be aware of?  Etc., and I haven't even got to nation-region-world-astronomy questions yet.
> 
> If much of this wasn't provided ahead of time (i.e. this part of the world wasn't built) then I - as would, I suspect, many players - would be asking most of these questions before I ever get around to declaring an action!  Even if the questions don't directly inform my action declaration right now they'll inform my general approach later; and very little of this is stuff players should be expected to just make up on their own



If this is not already obvious - for instance, if the game is "generic fantasy" then the answer to the questions about transport are _horses_, _carts/wagons_, and, if a port town, _boats/ships_ - then if it is just colour someone at the table can make something up, and if it matters then checks can be declared and resolved.

Here's an actual play example (sci-fi, not fantasy):



pemerton said:


> <snip details of PC generation>
> 
> Given that all the players had submitted to the randomness that is Traveller - and had got a pretty interesting set of characters out of it - I had to put myself through the same rigour as GM. So I rolled up a random starting world:
> 
> Class A Starport, 1000 mi D, near-vaccuum, with a pop in the 1000s, no government and law level 2 (ie everything allowed except carrying portable laser and energy weapons) - and TL 16, one of the highest possible!​
> So what did all that mean, and what were the PCs doing there?
> 
> I christened the world Ardour-3, and we agreed that it was a moon orbiting a gas giant, with nothing but a starport (with a casino) and a series of hotels/hostels adjoining the starport (the housing for the 6,000 inhabitants). The high tech level meant that most routine tasks were performed by robots.
> 
> Roland, having left the service and now wandering the universe (paid for by his membership of the TAS), was working as a medic in the hospital, overseeing the medbots. Vincenzo was a patient there - the player explained that Vincenzo had won his yacht in the casino, and the (previous) owners had honoured the bet but had also beaten Vincenzo to within an inch of his life (hence the failed surival roll).
> 
> Xander, meanwhile, had been marooned in a vacc suit in open space - but Traveller vacc suits have limited self-propulsion, and so he'd been able to launch himself down to Ardour-3 (burning up his vacc suit in the process, but for some parts which he sold for 1,500 credits - his starting money). He was hanging out at the starport looking for a job and a way off the planet.
> 
> Tony was also at the starport, working as a rousabout/handyman (no technical skills, but Jack-o-T-3) - and it was decided that he was the one who had bought Xander's vacc suit gear and fitted it onto a vacc suit that he modelled himself (paid for out of his starting money).
> 
> Glaxon and Methwit, meanwhile, were at the casion - Glaxon getting drunk and Methwit keeping his ear to the ground, having been sent to Ardour-3 as his final posting.
> 
> With the background in place, I then rolled for a patron on the random patron table, and got a "marine officer" result. Given the PC backgrounds, it made sense that Lieutenant Li - as I dubbed her - would be making contact with Roland. The first thing I told the players was that a Scout ship had landed at the starport, although there it has no Scout base and there is no apparent need to do any survey work in the system; and that the principal passenger seemed to be an officer of the Imperial Marines. I then explained that, while doing the rounds at the hospital, Roland received a message from his old comrade Li inviting him to meet her at the casino, and to feel free to bring along any friends he might have in the place.



That's just one example.



Lanefan said:


> What I can and will dispute is that this sort of play can provide a campaign that is and remains sustainable for the long term (by which I mean anything beyond just a few sessions), without a ridiculous amount of work probably done by the GM to record *everything* about the setting that comes up in play so as to be consistent should it ever be encountered again.   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's game logs - those that we've seen - are exhaustive in their mechanical detail as well as their events recording and probably do give enough info to provide at least some long-term consistency...and in this I maintain that he's so unusual as to possibly be unique. (that's supposed to be a compliment, in case you're wondering!)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I dispute that it can continue to do so over time, as things get forgotten or numbers/time/distance/locations shift or morph in ways they shouldn't or things get skipped between scenes that end up needing to be retconned.



Happy as I am to be flattered, frankly I think you're exaggerating in both respects. Keeping track of the events of play is not that hard; and to the extent that it is, I don't think worldbuilding GMs are going to do any better a job of it.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> if the players want to ramify their activities into a greatly complex plotline, say where they start dealing with LOTS of NPCs and complex plans and etc. then I'm going to make the PLAYERS start to keep all that straight.



I've attached the chart that one of my players maintained for our RM OA game, in pretty much its final state (after about 10 years of play).


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> I completely agree about putting lots of good stuff on this side of the mountains.  Unfortunately that doesn't mean the players are going to have their PCs stay there.
> 
> A further complication is that the DM or players might later want to run or play an adventure or series in a setting not provided on this side of the mountains...which is exactly what happened to me in my current game: my idea going in was that most if not all the adventuring would happen west of a mighty range of mountains, but in my worldbuilding I somewhat foolishly didn't put any large deserts west of said mountains and then some years later came up with ideas for a series of adventures that were set - you guessed it - in a large desert.
> 
> We - as in the players and I - made it work, but it took some contrivance.



How do you see this example as relating to the thread topic?

To me, it seems broadly consistent with the OP claim.


----------



## pemerton

TheSword said:


> No Myth vs Some Prep : I suspect this is a whole different argument than the one the original poster and article refers to. It sounds like the improv theatre equivalent to an adventure. I don’t doubt from the examples give by Pemerton it can work for some groups. Probably isn’t my cup of tea but I can see a lot of advantages.



This is not a genuine contrast.

Consider the Star Wars example linked to in this blog: that GM needed some sort of stats for TIE fighters. That's prep.

When I turn up intendeding to run 4e, I bring my MMs/MV with me, or some stats for NPCs/monsters that I've written up. Because 4e likes maps for combat resolution, I'll often have some maps too.

When I turned up to run Traveller, I had some pre-rolled planets ready to drop in. (Though, as per a post not far upthread, I rolled the starting world during the session, just as the players rolled their PCs.)

When I run Burning Wheel or Cortex+ Heroic, I will write up some NPCs/creatures, because neither of these systems has a MM/MV like 4e does. (Though for Cortex+ Heroic, I have also used MHRP statblocks - for instance, the drow the PCs in my campaign fought were all second-tier supervillains statted up in the MHRP Civil War volume.)

"No Myth" isn't no prep. It's about _how that prep is used_, what it's for, and how the shared fiction is established. The blog sets out the key elements of the approach:

* Nothing about the world or the storyline is sacred. The GM must not cheat to keep important NPCs alive or to ensure some specific scene happens.

* There is no preset plot; there are preset genre expectations.

* Time should be spent on situations in direct proportion to how interesting they are. Boring bits can (and should) be fast-forwarded through. Sometimes this means the player has to say "Back when we were in town I bought new shoes and a pet monkey." 

* The GM should handle all PC actions by agreeing that they succeed, or working out a conflict with the PC that they can roll dice for.

* Every die roll should be significant. Every die roll should have a goal and/or something at stake.

* Players should try things.​
As far as this thread is concerned, there is no significant difference between that list and what Eero Tuovinen has called "the standard narrativistic model". One of the systems that Eero refers to as exemplifying what he is talking about is Dogs in the Vineyard. That is not a "no prep" system. It's not "no backstory", either - but as the rulebook for DitV explains, the GM is expected to reveal the backstory as an element of framing (under the heading "Actively Reveal the Town in Play", pp 137-38 ):

The town you’ve made has secrets. It has, quite likely, terrible secrets — blood and sex and murder and damnation.

But you the GM, you don’t have secrets a’tall. Instead, you have cool things - bloody, sexy, murderous, damned cool things - that you can’t wait to share. . . .

The PCs arrive in town. I have someone meet them. They ask how things are going. The person says that, well, things are going okay, mostly. The PCs say, “mostly?”

And I’m like “uh oh. They’re going to figure out what’s wrong in the town! Better stonewall. Poker face: on!” And then I’m like “wait a sec. I want them to figure out what’s wrong in the town. In fact, I want to _show_ them what’s wrong! Otherwise they’ll wander around waiting for me to drop them a clue, I’ll have my dumb poker face on, and we’ll be bored stupid the whole evening.”

So instead of having the NPC say “oh no, I meant that things are going just fine, and I shut up now,” I have the NPC launch into his or her tirade. “Things are awful! This person’s sleeping with this other person not with me, they murdered the schoolteacher, blood pours down the meeting house walls every night!”

...Or sometimes, the NPC wants to lie, instead. That’s okay! I have the NPC lie. You’ve watched movies. You always can tell when you’re watching a movie who’s lying and who’s telling the truth. And wouldn’t you know it, most the time the players are looking at me with skeptical looks, and I give them a little sly nod that yep, she’s lying. . . .

Then the game _goes_ somewhere.​
This game (DitV) is also, as best I know, has the first clear statement of the tehcnique _say "yes" or roll the dice_, which is included in the summary of "no myth" techniques.

Now that's not to say that we can't talk about different styles of "story now" or "no myth" RPGing - [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] is a poster on these boards who (in my view) is able to articulate with some subtlety the difference between the sort of "scene framing" approach I prefer (and that is what Eero Tuovinen and the "no myth" blogger have in mind) and the PbtA approach found (obviously) in Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, etc - which emphasises _the scene_ less, and hence discrete consequences less, and makes following the fiction really closely more important (especially on the GM side, I think).

But in the context of this thread, I think those differences are not important. In this thread, it's probably enough to make the following point:

_Say "yes" or roll the dice_ is not consistent with traditional, GM-authored worldbuilding for an RPG - because that sort of worldbuidling sometimes leads to the GM saying "no" (perhaps concealing the reason for this with a die roll, like a Perception check or whatever, in which - in fact - nothing is at stake, because there's no secret door, or whatever, there to be found).


----------



## TheSword

Yeah. That’s what I’m talking about. That’s not a message. That’s a dissertation! Then to follow it up with a second post then a third almost as long as the third?

When someone posts like that, I don’t believe it shows any interest in other points of view. In May be full of really interesting stuff but I’ll never know.

In short.
TLDR


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

TheSword said:


> Ah that makes sense. So by that token you are preparing only what you are likely to need because the party are likely to enter the temple of the death god and see his statue. You wouldn’t then need to plan the god of the harvest, the god of war or the god of watery depths. Then you’re adding mysterious hooks that can be dropped into the campaign later on creating the illusion of depth. Which hooks you pick up and follow can depend entirely on how you feel. I am in total agreement that’s an excellent way to prep.
> 
> I don’t get the impression that is the type of world building the original article is railing against. The author objects to fantasy writers effectively writing a campaign setting guide before they start on the meat and bones of the adventure. Others are arguing for comprehensive world building first just in case the campaign goes in that direction. That’s just my impression.




Sorry, I started to answer this yesterday and the Internet gods disagreed...

Its not bad commentary at all, but you have to be careful to look at a fair representation of Story Now and No Myth techniques. The problem with the analysis I see from the 'worldbuilder' side of the debate is they view game mechanics, narrative processes, etc. through the lens of the DM-driven and centered concept of play. The value system being used in this analysis may be fine for that technique, but it isn't valid when applied to a standard narrative model game. It just doesn't produce a sensible analysis because it misrepresents the FUNCTION of the different elements of play.

In the GM-centered pre-prepared kind of "walk through the GM's story/world and tell what happens" there's certainly (at least the possibility of, I don't want to taint this with talk of degenerate examples) a back-and-forth in terms of the direction the story takes. HOWEVER, the function of the material that the GM generates beforehand is largely dramatic in nature. It is the basis upon which a tale is unfurled.

For example: My sister, [MENTION=2093]Gilladian[/MENTION], who is perfectly fine GM and runs very nice fun games, and I talked about the elements of an adventure the other day. So we came up with a number of ideas based on her explanation of what was happening in the campaign and who the characters are. The upshot is she came up with an outline of an adventure. It has plot elements of various kinds, hooks, some possible alternative ways that the PCs could get the information they need to proceed from A, to B, to C. I'd say its not radically different from Phandelver, or any of the PF APs that Paizo puts out, at least in general concept (obviously its not fleshed out in that kind of level of detail). 

The point is, this is a reasonable standard approach concept of how you run a campaign. The GM makes up NPCs, situations, history (there's a bunch of history involved in her scenario), politics, monsters, locations, etc. What the adventure is ABOUT is based on her ideas of how the campaign world works, plus what would be interesting to the players and engage the PCs. How it can play out, what the parameters are, and how the story will evolve are all largely determined ahead of time by the GM.

So, in this kind of play, clues, narrative positioning, the actions of NPCs, etc. are all fundamentally oriented around making the basic 'path' of the adventure be a natural consequence. Its a structure, designed to deliver a story. There's of course a wide range of possible outcomes, and the players COULD abandon the thing halfway, kill the princess and steal the McGuffin for themselves, etc. Still, these aren't likely or preferred outcomes, and my guess is that GM 'force' (or maybe more likely some social pressure) will be employed, along with the existing above-mentioned narrative structure, to 'keep it on the rails' more-or-less. If the players REALLY decide to take it in some other direction, Gilladian will go with it, I know she's not one of these rigid GMs that HAS to stick to the established path, and the path is ALREADY likely what the PCs will do, but still, the various elements of the adventure exist fundamentally to create this 'yellow brick road' to follow.

One might even call this 'Wizard of Oz Gaming', the adventure is a yellow brick road that leads to 'Oz'. Along the way there are lions, tin men, scarecrows, witches, etc. While each of these elements could in theory lead away from the yellow brick road, in fact they each reinforce the story line and propel it forward to its designated ending.

When you try to analyze No Myth Story Now games using the toolset of 'Wizard of Oz Gaming' you run into some problems. In Story Now the various situations aren't intended to LEAD anywhere at all. There's no direction. Its true that this might seem to inhibit things like foreshadowing (what would you foreshadow, particularly in No Myth!). However, we DO know a lot. Just as in my sister's campaign, we know about the characters. They're well-drawn and have fairly discernible agendas, interests, and personality. So we CAN make some sorts of predictions! We CAN foreshadow. Could not [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] do that in the Cortex+ Heroic game where the PC is trying to save his brother from the Balrog? I mean, there's plenty of things that are established here that can leverage that. And just as in a pre-arranged WoOG adventure path, you can drop as many of these things as you need, and you don't HAVE to use them all! 

Anyway, there's plenty of other things you ARE doing in Story Now. You could certainly construct the story _The Wizard of Oz_ in a sort of Story Now fashion. I mean, the main character has a very definite goal, creating a straightforward pathway to that goal, putting some obstacles/complications along it, etc. This could evolve quite easily. In fact it represents rather the simplest and most basic form of narrative that could evolve, just as it is the simplest and most basic AP that you could create ahead of time. The difference is, from the start of playing it, there's no specific 'Emerald City', its not an adventure on 'rails' to a known endpoint. The Good Witch Glenda might put the character onto the yellow brick road at the start, but it would be quite natural for various challenges to the character's ideas and values to lead away from that path. The path isn't there to serve as a road to keep the adventure going on, it is there to serve as an element in stakes setting (IE "you can follow this easy path and maybe get home, OR you can save your little dog Toto!") (that would be a very simplistic one, but workable).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Celebrim said:


> Since pemerton and I stopped talking over this very point, I don't feel its fair to him to continue to debate it.   But after like the fifth thread where he described drawing a dungeon and stocking it and backgrounding it, and then described his play as some sort of revolutionary 'no myth' because in the course of play he invented one new element he hadn't fully detailed before, I decided I'd had enough.
> 
> I have no desire to argue over your personal experience.  I'm glad whatever new approaches you've adopted have led to success for your group.  Although I will say "all the stories drive by players backgrounds" doesn't in and of itself mean you are playing no myth, it just means you've given your players agency to tell the stories that they want to experience.   And you can do that within a 'no myth' framework on in a 'low myth' or 'high myth' classical sandbox.
> 
> 'No myth' literally means that the GM does not decide anything before he starts play, and on the fly changes things based on the direction of play.  All myth is created through play.   It certainly is a tangibly different feel, I'll grant you that.   What it actually does is subtly different shift in the table's aesthetics of play.   When you mention "mysteries need prep", you are actually wrong.  You can do a 'no myth' mystery.  Heck, I can do a 'no myth' mystery (although in point of fact, I never do).  What is actually going on in my opinion behind that statement is that you have certain aesthetic expectations about a mystery plot that you at some level realize that 'no myth' play would invalidate.   I encourage you, even if you disagree with me, to keep that statement in mind as you go forward with your 'no myth' play.




I feel that you are creating a Straw Man sort of idea of No Myth to an extent. I mean, look, nobody literally sits down at a table with 5 other people and says "OK, we're playing an RPG, around you is nothing, make it all up!" It just isn't workable and nobody wants to do THAT. A game system has to be employed to make an RP*G* for example. So that has to be selected somehow. Even if the GM does that it is effectively table consensus, right? "Hey, I want to run a 4e D&D campaign, wanna play?" Something like that. Now we have already, just by that decision, gone far beyond the 'Straw Man' version of No Myth. 4e comes with a very well-established milieu, even if its open enough to allow for the world itself to contain most anything. I would still call this No Myth, there are no absolute established facts about who the PCs are, where they are, their situations, etc. The pallet exists from which to paint much of this, and we certainly have established genre, but that still stands in stark contrast to what happens when someone pulls out FR or their own homebrew and sticks a pin in the map and says "You find yourselves at the front gates of the town of Ambrose..." or whatever. Now, maybe there's some other term for when this doesn't happen, but I think 'No Myth' is a reasonable one and is probably what most people mean when they say they are using that technique.


----------



## TheSword

I don’t really know why no-myth is being drawn into the discussion (other than as part of some weird historical cosmic battle.)

The original article isn’t regarding No-myth. There doesn’t seem to be any debate over whether some prep is needed. It’s just a question of how much.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, no, you're kinda, pretty far off the mark.  The structure of clocks and how actions interact with them isn't like a SC.  You could using something like an SC and not use clocks, but it's not the same at all.
> 
> Clocks are used to track potential events.  They are specific.  If I set a clock for 'Alarm is raised' then, if that clock fills, the alarm is raised, no matter what action failure caused it to fill.  This differs from SCs in that the situation in an SC adapts according to the actions taken.  Clocks just are.  They can be long term, short term, personal, situation dependent, etc.



OK, I'm kind of commenting as I read... 

I don't follow you here. If the 'Alarm is Raised' clock is filled, then there is a very definite change in the fictional positioning. Now, it may be true that not every clock filling is an end state of the 'challenge' which is in progress, but it seems to me that in your example the alarm being raised is PRETTY MUCH failure! 

Still, I see that you HAVE raised a distinction in that clocks filling don't represent, absolutely, end states, they could simply be triggers for changes in the narrative positioning. I guess, then, my question is how does the positioning evolve on a per-check basis? This is IMHO the core concept of 4e SCs, that for EVERY check made, the fiction HAS to evolve. 

Anyway, reading on... 



> In the case above, for instance, the 'success' clock had 4 tick and the 'fail' clock had 6.  That's inverted from the SC concept.  Further, I could have added even more clocks, like 'the package leaves the building' and set that at a 10 clock to set an overall pressure on the entire score, so 1 success clock and 1 small fail clock isn't the 'usual'.



OK, I obviously haven't played this game, so far be it from me to try to tell you how it works! 

Still, it seems to me that the 2 clock setup you used in your original example was fairly 'natural' and it seemed telling to me that you chose that formulation. Does an additional clock make that much difference? I mean, couldn't you simply use the 'package leaves the building' clock? If the alarm goes off, then certainly this is a likely event! See what I'm saying? 

I just think of it in terms of an SC, and if I formulate it such that the 2 major end states of the challenge are "the PCs get the package" and "the PCs cannot get the package, it leaves" then we have the essence of the challenge in a '2 clock form' effectively, do we not? Now, I accept that intermediate fiction won't have additional clocks to rely on, but 4e's three failures provides a pretty ready mechanism there. If you get to 2 failures while still fictionally outside the warehouse then "the alarm is raised". If you make it in through the window (which would clearly generate some number of successes) then failures at that point might represent some other consequence. 

Again, the basic concept seems like it maps pretty well, doesn't it? 



> Another example, same game, is that the gang is currently almost at war with one of the neighborhoods.  That conflict is currently using a 8 segment clock where the neighborhood get 1 segment filled every downtime phase to represent their actions against the gang, and the gang can take downtime actions (or declare a score) against that clock to remove segments.  This isn't a skill roll check, but a fortune mechanic check in both directions.  If the clock fills, the neighborhood's goal is to bring the heat onto the gang and they'll gain a wanted level (the neighborhood has hired a barrister to work the courts against the gang).  If it empties, it's empty and will start refilling.  If the gang declares a score, they can eliminate the clock, but the outcome may be outright war or even a settling of difference depending on the target and outcome of the score.



OK, so this is a rather different use. Its not a bad idea that some of the same terminology and, presumably, mechanical processes of the game can apply to both. In 4e you might use a long-running SC for this, but that is a fairly unexplored concept within the mechanics of the game, and does have some differences in that SCs aren't intended to be perpetually ongoing. You could use a disease track, which is basically a BitD 'clock', but again this isn't really something you could fairly call explored within 4e, nor is it closely related to the SC mechanic. 

I guess then the only real question here is, how does the commonality of the clock mechanic between this 'status' situation vs an 'action' situation like the warehouse work out in terms of BitD mechanics? I'm curious how effectively this mechanical symmetry is leveraged. 



> Long and short, the clocks are a tool for the GM to use to put pressure on situations or to track long term events.  They aren't SC's, and how a given scene of a score plays out may be more or less like an SC in 4e.  Honestly, I think they may have similar outcomes, but the approach and intent in play is different.  There's also the problem that checks in Blades have variable outcomes, so you may be able to tick more than one clock at a time, or may tick a clock hugely in one go.  A four clock can be completely filled in one resolution by a critical success or one with a great effect.



Well, 4e does handle this a BIT differently. You CAN grant several successes based on either an extraordinary result (IE a crit) or in response to a resource expenditure by the player (spend an AP or an HS, or a Daily for example). There are other mechanics that serve a similar purpose, like advantages and secondary skill use/Aid Another. Those are a bit different in detail though, granted.

In some sense though I feel like this actually DEVALUES the mechanism, as one of the strongest points of the SC mechanism is that it tells you 'how much is enough' in order to drive to the endpoint of the plot of the SC. If each success could potentially do that, you wouldn't know anymore, the GM is then thrust back into the position of eyeballing it.

However, I think the key point is really that, from what you're saying, fictional position only changes with the filling of a clock, so clocks fall in a level of granularity below a single success of a 4e SC, at least potentially (this might not always be true). So, you might consider the advantage in this mechanism to be more in terms of being able to choose how significant something is. The equivalent choice in 4e would be to frame something as a single SC or as multiple SCs, each of which represents an incremental level of progress to an overall story goal. 



> Actions are declared by the player and then the GM decides the position - desperate, risky, or controlled - and the effect - limited, normal, great.  The player can then modify or change actions if they don't like the situation.  If the player rolls, then the result is 1-3 failure, 4-5 succeed with complication, 6 success, more than one 6 critical (you look at the highest die roll in the pool).  Desperate actions have bad failures and complications, controlled have mild failures and complications.  Limited effect means you get part of what you want, great means you get even more than what you wanted, criticals can go super-awesome levels of impact.  Effect is set by the DM by the action and situation, and then modified by the difference in tier of the gang and the target (a tier I gang going against a tier II target is down one level of effectiveness).  This means that actions can have outsized impacts on clocks, as the number of segments filled is tied to the position and effect.  A desperate failure may fill 4 or so segments, while a controlled failure would fill but 1.  A critical success on an great effect might fill more than 5 segments on a clock.  So, a clock isn't the same as the number of successes or failures in an SC at all.




Well, obviously there are different ways of looking at these things. I think each of the two mechanisms cover the same sort of concept space in slightly different ways. 

Putting on my game designer's hat: In my own post-4e games variable level of success has emerged as a standard feature. I haven't used that to dictate more or less sucesses/failures in SCs, but that's mainly because those scales are fairly granular. Now, I suppose SCs could accomodate a more formal mechanism of 'position' and 'effect', but that is generally established within the framing of the SC, so the GM constructs the parameters of the thing and the fictional situation mostly dictates how risky an action is, for example, and how drastic its effects might be. 

I'm sure clocks work. I'm not sure I see them as a vast advancement over the SC mechanism. There appear to be some strengths and weaknesses to each, and they do largely cover a lot of the same ground, with the exception of 'status' type situations which 4e has a different mechanism for. 

I think part of the difference here too is the basic assumptions of the two games. 4e isn't generally a game where you focus on ongoing relationships between the party and other groups in quite the same way that BitD does. You'd be more likely in a 4e game (or my games) to resolve an SC and that element would become relatively fixed from then on, unless the party did something to radically change the situation. So a 'status clock' isn't really something that 4e NEEDs that much, it just isn't a focus of the game. 

So I think its cool that BitD is able to meet the status need with essentially the same mechanism as is used in 'challenge resolution', and I can see how it casts relationship management into a sort of ongoing challenge/struggle/task. That's cool! Anyway, I certainly accept your "they are not the same", though I do still think there are quite strong parallels.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> Without knowledge of what's around them beyond just the framed scene the players have no information on which to base...anything.
> 
> At campaign start you frame me in a market in downtown Karnos; you provide all sorts of detail about what I can see including that there's a merchant here selling feathers.  For that immediate scene, that's fine.  But by no means is it all I need.
> 
> Where is Karnos?  What is Karnos - a mining town, a capital city, a village in the hinterlands, a seaport?  What lives here?  Who rules here, and how, and why, and for how long?  Is this a pirate town, a farming town, a military town?  Are thieves and muggers a known and frequent risk, or is the town generally safe?  What's the weather doing (beyond your saying in the framing that it's a warm sunny day) - is it likely to rain later?  Is there a drought?  What's around Karnos - desert, forest, farms, mountains?  What modes of transport are available beyond just foot, should I not find what I want here in Karnos and decide to try elsewhere?  Are there any unusual local customs or modes of dress etc. that I need to be aware of?  Etc., and I haven't even got to nation-region-world-astronomy questions yet.
> 
> If much of this wasn't provided ahead of time (i.e. this part of the world wasn't built) then I - as would, I suspect, many players - would be asking most of these questions before I ever get around to declaring an action!  Even if the questions don't directly inform my action declaration right now they'll inform my general approach later; and very little of this is stuff players should be expected to just make up on their own (and if they do then the GM has to be scribbling like a madman to record all of it in the interests of future consistency - why not just do this work beforehand when you've time to relax and think it through?)



THIS is what I question strongly, amongst a few other things. I started GMing in 1976 or so, and this experience has never really happened to me. I mean, sure players have asked a question or two about where they are and what's going on, they have to do that, but the idea that they need a thorough briefing on the economics, politics, and social structure of the place they happen to be starting at BEFORE THEY CAN DO ANYTHING???!!!! No player in all the 42 years of GMing I've experienced has ever demanded or even thought of asking for that. I don't believe it happens at all. I mean, I don't want to get into a silly debate about it, I'll accept that YOU do it, but I think you are almost unique. I can't say 'nobody else in the world is like you', but if even 10% of gamers were, then I'd have run into it many times, as I've gamed with easily 300 or more different people enough to have some idea of how they game. 



> The players don't get to write their own adventures; it's on the DM to provide those, even when the players decide to head for the mountains just to see what's there.  The players, however, are now driving the overall story; and the DM is in react mode.
> 
> Lanefan




I think there is a whole 'level' to player driving of story that you've not reached. In a really Story Now kind of scenario the very nature of what the story is 'about' is derived from a combination of background, possibly declared statements/interests, and PC action declarations. Its not 'steering' the game, it is establishing WHOLE CLOTH what it is about and what it entails.

(As an aside, this may not be strictly true if the game system itself is tightly focused on a specific sort of question, theme, or milieu that would probably be described as 'niche'. However, those sorts of game systems are usually a distinct preference choice which is intended to establish the central questions of play in that game, and thus must of necessity be largely a question of player interest. So if you play DitV, you pretty much know what the game is about, although individual players can still focus somewhat on specifics, but if you play 4e D&D, then things are likely pretty wide-open in Story Now).


----------



## Ovinomancer

AbdulAlhazred said:


> OK, I'm kind of commenting as I read...
> 
> I don't follow you here. If the 'Alarm is Raised' clock is filled, then there is a very definite change in the fictional positioning. Now, it may be true that not every clock filling is an end state of the 'challenge' which is in progress, but it seems to me that in your example the alarm being raised is PRETTY MUCH failure!
> 
> Still, I see that you HAVE raised a distinction in that clocks filling don't represent, absolutely, end states, they could simply be triggers for changes in the narrative positioning. I guess, then, my question is how does the positioning evolve on a per-check basis? This is IMHO the core concept of 4e SCs, that for EVERY check made, the fiction HAS to evolve.
> 
> Anyway, reading on...
> 
> 
> OK, I obviously haven't played this game, so far be it from me to try to tell you how it works!
> 
> Still, it seems to me that the 2 clock setup you used in your original example was fairly 'natural' and it seemed telling to me that you chose that formulation. Does an additional clock make that much difference? I mean, couldn't you simply use the 'package leaves the building' clock? If the alarm goes off, then certainly this is a likely event! See what I'm saying?
> 
> I just think of it in terms of an SC, and if I formulate it such that the 2 major end states of the challenge are "the PCs get the package" and "the PCs cannot get the package, it leaves" then we have the essence of the challenge in a '2 clock form' effectively, do we not? Now, I accept that intermediate fiction won't have additional clocks to rely on, but 4e's three failures provides a pretty ready mechanism there. If you get to 2 failures while still fictionally outside the warehouse then "the alarm is raised". If you make it in through the window (which would clearly generate some number of successes) then failures at that point might represent some other consequence.
> 
> Again, the basic concept seems like it maps pretty well, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> OK, so this is a rather different use. Its not a bad idea that some of the same terminology and, presumably, mechanical processes of the game can apply to both. In 4e you might use a long-running SC for this, but that is a fairly unexplored concept within the mechanics of the game, and does have some differences in that SCs aren't intended to be perpetually ongoing. You could use a disease track, which is basically a BitD 'clock', but again this isn't really something you could fairly call explored within 4e, nor is it closely related to the SC mechanic.
> 
> I guess then the only real question here is, how does the commonality of the clock mechanic between this 'status' situation vs an 'action' situation like the warehouse work out in terms of BitD mechanics? I'm curious how effectively this mechanical symmetry is leveraged.
> 
> 
> Well, 4e does handle this a BIT differently. You CAN grant several successes based on either an extraordinary result (IE a crit) or in response to a resource expenditure by the player (spend an AP or an HS, or a Daily for example). There are other mechanics that serve a similar purpose, like advantages and secondary skill use/Aid Another. Those are a bit different in detail though, granted.
> 
> In some sense though I feel like this actually DEVALUES the mechanism, as one of the strongest points of the SC mechanism is that it tells you 'how much is enough' in order to drive to the endpoint of the plot of the SC. If each success could potentially do that, you wouldn't know anymore, the GM is then thrust back into the position of eyeballing it.
> 
> However, I think the key point is really that, from what you're saying, fictional position only changes with the filling of a clock, so clocks fall in a level of granularity below a single success of a 4e SC, at least potentially (this might not always be true). So, you might consider the advantage in this mechanism to be more in terms of being able to choose how significant something is. The equivalent choice in 4e would be to frame something as a single SC or as multiple SCs, each of which represents an incremental level of progress to an overall story goal.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously there are different ways of looking at these things. I think each of the two mechanisms cover the same sort of concept space in slightly different ways.
> 
> Putting on my game designer's hat: In my own post-4e games variable level of success has emerged as a standard feature. I haven't used that to dictate more or less sucesses/failures in SCs, but that's mainly because those scales are fairly granular. Now, I suppose SCs could accomodate a more formal mechanism of 'position' and 'effect', but that is generally established within the framing of the SC, so the GM constructs the parameters of the thing and the fictional situation mostly dictates how risky an action is, for example, and how drastic its effects might be.
> 
> I'm sure clocks work. I'm not sure I see them as a vast advancement over the SC mechanism. There appear to be some strengths and weaknesses to each, and they do largely cover a lot of the same ground, with the exception of 'status' type situations which 4e has a different mechanism for.
> 
> I think part of the difference here too is the basic assumptions of the two games. 4e isn't generally a game where you focus on ongoing relationships between the party and other groups in quite the same way that BitD does. You'd be more likely in a 4e game (or my games) to resolve an SC and that element would become relatively fixed from then on, unless the party did something to radically change the situation. So a 'status clock' isn't really something that 4e NEEDs that much, it just isn't a focus of the game.
> 
> So I think its cool that BitD is able to meet the status need with essentially the same mechanism as is used in 'challenge resolution', and I can see how it casts relationship management into a sort of ongoing challenge/struggle/task. That's cool! Anyway, I certainly accept your "they are not the same", though I do still think there are quite strong



Dude, I just said I loved clocks and you've spent quite a lot of effort trying to make sure everyone knows that skill challenges are just as good.  Okay?  You win?  SCs are just as good?


----------



## TheSword

It’s seems discussion has descended into a war of attrition. So long folks.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> It does make more sense.  I also don't have as much time to prepare as I used to.  Back in the day, I created my own worlds with maps, history, etc.  These days I'm so busy that it's all I can do to do a bit of prep on adventures now and then.  That's the main reason I run my games in the Forgotten Realms.  It already has all the prep work I need done and allows me to focus on adventures within that world.
> 
> That said, I do find that there is a difference in my games.  I have to improvise a lot more which is pretty clear to the players.  My improvisation is pretty good, but it's not so smooth that you can't tell at times when its happening, which does bring down the quality a bit from where my game used to be. While my players don't mind, I'm sure my game wouldn't be one that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] would want to play in.



Having read all kinds of posts of yours regarding your game, I've every reason to think I'd probably quite enjoy it. 

I've no objection to a DM winging it now and then, be it in narration or in rulings...hell, I do it too; and my frantic flapping is sometimes clearly obvious to all to the point where we joke and laugh about it even as it's happening! 

My concern both as DM and player is consistency: that whatever is improvised now becomes part of the game lore/rules/whatever henceforth.  Example: once Karnos is established on the fly to be 6 days walk from Torcha, that it'll always be 6 days walk from Torcha.  I don't see you as someone who would disagree with this.

Lanefan


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> Yes, he has. That those instances of play occurred I obviously can't dispute.
> 
> What I can and will dispute is that this sort of play can provide a campaign that is and remains sustainable for the long term (by which I mean anything beyond just a few sessions), without a ridiculous amount of work probably done by the GM to record *everything* about the setting that comes up in play so as to be consistent should it ever be encountered again.   @_*pemerton*_ 's game logs - those that we've seen - are exhaustive in their mechanical detail as well as their events recording and probably do give enough info to provide at least some long-term consistency...and in this I maintain that he's so unusual as to possibly be unique. (that's supposed to be a compliment, in case you're wondering!)






> I dispute that it can continue to do so over time, as things get forgotten or numbers/time/distance/locations shift or morph in ways they shouldn't or things get skipped between scenes that end up needing to be retconned.
> 
> And note I'm not necessarily suggesting that traditional play (including worldbuilding) doesn't have rocks of its own to run aground on.  It does, and over time I think I've probably hit them all.   But I also think it's got more versatility in what it can do or be made to do in terms of what type-style-length-size of games or campaigns it can support, which gives it the advantage.




Eh, I'm not some sort of super detailed note taker or recorder of exactly what happened in every session. Even so, I don't recall ever running into some problem of 'incoherence'. Certainly its possible to make up everything as you go over the course of, say, 50 to 100 sessions, and have it all work out. I never had problems with things getting 'out of whack' somehow. 

Now, I have never had a single continuous chain of playing sessions with basically the same players and same or rotating characters playing through a sequence of scenarios, what would often be termed a 'campaign' (though sometimes people use the term in slightly different ways) that lasted for many years. I've had some that lasted 2-4 years. I've had the same players come back to the same basic setting, maybe some even reusing existing characters, at a later date and establish a follow-on to an earlier game. I just don't see very many campaigns surviving for 10 years at a time. I know there are quite a few, in absolute numbers, which have, but in terms of being a subset of all campaigns, its a tiny subset. 

I guess my point here is, maybe I can't run the same thing Story Now for 10 years, I don't know. I can't PROVE that can happen, but I think it is such an edge-case of games that I'm unlikely to ever have the chance to test that. I can only attest that 'many sessions' are quite feasible, and that you don't have to have the powers of recording (or recall, whichever it is) of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] in order for that to work.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Greg K said:


> To each their own. Personally, I don't see it as an issue. If I were to want assassins going after the party, maybe someone related to the NPCs goes to the guild and hires them several days later (or simply pays someone to track down and kill the characters). Maybe, someone goes to an official and the official sends out assassins.  Maybe, a more powerful related NPC takes it upon themselves to track down the party with the help of allies.
> 
> Hell, in one campaign, after the party crossed the only Wizard's Guild  and killed a few low level members, I didn't have assassin's hired by them show up until several sessions later. When they did, they were accompanied by one or two guild wizards. If the party escaped or killed them them, another group would show up at a later date. It was about a year or two in real life play before the party found out how they were being tracked and it went back to the thief stealing a guild ring off one of the dead wizards on the second session of play (which was a continuation of the first night).




But in MY terms the questions that spring to mind here are:

1) what is the point of establishing 'there are no assassins in this town' if you're just going to have assassins show up anyway! I mean, what did this 'detail' do for you? How did it matter? What you're basically saying is "I can plausibly just ignore the consequences of any detail so I can generate the plot I desire." which is exactly MY point, these details don't really mean much....

2) The whole thing with the Wizard's Guild would stink of hidden backstory in the sort of games I run. Why is the game all about how this guild is perpetually tracking the party, unless this is somehow central to the agenda being expressed in this specific game. If so, its great, but I would think there would then be more dramatically satisfying elements underpinning it than "oh, this fact I couldn't possibly know was responsible for it." (IE you would have it be a consequence of something a PC did as part of his 'thing' which defines his character, or a choice which grew out of that). If the whole guild thing does NOT involve anything the player's are interested in, then why are they being subjected to it in the first place? I mean, "oh gosh we stole this ring" is pretty thin gruel in my book.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Kaodi said:


> In one of the few in person games I ever got to play in we started playing Age of Worms in Greyhawk. I do not remember how I gained access to this information because I am not a big setting buff (for financial reasons) but I decided that I was going to be a Priest of Vathris, the hero-deity that was slain by Kyuss. I think I might have been a bit of a killjoy because my character was in a _little too deep_ with the "anguish" aspect.
> 
> But I had a goal for that campaign which never could have actually lasted long enough for me to complete it: I had this idea that I am a bit hazy on now but I think it was: I would obtain the black spear that the distraught Vathris carries around with him which Kyuss used to kill him, then I would cast _miracle_ with some grand statement in conjunction with striking the killing blow against Kyuss and then Vathris would be reborn in my character's body.
> 
> This idea would have been hella epic if I could have ever pulled it off. And it was an idea that was born as a natural extension of the world of Greyhawk. I probably never would have come up as anything so dramatic as a player in a generic, unspecified world. I am a bit of a fan of the idea that creativity is taking this out of the box and then building something with what you have left. Worldbuilding is an enabler of this kind of creativity. Of course some people will not need or want it. But some will.




OK, I agree that you MIGHT not have come up with Vathris and a black spear, and etc. You probably COULD have come up with some of that backstory though for your character. Certainly the concept and some of the names, etc. I'm sure it would be less detailed, but is it the detail that made it engaging or the dramatic aspect of it?

And then the more interesting question, to me: You say it was basically impossible to attain this kind of play using the techniques/system/whatever that was in place for that game. What kind of a game would have made that POSSIBLE? Would that have been an interesting game to you and could you have played out the scenario you outline? Could you have at least had the choice to ATTEMPT to do so? Would that have been cool? I mean, you might have failed to kill Kyuss or whatever, but TO ME it would seem like the whole scene would be super epic!


----------



## Lanefan

First off, xp for that chart - that's amazing!  I think I might just steal this idea and take it to our game tonight, where we've been over ten years busy in enmeshing ourselves in a plot that seems to have neither end nor beginning.

And now, back into the trenches... 


pemerton said:


> As a player: to make choices that will express one's character and shape the outcome of whatever it is that is at stake in play. As a GM: to work with the players to establish whatever it is that is at stake in play, and then push the players (and thereby their PCs) in respect of it.



Cool.  This could in theory happen in any game, however, though it needs the right kind of players (who both seek and enjoy such high-drama situations) and DM (willing and able to facilitate such).

As for myself, I'm more interested in pushing the PCs rather than stressing the players; who are in theory just here for a good time (as am I).



> Some people would rather have outcomes be determined by action resolution rather than dictated by the GM's hitherto-unrevealed and unilateral framing. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.
> 
> Who do you think disagrees with this? Obviously if there is no shop, then no shop can be found.
> 
> What we're discussing is how it might be established, as part of the preparation for and play of a RPG, that there is or isn't a shop.



And the mechanics for determining such, yes.



> You have participated extensively in the other worldbuilding thread. In that thread you've read the account of the bazaar- and-feather scene; and taken part in a lot of discussions about it.
> 
> Now recall how you and some other posters have said that you would handle it - include how you have been _critical_ of the idea of opening the game with the PCs at the bazaar and an angel feather being offered for sale.
> 
> The fact that the technique is something you're critical of seems to suggest that it is _not_ the same as what is involved in worldbuilding.



Assuming - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that the bazaar example is typical, my criticisms of it lie in how anything leading up to that point is essentially skipped over, not least of which is an opportunity for the party to meet and get to know each other.  Also, framing it such that the PC or party have to explore the town a bit before finding the feather merchant gives you a chance to tell them - yes, tell them  - what the town's all about, so as to better inform their later decisions, approaches, and actions.



> If the orc kills the PC, and the GM has decided ahead of tiem that this is what will happen, that mode of decision-making is irrelevant to the here-and-now result. Nevertheless, many RPGers think it matters to the play of the game whether the combat is resolved via the standard mechanics, or by the GM deciding the outcome in advance.



Absolutely.  The three (or four) "pillars" of the game work differently and thus are probably best served by using different mechanics.  

Combat has more or less robust mechanics in pretty much all RPGs.  

Exploration mechanics are a more open question...certainly 1e D&D and its ilk have the mechanics for small-scale dungeon exploration nailed down; but wilderness or city or space exploration mechanics are kind of all over the place, and there's a case to be made here that less is more.  In any case, though, trying to make these mechanics work the same as combat is a square peg/round hole situation.

Social mechanics are covered in widely-varying quality by some game systems but not all, and here IMO less is certainly more no matter what.  Matching these to combat is more like trying to put a square peg into something that has no hole at all.

The fourth "pillar" - downtime - really doesn't have or need much by way of action-level mechanics; more broad-based stuff like training, stronghold building, spell research etc. is either covered by the game system in use or can be handled case by case.



> Action declarations aren't normally made  on a whim - they pertain to the play of the game.
> 
> But if the players thing that the presence of a sage is plausible (and if they didn't, they wouldn't have their PCs try and find one), then that seems to settle the question of verisimilitude. Doesn't it?



It does...though part of the fun of playing is to be able to try the implausible.

You know - thinking about it, that's perhaps part of where story-now and I drift apart.  As a player, I want to (and will!) try the implausible or impossible or just plain absurd now and then just for fun.  But from what I can tell story-now (and I can't think of a better phrasing but this isn't perfect) takes itself too seriously for this sort of thing.  High drama and high tension isn't often the stuff laughs are made of, and I'm in it for the laughs and entertainment most of the time.



> Given that there are no shortage of players who prefer APs to "story now", I don't think that published/shared settings are under any sort of threat!
> 
> Given that it is central to "story now" that there is no "_the _story", it doesn't naturally lend itself to tournament/convention-type play, although I have played in convention games that approximate to it: normally the first session is used for the players to establish their feel for the PCs while the GM sets the scene; and the second session is the crunch.



I wasn't thinking so much of tournament or convention play, but of ongoing RPGA or AL-type play where you can establish your character during the weekly game at your FLGS then take said character to another game at a different store and drop it in, then take it to a convention and drop it into a game there, then return to your FLGS and keep the same character going; with all of these contributing to the character's continuing growth and development.

Personally this style of play isn't for me, but I recognize its significance as a major means of both attracting new players (and DMs) to the hobby and keeping them engaged once in; and thus I maintain that any RPG that wants to move beyond niche-within-the-hobby status kinda needs to set this up.



> If this is not already obvious - for instance, if the game is "generic fantasy" then the answer to the questions about transport are _horses_, _carts/wagons_, and, if a port town, _boats/ships_ - then if it is just colour someone at the table can make something up, and if it matters then checks can be declared and resolved.



If it's a major city in a magical world "teleport" may also be a transport answer.

But rather than going through all the checks-resolutions, isn't it both easier and quicker just to tell us up front what we know about the place, at least on an overview level?  It could be as simple as:

"The campaign starts in Karnos on a warm sunny Midsummers' Day; each of you in your backgrounds has given your rationale for being in town.  Karnos is a busy seaport town on the south coast of a region known as Decast, surrounded by gentle farmland to the north, east and west and with a good harbour to the south leading to open water.  Major trade routes lead west and north.  Its resident population is about 5000, with easily about another 1000 transients - mostly crew from the many tall ships docked or anchored here - in town much of the time.  The town is mostly safe except for the "docklands", a few areas of dark alleys and shady characters near the waterfront; elsewhere the local constabulary - backed if needed by Count Vertuin's (the local ruler) strong militia - enforce order, sometimes with a heavy hand.  As it's a port town people of nearly all races and cultures can easily be found, as can temples to most major faiths and pantheons; the resident population is mostly Human with a smattering of Hobbits and Part-Elves.  By day the streets are often full, as are the many taverns, pubs and inns; at night the sound of revelry often echoes between the buildings until the wee hours; there is no formal curfew.  Gear and equipment both mundane and exotic of almost any kind and size is available here; particularly at the twice-weekly markets in Dorian Plaza, the town's central square...and today is a market day."

There.  How long did that take to narrate?  Two minutes, tops; probably less, and not a single die was rolled.  And now your players have a much stronger sense of atmosphere and knowledge of their surroundings than they otherwise would have (and which matches that of their PCs, even better!) to inform their decisions and actions; and from here you can either a) frame them straight into the market or their inn or a common meeting point or wherever or b) ask them individually what they are doing today...someone looking for exotic gear, for example, might head for the market.



> Happy as I am to be flattered, frankly I think you're exaggerating in both respects. Keeping track of the events of play is not that hard; and to the extent that it is, I don't think worldbuilding GMs are going to do any better a job of it.



I guess my point is that worldbuilding DM's don't have to do as much of it during play, as the background stuff has already been done.

And this matters to me.  I can't write and talk/listen at the same time (and know very few if any people who can), so the less in-session writing I have to do the better; because every minute I spend writing is a minute not spent talking or listening - and if I'm not talking or listening quite often that means things quickly grind to a halt...which kinda defeats the purpose.



> I've attached the chart that one of my players maintained for our RM OA game, in pretty much its final state (after about 10 years of play).



As said above, this is one hell of a chart! 

Lanefan


----------



## Kaodi

AbdulAlhazred said:


> OK, I agree that you MIGHT not have come up with Vathris and a black spear, and etc. You probably COULD have come up with some of that backstory though for your character. Certainly the concept and some of the names, etc. I'm sure it would be less detailed, but is it the detail that made it engaging or the dramatic aspect of it?
> 
> And then the more interesting question, to me: You say it was basically impossible to attain this kind of play using the techniques/system/whatever that was in place for that game. What kind of a game would have made that POSSIBLE? Would that have been an interesting game to you and could you have played out the scenario you outline? Could you have at least had the choice to ATTEMPT to do so? Would that have been cool? I mean, you might have failed to kill Kyuss or whatever, but TO ME it would seem like the whole scene would be super epic!




?? The only problems were that our group only lasted to about level 7 I think before disbanding and that even if it had gone on I would have had to survive for another 13 levels to get to the point where I would be in a position to do it. You fight Kyuss at the end of Age of Worms I think?


----------



## Hussar

TheSword said:


> I don’t really no why no-myth is being drawn into the discussion (other than as part of some weird historical cosmic battle.)
> 
> The original article isn’t regarding No-myth. There doesn’t seem to be any debate over whether some prep is needed. It’s just a question of how much.




It's nice when people actually recognize the issue, even this far in, without resorting to all sorts of straw men and other silly buggers.  

And can say it succinctly without resorting to hundred line dissertations.


----------



## Hussar

It's funny.  I got asked for specific criticisms, which I provided.  Instead of actually discussing these criticisms, all conversation got immediately shut down with those who didn't like my criticisms basically either telling me that they never happen, don't matter or never happen at their table and thus, can never actually happen in the wild.

Sigh.

Look, I presented why I, me, myself, Hussar, don't like world building and why I think it's mostly a waste of time to feed the DM's ego.  The fact that world builders point to works like The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings as examples of why we should world build just makes me dig in my heels more.  The Lord of the Rings would have been a short story if I wrote it.  I've tried to read it multiple times and every single time I skip entire pages because it's mind numbingly boring setting wank.  

The notion that this is what we should look to for inspiration as a DM is just wrong, IMO.  It's a complete waste of time that would be FAR better spent on actually creating and running good adventures.


----------



## Greg K

AbdulAlhazred said:


> But in MY terms the questions that spring to mind here are:
> 
> 1) what is the point of establishing 'there are no assassins in this town' if you're just going to have assassins show up anyway! I mean, what did this 'detail' do for you? How did it matter? What you're basically saying is "I can plausibly just ignore the consequences of any detail so I can generate the plot I desire." which is exactly MY point, these details don't really mean much....



My point was that the NPC not being able to go get an assassin *at the time*, because there were no assassin's in town and the nearest assassins were days away was not a big deal to me, because assassins could be brought in later if it made sense keeping within the "world building that had been done prior. To some people having world building and maintaining verisimilitude within that structure is a bad thing. To those like myself, it is something desired. The world building defines the setting on a large scale and answers certain questions ahead of time (what is the geography? What is the planar cosmology? Whom are the deities and how active are they (if there are deities)? What is the nature of magic in the world? What are the various nations and cultures available to PCs and what are they like (what are their beliefs and values? What is their government like. What is their technology? what classes/class variants/ subclasses are available)? What are some of the major institutions found in each culture? Whom are some of the major NPCs? What is some local history? Are their any major monsters in the area or other information that a starting player from a specific region or city might have that other starting characters would not? 

Now, as for the specific instance with the wizards and assassins, I did not plan to have assassins hired. However,  back when the guild was created, it crossed my mind that the head of the guild and the rest of the leadership would be the type to keep tabs on their members and they used the guild rings to track movements and, at times spy on them. When the rogue removed a guild membership ring off the finger of a wizard guild member's corpse and pocketed it, I remembered about the spells on it and the rogue never sold the ring or had it identified. The player kept it in the pouch and forgot about until a year or more later while going through his list of items.



> 2) The whole thing with the Wizard's Guild would stink of hidden backstory in the sort of games I run. Why is the game all about how this guild is perpetually tracking the party, unless this is somehow central to the agenda being expressed in this specific game. If so, its great, but I would think there would then be more dramatically satisfying elements underpinning it than "oh, this fact I couldn't possibly know was responsible for it." (IE you would have it be a consequence of something a PC did as part of his 'thing' which defines his character, or a choice which grew out of that). If the whole guild thing does NOT involve anything the player's are interested in, then why are they being subjected to it in the first place? I mean, "oh gosh we stole this ring" is pretty thin gruel in my book.




See above. For a year or more, the players (and their characters) had been wondering how they had been tracked.  Then one day, the rogue pulled it out and put it on. The druid thought he saw an eye, momentarily, appear in the gem and inquired about it.  Upon the rogue telling how it came to be in his position, the druid cast identify on the ring(back in 3e, identify was one of the arcane spells that l had put on a variant druid spell list). The rogue got a stern lecture from the druid and then the party about giving rings and other items found to the druid- especially, if taken off dead wizards.

The players themselves loved how they had been tracked, how it made sense, and how the guild, probably, would have forgotten about them much earlier in the campaign if the rogue had not taken the ring). 

Would I have thought of a guild ring if I had not created the guild prior to play and had to improvise the guilds creation on the spot? Probably not. Most of that initial adventure was improvised, but the groundwork was laid out with information I had determined back when coming up with the various nations, their cultures (government, beliefs, value, etc.), major institutions, major npcs, local histories,
 etc.

Now, that all stated, while I like to engage in some world building to help define the world, it cultures, etc.,  I personally don't take it to the Tolkien level.  I want to answer basic questions about the world,  define how things work (e.g., cosmology, magic), and give players the available races, nations and  cultural information that grounds the characters into the setting (including what classes, class variants, and or subclasses are restricted to specific cultures).  This information is not all provided at once. Some is information is reserved until a player chooses a specific race, culture or even class. 
The same information also helps me to improvise when my players go in completely different directions or pursue a different goal mid adventure. It also helps when they present opportunity for side adventures (e.g., complaining about being unsuccessful in getting the druid laid in the previous city...just as they are near a fairy forest. This led to the druid being kidnapped by a fairy and the party trying to rescue him before he  either eats or drinks anything or becomes amorous with the fairy).


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> The fact that world builders point to works like The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings as examples of why we should world build just makes me dig in my heels more.  The Lord of the Rings would have been a short story if I wrote it.  I've tried to read it multiple times and every single time I skip entire pages because it's mind numbingly boring setting wank.



I have read LotR enought times (either in whole, or dipping in and out of bits of it) that I think I have to count as a major fan.

This doesn't stop me broadly agreeing with you about setting. As a player I want to have LotR-ish moments (eg the only PC I am currently playing in a game is a knight of a holy order who wants to redeem his family and recover their occupied homeland). But I don't want this to be something delivered by the GM. Likewise, if I'm playing Aragorn, I'll write my own backstory about being descended from Elros, wooing an Elven princess, etc - I'm not interested in slotting myself into some framework the GM has written up.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> First off, xp for that chart - that's amazing!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As said above, this is one hell of a chart!



Thanks. As I said, one of the players maintained it so that the players could keep track of what was going on (the black squares signal matters that have been resolved). It also helped _me_ keep track of what was going on!



Lanefan said:


> Assuming - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that the bazaar example is typical, my criticisms of it lie in how anything leading up to that point is essentially skipped over, not least of which is an opportunity for the party to meet and get to know each other. Also, framing it such that the PC or party have to explore the town a bit before finding the feather merchant gives you a chance to tell them - yes, tell them  - what the town's all about, so as to better inform their later decisions, approaches, and actions.



Leaving aside the issue of whether or not one prefers a world-buidling, GM-narration type approach, or a scene-framing, "go where the action is" type approach, I think it's clear that they are different approaches to establishing and using setting in play.


----------



## Maxperson

darkbard said:


> I can only speak for myself on this matter, but this may be why your posts sometimes come across to me as simply argumentation for argumentation's sake, no matter how twisted the logic to get there. This is why, at times, I have chosen to disengage with you: as I say somewhere upthread (or in the other worldbuilding thread), I don't feel this technique proceeds with intellectual honesty. You say you *infer* others are misrepresenting your words (as if you can, with 100% certainty, read their motives) and so you *deliberately* misrepresent back at them.
> 
> This doesn't make for fruitful discussion/analysis!




The first, second or even 5th time someone gets it wrong, it might be accidental or a misunderstanding, even with the explanations or corrections by people that actually play the style.  The 10th, 15th and 20th+ times it happens after having it explained/corrected can be nothing other than deliberate.    I have no doubts on motive at that point.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> The first, second or even 5th time someone gets it wrong, it might be accidental or a misunderstanding, even with the explanations or corrections by people that actually play the style.  The 10th, 15th and 20th+ times it happens after having it explained/corrected can be nothing other than deliberate.    I have no doubts on motive at that point.




Irony.  Delicious.  

Look, the basic problem with this conversation is that no one can actually agree on what world building actualy _is_.  Is every single element of setting world building?  For some in this thread, I think that they think so.  As soon as you add anything to the setting, that's world buildling.  Now, me, I disagree.  Setting building and world building are not the same thing.  Everyone has to do setting building.  It's impossible (or at least really, really difficult) to run a game with zero setting.  Godot:  The Waiting is not really a good RPG.  Or, I dunno, at least one I don't want to play.

However, world building, to me, goes beyond setting building.  It's the stuff that come after what you actually need to run the game.  Which means, for many home-brewers, they probably don't do it all that much.  Not that many of us really has the time or energy to detail out a setting to the degree of, say, Forgotten Realms.  For most DM's, again, and this is just my opinion, not a statement of fact, we write our campaigns, play our campaigns and a lot of the extra stuff is either yoinked from some book or movie or something and that's about that.  

Take a map of the game world.  Is that world building?  Personally, I don't really think so.  You need a map for play most of the time.  You need something to show the players in order to frame the campaign and a setting map is a great way to do that.  Now, if your game only ever takes place within the confines of a single location (be that a city or something like Isle of Dread or a World's Largest Dungeon), then, well, the rest of thw world can go hang.  It's not going to be used.  

To me, that's the dividing line.  And it primarily applies to published works, much more than what people do in their home games.  Endless pages of elven tea ceremonies with virtually nothing of practical value.  

Heck, I'm running Primeval Thule right now.  It's a published setting, so, there's a fair bit of world building in there.  The guide details in pretty broad terms, several nation states and city states.  Funny thing is, in the Kickstarter that  I backed, the setting came with five or six modules.

Now, I've used all of the modules (or nearly all, I think there's one or two in the main book I haven't used) and the world building stuff?  Yeah, that's been largely left on the cutting room floor. Not important and not needed.  The players couldn't even be bothered reading it and even when I do try to bring it into the game, they largely forget it immediately because it's just not that important.  

The truly funny thing is, Primeval Thule, on the PT map, labels dozens of dungeons.  Lots and lots of them.  Some of them, about half, get a one paragraph write up in the setting guide.  I would have gotten much more value from this setting if they had reversed things.  A paragraph detailing different nation states and pages of material detailing those dungeons.  

Worldbuilding is where practicality ends and self-indulgence begins.


----------



## happyhermit

It sounds very much to me like people who don't like "Worldbuilding" are just defining it as "You know, that stuff I don't like"  "That stuff over there that looks very much like worldbuilding? Nah, that's just... building the world... yeah that's it. That stuffs fine."


----------



## Hussar

happyhermit said:


> It sounds very much to me like people who don't like "Worldbuilding" are just defining it as "You know, that stuff I don't like"  "That stuff over there that looks very much like worldbuilding? Nah, that's just... building the world... yeah that's it. That stuffs fine."




And that's a fair criticism.  World building, is, in my mind, bad, because I take all the elements of setting building that I don't like and don't think are needed and label that "world building".

OTOH, the reverse is true.  If we simply say that anything to do with building a setting is world building, then, of course world building is a good thing.  It's all in how people draw the distinctions.  I tend to not buy into the idea that setting building and world building are the same.  Every game needs a setting.  Not every game needs world building.


----------



## Riley37

Hussar said:


> Godot:  The Waiting is not really a good RPG.  Or, I dunno, at least one I don't want to play.




Five characters appear on stage, therefore there are five archetypes, perfect for a World of Darkness game.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> And that's a fair criticism.  World building, is, in my mind, bad, because I take all the elements of setting building that I don't like and don't think are needed and label that "world building".
> 
> OTOH, the reverse is true.  If we simply say that anything to do with building a setting is world building, then, of course world building is a good thing.  It's all in how people draw the distinctions.  I tend to not buy into the idea that setting building and world building are the same.  Every game needs a setting.  Not every game needs world building.



I think that puts your definition of world building somewhat at odds with (most of?) the rest of us.

To me, there's two elements:

Adventure design - this includes - obviously - designing the adventures themselves (or tweaking a canned module to suit one's own game/campaign/rule-set), and also placing them somewhere.
World building - this includes designing everything between and beyond* the adventury bits, along with providing locales and surroundings in which the adventures can be put.

* - this part can be done to overkill; you seem to want to just call the overkill bits world building and the rest something else, where to me it's all part of the same process.

Where the larger disagreement is coming from in here is that some seem not to like any pre-done world building or setting design, never mind the overkill bits.

Lanefan


----------



## hawkeyefan

My view of it is that anything done to establish the game world that the characters inhabit is worldbuilding. So yes, for me it is an essential part of every single RPG. It cannot be avoided, and is certainly not bad.

I don’t think that the world in worldbuilding means the planet the characters live on. It can encompass that, but such details may never come up. So if a game takes place entirely in a magical labyrinth of some kind, hidden below the surface, then that IS the world the characters inhabit. The game world can be as small as one room or as large as the multiverse. 

In traditional play, labeled “worldbuilding” in this thread, the world is likely largely established or decided by the GM ahead of time. 

In Story Now games (the ones I’m familiar with, anyway) the world is implied by the setting, and then the details are established by the GM and players together in the first session. 

No Myth is a take where no world details are considered canon until introduced in play. The GM and players build the world as they play.

Now, what is actually needed in order to establish whatever world the characters are going to inhabit is what’s debatable. It will vary by the needs of the game and the scope of the world, but how much is actually needed? Totally a matter of preference.

All that’s *needed* is what is required for the adventure at hand. So in that sense, I can see the criticism of establishing the lineage of the local ruler and the major exports out of the area and so on. Most likely, such details are superfluous. And if they did somehow cone up in play, the GM can establish it at that time.

But at the same time, if the GM has decided all these details ahead of time, I don’t really see how it negatively impacts the players. They interact with the details that are relevant and ignore or never even become aware of the rest.

In a more open sandbox approach, it likely helps for the GM to have a good deal of high level details sketched out so that whichever way play goes, he has something to lean on. Again, we don’t need a Silmarillion’s worth of details, but things like the surrounding areas, possible points of interest, potential dangers, and the like are a good idea to have in mind.

I really don’t see how having these high level, likely relevant world details at the ready is a negative. Leaning on them seems no different to me than leaning on genre expectations or player introduced material, for the most part. This is one of the advantages of usibg a published game world; a lot of these details are already established. The work is already done...and yet the GM can still change things to suit the needs of his specific game.

If the GM decides that his details are what really matters and he forces the game in a direction so that they continue to come up....I think this is a GM issue more than a worldbuilding one. 

So while I do think many GMs of traditional style games can probably ease off on detailing their world, and depending on their players and the expectations for the game, can likely start involving the players in the worldbuilding in order to connect their characters more firmly to the game world, I don’t think that worldbuilding is really a problem at all. Generally, it’s a good thing...a necessity for the game. You could even argue it is the very point of the game. But just like with anything good, it can be overdone or it can be limited to one person, which may impact the game negatively.

I personally do a bit of everything. I lean on my players’ ideas, published material, genre, and also my own ideas. It seems to work for my players and me.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> My view of it is that anything done to establish the game world that the characters inhabit is worldbuilding. So yes, for me it is an essential part of every single RPG. It cannot be avoided, and is certainly not bad.
> 
> I don’t think that the world in worldbuilding means the planet the characters live on. It can encompass that, but such details may never come up. So if a game takes place entirely in a magical labyrinth of some kind, hidden below the surface, then that IS the world the characters inhabit. The game world can be as small as one room or as large as the multiverse.




Based on posts here, I think a lot of people against worldbuilding don't understand this.  It's not required that the entire world be built in order for worldbuilding to occur.

Personally, even if the campaign is going to take place within a city and it's environs, I like to have more information out there.  First, because like you noted later in the post, but which I cut out, in a sandbox type of game, it helps to have things prepared if the party goes in a direction anyway or information comes up from outside of the city area.

In a game that I once ran, the players had come up with a campaign idea for me that involved them staying in a city and it's outlying areas.  One of the people they ran into and spoke with mentioned that he had moved there from another city that we will call Oakdale since I can't remember the actual name.  Later in the campaign they wanted something that they knew wasn't to be found in their city, as they had thoroughly explored it by then.  They came to me one game and apologized and said, "We know we said we didn't want to leave this city during the campaign, but we really want to see if Oakdale his this thing we want."  I of course said that it was no problem and if I hadn't had Oakdale at least somewhat detailed out, would have been at a loss.  

It also helps me to know allies and enemies to the city, trading partners and routes, and other things that the players may or may not encounter, so that not only do I have answers for player questions, but can plan adventures and day to day goings on with the city they are self-confined in.  In the case above, I didn't need to create the ENTIRE world, but I did need to know about the countries and cities that surrounded their city to a reasonable distance for the reasons above.  When they left to head to Oakdale, I worked on stuff beyond Oakdale in case they decided to go further for whatever reason.  They didn't.  The rest of the campaign was handled in their own city with a few more trips to Oakdale.


----------



## happyhermit

Hussar said:


> And that's a fair criticism.  World building, is, in my mind, bad, because I take all the elements of setting building that I don't like and don't think are needed and label that "world building".
> 
> OTOH, the reverse is true.  If we simply say that anything to do with building a setting is world building, then, of course world building is a good thing.  It's all in how people draw the distinctions.  I tend to not buy into the idea that setting building and world building are the same.  Every game needs a setting.  Not every game needs world building.




Say I don't like broccoli, and I don't like being forcefed, and I think twinkies are unhealthy (bad), and I don't like how food can make me fat. That doesn't mean food is bad, or even that I don't like food. It makes a lot more sense to me to talk about the actual things I don't like rather than trying to redefine "food" as the stuff I don't like about food.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hussar said:


> Not really.  I've played in lots of them over the past thirty years or so.  I've obviously had fun.
> 
> Thing is, the "feel you've fully explored the setting" is not something I've ever been interested in.  Don't care.  Nor, IME, do players care in the slightest either.




I think there are players who DO have fun with that, but at the same time I'm not sure that its sheer exploration of pre-generated world details that makes things interesting. Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with 'finding out stuff', but its only an element of 'doing stuff'. The last character I ran for any substantial length of time was one who's ambition was to build his own kingdom. So he found a ruined castle in an area that he thought might be strategic but which was currently outside any established claims. This obviously required some exploration, some evicting of existing tenants, further evicting of each new DM generated nasty badguy who, for some reason, kept re-occupying the place, and in between bouts of that exploring more areas to establish some trade routes which he hoped would be more direct than existing ones, etc. 

Honestly, I started to feel at the end of this campaign (it broke up due to some people losing interest etc) that we were just treading water against an endless stream of GM directed attempts to thwart whatever I was trying to accomplish. Like "no, putting a new kingdom there doesn't comport with my mental image of what the map should look like" or something. Instead of moving on from "established one outpost" to expansion, building up trade, increasing the population, political and social issues, etc. it just bogged on an endless series of big bads that undid everything I accomplished in scene 1 and made me repeat it in scene 2 (except with nastier monsters). 

Anyway, EXPLORATION itself was not THAT interesting. It was fun at times in the sense of finding a way to implement a plan. Now, this was a very trad campaign with a map that got drawn up WAY back 20+ years ago and reused again and again. Imagine what would happen with this concept in No Myth Story Now! The possibilities for building a kingdom would be endless, not the marginal plan I was forced to accept as being the only available spot on the map. Exploration would then be an exercise of discovery and authorship of new elements in support of the Kingdom idea. Some would no doubt make it harder, I'm not talking about it being a cakewalk, but the harder could then be in forms that were most interesting, reflected the agendas of the OTHER players (because that was a big area as well, we had to spend 75% of our time on the other 3 players stuff, though it sometimes DID overlap). Plus, some of the adventures seemed more like "the GM dreamed something up and felt like running it" than something that really engaged our specific interests directly. 

I will say that it was all reasonably fun and I'm not complaining. OTOH it was not like it was a vastly awesome campaign. It felt a lot like 'fantasy world mundanity'. There were some cool moments, but I wasn't blown away. All the lore and whatnot of the setting didn't particularly seem to be adding anything incredible to it. Mostly I tried to ignore it. I wanted to get on with my agenda!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Maxperson said:


> Clearly players do care, and quite a bit, or it wouldn't keep being brought up here in these threads.  YOU may not care, and the players YOU play with may not care, but other players very obviously do care about exploring the setting.




Again though, do they care about the setting for the sake of the setting, or do they care about what is brought to the table in terms of what their characters are going to experience and what choices they have? 

Now, I can sort of imagine some player somewhere who's great joy in life is imagining his character wandering through dusty libraries unearthing obscure facts and endlessly applying them to some scheme or other, or to produce the solution to some profound issue. It isn't impossible, and that MIGHT (I say MIGHT because it isn't really established) benefit from some sort of very elaborate structure of lore. Still, I haven't run into that player yet, in 40+ years. I've been in campaigns where there was a scene, perhaps a critical one, where some revelation of some 'lore' produced the logic/lampshade for XYZ to happen. I think you could say that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s scene in the Raven Queen's Mausoleum falls into that category. Notably this happened in a 'Low Myth' environment!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Ovinomancer said:


> Dude, I just said I loved clocks and you've spent quite a lot of effort trying to make sure everyone knows that skill challenges are just as good.  Okay?  You win?  SCs are just as good?




I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. I was really just digging into the concept a little to see how it 'ticks'. I think its interesting. I mean there isn't much other reason, for me at least, to post except to think about game design and GMing ideas and concepts mostly. I was happy that you responded to my initial comment and it was cool!  

Thanks.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Kaodi said:


> ?? The only problems were that our group only lasted to about level 7 I think before disbanding and that even if it had gone on I would have had to survive for another 13 levels to get to the point where I would be in a position to do it. You fight Kyuss at the end of Age of Worms I think?




I don't know, I never read it or played it. Guess I'm weird that way, I've skipped MOST of the pre-authored stuff in D&D. Never played in FR, DL, etc. Played a character in, and ran, a few WoG things, and an OA that COULD possibly be Kara-Tur, but maybe isn't. Ran some of the early classic modules, that's about it.

Anyway, sure, and this is sort of getting to my point, that 'AP type' games (what I called Wizard of Oz Gaming) structures things in a way that is designed to run you through all the material, not to focus on the stuff that you WANT to do. Now, maybe the game you were in really just couldn't have developed enough to get to where you wanted in the time allotted and maybe the pacing was conducive to what OTHER players wanted as well, I can't say. 

Story Now games do tend to be less roundabout and often less dragged out in terms of getting to the 'meat' of the thing. In other words, its less about 'surviving to 20th level' and more about 'how do we fight Kyuss?', which might REQUIRE getting to level 20, but maybe not if the GM is a little more flexible (IE maybe 12th level is enough). 

Now, one objecting to 'maybe 12th level is enough' would be "but lots of major NPC figures would then be capable of doing it", but TO ME that's an argument against world building! 

I would also observe that classic D&D is geared towards creating a very hard road to the top levels. One that requires a long time and a lot of getting ganked and going back to square one (at least in the most classic default mode of 1e or even 2e). It isn't really a very good fit for Story Now in that sense. This is one reason that my own personal game rules don't work in the classic D&D advancement anymore. Advancement is more tied to the fiction, so when "epic concerns" become the focus of the game, the characters evince "epic traits" to match them!


----------



## Maxperson

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Again though, do they care about the setting for the sake of the setting, or do they care about what is brought to the table in terms of what their characters are going to experience and what choices they have?




It's both.  As a player I like to change the areas of the world I am adventuring in so that I can experience new things that the setting has to offer, also known as exploring the setting.  The experiences and choices color and are colored by what is going on around me.  My players seem to also enjoy that sort of thing since they go out of their way to do just what I do.

The story will unfold differently in the Magocracy of Thay than it would in the free city of Waterdeep, even if the PCs are seeking and doing essentially the same things in both locations.  Exploration of the setting is an important part of the game we play.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Greg K said:


> My point was that the NPC not being able to go get an assassin *at the time*, because there were no assassin's in town and the nearest assassins were days away was not a big deal to me, because assassins could be brought in later if it made sense keeping within the "world building that had been done prior. To some people having world building and maintaining verisimilitude within that structure is a bad thing. To those like myself, it is something desired. The world building defines the setting on a large scale and answers certain questions ahead of time (what is the geography? What is the planar cosmology? Whom are the deities and how active are they (if there are deities)? What is the nature of magic in the world? What are the various nations and cultures available to PCs and what are they like (what are their beliefs and values? What is their government like. What is their technology? what classes/class variants/ subclasses are available)? What are some of the major institutions found in each culture? Whom are some of the major NPCs? What is some local history? Are their any major monsters in the area or other information that a starting player from a specific region or city might have that other starting characters would not?
> 
> Now, as for the specific instance with the wizards and assassins, I did not plan to have assassins hired. However,  back when the guild was created, it crossed my mind that the head of the guild and the rest of the leadership would be the type to keep tabs on their members and they used the guild rings to track movements and, at times spy on them. When the rogue removed a guild membership ring off the finger of a wizard guild member's corpse and pocketed it, I remembered about the spells on it and the rogue never sold the ring or had it identified. The player kept it in the pouch and forgot about until a year or more later while going through his list of items.
> 
> See above. For a year or more, the players (and their characters) had been wondering how they had been tracked.  Then one day, the rogue pulled it out and put it on. The druid thought he saw an eye, momentarily, appear in the gem and inquired about it.  Upon the rogue telling how it came to be in his position, the druid cast identify on the ring(back in 3e, identify was one of the arcane spells that l had put on a variant druid spell list). The rogue got a stern lecture from the druid and then the party about giving rings and other items found to the druid- especially, if taken off dead wizards.
> 
> The players themselves loved how they had been tracked, how it made sense, and how the guild, probably, would have forgotten about them much earlier in the campaign if the rogue had not taken the ring).
> 
> Would I have thought of a guild ring if I had not created the guild prior to play and had to improvise the guilds creation on the spot? Probably not. Most of that initial adventure was improvised, but the groundwork was laid out with information I had determined back when coming up with the various nations, their cultures (government, beliefs, value, etc.), major institutions, major npcs, local histories,
> etc.
> 
> Now, that all stated, while I like to engage in some world building to help define the world, it cultures, etc.,  I personally don't take it to the Tolkien level.  I want to answer basic questions about the world,  define how things work (e.g., cosmology, magic), and give players the available races, nations and  cultural information that grounds the characters into the setting (including what classes, class variants, and or subclasses are restricted to specific cultures).  This information is not all provided at once. Some is information is reserved until a player chooses a specific race, culture or even class.
> The same information also helps me to improvise when my players go in completely different directions or pursue a different goal mid adventure. It also helps when they present opportunity for side adventures (e.g., complaining about being unsuccessful in getting the druid laid in the previous city...just as they are near a fairy forest  led to the druid being kidnapped by a fairy and the party trying to rescue him before he  either eats or drinks anything or becomes amorous with the fairy).




Yeah, it just illustrates differences of taste, technique, and opinion. I appreciate the explanation. I would just find the whole 'ring thing' to a sort of 'gotcha!' play. I mean, how many different little items and whatnot to PCs pick up? Do we literally now have to analyze them all and decide what their threat level is, etc? I mean, if I was a CLEVER wizard's guild, why would I put these charms on an OBVIOUS item like a ring? Surely I'd put them on some slip of paper that was glued into the spine of someone's spell book or something? Sewn inside the hem of a valuable robe? If I was a player in this game and thinking in those terms things would seem to quickly degenerate! 

Likewise we will see the whole assassin's guild thing differently, as you indicate. I would think that there's little advantage to pre-establishing these facts. When the possibility came up, then I'd assume either this was feasible, and would happen in some dramatically interesting fashion, or it just wasn't interesting and thus its feasibility would be irrelevant.

I think the one thing I might disagree with is the idea that 'verisimilitude is a bad thing'. I don't think there's anyone who would outright claim that. I think verisimilitude has to do with genre adherence and narrative coherence, not with the existence of details that have been imagined at some point previous to play. Why is that previous time somehow potent with verisimilitude but the point at which play happens is not?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Maxperson said:


> It's both.  As a player I like to change the areas of the world I am adventuring in so that I can experience new things that the setting has to offer, also known as exploring the setting.  The experiences and choices color and are colored by what is going on around me.  My players seem to also enjoy that sort of thing since they go out of their way to do just what I do.
> 
> The story will unfold differently in the Magocracy of Thay than it would in the free city of Waterdeep, even if the PCs are seeking and doing essentially the same things in both locations.  Exploration of the setting is an important part of the game we play.




But this is only true *because differences have been established.* If you play in terms of thematic choices and a dramatic narrative then changes of venue within the setting may indeed happen, but it will be a matter of a NEED based on story logic, dramatic need, and not "because element X doesn't show up in map location Y." You might go to 'Thay' to consult high level wizards, but that is probably because the GM decided to frame the wizards in Thay so that some sort of challenge could arise in terms of getting to them or interacting with them which would not seem consistent with being in 'Waterdeep' (and that would only be due to some elements that have already been established in play). In other words *fictional positioning* has meaning, but world detail for its own sake doesn't. Its easy to see the simple logic to this as well, since world detail is essentially arbitrary it can only be 'empty of meaning' in any essential sense until it is tied to an agenda.


----------



## Hussar

happyhermit said:


> Say I don't like broccoli, and I don't like being forcefed, and I think twinkies are unhealthy (bad), and I don't like how food can make me fat. That doesn't mean food is bad, or even that I don't like food. It makes a lot more sense to me to talk about the actual things I don't like rather than trying to redefine "food" as the stuff I don't like about food.




Fair enough.  Because, well, food is the word we use for that stuff we (generally) put in our mouths and eat.  It's a perfectly good word.

But, we also have a perfectly good word - setting building.  Every story needs a setting.  It's one corner of the three things you need (the other two being character and plot).  So, it's pretty much impossible to have a game without a setting.

So, is setting and world building the same?  Why do we need two terms for it then?  To me, setting building is perfectly fine.  That's needed.  You can't not do it.  World building on the other hand, is largely self-indulgent and mostly pointless.  However, I do recognize that there are all sorts of fantasy fans out there who just eat this stuff up with a spoon.  Look at George R. R. Martin.  Or Tolkien.  People do love this stuff.

It baffles me to be honest and bores me to tears, but, there it is.  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] talks about the need to detail out a city that the players were never supposed to go to being a good thing because the players decided to go there.  Of course, the only reason they decided to go there is because [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] decided that the thing that they wanted simply wasn't available in the city they were in.  Developing an entirely new city seems like an awful lot of work so the players can go buy a trinket.  Wouldn't it be far simpler to have whatever they were looking for available in the city they were in and then build the adventure around that?  Did it absolutely have to be in a completely new city?  

Likely not.  But, that urge to world build is strong and it's easy to justify.  Oh, I needed a whole new city in my setting... because reasons.  

To me, the pay off is never worth it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

I’ve never heard anyone use the term “setting building”.


----------



## Ovinomancer

hawkeyefan said:


> I’ve never heard anyone use the term “setting building”.



And, on hearing it, I equate out to worldbuilding.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Is every single element of setting world building?  For some in this thread, I think that they think so.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It's impossible (or at least really, really difficult) to run a game with zero setting.





Hussar said:


> I tend to not buy into the idea that setting building and world building are the same.  Every game needs a setting.  Not every game needs world building.





hawkeyefan said:


> My view of it is that anything done to establish the game world that the characters inhabit is worldbuilding. So yes, for me it is an essential part of every single RPG. It cannot be avoided, and is certainly not bad.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In traditional play, labeled “worldbuilding” in this thread, the world is likely largely established or decided by the GM ahead of time.



I agree that every game needs a setting.

I don't think that every game needs the GM to establish elements of setting in advance, _independent of the players_ and often, even typically, _unrevealed to the players_. Those are features of what is typically/traditionally called "worldbuilding" in RPGing.



Hussar said:


> Take a map of the game world.  Is that world building?  Personally, I don't really think so.  You need a map for play most of the time.  You need something to show the players in order to frame the campaign and a setting map is a great way to do that.  Now, if your game only ever takes place within the confines of a single location (be that a city or something like Isle of Dread or a World's Largest Dungeon), then, well, the rest of the world can go hang.





hawkeyefan said:


> In Story Now games (the ones I’m familiar with, anyway) the world is implied by the setting, and then the details are established by the GM and players together in the first session.
> 
> No Myth is a take where no world details are considered canon until introduced in play. The GM and players build the world as they play.
> 
> Now, what is actually needed in order to establish whatever world the characters are going to inhabit is what’s debatable. It will vary by the needs of the game and the scope of the world, but how much is actually needed? Totally a matter of preference.
> 
> All that’s *needed* is what is required for the adventure at hand.



A world map isn't essential. I'm running multiple campaigns at the moment that don't have a world map. One has no maps at all. The other, after half-a-dozen setting, had enough worlds visited/mentioned that it was useful to draw up a star map.

When I have maps I show them to the players. They establish a shared sense of setting. They aren't a "puzzle" to be solved.

In the context of this thread, there is no difference between "no myth" and "story now". In this approach to play there is no "_the_ adventure at hand", and hence there is no world building needed to do set up such a thing. Some systems rely on the GM perparing framing in advance (eg DitV) - which is then shared with the players to set things in motion. The minimum that is required to make a game go, however, is PCs with hooks.


----------



## hawkeyefan

What goes on the pc hooks?


----------



## Doug McCrae

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Now, I can sort of imagine some player somewhere who's great joy in life is imagining his character wandering through dusty libraries unearthing obscure facts and endlessly applying them to some scheme or other, or to produce the solution to some profound issue. It isn't impossible, and that MIGHT (I say MIGHT because it isn't really established) benefit from some sort of very elaborate structure of lore. Still, I haven't run into that player yet, in 40+ years.



Did you see my posts in the other worldbuilding thread about the Dream Game campaign? That was a game where the main drive (I think for all the players, certainly myself and Mark) was finding out what was really going on, or at least learning more. In one of the group discussions near the end of the campaign another of the players, Jamie, talks about how far we still have to go in terms of discovery (and it also gives a good overview of the campaign): 

We've got to face up to the fact that we're still floundering in a major way. We just don't have a clue what 'their' objectives are, how they are pursuing those objectives. We don't even know who exactly most of 'them' are. We used to help patients with dream related problems. We used to intrude, find the malignant External, find its Achilles heel and defeat it. Then we'd see a subsequent improvement in the patient's health. The nightmares went away and the patient seemed to find a peace of mind. But with the Fallen it's different. We haven't clearly identified the problems being suffered, never mind the entities causing these problems. And as for why they are doing so or what their Achilles heel might be, we haven't a clue.​
It was a game that featured an unusually wide range of elements - the real mundane world of Glasgow in the mid 90s, 'real' occult and paranormal inspired happenings, dream weirdness, superhero-esque action scenes in dreams with lots of bizarre powers flying about, horror scenes (usually in dreams), and group discussions about What's Really Going On. The players would even write essays about What's Really Going On and these are included in the campaign logs. 

I don't think this was because we were all lore-seeking players, I think it's because of the sort of game it was and that produced certain behaviour on our part. The GM did ridiculously huge amounts of research and prep for it, which led to all the players taking it very seriously. It was a game that felt real, and also one where there were major obstacles to the unveiling of occult knowledge: the strange, unknowable nature of dreams; the fact that the spirit world (if it existed at all) was beyond our perception; the extreme secrecy of both our antagonists and the 'good guy' organisation we encountered.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> But, we also have a perfectly good word - setting building.  Every story needs a setting.  It's one corner of the three things you need (the other two being character and plot).  So, it's pretty much impossible to have a game without a setting.




Setting building isn't used and we don't need another term for what we already have.  World building.



> So, is setting and world building the same?  Why do we need two terms for it then?



We don't, so there's no need to invent setting building.



> It baffles me to be honest and bores me to tears, but, there it is.  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] talks about the need to detail out a city that the players were never supposed to go to being a good thing because the players decided to go there.   Of course, the only reason they decided to go there is because [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] decided that the thing that they wanted simply wasn't available in the city they were in.




You really shouldn't assume things.  As past history between us demonstrates, you're really bad at it.  I made no such decision.



> Wouldn't it be far simpler to have whatever they were looking for available in the city they were in and then build the adventure around that?  Did it absolutely have to be in a completely new city?




So your argument is that everything in the entire world should be available at any city the PCs are in just in case they go look for it?


----------



## Maxperson

AbdulAlhazred said:


> But this is only true *because differences have been established.* If you play in terms of thematic choices and a dramatic narrative then changes of venue within the setting may indeed happen, but it will be a matter of a NEED based on story logic, dramatic need, and not "because element X doesn't show up in map location Y." You might go to 'Thay' to consult high level wizards, but that is probably because the GM decided to frame the wizards in Thay so that some sort of challenge could arise in terms of getting to them or interacting with them which would not seem consistent with being in 'Waterdeep' (and that would only be due to some elements that have already been established in play). In other words *fictional positioning* has meaning, but world detail for its own sake doesn't. Its easy to see the simple logic to this as well, since world detail is essentially arbitrary it can only be 'empty of meaning' in any essential sense until it is tied to an agenda.




We're discussing why some people like exploration.  This wasn't a comparison between the two playstyles.


----------



## Campbell

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]

The words we use matter. They shape the ways we think about things and the sort of techniques we use. By insisting that we use the orthodox framing of world building and referring to a game world rather than a setting or a shared fiction in order to participate in this discussion you are insisting that we take a number of assumptions for granted that I for one do not wish to take for granted. Mainly it suggests a permanence and independent existence of the setting and implies that it has intrinsic value outside of the context of the game. If it has an outside existence beyond this shared activity then it must exist somewhere - inside the head of the GM. So then he or she must own it - not a shared thing at all.

It also removes meaningful distinctions between setting design, scenario design, and adventure design. In games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark I view it as the GM's duty to mostly focus on scenario design - creating a compelling situation that prompts players to make decisions for their characters and address it on their own terms. I contrast this with adventure design which is mostly focused on solving or beating the adventure laid out before them.

There's a reason why I prefer to refer to a shared fiction over a game world. A shared fiction implies a play space that we give form to as we play in it and define as we need it. It has no independent existence. It only exists in the moments we are together. It serves play. Not the other way around. We follow it and play in it because it has value here and now.

Here's the important bit though: I would never expect you to adopt my terminology just to engage with me. You can talk in terms of world building and game worlds. I will not. What matters is that we both understand what the other means.


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]
> 
> The words we use matter. They shape the ways we think about things and the sort of techniques we use. By insisting that we use the orthodox framing of world building and referring to a game world rather than a setting or a shared fiction in order to participate in this discussion you are insisting that we take a number of assumptions for granted that I for one do not wish to take for granted. Mainly it suggests a permanence and independent existence of the setting and implies that it has intrinsic value outside of the context of the game.




That isn't what I said, though.  I said there was no term "setting building",  not that world building and setting were the same.  World building is the act.  Setting is the result.  This applies whether you are world building as you go along, or if you prepare it in advance.  



> If it has an outside existence beyond this shared activity then it must exist somewhere - inside the head of the GM. So then he or she must own it - not a shared thing at all.



I don't agree with this.  First, a shared setting can exist in the minds of multiple people outside of the duration of the sharing(game play).  Second, I can share something I own, so even if the DM did own it, which I don't agree with, setting can still be a shared thing.



> It also removes meaningful distinctions between setting design, scenario design, and adventure design. In games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark I view it as the GM's duty to mostly focus on scenario design - creating a compelling situation that prompts players to make decisions for their characters and address it on their own terms. I contrast this with adventure design which is mostly focused on solving or beating the adventure laid out before them.




I don't agree that it removes those distinctions.  When designing a building, the architect still has to design floors, and arches, and more.  Those sub-categories building design still have meaning.  The same with scenario design and adventure design.  I leave out setting design, because that's the actual world building, with setting being the result.



> There's a reason why I prefer to refer to a shared fiction over a game world. A shared fiction implies a play space that we give form to as we play in it and define as we need it. It has no independent existence. It only exists in the moments we are together. It serves play. Not the other way around. We follow it and play in it because it has value here and now.




It has the same independent existence that world design has.  It independently exists in the minds of all who share it.  Every person can recall at any time what happened and go over things in their heads, not just during game play.  I don't need to call a Banana Split shared ice cream in order to understand that it is a shared desert.



> Here's the important bit though: I would never expect you to adopt my terminology just to engage with me. You can talk in terms of world building and game worlds. I will not. What matters is that we both understand what the other means.



I have conversations with people who use shared fiction all the time.  I understand that it means the same thing as my terminology does.   You call it shared fiction.  I call it a game world.  It's the exact same thing.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Campbell said:


> [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]
> 
> The words we use matter. They shape the ways we think about things and the sort of techniques we use. By insisting that we use the orthodox framing of world building and referring to a game world rather than a setting or a shared fiction in order to participate in this discussion you are insisting that we take a number of assumptions for granted that I for one do not wish to take for granted. Mainly it suggests a permanence and independent existence of the setting and implies that it has intrinsic value outside of the context of the game. If it has an outside existence beyond this shared activity then it must exist somewhere - inside the head of the GM. So then he or she must own it - not a shared thing at all.
> 
> It also removes meaningful distinctions between setting design, scenario design, and adventure design. In games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark I view it as the GM's duty to mostly focus on scenario design - creating a compelling situation that prompts players to make decisions for their characters and address it on their own terms. I contrast this with adventure design which is mostly focused on solving or beating the adventure laid out before them.
> 
> There's a reason why I prefer to refer to a shared fiction over a game world. A shared fiction implies a play space that we give form to as we play in it and define as we need it. It has no independent existence. It only exists in the moments we are together. It serves play. Not the other way around. We follow it and play in it because it has value here and now.
> 
> Here's the important bit though: I would never expect you to adopt my terminology just to engage with me. You can talk in terms of world building and game worlds. I will not. What matters is that we both understand what the other means.




While I agree with all of your other points, I cannot agree with you about terminology.  If someone wishes to talk about a topic with more specificity than the general term had, then it's on them to highlight the specificity, not redefine the term to be specific to only their meaning.  That way llies the exact problem in this thread where most people actually agree but are arguing and argung because of all the different and idiosyncratic definitions of the general term.

If you want to disect out different kinds of prep, that's laudable and interesting.  If we can't have a discussion about it because you've chosen to do so by redefining terms to mean different things, then those laudable and interesting things are going to go misunderstood.  That's not good.

The bit where you called out a difference between detailing the setting, designing scenarios, and designing adventures (especially the distinction between scenario and adventure) was outstanding!  Saying you should be able tobredefine worldbuilding to mean what that wonderful block of distinctions meant completely defeats it, though.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> What goes on the pc hooks?



Well, this depends on system, and to a degree that I don't think there's a simple setting-neutral answers.

The version I used for my 4e game (influenced pretty strongly by Burning Wheel) has the PCs establish relationships, goals, loyatlies or similar. The players make them up. Hence, not being GM-authored, they don't fall within what I think is, far and away, the typical thing described as "worldbuilding" in the context of RPGing.

In Cortex+ Heroic (both MHRP and the fantasy hack), the hooks are much more about the character's own development (eg one of the PCs in my vikings game has, as the 10XP "cap" on one of his milestones, something like "When you either take on a group of disciples, or alternatively renounce asceitism and reembrace the ordinary world"). These put a much lighter constraint on setting  - which reflects the game's origins as a superhero game, where the heroes have to be able to realise their "arcs" regardless of the madcap situation they find themselves in at the hands of this month's writers.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Doug McCrae said:


> Did you see my posts in the other worldbuilding thread about the Dream Game campaign? That was a game where the main drive (I think for all the players, certainly myself and Mark) was finding out what was really going on, or at least learning more. In one of the group discussions near the end of the campaign another of the players, Jamie, talks about how far we still have to go in terms of discovery (and it also gives a good overview of the campaign):
> We've got to face up to the fact that we're still floundering in a major way. We just don't have a clue what 'their' objectives are, how they are pursuing those objectives. We don't even know who exactly most of 'them' are. We used to help patients with dream related problems. We used to intrude, find the malignant External, find its Achiles heel and defeat it. Then we'd see a subsequent improvement in the patient's health. The nightmares went away and the patient seemed to find a peace of mind. But with the Fallen it's different. We haven't clearly identified the problems being suffered, never mind the entities causing these problems. And as for why they are doing so or what their Achilles heel might be, we haven't a clue.​
> It was a game that featured an unusually wide range of elements - the real mundane world of Glasgow in the mid 90s, 'real' occult and paranormal inspired happenings, dream weirdness, superhero-esque action scenes in dreams with lots of bizarre powers flying about, horror scenes (usually in dreams), and group discussions about What's Really Going On. The players would even write essays about What's Really Going On and these are included in the campaign logs.
> 
> I don't think this was because we were all lore-seeking players, I think it's because of the sort of game it was and that produced certain behaviour on our part. The GM did ridiculously huge amounts of research and prep for it, which led to all the players taking it very seriously. It was a game that felt real, and also one where there were major obstacles to the unveiling of occult knowledge: the strange, unknowable nature of dreams; the fact that the spirit world (if it existed at all) was beyond our perception; the extreme secrecy of both our antagonists and the 'good guy' organisation we encountered.




Right, and I think the sheer unusualness of this campaign, as in there may not be another analogous to it which has ever existed (though again I would obviously not assume that is perfectly true) is my point. In 42 years of RPGing I have yet to encounter those who play in this way. Now, I HAVE encountered some VERY elaborate campaigns. I played in several that a particular GM created which featured upwards of 100's of distinct NPCs, vast mysteries which were never fully resolved, etc. Even in THAT game though most of those elements were, in some sense, 'color'. We all knew there was a big mystery at the heart of the campaign. Some characters knew more than others about it, but generally you went on 'doing your thing' and it only factored heavily in the immediate action 2-3 times in 20 years of play. I would still call that campaign (or super-campaign, it wasn't continuous) the closest to what you describe.

I would say that what the GM in the 'Dream Game' was focused on was a very specific genre and milieu. I mean, it doesn't seem as though it was necessarily detail in terms of specific events, but more in terms of a great depth of knowledge of the sort of 'modern paranormal mystery' genre. Including in this were probably things like modern theories of magic and occult terminology and theories, various conspiracy theory lore, etc. I'm sure a great deal of research can be done on these things! I'm sure it was used effectively to create a feeling of near-believability. I'd also note how specialized the game's procedures are, playing yourself as a PC (which must logically then include provisions to avoid PC death, I mean it isn't like you can roll up a new you) etc. 

I think it is probably the exception that fairly proves the rule, and again you say that the players were NOT specifically TRYING to 'explore'. My assertion being that few players are really after digging up facts about the setting JUST FOR ITSELF, but will do so as part of some other goal.


----------



## pemerton

The discussions in this thread aren't primarily semantic. They are about real differences of approach to RPGing.

As far as I know, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has played a wide variety of RPGs, including "indie" ones like DitV and DW. Judging from his posts (in this thread, but also over the years in other threads) he is also fairly happy with a rather GM-driven game, where the GM establishes "objective" obstacles and the players come up with ideas for resolving or circumventing them. But he doesn't like a lot of exposition or epxloration for the sake of it.

To me, that seems like a coherent set of tastes.

My tastes are I think) narrower. I don't really care for GM-driven play even of the "overcome obstacles" variety.

It seems that some other posters in this thread enjoy the sort of exposition and exploration that Hussar does not. That's a long way from my tastes, but it's in the nature of tastes to vary!

From my point of view, the issues of contention in this thread are not claims about what is desirable (although that's how the thread title frames it), but what is _possible_. Eg is it possible to have meaningful RPGing without worldbuilding? What would that look like? If a game does have heavy worldbuilding, what effect will that have on play? (Eg I'm suggesting it means a fair bit of exposition as part of play.)

I think those are interesting questions to discuss.


----------



## Hussar

Ovinomancer said:


> And, on hearing it, I equate out to worldbuilding.




And, fair enough.  If you equate the two, then of course world building is fine.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> /snip
> So your argument is that everything in the entire world should be available at any city the PCs are in just in case they go look for it?




Well, considering your game world as agreed upon at the outset of the campaign was to revolve around that single city, then, yup.  Why not?  Why create an entirely new city just so they can go look for something?  Why not spend that time creating the adventure in the city they are already invested in?

IOW, to me, you just did a bunch of work - designing a city - for the sole purpose of allowing the players to find what they were looking for.  Since the players actually ARE going to find what they are looking for, it seems like a lot of work for no real payoff.


----------



## Imaculata

The way I tend to do world building for my campaigns, is to write out the basics of every important location in my campaign. So I'll write a short piece of text for every country, island and city. Just a basic description. Then I'll flesh out some of the cultures, and the religions. 

But when it comes to the finer details, such as maps, adventure hooks, quests... those I tend to write out just before the session when they are expected to arrive at that location. This allows me to change these locations if I happen to have better ideas later on. Plus I have a better idea which quests fit into the story, if I write them based on what is going on right now in the campaign.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Well, considering your game world as agreed upon at the outset of the campaign was to revolve around that single city, then, yup.  Why not?




Because it would be absurd.  Neither I, nor my players want to play in a city that belongs more in Monty Python than our D&D game.



> Why create an entirely new city just so they can go look for something?




I didn't.



> Why not spend that time creating the adventure in the city they are already invested in?




It wasn't necessary.



> IOW, to me, you just did a bunch of work - designing a city - for the sole purpose of allowing the players to find what they were looking for.




Because you like to assume incorrect things about the games of others.


----------



## Doug McCrae

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I would say that what the GM in the 'Dream Game' was focused on was a very specific genre and milieu.



I think you're right. Like the X-Files, it reflected a high level of interest in the paranormal at that time. It could be seen as an investigative horror game in the same category as Call of Cthulhu, with the main structure being a curiosity driven push from the mundane world into the world of the strange, and then a retreat from that world when it becomes too dangerous and frightening. In the case of the latter, it was maybe more like a Lovecraft story than the Call of Cthulhu rpg.



> My assertion being that few players are really after digging up facts about the setting JUST FOR ITSELF, but will do so as part of some other goal.



That was the case in the Dream Game campaign too to some extent. Our drive to learn more was prompted by the fact that our efforts to help our patients were failing and from the second half of the campaign onwards we were coming under greater and greater threat in the real world - a friend was kidnapped, and there was an arson attack on the Sleep and Dream Research Laboratory where we conducted dream intrusions. But right from the first session of the DGC we were confronted by inexplicable mysteries and I think our main impetus was always to try to unravel them. In fact even before the DGC started, when we played the game in the form of single adventures, we'd always be trying to understand how the External was affecting the patient in the dream world. While there were many similarities between dreams in the DG and dungeons in D&D, dreams were always more mysterious because the in-dream logic would to some degree hide what the External was doing


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> From my point of view, the issues of contention in this thread are not claims about what is desirable (although that's how the thread title frames it), but what is _possible_. Eg is it possible to have meaningful RPGing without worldbuilding? What would that look like? If a game does have heavy worldbuilding, what effect will that have on play? (Eg I'm suggesting it means a fair bit of exposition as part of play.)
> 
> I think those are interesting questions to discuss.




Well, that's interesting because I recently picked up _City of Mists_. It's a new game that's partially based on the Powered by the Apocalypse system. It's very character driven.

What's interesting to me, reading this book while also taking part in these worldbuilding threads, is that the game is designed with the expectation that the entire first session, called the Exposition Session interestingly enough, is to be spent constructing the player characters, establishing their relationships to one another as part of a Crew, and then establishing the aspects of the City itself. 

So the first session is where everyone sits down and talks about the characters, the setting they inhabit, and how those two elements interact with one another, which is loosely the story of the game. This is what I would call Worldbuilding. The fact that it's done mutually by the GM and players doesn't change what it is. 

*What other term would any of you use to describe such a session? *

Once these things are established, the GM then goes about setting up scenarios and details based around the goals established by the players for their characters and their Crew. So in this sense, the GM does not have any preconceived ideas prior to the Exposition Session, but thereafter is free to introduce any elements he likes, as long as they fit in with the ideas and goals established. 

This, to me, seems to be a pretty good example of a middle ground. In this case, everyone is involved in establishing the game world. 

Now, I think it's interesting that the game is designed this way. I think it's a good idea that can easily be ported to other games. The game mechanics aren't even heavily involved in this process, other then a couple of bits about how crew members relate to one another. So it's pretty system agnostic. 

It's also very similar to what I've been doing whenever I've DMed for D&D over the past 20 years or so.


----------



## Doug McCrae

An exchange from late on in the Dream Game campaign where Jamie really emphasises the importance of investigation.

Jamie: I think we have been acting rashly, without knowing what was going on. Before these present difficulties, we used to analyse the situation, work it out and then act. But that's not the way we have proceeded of late. So much has happened so fast that we have been forced to respond without waiting until we had a satisfactory understanding of the situation. From now on it should be - investigation, investigation, investigation. Once we know what's going on, then we decide if and how we can act.

Doug: Should we be continuing dream intrusion as part of that investigation, or is that action?

Brian: No!

Jamie: Perhaps if used carefully and for investigation rather than active interference.

Pix: I think it has been getting less useful recently. We've been doing so much of it that, frankly, the information pouring out is becoming contradictory and forever more inconclusive. That situation might be because we're not absorbing it intelligently, or because we're taking on too much all at once, and because we're no longer following our old experimental procedures (in terms of background analysis, briefing and de-briefing).

Brian: Let's not dream intrude for a long while. Perhaps even six months. Let's perform a different sort of investigation - looking at McDowell and such like. As far as I can tell, magic s you up. Dream intruding s you up. Even if we continued investigation through dreams I don't think we could honestly say that the conclusions we are coming to are rational, reasonable or scientific or just our progressively confusing subjective perceptions of our ongoing insanity. Why not cease the slide into confusion, and start in another direction - like learning the vocabulary of the world that McDowell thinks he's in?​
Just like D&D, if the party decided they could no longer enter dungeons because it was driving them insane.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> The words we use matter. They shape the ways we think about things and the sort of techniques we use. By insisting that we use the orthodox framing of world building and referring to a game world rather than a setting ...



For just about any purpose I can think of, "game world" and "setting" (or "game setting") mean the same thing.  The terms are interchangeable; with the possible exception that one might tend to use "game world" more to describe the backdrop of a fantasy-style game that mostly takes place on a single world, and "setting" for the backdrop of a space-style game that covers multiple worlds.



> ... or a shared fiction in order to participate in this discussion you are insisting that we take a number of assumptions for granted that I for one do not wish to take for granted. Mainly it suggests a permanence and independent existence of the setting and implies that it has intrinsic value outside of the context of the game.



Er...well...it does.  It has value in that it can be used for other games beyond just the one currently being played in it; and if published (or in rare cases, even if not) it can be used/reused by multiple DMs.


> If it has an outside existence beyond this shared activity then it must exist somewhere - inside the head of the GM. So then he or she must own it - not a shared thing at all.



As far as I'm concerned this is not in question, nor does it have any reason to be controversial.  The designer of the setting owns the setting, just like the creator of any other IP owns that IP, until and unless that ownership is somehow transferred to someone else.

The shared activity is the play that takes place within the setting, not the creation of said setting; unless the setting's original creator gives permission for others to share in/help with the creative process.



> It also removes meaningful distinctions between setting design, scenario design, and adventure design. In games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark I view it as the GM's duty to mostly focus on scenario design - creating a compelling situation that prompts players to make decisions for their characters and address it on their own terms. I contrast this with adventure design which is mostly focused on solving or beating the adventure laid out before them.



The only meaningful distinction between these three is scale: in ascending order it'd go scenario-adventure-setting.  Scenario is also somewhat distinct from the other two as a lot of scenario will be done in the here-and-now during play in reaction to where the PCs go, and how, and what they do there; while adventure and setting design can be done ahead of time.



> There's a reason why I prefer to refer to a shared fiction over a game world. A shared fiction implies a play space that we give form to as we play in it and define as we need it. It has no independent existence. It only exists in the moments we are together. It serves play. Not the other way around. We follow it and play in it because it has value here and now.



A theatre stage serves the actors upon it, but remains in place once the show's over and everyone's gone home for the night.  A game world or setting is the "stage" on which the "actors" (the inhabitants of said setting, including the PCs) perform, and it serves said actors by its very presence.

Lan-"the show must go on"-efan


----------



## Tony Vargas

Lanefan said:


> For just about any purpose I can think of, "game world" and "setting" (or "game setting") mean the same thing.  The terms are interchangeable; with the possible exception that one might tend to use "game world" more to describe the backdrop of a fantasy-style game that mostly takes place on a single world, and "setting" for the backdrop of a space-style game that covers multiple worlds.



 Or a setting could be much smaller.  You could lay your scene in fair Verona, for instance, and that's the setting.   



> A theatre stage serves the actors upon it, but remains in place once the show's over and everyone's gone home for the night.  A game world or setting is the "stage" on which the "actors" (the inhabitants of said setting, including the PCs) perform, and it serves said actors by its very presence.



Unless they strike the set and put up a different one for the next performance...


----------



## pemerton

Doug McCrae said:


> It could be seen as an investigative horror game in the same category as Call of Cthulhu, with the main structure being a curiosity driven push from the mundane world into the world of the strange, and then a retreat from that world when it becomes too dangerous and frightening. In the case of the latter, it was maybe more like a Lovecraft story than the Call of Cthulhu rpg.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> right from the first session of the DGC we were confronted by inexplicable mysteries and I think our main impetus was always to try to unravel them.



I am assuming that the mystery was written by the GM - is that right?

And if that's right, that means that - from the player point of view - a fair bit of play would have been aimed at making the "moves" that would trigger the GM to reveal information that would then permit the players to (try and) unravel the mystery. Is that right?



Doug McCrae said:


> Just like D&D, if the party decided they could no longer enter dungeons because it was driving them insane.



Well, in a traditional D&D game that would suggest the end of the campaign! Wouldn't it?


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> A theatre stage serves the actors upon it, but remains in place once the show's over and everyone's gone home for the night.  A game world or setting is the "stage" on which the "actors" (the inhabitants of said setting, including the PCs) perform, and it serves said actors by its very presence.



Well, the inverted commas around "stage" tell it all, don't they?

An actual stage is an actually existing material thing. Once constructed, its existence is independent of the mental states of any particular person. The same is not true of a purely imaginary thing.  [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] is drawing attention to this point, and expressing a view about _whose_ mental states should be understood as constituting the "gameworld" - namely, all the participants, not just the GM.



hawkeyefan said:


> I recently picked up _City of Mists_. It's a new game that's partially based on the Powered by the Apocalypse system. It's very character driven.
> 
> What's interesting to me, reading this book while also taking part in these worldbuilding threads, is that the game is designed with the expectation that the entire first session, called the Exposition Session interestingly enough, is to be spent constructing the player characters, establishing their relationships to one another as part of a Crew, and then establishing the aspects of the City itself.
> 
> So the first session is where everyone sits down and talks about the characters, the setting they inhabit, and how those two elements interact with one another, which is loosely the story of the game. This is what I would call Worldbuilding. The fact that it's done mutually by the GM and players doesn't change what it is.
> 
> *What other term would any of you use to describe such a session? *
> 
> <snip>
> 
> everyone is involved in establishing the game world.



The last quoted sentence seems as good as any to describe what is going on. I think the current usage of "worldbuilding" in discussions of RPGing brings with it an assumption of GM authority over that process. I think this is very evident not just in many of the posts in the current threads, but other threads one reads on ENworld, blogs one reads, presentation in D&D rulebooks, etc.

It's also very often taken for granted, in RPGing, that a "gameworld" is more-or-less independent of any particular group of players or characters - which relates to the idea of "neutrality" that has been put forward by more than one poster in these threads. The process you describe for City of Mists does not produce a "neutral" setting.



hawkeyefan said:


> Once these things are established, the GM then goes about setting up scenarios and details based around the goals established by the players for their characters and their Crew. So in this sense, the GM does not have any preconceived ideas prior to the Exposition Session, but thereafter is free to introduce any elements he likes, as long as they fit in with the ideas and goals established.
> 
> This, to me, seems to be a pretty good example of a middle ground.



This description seems to be of a game that broadly conforms to the "standard narrativistic model":

One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications. . . .

The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.​
Now given that it's a PbtA game, I suspect (without having read it) that the emphasis on scene framing is less than in the standard narrativistic model. But I think in the context of this thread that's probably a minor point. I think the difference between what you describe, and a traditional GM-heavy-worldbuilding game, is fairly striking.


----------



## Doug McCrae

pemerton said:


> I am assuming that the mystery was written by the GM - is that right?
> 
> And if that's right, that means that - from the player point of view - a fair bit of play would have been aimed at making the "moves" that would trigger the GM to reveal information that would then permit the players to (try and) unravel the mystery. Is that right?



Yes, the mystery was entirely written by the GM. The players did a lot of writing but this was mostly theories. Paul, the GM, also developed a lot of theories in his role as the Professor. He told me recently that producing those theories was a lot more work than creating what was actually going on, which I found quite surprising.

Yes we were making moves to try to get the GM to reveal information though we thought of it in game world terms. One such move occurred in the very first DGC dream intrusion when the players' dream personae discovered the 'dream enemy' of an External and were able to question it. There would sometimes be joking about getting Paul drunk and trying to persuade him to reveal the game's secrets but he always, even after the first phase of the DGC ended, kept them well hidden.

It always felt like a sandbox game where we had a great deal of freedom, which I think is what it was. Towards the end of the first phase of the DGC our available moves were severely reduced as the Professor was hospitalised, we were under attack in the physical world, we'd burned our bridges with the Brotherhood (a secretive NPC organisation that seemed to possess psychic talents), and as the example of play in the previous post shows had even become reluctant to dream intrude. As that was happening, Pix's character's own clairvoyant abilities were developing and these became our main source of information. There was a noticeable difference in the gameplay when this happened as the visions Pix received were entirely dependent on the GM. Pix had no power to trigger them. For all we know he may have been able to develop that capability but by that time we were gunshy when it came to such things. Rereading the old journals, at that point the game starts to feel a bit more like the GM telling the players a story.



> Well, in a traditional D&D game that would suggest the end of the campaign! Wouldn't it?



Things had taken a very downward turn by the end of the first phase of the DGC. The Professor and the in-game version of Paul were dead. The Brotherhood had been decimated. Mark had become alienated from most of the rest of the group and, infected by an External, was then sectioned at our behest. The DGC had clearly reached an ending, an extremely downbeat one, where the surviving characters could barely function as they had in the past. The very last paragraph in the journals (written by Pix) reads:

But such patients, such successes, belong to the past. The only good thing we can do now is retreat before the onslaught. I very much hope that if we stop pushing, then whatever is on the other side will stop pushing back. Whatever it is, it's too strong for us.​


----------



## Hussar

The difference between setting and world building is the difference between Keep on the Borderlands and Village of Hommlet.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> The difference between setting and world building is the difference between Keep on the Borderlands and Village of Hommlet.




The difference between Keep on the Borderlands and Village of Hommlet is the *amount* of worldbuilding.


----------



## pemerton

Doug McCrae said:


> we were making moves to try to get the GM to reveal information though we thought of it in game world terms.



I think this is one of the obstacles to clear analysis of RPGing techniques - making the move from the "in play" perspective to the "anthropological" perspective. (Neither of the terms in inverted commas is perfect, but hopefully clear enough.)


----------



## Riley37

Hussar said:


> The difference between setting and world building is the difference between Keep on the Borderlands and Village of Hommlet.




I'm not saying I agree, but at least you're picking two examples, which others might know directly, and drawing a line with those two examples as reference points. From there, a useful conversation *could* ensue, if anyone can demonstrate that the difference in background material between those two publications has ever affected anyone's experience in actual play.

If you use "world building" to mean "excessive setting development", then I am happy to use that as a working definition, in dialogue with you, even though I use the term differently elsewhere. (Much as I understand that KB on the package of a digital storage device might mean kilobyte or kibibyte depending on context.)


----------



## Riley37

Lanefan said:


> A theatre stage serves the actors upon it, but remains in place once the show's over and everyone's gone home for the night.  A game world or setting is the "stage" on which the "actors" (the inhabitants of said setting, including the PCs) perform, and it serves said actors by its very presence.




All the world's a stage?


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> This description seems to be of a game that broadly conforms to the "standard narrativistic model":
> 
> .



Would it kill Game Theorist to pick labels remotely intuitively suggestive of the content of their theories...?

...and, even if it would, it'd be a noble sacrifice.


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> Would it kill Game Theorist to pick labels remotely intuitively suggestive of the content of their theories...?



It's a model. It's standard (Eero Tuovinen lists a number of games that instantiate it, the best known of which is probably Dogs in the Vineyard). It's _narrativistic_ because it is a model for experiencing/producing/enjoying a play experience that Eero, following Ron Edwards, is calling _narrativist_ - meaning that _the goal of play is to produce story in the moment of play, through the interaction of GM-framed situation and player-declared PC action_.

Another term for the same sort of play experience is "story now" (which contrast with "story before" - think Dragonlance or any other AP - or "story after" - think retellings of the experience of playing through the Caves of Chaos or the Tomb of Horrors).

If there is any obstacle to working out what Eero Tuovinen is talking about, it's not his terminology. It's that some RPGers seem to think that games like DitV don't exist, or even that it's impossible that they should exist.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> It's a model. It's standard (Eero Tuovinen lists a number of games that instantiate it, the best known of which is probably Dogs in the Vineyard). ... It's that some RPGers seem to think that games like DitV don't exist, or even that it's impossible that they should exist.



 A lot of gamers don't know that DitV exists, or, if they do, know little more about it - that it'd represent a 'standard' is pretty unintuitive.

Maybe obscure, rarefied, or alternative?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Tony Vargas said:


> A lot of gamers don't know that DitV exists, or, if they do, know little more about it - that it'd represent a 'standard' is pretty unintuitive.
> 
> Maybe obscure, rarefied, or alternative?




Niche.  It's a niche game.

What I find amusing is that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is now excluding Powered by the Apocalypse from the standard narrativist model.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

pemerton said:


> Now given that it's a PbtA game, I suspect (without having read it) that the emphasis on scene framing is less than in the standard narrativistic model. But I think in the context of this thread that's probably a minor point. I think the difference between what you describe, and a traditional GM-heavy-worldbuilding game, is fairly striking.




I think PbtA is a pretty flexible framework, though it is going to obviously depend on which elements you consider necessary to call it 'PbtA'. In other words, if you were to have the 'move structure' of PbtA (I'm just imagining if you had a set of DW characters) you could have the players generate backstory (they kind of have to already since they need bonds, though you can get pretty skimpy if you wish) and then generate the entirety of play as a series of soft and hard moves by the GM. These moves would provide the scene framing and consequences of action resolution. 

Now, DW at least, has a bunch of other 'stuff' that is attached to the GM role, but its all really more in the nature of "here's things that will help you get the job done", at least IMHO. In other words you are still playing DW if you don't make up fronts and etc, or if you only create them on the fly as part of framing. Its not the process that the GM guide for DW outlines, but it won't undermine the process of play. 

So I think PbtA already implies at least the possibility of a fully Story Now standard narrative method game.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Doug McCrae said:


> Yes, the mystery was entirely written by the GM. The players did a lot of writing but this was mostly theories. Paul, the GM, also developed a lot of theories in his role as the Professor. He told me recently that producing those theories was a lot more work than creating what was actually going on, which I found quite surprising.
> 
> Yes we were making moves to try to get the GM to reveal information though we thought of it in game world terms. One such move occurred in the very first DGC dream intrusion when the players' dream personae discovered the 'dream enemy' of an External and were able to question it. There would sometimes be joking about getting Paul drunk and trying to persuade him to reveal the game's secrets but he always, even after the first phase of the DGC ended, kept them well hidden.
> 
> It always felt like a sandbox game where we had a great deal of freedom, which I think is what it was. Towards the end of the first phase of the DGC our available moves were severely reduced as the Professor was hospitalised, we were under attack in the physical world, we'd burned our bridges with the Brotherhood (a secretive NPC organisation that seemed to possess psychic talents), and as the example of play in the previous post shows had even become reluctant to dream intrude. As that was happening, Pix's character's own clairvoyant abilities were developing and these became our main source of information. There was a noticeable difference in the gameplay when this happened as the visions Pix received were entirely dependent on the GM. Pix had no power to trigger them. For all we know he may have been able to develop that capability but by that time we were gunshy when it came to such things. Rereading the old journals, at that point the game starts to feel a bit more like the GM telling the players a story.
> 
> Things had taken a very downward turn by the end of the first phase of the DGC. The Professor and the in-game version of Paul were dead. The Brotherhood had been decimated. Mark had become alienated from most of the rest of the group and, infected by an External, was then sectioned at our behest. The DGC had clearly reached an ending, an extremely downbeat one, where the surviving characters could barely function as they had in the past. The very last paragraph in the journals (written by Pix) reads:But such patients, such successes, belong to the past. The only good thing we can do now is retreat before the onslaught. I very much hope that if we stop pushing, then whatever is on the other side will stop pushing back. Whatever it is, it's too strong for us.​




You say it was like a sandbox, but it strikes me that it seems almost more like a narrativist exercise. Perhaps what Paul was giving you was *exactly what you wanted!* Or at least the results of your failures were to lose your stakes and move on to new areas of engagement. I take it that there was a 'second phase of the DGC', and that seems to imply to me that the players made some kind of a comeback.

There does seem, from your descriptions, to have been a sort of bathos, to the degree of existential horror to the whole thing. I can see why you would compare it to something like CoC, which certainly tries to evoke that.


----------



## Campbell

Ovinomancer said:


> Niche.  It's a niche game.
> 
> What I find amusing is that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is now excluding Powered by the Apocalypse from the standard narrativist model.




He's not like wrong to do so. The Standard Narrativist Model basically lays down the framework for what most people in the indie scene at the time saw as *The Alternative* to orthodox 1990's style design. Apocalypse World uses a fundamentally different set of techniques and principles of play. Unlike the clear protagonists with clearly defined dramatic needs that thrown into conflict Apocalypse World places the player characters into a pressure cooker situation where we find out who they are and uses a more naturalistic pace that is centered more on character exploration than conflict resolution. It does so in part by embracing a combination of principles and techniques that are reflective of Story Now games in some places, but in other places are more reminiscent of the play principles and techniques of Moldvay B/X that Vincent Baker cut his teeth on. It also leans on techniques more familiar to the free form community in other places.

Back in the day the indie community all questioned orthodox play in basically the same way. What's exciting now is that there's an interest in experimenting with the form in different ways. I love Sorcerer, but I don't always want to play Sorcerer. The sort of experimentation with the form we are seeing with Blades in the Dark, Masks, Dream Askew, Murderous Ghosts, The Quiet Year, and Undying just within the vaguely Powered By The apocalypse sphere is amazing.

Note: There is such a wild variety in Powered By The Apocalypse games I would hesitate to address them collectively. It's mostly a design language rather than a family of games. You can't really or at least should not run Dungeon World in the same way you would run Apocalypse World. Same goes for Masks. Or Blades. Or Space Wurm vs. Moonicorn. The only real requirement to be Powered By The Apocalypse is to say you are. It's more like saying you want to be part of a particular design community and culture than saying something in particular about your game.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Ovinomancer said:


> Niche.  It's a niche game.
> 
> What I find amusing is that @_*pemerton*_ is now excluding Powered by the Apocalypse from the standard narrativist model.




Well, you have probably read my previous post on PbtA, but I can also give some other perspective. PbtA is intended to be at least 'Some Story Now', but it also (at least Dungeon World) allows for and assumes that there IS some setting building that the GM does. It is assumed that there is at least a general map. It should have 'lots of blank spaces', but it does represent SOME sort of a 'world' (it could literally be just a dungeon level). 'Fronts' (which are organizations and some notions of how they interact and conflict) are also a typical part of DW. Its also not clear that DW players have a specific level of narrative authority. The GM USUALLY narrates the 'facts of the world', although there are specific exceptions. There are also theoretical reasons to assume that players are allowed to do things along the lines of 'find a secret door even though none has been established as existing yet'. 

I think you could play DW in a pretty NON-narrativist way. That is with a lot of pre-generated setting, large rosters of detailed NPCs and their relationships, etc. I think that verges on being a different sort of game, but I don't think I'd say it isn't DW, though it is probably not Story Now. 

So, maybe its not so simple as 'this game is of type X'.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> The difference between Keep on the Borderlands and Village of Hommlet is the *amount* of worldbuilding.




Fair enough, again, if you are insisting that all setting is world building.  However, I would draw the distinction here.  KotB has virtually no world building.  We have no idea where the Keep is, how many people live in the Keep, what and who supports the Keep, who does the Castellan report to?  No idea.  Does the Castellan have a family?  No idea.  So on and so forth.

Contrast with Village of Hommlet where virtually every household is described.  Who is the weaver in Hommlet?  Well, we have the answer to that.  

See, to me, the world builders have already won this arguement and I'm largely crying in the dark here.  Look at the remake of Keep in Return to the Keep on the Borderlands.  A 20(ish) page module is turned into a several hundred page tome.  Even in 4e, when they remade Keep again with the Chaos Scar adventures in Dungeon magazine, the Keep's description is longer than the original module.  

I know I lost this argument.  Totally lost it.  The world builders, busily constructing ships in a bottle have totally dominated the hobby.  And the great clodding of nerd boots makes sure that no new ideas are ever allowed into the hobby unless it passes their sniff test first.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> What I find amusing is that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is now excluding Powered by the Apocalypse from the standard narrativist model.



All standard narrativistic games are "story now" in the Forge sense, but not all "story now" games are standard narrativistic ones.

As far as thinking about PbtA goes, I am the faithful student of  [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]. The "standard narrativistic model" is about scene-framed RPGing. PbtA is not scene-framing - I don't have a terrific handle on how best to describe it, but Campbell has explained it well, I think in a post or two in the other worldbuilding thread, and also in the protagonism thread a year or so ago. Another feature that Campbell has pointed to, that I recall as I type this, is the different role of player intent in resolution for PbtA compared to scene-framed (ie "standard narrativistic model") games.

It's not a criticism of PbtA to say that it uses techniques different from DitV, Burning Wheel, Cortex+ Heroic, etc. It's an analytical observation.

Why do you find this amusing? Do you disagree, and take the view that PbtA _is_ a scene-framed game? What do you think is at stake in identifying a game as "standard narrativistic model"?


EDIT because I saw this:



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think you could play DW in a pretty NON-narrativist way. That is with a lot of pre-generated setting, large rosters of detailed NPCs and their relationships, etc. I think that verges on being a different sort of game, but I don't think I'd say it isn't DW, though it is probably not Story Now.



I think the need to generate narrations as the outcome of various moves would push a bit against what you describe, but that's mostly speculation rather than experience talking.


----------



## happyhermit

Hussar said:


> ...  And the great clodding of nerd boots makes sure that no new ideas are ever allowed into the hobby unless it passes their sniff test first.




Methinks you are tilting at windmills a bit here. There are all kinds of materials out there for all kinds of RPGs and while D&D does get looked down on a lot in some circles, there is exceedingly little in way of "that shouldn't even exist" or even "that type of game is objectively bad". Certainly not any masses such as they are in ttrpgs. New ideas have always been allowed in "the hobby" even if a lot of people don't enjoy them. 

Heck, look at this whole "story now" discussion here. People act like it's this new discovery that if only the masses were exposed to would sweep over them like the dawning of a new age of enlightenment. In reality, we messed around playing D&D and other games like that soon after the hobby came into existence. Plenty of games have worked to codify and tweak it in the decades since. There are literally options in the 5e DMG that if used allow players to spend a point to declare that they find a secret door, no roll necessary, options for musical chair GMing, etc. Are there people outraged that such a thing could be included (in D&D of all places)? I suppose there are, nerdrage knows no bounds, but they seem exceedingly few and far between, because the only criticisms of those rules I have heard come from people who wish they went further/were done "better".


----------



## Hussar

Actually, to be honest [MENTION=6834463]happyhermit[/MENTION], I'd say 5e is doing quite well on the world building front.  There's what, 15 books for 5e now?  Other than SCaG, none of them are much rooted in world building.  Now, I do have an issue with the amount of world building that is in 5e core - particularly the Monster Manual which I find mostly useless to be honest.  All the bits and bobs about this race being a slave race to that race (good grief that appears a lot in the Monster Manual) and that sort of thing.  Granted, I do now what I've always done, ignore it completely.  It's of zero use to me.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> The last quoted sentence seems as good as any to describe what is going on. I think the current usage of "worldbuilding" in discussions of RPGing brings with it an assumption of GM authority over that process. I think this is very evident not just in many of the posts in the current threads, but other threads one reads on ENworld, blogs one reads, presentation in D&D rulebooks, etc.
> 
> It's also very often taken for granted, in RPGing, that a "gameworld" is more-or-less independent of any particular group of players or characters - which relates to the idea of "neutrality" that has been put forward by more than one poster in these threads. The process you describe for City of Mists does not produce a "neutral" setting.




People shouldn't assume.  Worldbuilding is the building of the world/setting, regardless of whether the DM does it alone, or in conjunction with his players.  I think you assume DM authority over the process, because most people play the game in the traditional manner still, so most worldbuilding is done by DMs.  

In my opinion, you should assume less, attempt to redefine terms so that you can apply them negatively to playstyles not your own less, and simply talk about the differences in playstyles more.  You'd get far more accomplished that way.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Fair enough, again, if you are insisting that all setting is world building.




Yes, he's probably going with the definition of worldbuilding.



> However, I would draw the distinction here.  KotB has virtually no world building.  We have no idea where the Keep is, how many people live in the Keep, what and who supports the Keep, who does the Castellan report to?  No idea.  Does the Castellan have a family?  No idea.  So on and so forth.




It actually has a lot of worldbuilding.  You don't have to have every last freaking detail down for worldbuilding to be occurring.  In fact, the most detailed world/setting I know is the FR, and it only details at most 5% of the world. 



> Contrast with Village of Hommlet where virtually every household is described.  Who is the weaver in Hommlet?  Well, we have the answer to that.




Yep.  More worldbuilding done in that one for sure.    



> See, to me, the world builders have already won this arguement and I'm largely crying in the dark here.  Look at the remake of Keep in Return to the Keep on the Borderlands.  A 20(ish) page module is turned into a several hundred page tome.  Even in 4e, when they remade Keep again with the Chaos Scar adventures in Dungeon magazine, the Keep's description is longer than the original module.
> 
> I know I lost this argument.  Totally lost it.  The world builders, busily constructing ships in a bottle have totally dominated the hobby.  And the great clodding of nerd boots makes sure that no new ideas are ever allowed into the hobby unless it passes their sniff test first.




Overly dramatic much?  Plenty of new ideas are allowed into the hobby.  You just don't get to redefine terms when you do.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> Yes, he's probably going with the definition of worldbuilding.
> 
> 
> 
> It actually has a lot of worldbuilding.  You don't have to have every last freaking detail down for worldbuilding to be occurring.  In fact, the most detailed world/setting I know is the FR, and it only details at most 5% of the world.




See, this is the main part where we diverge.  I wouldn't call that world building.  There's no world there.  There's absolutely no attempt to present a functional reality there.  Which is what worldbuilding IS - an attempt to present a functioning model of a setting.  Keep doesn't do that.  It presents the bare bones of what a DM needs to run an adventure there.  With virtually no details or extraneous information.  That is not what I'd call world building.



> Yep.  More worldbuilding done in that one for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Overly dramatic much?  Plenty of new ideas are allowed into the hobby.  You just don't get to redefine terms when you do.




No, not overly dramatic.  You folks won this fight years ago.  The fact that authors like George R. R. Martin and Tolkien are heralded as the masters of the genre.  The fact that umpteen game supplements get banged out every year chock a block with world building details.  The fact that you actually, at one time, HAD a six page article on the WotC site detailing the SHAPE OF WINDOWS in Forgotten Realms and people ate it up.

Yeah, I know I'm whistling in the dark here.  I lost this fight years ago.  Now, it's nothing but me bitching about it futilely like the impotent jerk that I am.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> See, this is the main part where we diverge.  I wouldn't call that world building.  There's no world there.  There's absolutely no attempt to present a functional reality there.  Which is what worldbuilding IS - an attempt to present a functioning model of a setting.  Keep doesn't do that.  It presents the bare bones of what a DM needs to run an adventure there.  With virtually no details or extraneous information.  That is not what I'd call world building.




No, functional as you put it here is no required for worl building.  No functional reality need be present.  Worldbuilding is simply the creation of the setting, however complete or incomplete it is.  The creation of a single NPC is an act of worldbuilding.  I would also argue that the bare bones of what you need to run an adventure there IS a functional reality.  You can buy a car that barely runs, or one that is fully loaded and both are functional cars.  That one has more functions doesn't keep the car that barely runs from being functional.  



> No, not overly dramatic.  You folks won this fight years ago.  The fact that authors like George R. R. Martin and Tolkien are heralded as the masters of the genre.  The fact that umpteen game supplements get banged out every year chock a block with world building details.  The fact that you actually, at one time, HAD a six page article on the WotC site detailing the SHAPE OF WINDOWS in Forgotten Realms and people ate it up.
> 
> Yeah, I know I'm whistling in the dark here.  I lost this fight years ago.  Now, it's nothing but me bitching about it futilely like the impotent jerk that I am.




The myriad of different RPGs out there with all the different ways to play says something different to me.  If this is how you choose to feel about it, though, that's up to you.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


----------



## Sadras

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I'm not understanding your somewhat stubborn dislike to lore/myth whether it be for monsters, setting or cosmology.
The lore/myth allows us to have shared experiences and discussions over settings, monsters and modules which is a relatively good thing for the hobby I think.

I mean when we were reading the DL novels (I assume you have) and all that setting content came up - regarding gnomes, gully dwarves, death knights, irda and the pantheon it is not considered as a negative. So why the sour bent towards worldbuilding in our rpgs. We are trying to emulate fantasy novels and movies...etc

We, the player-base, often change the content (worldbuilding), system (edition) and difficulty (levels) of published adventures so I'm not sure where you seem to see difficulty. 

There is the other benefit of lore/myth you seem to ignore.
When we look at fantasy artwork we gain inspiration and ideas - many of us hobbyists do the same with the lore/myth the publishers provide us with.

Given the positives (shared experience, discussion and inspiration) as well as the malleability of it all, I find your attitude on this topic bizarre.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Fair enough, again, if you are insisting that all setting is world building.  However, I would draw the distinction here.  KotB has virtually no world building.  We have no idea where the Keep is, how many people live in the Keep, what and who supports the Keep, who does the Castellan report to?  No idea.  Does the Castellan have a family?  No idea.  So on and so forth.
> 
> Contrast with Village of Hommlet where virtually every household is described.  Who is the weaver in Hommlet?  Well, we have the answer to that.




Yeah, Hommlet is a lot more detailed. You could have said that you found that level of worldbuilding excessive and not what you favored and left it like that.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> See, to me, the world builders have already won this arguement and I'm largely crying in the dark here.  Look at the remake of Keep in Return to the Keep on the Borderlands.  A 20(ish) page module is turned into a several hundred page tome.  Even in 4e, when they remade Keep again with the Chaos Scar adventures in Dungeon magazine, the Keep's description is longer than the original module.




I wouldn't know about the Chaos Scar adventures, but Return to Keep on the Borderlands wasn't a several hundred page tome. It was 64 pages - a substantial amount of it advice for new GMs about running adventures. It's actually a very good introductory module, well worth checking out when not being exaggerated into a monstrosity of the much maligned world-building. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I know I lost this argument.  Totally lost it.  The world builders, busily constructing ships in a bottle have totally dominated the hobby.  And the great clodding of nerd boots makes sure that no new ideas are ever allowed into the hobby unless it passes their sniff test first.




No new ideas? There are new ideas all the time in this hobby. The fact that there are people who like to deep dive into detail doesn't negate new ideas. I think you need to reassess your relationship with hyperbole.


----------



## Hussar

Yeah, I saw first hand how much new ideas could get past the gate keepers with 4e, thanks.  

Good grief, 5e hasn't had an original module yet.  Three years of rehashes of existing modules.  Yeah, new ideas are what gamers want.  Sure.  

Oh, and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], are you sure about your definition?  Wikipedia gives this one:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Worldbuilding is the process of constructing an imaginary world, sometimes associated with a whole fictional universe.[1] The resulting world may be called a constructed world. *Developing an imaginary setting with coherent qualities such as a history, geography, and ecology is a key task for many science fiction or fantasy writers.*[2] Worldbuilding often involves the creation of maps, a backstory, and people for the world. Constructed worlds can enrich the backstory and history of fictional works




Mirriam Webster:



> Today, world-building is most often used to describe a component of a work of fiction, much like plot or character; unlike the word setting, world-building emphasizes that the world being created is entirely new.




TV Tropes has the definition I tend to work from:



> Worldbuilding is the process of constructing a fictional universe. Strictly speaking, anything that happens in that universe "builds" it, so "worldbuilding" is only used to describe the invention of fictional details for some reason other than the convenience of a currently ongoing story, up to and including simply engaging in worldbuilding for its own sake




Yuppers, that last one is pretty much my exact take.  World building is when you go beyond the needs of the story.  And very, very much of it is for its own sake.


----------



## Doug McCrae

AbdulAlhazred said:


> You say it was like a sandbox, but it strikes me that it seems almost more like a narrativist exercise. Perhaps what Paul was giving you was *exactly what you wanted!* Or at least the results of your failures were to lose your stakes and move on to new areas of engagement. I take it that there was a 'second phase of the DGC', and that seems to imply to me that the players made some kind of a comeback.
> 
> There does seem, from your descriptions, to have been a sort of bathos, to the degree of existential horror to the whole thing. I can see why you would compare it to something like CoC, which certainly tries to evoke that.




I think the game contained some Story Before elements, to use the terminology  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] introduced upthread, and most of the journals are Story After. In my view there wasn't any Story Now. The Story Before components take the form of dramatic scenes, such as Pix's clairvoyant visions, and other reveals that Paul must have prepped beforehand. Pix's endpiece, which gives an account of Paul and the Professor's death, and the split between Mark and the rest of the team, is powerfully written. Tragedy or pathos would probably be a more appropriate term for it than bathos imo. I got quite emotional when Pix describes a young child we had previously saved among the mourners at the Professor's funeral.

The way I believe Paul preps rpgs is to start from a detailed simulationist base. He then translates that into something that will work as a game (for example he doesn't just have the bad guys murder all the PCs in their sleep) and he also adds some 'units' of storytelling. The really noticeable storytelling - the complete scenes - became more frequent and more dramatic late on in the DGC. Two involved the deaths of members of the Brotherhood at the hands of the Fallen. The most dramatic of all was Paul's death, which had been foreshadowed by a precognitive dream much earlier in the campaign. The in-game Paul attempted to kill several PCs by running us over with a car, then, when he believed he had murdered my PC, took his own life.

Paul certainly met us in the middle, in terms of creating content that aligned with our interests and that was a response to our actions, but I think that's true of all rpgs that aren't railroads.

I didn't participate in the second phase of the DGC so unfortunately I can't say anything about it. I'd be surprised if it was as dark as the first phase though.


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> And, on hearing it, I equate out to worldbuilding.





Ovinomancer said:


> While I agree with all of your other points, I cannot agree with you about terminology.  *If someone wishes to talk about a topic with more specificity than the general term had, then it's on them to highlight the specificity, not redefine the term to be specific to only their meaning.*  That way llies the exact problem in this thread where most people actually agree but are arguing and argung because of all the different and idiosyncratic definitions of the general term.



I can't say that I agree with this particular assertion, but that's just because this fails in common practice of speech where terms are constantly redefined, sometimes broadened and othertimes specified, for the sake of engaging in more meaningful discourse with greater clarity. In this case, the terms "worldbuilding" and "setting building" are assigned more particular sets of meaning within our parole for the sake of distinguishing a lot of differences of activity, function, emphasis, etc. in the broader discourse of "fictive space construction," for lack of a better term. I personally find the creation of the term "setting building" and its associated distinctions useful, because at the very least it attempts to further define the term "worldbuilding" rather than have it continually serve as a bafflingly ambiguous term that led to the aformentioned disagreements. 



> If you want to disect out different kinds of prep, that's laudable and interesting.  If we can't have a discussion about it because you've chosen to do so by redefining terms to mean different things, then those laudable and interesting things are going to go misunderstood.  That's not good.



If he provides you his definition of the term(s) or the meaning that he assigns to the term(s), then it seems that you would be intentionally choosing to misunderstand him for the sake of perpetuating the confusion or sidestepping his argument without good faith.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> I can't say that I agree with this particular assertion, but that's just because this fails in common practice of speech where terms are constantly redefined, sometimes broadened and othertimes specified, for the sake of engaging in more meaningful discourse with greater clarity. In this case, the terms "worldbuilding" and "setting building" are assigned more particular sets of meaning within our parole for the sake of distinguishing a lot of differences of activity, function, emphasis, etc. in the broader discourse of "fictive space construction," for lack of a better term. I personally find the creation of the term "setting building" and its associated distinctions useful, because at the very least it attempts to further define the term "worldbuilding" rather than have it continually serve as a bafflingly ambiguous term that led to the aformentioned disagreements.
> 
> If he provides you his definition of the term(s) or the meaning that he assigns to the term(s), then it seems that you would be intentionally choosing to misunderstand him for the sake of perpetuating the confusion or sidestepping his argument without good faith.



1) you disagreed to agree with me?  Calling out setting building as distinct from the more general worldbuilding is exactly what I'm taking about that needs to happen.  Redefining worldbuilding to mean the more specific setting building is what I'm calling it as confusing.

2) On your last point, in a conversation, especially in real time worry few participants, sure, that can happen and often does.  But in a weeks (years in this case) long ongoing discussion with tens and tens of participants, recalling exactly which poster had which idiosyncratic definition of which term is not something you should expect.  The best of intentions will get overcome by multiple unique definitions of the same word in that case.  

Also, this works both ways -- why should the other side not be accommodating of the more general use of the word?  I find it appropriate to place the burden on the ones that want to change the general use rather than expect those using the general case to make exceptions for the ones that want their own special definitions.

This is why I find it best to come up with a specific and hopefully distinctive phrase or word to describe the exact thing you want to discuss.  And then repeat that definition often so that you are not misunderstood.  The burden to make yourself understood clearly is not on others.


----------



## darkbard

Aldarc said:


> If he provides you his definition of the term(s) or the meaning that he assigns to the term(s), then it seems that you would be intentionally choosing to misunderstand him for the sake of perpetuating the confusion or sidestepping his argument without good faith.




Couldn't agree with this more. Granted, this conversation spans many threads, but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], for example, clearly defines his terms in the OP of (and many, many times throughout) the "what is *worldbuilding* for?" thread, yet what you describe is characteristic of how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] seem to "choos[e] to misunderstand him for the sake of perpetuating the confusion or sidestepping his argument without good faith." Particularly, when you combine this with what Maxperson says upthread* about delibertately misrepresenting arguments!

*I think it's in this thread, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to keep track of who posted what where....


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> 1) you disagreed to agree with me?  Calling out setting building as distinct from the more general worldbuilding is exactly what I'm taking about that needs to happen.  *Redefining worldbuilding to mean the more specific setting building is what I'm calling it as confusing.*



This thread demonstrates that the term "worldbuilding" is seemingly too broad for useful jargon when debating its merits and flaws. Because a number of people, yourself included, seem to have a different sense for the term "worldbuilding" that lies outside of its _contextual sense_ in the OP. For some in this thread the term is more analogous to "_any and everything_ that the GM does to establish the in-game fiction," such that the "general use" of the term "Worldbuilding" is of no practical use at all. But this false equivocation of meaning seems to stem from a desire from worldbuilding enthusiasts to religiously defend the culture of "worldbuilding" (and its excesses) by making it indistinguishable from the activities of setting building or GMing. 

I don't think that the people in general agreement with the sentiment in the OP are desiring to "[redefine] worldbuilding to meant the more specific setting building," but, rather, that they are "[distinguishing] worldbuilding from the more specific setting building" precisely because there are elements in cultural practice of "worldbuilding" that they find a hinderance to "setting building." 



> 2) On your last point, in a conversation, especially in real time worry few participants, sure, that can happen and often does.  But in a weeks (years in this case) long ongoing discussion with tens and tens of participants, recalling exactly which poster had which idiosyncratic definition of which term is not something you should expect.  The best of intentions will get overcome by multiple unique definitions of the same word in that case.



Forgetting their sense of the term is fine. When that happens, they may remind you or you may ask. Here, however, you are berating them about using terminology that they are defining and rationalizing. 



> Also, this works both ways -- why should the other side not be accommodating of the more general use of the word?  I find it appropriate to place the burden on the ones that want to change the general use rather than expect those using the general case to make exceptions for the ones that want their own special definitions.
> 
> This is why I find it best to come up with a specific and hopefully distinctive phrase or word to describe the exact thing you want to discuss.  And then repeat that definition often so that you are not misunderstood.  The burden to make yourself understood clearly is not on others.



The preference you describe is what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] did. And when [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] came up with his "specific and hopefully distinctive phrase or word" to discuss the more specific concept of "setting building," you set about to equate this as being identical with "worldbuilding." So what then does the creation, clarity, and repetition of terms help if there is no intent to honor them?


----------



## happyhermit

Hussar said:


> ...
> No, not overly dramatic.  You folks won this fight years ago.  The fact that authors like George R. R. Martin and Tolkien are heralded as the masters of the genre.  The fact that umpteen game supplements get banged out every year chock a block with world building details.  The fact that you actually, at one time, HAD a six page article on the WotC site detailing the SHAPE OF WINDOWS in Forgotten Realms and people ate it up.
> 
> Yeah, I know I'm whistling in the dark here.  I lost this fight years ago.  Now, it's nothing but me bitching about it futilely like the impotent jerk that I am.




I think I understand where you are coming from in some respects. I generally find discussion of planar cosmology and such to be tedious. Hearing other people discuss the details and differences between World Axis and Great Wheel, different versions of the Great Wheel , even in some cases how one version or another "ruined" a system or setting for them is strange. The idea that this is so important to them, and that they apparently get so much enjoyment out of it is kinda hard for me to comprehend. Where we seem to diverge is that because I don't care much about these things, I just... don't care. I don't hate this stuff, or think it's bad, it just doensn't interest me. I generally just ignore this stuff in the books, skimming at most and I don't buy stuff based on it unless there is enough stuff I like to justify the purchase. I think the only way I could really be annoyed or pushed to hate this kinda thing is if it truly and substantially got in the way of me running the games I want to run, luckily that usually isn't all too easy.


----------



## Ovinomancer

darkbard said:


> Couldn't agree with this more. Granted, this conversation spans many threads, but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], for example, clearly defines his terms in the OP of (and many, many times throughout) the "what is *worldbuilding* for?" thread, yet what you describe is characteristic of how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] seem to "choos[e] to misunderstand him for the sake of perpetuating the confusion or sidestepping his argument without good faith." Particularly, when you combine this with what Maxperson says upthread* about delibertately misrepresenting arguments!
> 
> *I think it's in this thread, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to keep track of who posted what where....



No, this is false.  In the OP ou'd the inner worldbuilding thread, pemerton suggests that building the dungeon maze is worldbuilding.  He, pages later, says that what he means by worldbuilding are those things the GM preps needle the game that are used by reference to cause aplayer action declaration to result in failure.  It took pages to get that definition.  And, it's not a definition anyone in this thread side from pemerton has used.

I'll take my lumps -- I have been argumentative with pemerton -- but only those that are actually based on what I've done.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> Yeah, I saw first hand how much new ideas could get past the gate keepers with 4e, thanks.
> 
> Good grief, 5e hasn't had an original module yet.  Three years of rehashes of existing modules.  Yeah, new ideas are what gamers want.  Sure.



 Limiting it to D&D - the first RPG, the 500lb _australopithecus robustus_, the biggest coelacanth in the small pond - sure, change, even (or especially) change arguably for the better, is anathema, it has to be very measured, very carefully vetted.  But in the broader hobby, for those aware of it, innovation has been going on from the earliest days.  Sometimes, maybe, it's the same innovation popping up again and again because no one saw it the first n times....



> Yuppers, that last one is pretty much my exact take.  World building is when you go beyond the needs of the story.  And very, very much of it is for its own sake.



 I'm OK with worldbuilding for it's own sake, at least when I'm doing it, because it's an engaging exercise.  It might sit there, informing my idea of why the setting & situations the PC are dealing with are the way they are, while making no direct difference to them, and the players may never be aware of it, but, left at that, it was fun for me, and shouldn't have, in any way, detracted from their experience.  

Now, when I let it turn into setting tourism, and inflicted the irrelevant-to-the-campaign, for-its-own-sake worldbuilding elements on the players, yeah, it wasn't so fun, but I learned from that long-ago mistake...
...Ok, series of mistakes, but I did learn.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> This thread demonstrates that the term "worldbuilding" is seemingly too broad for useful jargon when debating its merits and flaws. Because a number of people, yourself included, seem to have a different sense for the term "worldbuilding" that lies outside of its _contextual sense_ in the OP. For some in this thread the term is more analogous to "_any and everything_ that the GM does to establish the in-game fiction," such that the "general use" of the term "Worldbuilding" is of no practical use at all. But this false equivocation of meaning seems to stem from a desire from worldbuilding enthusiasts to religiously defend the culture of "worldbuilding" (and its excesses) by making it indistinguishable from the activities of setting building or GMing.




Ah, you were doing so well until you got to arriving bad motives to those that disagree with you.

Worldbuilding is a uselessly broad term, but I don't think anyone using it broadly was doing so out of malice or mischief.  Rather, it's more likely they, using the term broadly, felt attacked by those using the term now narrowly without clear statements of how they were using the term.  Thers also the tendency in this thread for posters to define worldbuilding in a way tgat speed their preferences rather than to achieve a consensus on the use of the term.  This cuts against both sides.


> I don't think that the people in general agreement with the sentiment in the OP are desiring to "[redefine] worldbuilding to meant the more specific setting building," but, rather, that they are "[distinguishing] worldbuilding from the more specific setting building" precisely because there are elements in cultural practice of "worldbuilding" that they find a hinderance to "setting building."
> 
> Forgetting their sense of the term is fine. When that happens, they may remind you or you may ask. Here, however, you are berating them about using terminology that they are defining and rationalizing.
> 
> The preference you describe is what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] did. And when [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] came up with his "specific and hopefully distinctive phrase or word" to discuss the more specific concept of "setting building," you set about to equate this as being identical with "worldbuilding." So what then does the creation, clarity, and repetition of terms help if there is no intent to honor them?



Firstly, it's incumbent on someone narrowing the use of a term to be explicit about that, not on the reader.

Secondly, I have not berated anyone for introducing a new term or phrase clearly defined.  I've recommended this practice, as a matter of fact.

Finally, my comment in setting building was that, absent clarification, i would not have assumed setting building was different from worldbuilding.  It was not a rejection of setting building as a specific subset of worldbuilding activities, just a comment that it wasn't inherently obvious it referred to different things.  Perhaps i could have been more clear about this at the time, and that's a criticism I'll take. But, at no time was I saying that such a term couldn't be usefully defined abd used to further conversation -- again, just that it wasnt obviously different without further definition.  I apologise for any confusion.


----------



## darkbard

Ovinomancer said:


> No, this is false.  In the OP ou'd the inner worldbuilding thread, pemerton suggests that building the dungeon maze is worldbuilding.  He, pages later, says that what he means by worldbuilding are those things the GM preps needle the game that are used by reference to cause aplayer action declaration to result in failure.  It took pages to get that definition.  And, it's not a definition anyone in this thread side from pemerton has used.
> 
> I'll take my lumps -- I have been argumentative with pemerton -- but only those that are actually based on what I've done.




Okay, fair enough: I went back and looked at the initial post, and, it's true, that the latter, stronger definition (GM preauthoring used to curtail PC action) doesn't appear there. 

But your larger point (at least I think it's been your argument at times; as I say above, it becomes increasingly more difficult to keep track), I think, is that  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been inconsistent in his use of the term.

And that's where I disagree: I see no inconsistency. What I do perceive is a further refinement and clarification of what he means across many, many posts. And, after all, isn't that a point of analysis, to not only represent our views but, in attempting to codify them, hold them up to our own scrutiny (as well as that of others) so we have a better understanding of what our views actually are, and why we hold them?


----------



## darkbard

Quick addendum: the "What is *worldbuilidng* for?" thread is actually an offshoot of extensive but tangential discussion in another thread ("What is an xp worth?" I think, but I don't have the time or patience to go back and look). It's quite likely that some further qualification of worldbuilding occurred in that thread, preceding the initial post of the former thread, setting up the ensuing conversation.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> The last quoted sentence seems as good as any to describe what is going on.




"Everyone is involved in establishing the game world" is the description you think is best? How is that not worldbuilding? 




pemerton said:


> I think the current usage of "worldbuilding" in discussions of RPGing brings with it an assumption of GM authority over that process. I think this is very evident not just in many of the posts in the current threads, but other threads one reads on ENworld, blogs one reads, presentation in D&D rulebooks, etc.
> 
> It's also very often taken for granted, in RPGing, that a "gameworld" is more-or-less independent of any particular group of players or characters - which relates to the idea of "neutrality" that has been put forward by more than one poster in these threads. The process you describe for City of Mists does not produce a "neutral" setting.




I think the criticism is for a specific type of worldbuilding, with the GM as the sole or heavily primary authority on the world details to be used in the game. I realize that my use of the term is far more broad. However, I think that broader definition is far more suitable overall, and I do think it aligns with a less RPG specific version of the term. 

I think that many settings are put forth as neutral, that's true. But I don't think that must limit player agency. It depends on expectations. I share your preference of having characters that are heavily invested in what is happening in the game, and tied to the events that are going to come up. But some players don't want or need that. 

So in this sense, the expectation of agency is the deciding factor. You expect more agency for the players, so if a game does not have that, then you will likely not be satisfied with it. I can understand that. I don't know if I would therefore draw the same conclusions about the game system or style of play that you draw, but I can understand your preference. If you think that worldbuilding tends to limit agency, then I can understand your concern. I don't think it is nearly as ubiquitous as you put forth, but I can understand the concern. 

But if you did not expect much agency....if it was a casual game that you joined on a whim, where everyone was playing a premade module or what have you, and gave little thought beyond their character other than class and race....you'd likely be fine with whatever agency you had. (I realize that you would likely not join such a game, but let's consider this a general "you")

The expectation on the part of the player is aligned with what the game offers, in which case, nothing is being denied. 

If I have two kids, and one wants 4 scoops of ice cream, and the other only wants 2, I am not denying the second kid anything when I only give him 2 scoops. 





pemerton said:


> This description seems to be of a game that broadly conforms to the "standard narrativistic model":
> 
> One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications. . . .
> 
> The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.​
> Now given that it's a PbtA game, I suspect (without having read it) that the emphasis on scene framing is less than in the standard narrativistic model. But I think in the context of this thread that's probably a minor point. I think the difference between what you describe, and a traditional GM-heavy-worldbuilding game, is fairly striking.




Sure, there are some differences that are striking. I don't know if they need to be as great as you may think. There is nothing that prevents the GM from introducing secret backstory. The book uses an example that continues throughout the rules and it's very clear that the GM is expected to do exactly that. Yes, the material the GM introduces is expected to connect to the themes and ideas established in the Exposition Session, but it still allows for it. But I don't think that this fact will wind up limiting player agency. 

But what about my comment where I said this is exactly how I've been running D&D for many years? You clipped that off when you quoted me, but I'm genuinely curious for your take on that. 

Why can't D&D be played with an initial session where everyone contributes characters with goals and then world details that fit nicely with those goals and the themes that seem to be generated as a result? 5E's game mechanics are not strongly designed with this in mind, but the Bonds, Flaws, and Traits can really contribute a lot in this way. And then there is no real limit to what you can do as a group independent of the mechanics.


----------



## Ovinomancer

darkbard said:


> Okay, fair enough: I went back and looked at the initial post, and, it's true, that the latter, stronger definition (GM preauthoring used to curtail PC action) doesn't appear there.
> 
> But your larger point (at least I think it's been your argument at times; as I say above, it becomes increasingly more difficult to keep track), I think, is that  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been inconsistent in his use of the term.
> 
> And that's where I disagree: I see no inconsistency. What I do perceive is a further refinement and clarification of what he means across many, many posts. And, after all, isn't that a point of analysis, to not only represent our views but, in attempting to codify them, hold them up to our own scrutiny (as well as that of others) so we have a better understanding of what our views actually are, and why we hold them?



No, my point was that he was unclear in his use of the term.  He's been largely consistent with it to the point that I can't think of a case where he wasn't consistent with his usage.

But others have accysed hom of inconsistency, for sure, and loudly.  This highlights my point that in long threads with many people it's very easy to misattribute things entirely innocently.  You've missattrubuted bad behavior to me, for instance.  How hard is it, then, to misattribute a unique definition?


----------



## Ovinomancer

hawkeyefan said:


> "Everyone is involved in establishing the game world" is the description you think is best? How is that not worldbuilding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the criticism is for a specific type of worldbuilding, with the GM as the sole or heavily primary authority on the world details to be used in the game. I realize that my use of the term is far more broad. However, I think that broader definition is far more suitable overall, and I do think it aligns with a less RPG specific version of the term.
> 
> I think that many settings are put forth as neutral, that's true. But I don't think that must limit player agency. It depends on expectations. I share your preference of having characters that are heavily invested in what is happening in the game, and tied to the events that are going to come up. But some players don't want or need that.
> 
> So in this sense, the expectation of agency is the deciding factor. You expect more agency for the players, so if a game does not have that, then you will likely not be satisfied with it. I can understand that. I don't know if I would therefore draw the same conclusions about the game system or style of play that you draw, but I can understand your preference. If you think that worldbuilding tends to limit agency, then I can understand your concern. I don't think it is nearly as ubiquitous as you put forth, but I can understand the concern.
> 
> But if you did not expect much agency....if it was a casual game that you joined on a whim, where everyone was playing a premade module or what have you, and gave little thought beyond their character other than class and race....you'd likely be fine with whatever agency you had. (I realize that you would likely not join such a game, but let's consider this a general "you")
> 
> The expectation on the part of the player is aligned with what the game offers, in which case, nothing is being denied.
> 
> If I have two kids, and one wants 4 scoops of ice cream, and the other only wants 2, I am not denying the second kid anything when I only give him 2 scoops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, there are some differences that are striking. I don't know if they need to be as great as you may think. There is nothing that prevents the GM from introducing secret backstory. The book uses an example that continues throughout the rules and it's very clear that the GM is expected to do exactly that. Yes, the material the GM introduces is expected to connect to the themes and ideas established in the Exposition Session, but it still allows for it. But I don't think that this fact will wind up limiting player agency.
> 
> But what about my comment where I said this is exactly how I've been running D&D for many years? You clipped that off when you quoted me, but I'm genuinely curious for your take on that.
> 
> Why can't D&D be played with an initial session where everyone contributes characters with goals and then world details that fit nicely with those goals and the themes that seem to be generated as a result? 5E's game mechanics are not strongly designed with this in mind, but the Bonds, Flaws, and Traits can really contribute a lot in this way. And then there is no real limit to what you can do as a group independent of the mechanics.



The agency discussion is fraught, and it's helpful to know that pemerton uses a specific definition of agency that aligns with his playstyle.  I'm on record in the other thread to say that total agency -- the ability for players to have their decisions matter -- is more complex than the narrow application pemerton uses.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Ovinomancer said:


> The agency discussion is fraught, and it's helpful to know that pemerton uses a specific definition of agency that aligns with his playstyle.  I'm on record in the other thread to say that total agency -- the ability for players to have their decisions matter -- is more complex than the narrow application pemerton uses.




Oh, absolutely, I realize that. And I think I'm blending threads together with my comments, but seems to make sense. 

Really I think it's as simple as someone saying "I prefer games that are designed to deliver the experience I'm looking for". So in pemerton's case, "I prefer Burning Wheel to most forms of D&D". Pretty simple. 

To tie it into this thread, his stance and that expressed in the OP seem pretty close in meaning, and seem to be summarized by "heavy worldbuilding on the part of the GM prior to play tends to lead to a playstyle I don't prefer, so I tend to avoid games where such wolrdbuilding is assumed". 

I think a lot of the confusion comes over the use of terms and examples of play that are perhaps not as clear as expected.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> Yeah, I saw first hand how much new ideas could get past the gate keepers with 4e, thanks.



Some new ideas from 4e hung around for 5e, because they were generally seen as good ideas.  Many new ideas from 4e did not hang around for 5e, because they were generally seen as bad ideas.

The "gatekeepers" you refer to are filtering by quality and general usefulness, not by recency. 



> Yuppers, that last one is pretty much my exact take.  World building is when you go beyond the needs of the story.  And very, very much of it is for its own sake.



Problem is, when designing a world ahead of time - as in, before the start of play - one has no real way of knowing* what will fall within the story and what will be beyond it until the campaign is over, however long later that may be.  I don't necessarily know where the campaign is eventually going to take us before it starts, but I want things to be at least vaguely prepped (even just some scratch notes and a map!) so that no matter where things go I've got something to stand on.

This makes RPG worldbuilding vastly different to worldbuilding for a novel, in that with a novel the author is extremely likely to know what parts of the world need to be built to suit the story and thus only needs to build that much; where in an RPG where the PCs are free to wander you end up doing a lot of "just in case they go there" building that may well end up being superfluous in hindsight.

* - unless one's campaign consists only of a published hard AP without deviation; not much worldbuilding needed there that the modules won't already give you.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - I'd point out that the definition of world building that I'm using, which is setting building above and beyond the needs of story - is the accepted definition of the term.  Those insisting that world building=anything to do with setting are the ones that are needlessly broadening the term.

You cannot complain about me using an idiosyncratic definition of the word when I'm actually using the generally accepted definition.

IOW, why aren't you complaining about everyone else who is using the term wrong.

 [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - sure, I accept that.  Totally understand.  But, again, there's a significant difference between some notes and a sketch and a three thousand word write up on the shape of windows in the Forgotten Realms.  By and large home brewers aren't really going to go too nuts on world building, mostly because we're too lazy.  

But, when it comes to published stuff?  Hoo boy, the typewriters come out and the books get padded.  Because that sort of stuff is easy.  Bang out a few paragraphs on this or that and you're good to go.  No need for play testing, no need for any cartography or game balance.  Poof, instant material.  Since 99% of it will never actually see the light of day at a table, who cares?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - I'd point out that the definition of world building that I'm using, which is setting building above and beyond the needs of story - is the accepted definition of the term.  Those insisting that world building=anything to do with setting are the ones that are needlessly broadening the term.
> 
> You cannot complain about me using an idiosyncratic definition of the word when I'm actually using the generally accepted definition.
> 
> IOW, why aren't you complaining about everyone else who is using the term wrong.



Yes, I saw that you read those definitions and interpreted them in... interesting ways, but that doesn't mean that your reading is the accepted definition. In fact, if you actually read the rest of that wikipedia article rather than the limit bit you quoted, it covers quite a large swath of what's been talked about in this thread.  Apparently, worldbuilding is a rather broad term.  

By-the-by the Merriam Webster quote is from a entry in their words to watch blog, where they discuss words that are not currently in their dictionary.  So, that source isn't exactly a good one for the definition of worldbuilding, as it's literally (heh) talking about a word they haven't yet defined.


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> A lot of gamers don't know that DitV exists, or, if they do, know little more about it - that it'd represent a 'standard' is pretty unintuitive.



A lot of contemporary filmgoers probably don't know that Breathless, or Citizen Kane, exist - does that mean that discussions of cinema should ignore them?

Discussion of RPGing techniques that confines itself to 2nd ed AD&D, 3E/PF/d20, and 5e, is going to be pretty attenuated.

There are probably some D&D players who think that (say) the Ideals/Bonds/Flaws mechanic in 5e has no origin in, or connection to, earlier RPG design. But they'd be wrong.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Oh, and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], are you sure about your definition?  Wikipedia gives this one:
> 
> Mirriam Webster:
> 
> TV Tropes has the definition I tend to work from:
> 
> Yuppers, that last one is pretty much my exact take.  World building is when you go beyond the needs of the story.  And very, very much of it is for its own sake.




Yep!  Positive.  This is what you are missing.



> world
> wərld/Submit
> noun
> noun: world; noun: the world
> 1. the earth, together with all of its countries, peoples, and natural features.
> 
> a) all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth.
> 
> b) denoting one of the most important or influential people or things of its class.
> 
> c) another planet like the earth.
> 
> d) the material universe or all that exists; everything.
> 
> 2. *a part or aspect of human life or of the natural features of the earth, in particular.*
> 
> a) *a region or group of countries.*
> 
> b) a period of history.
> 
> c) a group of living things.
> 
> d) *the people, places, and activities to do with a particular thing.*
> 
> e) human and social interaction.
> 
> f) average, respectable, or fashionable people or their customs or opinions.
> 
> g)* a person's life and activities.*
> 
> h) everything that exists outside oneself.
> 
> i) secular interests and affairs.




You're making the mistake of equating world with planet.  Planet is one meaning of world, but world also includes subparts such as the Village of Homlet if that's the only region to play in.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> The Standard Narrativist Model basically lays down the framework for what most people in the indie scene at the time saw as *The Alternative* to orthodox 1990's style design. Apocalypse World uses a fundamentally different set of techniques and principles of play. Unlike the clear protagonists with clearly defined dramatic needs that thrown into conflict Apocalypse World places the player characters into a pressure cooker situation where we find out who they are and uses a more naturalistic pace that is centered more on character exploration than conflict resolution. It does so in part by embracing a combination of principles and techniques that are reflective of Story Now games in some places, but in other places are more reminiscent of the play principles and techniques of Moldvay B/X that Vincent Baker cut his teeth on. It also leans on techniques more familiar to the free form community in other places.



I hadn't seen this post when I posted yesterday.

These are exactly the points that you've made before that have shaped the way I think about PbtA games.


----------



## pemerton

pemerton said:
			
		

> The last quoted sentence seems as good as any to describe what is going on. I think the current usage of "worldbuilding" in discussions of RPGing brings with it an assumption of GM authority over that process. I think this is very evident not just in many of the posts in the current threads, but other threads one reads on ENworld, blogs one reads, presentation in D&D rulebooks, etc.
> 
> It's also very often taken for granted, in RPGing, that a "gameworld" is more-or-less independent of any particular group of players or characters - which relates to the idea of "neutrality" that has been put forward by more than one poster in these threads. The process you describe for City of Mists does not produce a "neutral" setting.





Maxperson said:


> People shouldn't assume.  Worldbuilding is the building of the world/setting, regardless of whether the DM does it alone, or in conjunction with his players.  I think you assume DM authority over the process, because most people play the game in the traditional manner still, so most worldbuilding is done by DMs.
> 
> In my opinion, you should assume less, attempt to redefine terms so that you can apply them negatively to playstyles not your own less, and simply talk about the differences in playstyles more.  You'd get far more accomplished that way.



I didn't say anything about assumptions _I_ make. I talked about assumptions, and "takings for granted", that are widespread.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> A lot of contemporary filmgoers probably don't know that Breathless, or Citizen Kane, exist - does that mean that discussions of cinema should ignore them?



 I've sat through Citizen Kane.  It wouldn't hurt. ;P

Seriously, though, it means they shouldn't be held up as typical or standard fare.



> Discussion of RPGing techniques that confines itself to 2nd ed AD&D, 3E/PF/d20, and 5e, is going to be pretty attenuated.
> There are probably some D&D players who think that (say) the Ideals/Bonds/Flaws mechanic in 5e has no origin in, or connection to, earlier RPG design. But they'd be wrong.



Sure, they're wrong about a lot of things, that way.  But it won't help them to understand things by making allusions to more obscure games, rather than spelling things out in terms that might risk making sense to them.




			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> The Standard Narrativist Model basically lays down the framework for what most people in the indie scene at the time saw as *The Alternative* to orthodox 1990's style design.



See, "Alternative Narrativist Model."  That'd be more intuitive.


----------



## pemerton

darkbard said:


> Quick addendum: the "What is *worldbuilidng* for?" thread is actually an offshoot of extensive but tangential discussion in another thread ("What is an xp worth?" I think, but I don't have the time or patience to go back and look). It's quite likely that some further qualification of worldbuilding occurred in that thread, preceding the initial post of the former thread, setting up the ensuing conversation.



It also sprang out of this Classic Traveller thread, which I started (i) for fun, and (ii) to get some ideas for what should happen next in my Traveller game, but which turned into a debate about who gets to establish the fiction (players or GM) and hence how important it is for the players to "gather information".


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> I've sat through Citizen Kane.  It wouldn't hurt.



I have a copy of Citizen Kane on my DVD shelf. It remains one of the greatest of all films. (My favourite film from that era, possibly my favourite film per se, is Casablanca, but that's because I'm sentimental.)



Tony Vargas said:


> it won't help them to understand things by making allusions to more obscure games, rather than spelling things out in terms that might risk making sense to them.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> See, "Alternative Narrativist Model." That'd be more intuitive.



The _standard_ in "standard narrativistic model" isn't describing the model as standard for RPGing. It's standard for narrativistic RPGing. Contrast, say, setting-heavy HeroWars/Quest play, which would be an Alternative Narrativistic Model (see Ron Edwards's discussion here).

As far as spelling things out, there's a 2000-post thread that most of the posters in this thread have participated in for 100s of posts. I don't think I've been remiss in spelling things out.


----------



## Hussar

Wonder if Ovinomancer will be as qick to take Maxperson to task for creativity during definitions.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> I have a copy of Citizen Kane on my DVD shelf. It remains one of the greatest of all films. (My favourite film from that era, possibly my favourite film per se, is Casablanca, but that's because I'm sentimental.)



 I've had mixed reactions to cinema film schools tell us is great, I understand Citizen Kane brought together some techniques and was innovative for it's day, and that it was thinly veiled biography with a message.
It was also reasonably boring.

I get the impression a lot of indie games are aspiring to be Citizen Kane while D&D's Fast&FuriousFive kills em at the box office...



> The _standard_ in "standard narrativistic model" isn't describing the model as standard for RPGing. It's standard for narrativistic RPGing.



 Nope, doesn't work. Neither does 'Story Now,' really, though it's not as bad.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Hussar said:


> Wonder if Ovinomancer will be as qick to take Maxperson to task for creativity during definitions.




I have, as recently as yesterday.  Just so we can get past this part quickly, are there any more flaws of character you'd like to insinuate?


----------



## Maxperson

darkbard said:


> Couldn't agree with this more. Granted, this conversation spans many threads, but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], for example, clearly defines his terms in the OP of (and many, many times throughout) the "what is *worldbuilding* for?" thread, yet what you describe is characteristic of how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] seem to "choos[e] to misunderstand him for the sake of perpetuating the confusion or sidestepping his argument without good faith." Particularly, when you combine this with what Maxperson says upthread* about delibertately misrepresenting arguments!
> 
> *I think it's in this thread, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to keep track of who posted what where....




Eh, no.  We're not misunderstanding him at all.  We are rejecting his bad faith attempts to re-define terms that already have a lot of meaning in these discussions in order to suit his personal arguments.  Those terms are going to come up in these discussions as they are really meant to be defined.  Especially since he likes to re-define terms in order to use those new definitions to portray playstyles other than his own in a negative light.  He needs to come up with different terms, or else just type out what he means in long form.


----------



## Maxperson

darkbard said:


> Okay, fair enough: I went back and looked at the initial post, and, it's true, that the latter, stronger definition (GM preauthoring used to curtail PC action) doesn't appear there.
> 
> But your larger point (at least I think it's been your argument at times; as I say above, it becomes increasingly more difficult to keep track), I think, is that  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been inconsistent in his use of the term.
> 
> And that's where I disagree: I see no inconsistency. What I do perceive is a further refinement and clarification of what he means across many, many posts. And, after all, isn't that a point of analysis, to not only represent our views but, in attempting to codify them, hold them up to our own scrutiny (as well as that of others) so we have a better understanding of what our views actually are, and why we hold them?




It doesn't mater if he's consistent or not.  It's bad faith to try and re-define terms to suit your personal needs in a discussion.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Wonder if Ovinomancer will be as qick to take Maxperson to task for creativity during definitions.




I'm using actual definitions.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> I'm using actual definitions.




No, you're not actually.  The commonly accepted use of world building is distinct from setting.  I posted three different sources and they all agree that world building =/= setting creation.  it's going above and beyond what is needed for the setting.  Granted, my own take is much more negative, and that's fair enough.  I see world building as self indulgent and largely a waste of time.  You are trying to redefine world building to mean any and all setting elements.

It's like trying to say that forest=1 tree.  Now, where a group of trees becomes a forest is vague and undefined.  We can't actually say how many trees it takes to make a forest.  But, that doesn't make 1 tree plus 1 tree suddenly a forest.


----------



## Hussar

Ovinomancer said:


> I have, as recently as yesterday.  Just so we can get past this part quickly, are there any more flaws of character you'd like to insinuate?




Missed that.  Have to go back and reread some posts I think.

/edit to add

Yup, just went back over the posts from today and yesterday.  other than you specifically agreeing with [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] that world building is the same as setting creation, you actually say nothing about how he and you, have redefined the common definition of the word to suit your own argument.

Look, I posted three different sources that all agree on this.  World building and setting creation are not the same thing.  Not all setting creation is world building.  World building is going above and beyond what is required by setting.  I've been consistent with my use of the term, and have been consistent in my use going back ten years (since this is a ten year old thread.  

It's those who want to redefine the term that are the issue here.  If you redefine world building to encompass any and all setting construction, then, sure, obviously it's not a bad thing.  It can be but it might not be.  But, that's YOUR definition and not the commonly accepted one.  Nor is that how it's used when used in academic circles to describe second world creation.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Yup, just went back over the posts from today and yesterday.  other than you specifically agreeing with [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] that world building is the same as setting creation, you actually say nothing about how he and you, have redefined the common definition of the word to suit your own argument.




Probably because no re-definition happened on our end of things.  World has always meant more than just planet.  You're the one misconstruing it to only mean planet.



> Look, I posted three different sources that all agree on this.  World building and setting creation are not the same thing.  Not all setting creation is world building.  World building is going above and beyond what is required by setting.  I've been consistent with my use of the term, and have been consistent in my use going back ten years (since this is a ten year old thread.




They agree that it builds a world.  That's not the same as planet.  In the game I mentioned where the campaign was limited to one city, that city was the world.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> No, you're not actually.  The commonly accepted use of world building is distinct from setting.  I posted three different sources and they all agree that world building =/= setting creation.




First, all three of your sources just say that world building is building a world.  I posted definitions that say a world can be anything from a single city on up.  Second, none of your definitions were about RPGs.  They were all about writing fantasy novels and this isn't a discussion about writing fantasy novels, so the definitions you posted don't even apply here.  



> It's like trying to say that forest=1 tree. Now, where a group of trees becomes a forest is vague and undefined. We can't actually say how many trees it takes to make a forest. But, that doesn't make 1 tree plus 1 tree suddenly a forest.




Right, that's why I didn't claim one NPC or one building was a world.  It takes at least city or other similar sized area.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Look, I posted three different sources that all agree on this.  World building and setting creation are not the same thing.  Not all setting creation is world building.  World building is going above and beyond what is required by setting.  I've been consistent with my use of the term, and have been consistent in my use going back ten years (since this is a ten year old thread.
> 
> It's those who want to redefine the term that are the issue here.  If you redefine world building to encompass any and all setting construction, then, sure, obviously it's not a bad thing.  It can be but it might not be.  But, that's YOUR definition and not the commonly accepted one.  Nor is that how it's used when used in academic circles to describe second world creation.




If that's what you think you've done, you're quite a cherry picker. That wikipedia article you *selectively* quoted from specifically has a passage about world building as a bottom-up process in which the world is built by focusing on the immediate need - hey, like the denizens of a dungeon. Of course, that section draws heavily from a resource directly related to world building in RPGs. So, it's not like starting small and local hasn't been a known element of world building in RPGs since the early days.

As for Merriam-Webster, I don't think the definition is saying anything to support your thesis - that there's some inherent difference in an RPG between setting and world building. In fact, since it's a new world (as most RPG settings are), the term world building would definitely apply by Merriam-Webster's definition. Setting would be what Shakespeare would do by setting his plays in Verona, Rome, or Denmark - places that exist and are selected rather than created entirely of the imagination.

Even TV Tropes calls out that technically everything builds the world but chooses to focus on the one definition you are flogging in this thread. Looks like you finally got one. You're batting 1 for 3 in your own examples while the rest of us are batting 2 for 3.


----------



## Imaculata

Have we reached that inevitable point where we're quoting dictionaries already?


----------



## Sadras

Imaculata said:


> Have we reached that inevitable point where we're quoting dictionaries already?




If it helps us resolve but one of these worldbuilding threads it will be well worth it.


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, you were doing so well until you got to arriving bad motives to those that disagree with you.
> 
> Worldbuilding is a uselessly broad term, but I don't think anyone using it broadly was doing so out of malice or mischief.  Rather, it's more likely they, using the term broadly, felt attacked by those using the term now narrowly without clear statements of how they were using the term.  Thers also the tendency in this thread for posters to define worldbuilding in a way tgat speed their preferences rather than to achieve a consensus on the use of the term.  This cuts against both sides.



I don't think that these are necessarily "bad motives," but I do think that they are sympathetically human ones. "False equivalence" and "zealotry" do not have to be done out of "malice or mischief" for them to transpire. People who enjoy the broader project of fictive world creation obviously don't enjoy being told that their "hobby project" may not be warranted, productive, or even healthy when it comes to storytelling, whether that comes in the form of written fiction or collaborative play. Nevertheless, the reaction is one of religious defense, and the apologists do engage in a lot of equivocation of what "worldbuilding" entails such that one cannot criticize "worldbuilding" without criticizing every aspect of the "expanding in-game fiction." But that is not the intent. Though "worldbuilding" does have a much broader sense, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] also linked to a series of discussed definitions (i.e., Wikipedia, TV Tropes, Miriam Webster Dictionary) that suggest a more restricted connotative usage that does reflect the usage of the OP and critics of worldbuilding. 



> Finally, my comment in setting building was that, absent clarification, i would not have assumed setting building was different from worldbuilding.  It was not a rejection of setting building as a specific subset of worldbuilding activities, just a comment that it wasn't inherently obvious it referred to different things.  Perhaps i could have been more clear about this at the time, and that's a criticism I'll take. But, at no time was I saying that such a term couldn't be usefully defined abd used to further conversation -- again, just that it wasnt obviously different without further definition.  I apologise for any confusion.



Thank you for that clarification. It was unclear from your initial comments.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> I don't think that these are necessarily "bad motives," but I do think that they are sympathetically human ones. "False equivalence" and "zealotry" do not have to be done out of "malice or mischief" for them to transpire. People who enjoy the broader project of fictive world creation obviously don't enjoy being told that their "hobby project" may not be warranted, productive, or even healthy when it comes to storytelling, whether that comes in the form of written fiction or collaborative play. Nevertheless, the reaction is one of religious defense, and the apologists do engage in a lot of equivocation of what "worldbuilding" entails such that one cannot criticize "worldbuilding" without criticizing every aspect of the "expanding in-game fiction." But that is not the intent. Though "worldbuilding" does have a much broader sense, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] also linked to a series of discussed definitions (i.e., Wikipedia, TV Tropes, Miriam Webster Dictionary) that suggest a more restricted connotative usage that does reflect the usage of the OP and critics of worldbuilding.
> 
> Thank you for that clarification. It was unclear from your initial comments.



From this it's rather clear that you are more interested in describing the other side in a poor light rather than achieving any kind of mutual understanding.  You have fun with that.


----------



## pemerton

Imaculata said:


> Have we reached that inevitable point where we're quoting dictionaries already?



I know we don't agree on everything RPG related, but I think we're in agreement that the interesting part of this thread isn't the semantics!


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> From this it's rather clear that you are more interested in describing the other side in a poor light rather than achieving any kind of mutual understanding.  You have fun with that.



Now look who is more interested in assigning bad motives to people than reaching mutual understanding. So while we are here... 


Ovinomancer said:


> I have, as recently as yesterday.  *Just so we can get past this part quickly, are there any more flaws of character you'd like to insinuate?*



Well, do you, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Huh.  You used like "religious" and "zealot" and "apologists" and "false equivalency."  Are you saying you're unaware of the definitions and connotations of these words and didn't use them intentionally?


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I don't think that these are necessarily "bad motives," but I do think that they are sympathetically human ones. "*False equivalence*" and "*zealotry*" do not have to be done out of "malice or mischief" for them to transpire. People who enjoy the broader project of fictive world creation obviously don't enjoy being told that their "hobby project" may not be warranted, productive, or even healthy when it comes to storytelling, whether that comes in the form of written fiction or collaborative play. Nevertheless, the reaction is one of *religious defense*, and the *apologists* do engage in a lot of equivocation of what "worldbuilding" entails such that one cannot criticize "worldbuilding" without criticizing every aspect of the "expanding in-game fiction." But that is not the intent. Though "worldbuilding" does have a much broader sense,  @_*Hussar*_ also linked to a series of discussed definitions (i.e., Wikipedia, TV Tropes, Miriam Webster Dictionary) that suggest a more restricted connotative usage that does reflect the usage of the OP and critics of worldbuilding.




That's not happening, though.  If @_*Hussar*_ had simply said that he prefers to worldbuild on a small scale and that he feels that large scale worldbuilding is a waste of his time, people could be discussing the differences.  Instead, he's trying to re-define what worldbuilding is in order to paint the whole of worldbuilding in a bad light.  Now you're joining him by attacking the character of people who are simply saying, "Hey, stop with the attempt to re-define worldbuilding and just discuss what you like and don't like to do WHEN worldbuilding."


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> Huh.  You used like "religious" and "zealot" and "apologists" and "false equivalency."  Are you saying you're unaware of the definitions and connotations of these words and didn't use them intentionally?



That's a loaded question.



Maxperson said:


> That's not happening, though.  If @_*Hussar*_ had simply said that he prefers to worldbuild on a small scale and that he feels that large scale worldbuilding is a waste of his time, people could be discussing the differences.  *Instead, he's trying to re-define what worldbuilding is in order to paint the whole of worldbuilding in a bad light.*  Now you're joining him by attacking the character of people who are simply saying, "Hey, stop with the attempt to re-define worldbuilding and just discuss what you like and don't like to do WHEN worldbuilding."



I don't think that is redefining the term "worldbuilding" at all, but, rather, that his use reflects an understanding of the most prevalent performative mode of activity that "worldbuilding" takes in common parlance.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I don't think that is redefining the term "worldbuilding" at all, but, rather, that his use reflects an understanding of the most prevalent performative mode of activity that "worldbuilding" takes in common parlance.



Except that it doesn't.  Worldbuilding is just building a world, which includes all acts that would be involved with that.  There has never been a need to build a complete world.  Let's look at all of the worlds that TSR and WotC have created.  Athas was never built in its entirety.  I don't think Krynn was built in its entirety.  Oerth was not built in its entirety.  Faerun was not built in its entirety.  Worldbuilding in an RPG hasn't ever required building an entire planet like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is trying to claim.  It can be as small as a city-state and as large as a planet.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> That's a loaded question.




You mean in the sense that you either knew exactly what those words meant or you have to confess to using them in ignorance?  Yes, it's loaded in _exactly_ that way.

I'm open to alternatives, though.


----------



## pemerton

If all of one's "worldbuidling" resembles KotB rather than Village of Hommlet, then [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has no objection to it. What does it matter than he doesn't call it worldbuilding, and confines that word to the stuff you don't do?

Conversely, if some of what you do is more like VoH than KotB, Hussar has said he doesn't like it. What does it matter to you that he doesn't use the term "worldbuilding" to describe the stuff he doesn't mind?


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> If all of one's "worldbuidling" resembles KotB rather than Village of Hommlet, then @_*Hussar*_ has no objection to it. What does it matter than he doesn't call it worldbuilding, and confines that word to the stuff you don't do?
> 
> Conversely, if some of what you do is more like VoH than KotB, Hussar has said he doesn't like it. What does it matter to you that he doesn't use the term "worldbuilding" to describe the stuff he doesn't mind?




This seems like a strange direction to take this discussion/debate.

Are you really advocating anyone use terms willy nilly to say things as they wish because it shouldn't matter to anyone else because presumably no-one else is at their table and therefore no objection is warranted? Is that really the type of discussion you're wanting to promote?


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> If all of one's "worldbuidling" resembles KotB rather than Village of Hommlet, then  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has no objection to it. What does it matter than he doesn't call it worldbuilding, and confines that word to the stuff you don't do?
> 
> Conversely, if some of what you do is more like VoH than KotB, Hussar has said he doesn't like it. What does it matter to you that he doesn't use the term "worldbuilding" to describe the stuff he doesn't mind?



Communication of ideas.  If I define stupid you mean "those with an IQ of less than 135" and you defined out as "those with an IQ less than 85" and Bob defines it as "people who think differently from me" then we cannot habe a useful discussion about stupidity if we all keep using the same word for it.  Outside of that discussion, however, your free to use it giver you want.  If you purpose is actual discussion and understandibg, though, confusion of meaning because you all define a term differently is actively harmful to the goal.

So, if you want to use worldbuilding in a specific way, then you need to be very clear about your definition.  If your definition differs fruition the generally accepted, you will get pushback because your introducing confusion by redefining a word.  It's often helpful to establish a new term that clearly indicates your meaning.

Insisting others accept your definition is fine in a paper or blog post, where you can define and expound, but in a multiuser discussion format you it's an impediment. 

Of course, you're free to do whatever you want -- I'm not the thread police.  But, if you're going to complain because others don't like your redefining of words, I'm going to say I told you so.

To be 100% clear, the underlying preferences of pretty much everyone in the thread are totally valid here.  I don't disagree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] on his preference; I'm running a game that fits his model to a T right now.  I'm critical of his aggressive style and the need to define worldbuilding in a way that makes his argument correct when he already had a great point that didn't need to win the definition war.  I think worldbuilding is a lousy term to try to coop into anything other than a nearly uselessly broad description of creation of fictional places.  I think setting building, as defined by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], is a much better term for clarity and understanding.  I dont understand the need to colonize worldbuilding and terraform (see what I did there?) its meaning so that it supports an independently valid argument.


----------



## darkbard

Just as a quick aside, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]: We all make typos; it's inevitable. But may I humbly suggest that you slow down a little bit in your responses (the crafting of them, not the frequency!), for over the last few days I have had to reread many, many sentences of yours several times to figure out what word you really mean. Sometimes, as [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] jokes, the typing is so garbled it defies comprehension.

I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk here; but if the goal is, and you seem to advocate for this, clear communication, I, at least, would certainly find this helpful!


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> Are you really advocating anyone use terms willy nilly to say things as they wish because it shouldn't matter to anyone else because presumably no-one else is at their table and therefore no objection is warranted? Is that really the type of discussion you're wanting to promote?



What I'm asking is that if you are doing the stuff that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] _doesn't _call "worldbuilding", which is also the stuff he is quite happy with it (eg B2), why would you care that he doesn't use a particular label?

And conversely, if you're doing the stuff that he doesn't like, and which he does call "worldbuilding" (eg T1), why does it matter that he doesn't apply that same label to the stuff he does like? I mean, given that there's stuff he does like that he's trying to distinguish the stuff that a T1-er does, it's no surprise that he uses different terms for the two sorts of thing.

Following on from the previous paragraph: suppose that you persuade Hussar to call B2 as well as T1 worldbuilding. That's not going to make him like T1 any better! He's still going to be critical of it, and - by implication - of the work of those who do that sort of thing themselves. Isn't it those critical differences that are of interest here, rather than the particular terminology being used?


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> You mean in the sense that you either knew exactly what those words meant or you have to confess to using them in ignorance?  Yes, it's loaded in _exactly_ that way.



So you would agree that your was a question not asked in good faith? 



> I'm open to alternatives, though.



I hope that's true. I suppose we will see through your actions. But when you say that I am simply "arriving bad motives to those who disagree with [me]" - which is certainly a negative insinuation of my motives and character in its own right - and then I respond by saying that the reactions made by others are "sympathetically human" and that the argumentative apologies and fallacies do not necessarily require "malice or mischief," then I am not sure why you think that I am not approaching this conversation with an intent to achieve a consensus. Part of consensus requires understanding, sympathy, and an awareness of the position of others. This process also requires identifying the root issue that lies behind the emotive and argumentive reactions made. These to me are not "bad motives." They are human ones. But that does not mean that I am morally obligated to intentionally blind myself to fallacies of others when they transpire or mute my own frustrations with the discourse of the conversation. And I do think that the part of the root cause for the reaction against "worldbuilding critics" stems from confusing a criticism of the trees with a criticism of the forest. 

Disclaimer: Analogies are inherently imperfect, and they often entail opening unwanted doors of discussion. So when I make a few analogies here, would you please be willing, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], to help our discussion through keeping the focus on Worldbuilding and not the subjects of comparison that I will point out in my analogies? 

If this thread was entitled "Why Alcoholic Drinking is Bad," we would invariably find a similar set of reactions: less in terms of information content, but more in terms of emotional content. There would be those who would likely understand that the topic is meant to discuss the problem of _excess_ drinking, alcoholism (addiction), or how alcohol has negative physical and/or social side-effects to a person and others. (There would also be a lot of anecdotal "This is not a problem for me..." and "I enjoy drinking.") But such a thread is not even necessarily saying §"Never drink alcohol" or even "You are a bad person for drinking." But these last two points (§) are invariably the emotional reactions that people voice based on the title or from the feeling that their personhood is somehow under attack. (I had thought about also raising the analogy with the issue of "Toxic Masculinity," but I think that would be too much of a can of worms to open in this thread.) And it seems fairly clear that there are similar reactions here such that the topic is being attacked on the basis of the emotional reactions §. There is less of an acknowledgment of the problems of excess or extraneous worldbuilding and more of an attempt to discredit the problem at hand. One way I have commonly seen the argument discredited amounts in paraphrase to "you can't criticize worldbuilding because everything is worldbuilding." Another has been on insisting that the vaguely general sense of the word's meaning is somehow the most "accepted" one over against its more particularized and connotative sense in common parlance. 



Ovinomancer said:


> So, if you want to use worldbuilding in a specific way, then you need to be very clear about your definition.  If your definition differs fruition the generally accepted, you will get pushback because your introducing confusion by redefining a word.  It's often helpful to establish a new term that clearly indicates your meaning.



But this runs both ways. There are others who are using it an incredibly general way and others still who are insisting that the conversation adhere to their definition, whether narrower or broader. But being a "generally vague" sense should not equate to the "commonly understood" way. And I think that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s sense of "worldbuilding" runs much closer to the common parole than the more generally broad way in which "worldbuilding" is everything created under the sun. Hussar's usage of the term is evident in sheer preponderance and character of written and video articles found throughout the Internet on worldbuilding tips, advice, guidance, etc. The character of this term's usage is more particularized to a set of activities that often transpire on a different level than a world that emerges through play. The most common sense of the term frames worldbuilding as an authorial pre-emergent fiction activity. 



> Insisting others accept your definition is fine in a paper or blog post, where you can define and expound, but in a multiuser discussion format you it's an impediment.



And yet there are others who are also insisting on their definition or understanding, so putting this burden on [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] or [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] seems shortsighted, as this demand does not seem placed on others but just them. If as you say, everyone is insisting on a different definition of "stupid," then it seems a bit odd that you are admonishing one group for "redefining" a term while not admonishing another for doing the same or insisting on upholding a broader, vaguer, more general sense. 



> Of course, you're free to do whatever you want -- I'm not the thread police.  But, if you're going to complain because others don't like your redefining of words, I'm going to say I told you so.



Again, I don't think that he is "redefining" the term since his usage reflects common parlance of the term "worldbuilding" in praxis.


----------



## Ovinomancer

darkbard said:


> Just as a quick aside, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]: We all make typos; it's inevitable. But may I humbly suggest that you slow down a little bit in your responses (the crafting of them, not the frequency!), for over the last few days I have had to reread many, many sentences of yours several times to figure out what word you really mean. Sometimes, as [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] jokes, the typing is so garbled it defies comprehension.
> 
> I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk here; but if the goal is, and you seem to advocate for this, clear communication, I, at least, would certainly find this helpful!



The perils of posting on a phone.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Just to clarify on some of the definitions that were posted earlier, here are links for a couple of the sites so people can read the entire entries. I've also quoted some bits that I think support a more broad definition of worldbuilding. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldbuilding

Here's the opening quote, expanded a bit from what was posted earlier (bolded emphasis mine):

"_*Worldbuilding is the process of constructing an imaginary world*, sometimes associated with a whole fictional universe.[1] The resulting world may be called a constructed world. *Developing an imaginary setting* with coherent qualities such as a history, geography, and ecology is a key task for many science fiction or fantasy writers.[2] Worldbuilding *often* involves the creation of maps, a backstory, and people for the world. Constructed worlds can enrich the backstory and history of fictional works, and it is not uncommon for authors to revise their constructed worlds while completing its associated work. *Constructed worlds can be created for* personal amusement and mental exercise, or for specific creative endeavors such as novels, video games, or *role-playing games*._"

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WorldBuilding

_"Worldbuilding has two separate meanings:

   1) The creation of a Fantasy World Map, history, geography, ecology, mythology, several different cultures in detail, and usually a set of "ground rules", metaphysical or otherwise. Sometimes, such worlds will have a Creation Myth that's either hinted at or told in more detailed fashion. This kind of worldbuilding can go to the extreme of working out entire constructed languages. Authors typically revise constructed worlds to complete a single work in a series.
   2) *The work that goes into deciding the details of a setting*. It's very difficult to write a story that contains absolutely no imaginary elements beyond what's described to the reader, so nearly every author worldbuilds a little bit. Some, however, go above and beyond the call of duty in that regard, in which case the sheer amount of detail not immediately relevant to the story at hand often serves as a major distinguishing point of their work. 

Extra worldbuilding that is only referred to obliquely is a Cryptic Background Reference. Over the course of a long running series or large persistent universe such as an MMORPG, these add up to form what is sometimes known as the "invisible book"- the portion of a story which becomes known over time without ever actually being directly described._"

So I don't think the definition as put forth by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is as common as he wants it to be. I think the actual term is far broader. 

Now, that doesn't mean that I don't understand the gripe that Hussar and the OP and others who agree have with excessive worldbuilding done by a GM prior to play. I can understand that criticism, and I can agree that the GM is likely better served by spending that time on more relevant aspects of their game. 

But I think the real question is....where is that line? At what point is it too excessive? Sure, we can site _The Silmarillion_ as being a bit much. The example of Village of Hommlett is a good one for the purposes of this discussion. But they also lean toward the extreme. 

What would be a more subtle example? Where do people draw that line? Obviously, some don't draw it at all....but I think most of us do at some point. Where?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> So you would agree that your was a question not asked in good faith?
> 
> I hope that's true. I suppose we will see through your actions. But when you say that I am simply "arriving bad motives to those who disagree with [me]" - which is certainly a negative insinuation of my motives and character in its own right - and then I respond by saying that the reactions made by others are "sympathetically human" and that the argumentative apologies and fallacies do not necessarily require "malice or mischief," then I am not sure why you think that I am not approaching this conversation with an intent to achieve a consensus. Part of consensus requires understanding, sympathy, and an awareness of the position of others. This process also requires identifying the root issue that lies behind the emotive and argumentive reactions made. These to me are not "bad motives." They are human ones. But that does not mean that I am morally obligated to intentionally blind myself to fallacies of others when they transpire or mute my own frustrations with the discourse of the conversation. And I do think that the part of the root cause for the reaction against "worldbuilding critics" stems from confusing a criticism of the trees with a criticism of the forest.
> 
> Disclaimer: Analogies are inherently imperfect, and they often entail opening unwanted doors of discussion. So when I make a few analogies here, would you please be willing, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], to help our discussion through keeping the focus on Worldbuilding and not the subjects of comparison that I will point out in my analogies?
> 
> If this thread was entitled "Why Alcoholic Drinking is Bad," we would invariably find a similar set of reactions: less in terms of information content, but more in terms of emotional content. There would be those who would likely understand that the topic is meant to discuss the problem of _excess_ drinking, alcoholism (addiction), or how alcohol has negative physical and/or social side-effects to a person and others. (There would also be a lot of anecdotal "This is not a problem for me..." and "I enjoy drinking.") But such a thread is not even necessarily saying §"Never drink alcohol" or even "You are a bad person for drinking." But these last two points (§) are invariably the emotional reactions that people voice based on the title or from the feeling that their personhood is somehow under attack. (I had thought about also raising the analogy with the issue of "Toxic Masculinity," but I think that would be too much of a can of worms to open in this thread.) And it seems fairly clear that there are similar reactions here such that the topic is being attacked on the basis of the emotional reactions §. There is less of an acknowledgment of the problems of excess or extraneous worldbuilding and more of an attempt to discredit the problem at hand. One way I have commonly seen the argument discredited amounts in paraphrase to "you can't criticize worldbuilding because everything is worldbuilding." Another has been on insisting that the vaguely general sense of the word's meaning is somehow the most "accepted" one over against its more particularized and connotative sense in common parlance.



I have no issue with what you've written above.  It was notably missing highly charged terms such as zealotry and religious defense, though.  Using the charged terms you chose to use carries a distinct connotation alongside a definition that works against your more points above -- zealotry, for instance, is a fanatic devotion which isn't the same thing as emotionally fraught thinking.  Your use of the terminology the first time prompted me to respond with a careful admonition that you were sliding into accusing others of bad motivations (zealotry isn't something that would garner the description of a good motivation, after all).  Your response doubled-down on the charged terms, which shorted out any good points you were making.

If your contention is merely that people can and will respond emotionally, I think our recent exchange clearly shows that to be true.  I feel, however, that this cuts even more towards my advice that people clearly define their term usages and even try to adopt non-conflicted terminology rather than continue to war over the ownership of a contested word.

A war which, largely, your response to my other post below continues.


> But this runs both ways. There are others who are using it an incredibly general way and others still who are insisting that the conversation adhere to their definition, whether narrower or broader. But being a "generally vague" sense should not equate to the "commonly understood" way. And I think that  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s sense of "worldbuilding" runs much closer to the common parole than the more generally broad way in which "worldbuilding" is everything created under the sun. Hussar's usage of the term is evident in sheer preponderance and character of written and video articles found throughout the Internet on worldbuilding tips, advice, guidance, etc. The character of this term's usage is more particularized to a set of activities that often transpire on a different level than a world that emerges through play. The most common sense of the term frames worldbuilding as an authorial pre-emergent fiction activity.
> 
> And yet there are others who are also insisting on their definition or understanding, so putting this burden on [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] or  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] seems shortsighted, as this demand does not seem placed on others but just them. If as you say, everyone is insisting on a different definition of "stupid," then it seems a bit odd that you are admonishing one group for "redefining" a term while not admonishing another for doing the same or insisting on upholding a broader, vaguer, more general sense.
> 
> Again, I don't think that he is "redefining" the term since his usage reflects common parlance of the term "worldbuilding" in praxis.



Of course it runs both ways, that's been my point all along -- the term is highly contested and therefore it's better to be extremely and repeatedly clear as to your definition of it (something [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] admirably did, but only after how many pages of confusion?) or, even better, adopt a non-contested word or phrase for your take on the matter.

An example of this is the other worldbuilding thread where I coined several new terms to coherently and clearly describe the styles as I was discussing them.  Many of those terms are now in common use in that thread by other posters and are still true to the meaning I gave them.  By moving away from 'worldbuilding' and the contest of definitons in that thread and supplying 'preparation' which more closely matched the OP's usage, there was no confusion on my points that revolved around the unique definitions each poster had of worldbuilding.  I practice exactly what I preach.

Worldbuilding does mean excessive detail creation about a fictional setting, just as you claim (without evidence, mind) that the internet sources largely say (accepted arguendo).  But those sources ALSO say it's any details about a fictional setting, and that there are many methods that generate different quantities of material with different focuses, so it's clearly not all set in stone.  Even the full pages of the sources cited by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] introduce complication to the simple claim that worldbuilding follows his personal definition.  It does, but it also means other things that aren't his definition.  Yet, here we are, arguing over who gets ownership of "worldbuilding" when the answer is truly that we all do -- we're all supported by the various definitions of worldbuilding.  And that's what makes it useless for discussion unless we all agree to the same definition.  And, since that seems unlikely (and probably unpossible(sic)), a better method would be to be clear, every time, what you mean when you use worldbuilding, or, even better since it avoids all argument over the definition of worldbuilding, coin or adopt a new phrase or word that you can clearly claim with your definitions.  "Setting-building" along with the clear definition of such, is a great usage.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Ovinomancer said:


> The perils of posting on a phone.



 Exactly the point of my attempt at humor.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Tony Vargas said:


> Exactly the point of my attempt at humor.



I got it.  It was very droll.


----------



## Lanefan

Speaking only for myself, and in truth never really having given any clear thought to it before this month, I've always just taken "worldbuilding" to mean the design etc. of everything that's not included in the process of designing adventures.  And there's a fuzzy area between the two: the Keep in B2 or the Village in T1 sit right in that fuzzy area between adventure design and worldbuilding; in that in both cases they're part of the greater game world yet are also intended to have more or less direct influence on the actual adventure as written.

In other (and simpler) words:

The Caves of Chaos or the Moathouse: adventure design
The Keep or the Village: fuzzy area between adventure design and worldbuilding
The road and terrain between these two sites: worldbuilding.

The one place "worldbuilding" doesn't work as a term for me is when designing something bigger than one planetary world...e.g. a cosmology, or how the various planes interact, or a space-based setting covering many planets and systems.  These are more like "universe building".

Lan-"out of this world"-efan


----------



## pemerton

Aldarc said:


> One way I have commonly seen the argument discredited amounts in paraphrase to "you can't criticize worldbuilding because everything is worldbuilding."



I agree (I think) that this is not a very good argument. You can't _effectively_ defend a particular technique by denying the vocabulary to isolate and critically analyse it.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> At what point is it too excessive? Sure, we can site _The Silmarillion_ as being a bit much. The example of Village of Hommlett is a good one for the purposes of this discussion. But they also lean toward the extreme.



If I played an RPG that had setting on the scale of the Silmarillion, I wouldn't think it was too much! It would be awesome!

Provided that the setting had been established in a particular sort of way.

That is, for my part, I'm not fussed about quantity. I'm fussed about process - how the game is played and the fiction established. (This is related to my sense, in the RPG context, that "worldbuilding" is generally understood to be something that the GM does as part of the preparation for play.)


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Ovinomancer said:


> I got it.  It was very droll.




I assume you really meant 'very troll', because that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], once you start cutting him up, he just keeps fighting!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> Speaking only for myself, and in truth never really having given any clear thought to it before this month, I've always just taken "worldbuilding" to mean the design etc. of everything that's not included in the process of designing adventures.  And there's a fuzzy area between the two: the Keep in B2 or the Village in T1 sit right in that fuzzy area between adventure design and worldbuilding; in that in both cases they're part of the greater game world yet are also intended to have more or less direct influence on the actual adventure as written.
> 
> In other (and simpler) words:
> 
> The Caves of Chaos or the Moathouse: adventure design
> The Keep or the Village: fuzzy area between adventure design and worldbuilding
> The road and terrain between these two sites: worldbuilding.
> 
> The one place "worldbuilding" doesn't work as a term for me is when designing something bigger than one planetary world...e.g. a cosmology, or how the various planes interact, or a space-based setting covering many planets and systems.  These are more like "universe building".
> 
> Lan-"out of this world"-efan




Now, I'd largely agree with you myself. I never thought the whole thing was THAT controversial! lol.

I'm willing to call the small distance between the Keep and the Caves part of the 'Adventure' simply because its expected to function as a 'space' in the adventure structure. OTOH it does exist largely for 'game logic' purposes, functionally you basically might as well have the Caves right next to the Keep. 

The Keep definitely has SOME world building status IMHO, since its game function could have been accomplished more simply (as a safe place to rest and recover). I think it is still largely 'part of the adventure' in the sense that the particulars of it can matter to specific runs through B2. I'd also point out (as someone else did in the other thread IIRC) that B2 doesn't try to define ANYTHING about the Keep in relation to the rest of the world, who owns it, how it is maintained, what its purposes is, who the Castellan works for, etc. 

As an interesting aside, I also argued in the other thread that these very weaknesses (as well as other more significant ones) makes it difficult to attempt to use narrativist techniques with B2. The motives of the various NPCs/monsters are unknowable given we can't understand how and why they live as they do. OTOH, as SETTING the Keep's vagueness can be helpful, since it certainly doesn't preclude inventing any particular world details you might want to use in scene framing. I think that illustrates why 'classical' technique games often crave more detail, but Story Now games seem to crave less (but not none by any means).


----------



## MichaelSomething

Overdoing World building is putting out a book on your world's history before putting out the sixth novel in your series...


----------



## billd91

MichaelSomething said:


> Overdoing World building is putting out a book on your world's history before putting out the sixth novel in your series...




I laugh to keep from crying


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> If I played an RPG that had setting on the scale of the Silmarillion, I wouldn't think it was too much! It would be awesome!
> 
> Provided that the setting had been established in a particular sort of way.
> 
> That is, for my part, I'm not fussed about quantity. I'm fussed about process - how the game is played and the fiction established. (This is related to my sense, in the RPG context, that "worldbuilding" is generally understood to be something that the GM does as part of the preparation for play.)




That’s fine....but my comment was made in the context f a GM establishing that level of detail prior to play. It’s not clear from the bit you quoted, but I think in the larger context kf my entire post, it’s clear.

In which case, I would expect that you would not like that level of detail under those circumstances.


----------



## Tony Vargas

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I assume you really meant 'very troll', because that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], once you start cutting him up, he just keeps fighting!



 Anyone recognize this one:

"Dim and blubbery, loathsome Drolls are able to reiterate..."


----------



## Ovinomancer

Tony Vargas said:


> Anyone recognize this one:
> 
> "Dim and blubbery, loathsome Drolls are able to reiterate..."




Feh, being droll is very far from being dim and blubbery.  You may take this as a compliment if you wish.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Ovinomancer said:


> Feh, being droll is very far from being dim and blubbery.  You may take this as a compliment if you wish.



 No need to reply if you don't recognize the quote.    It's pretty obscure.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Tony Vargas said:


> No need to reply if you don't recognize the quote.    It's pretty obscure.



I thought I did, but now I'm unsure.  It's a parody of an OD&D ir Basic typo in the troll description, yeah?


----------



## billd91

Ovinomancer said:


> I thought I did, but now I'm unsure.  It's a parody of an OD&D ir Basic typo in the troll description, yeah?




Probably from one of the April Dragon Magazine articles. There was often some April Foolin’. I’m pretty sure at least on or two got included in a Best of the Dragon compilations back in the day. This one is just familiar enough I may be remembering from one of those publications.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Ovinomancer said:


> I thought I did, but now I'm unsure.  It's a parody of an OD&D ir Basic typo in the troll description, yeah?



If you want to know:

[sblock]...it's from an April issue Dragon magazine article that presented various types of players as monsters.  In addition to the Droll, it had the Umpyre, various forms of Weregamers - 'Wererommel' is the only one I remember at the moment, it's movement was 'overextended' ...  [/sblock]

...but, yeah, if I'm not a Droll I probably at least have Ring of Reiteration.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> Probably because no re-definition happened on our end of things.  World has always meant more than just planet.  You're the one misconstruing it to only mean planet.
> 
> 
> 
> They agree that it builds a world.  That's not the same as planet.  In the game I mentioned where the campaign was limited to one city, that city was the world.




Please show me where I said anything about planet.  I think you have me confused with another poster.


----------



## Hussar

Ovinomancer said:


> The perils of posting on a phone.




Heh.  Been there.


----------



## Hussar

Ok, let's lob the ball back here.

Do you see a distinction between the activity being done in creating the setting of something like Keep on the Borderlands and the Village of Hommlet?  

Now, if you do see a distinction, which obviously I do, how would you define the distinction?  A little world building and a lot of world building?  I dunno.  I don't know how to define what I see as pretty clearly two very different approaches to adventure and game world design.  

Isle of Dread, for example, strongly follows the Keep on the Borderlands model.  You have a lost island, with natives that are barely defined, pirates that are given zero background, and a lost temple that has virtually no actual description of its history or its inhabitants.

So, fair enough, you don't want me to make a distinction between setting and world building, so, how would you define it and I'll use your definitions so I can get to the freaking point instead of wasting time on this semantic drivel.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> That’s fine....but my comment was made in the context f a GM establishing that level of detail prior to play. It’s not clear from the bit you quoted, but I think in the larger context kf my entire post, it’s clear.
> 
> In which case, I would expect that you would not like that level of detail under those circumstances.



Well that's true, but the GM could truncate it a whole lot and I still wouldn't be that keen!

I wasn't meaning to contradict you, but rather to use your post as a launching-pad: while some of the participants in this thread see the worldbuilding "problem" in terms of quantity, others (eg me, to an extent  [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]) see it in terms of method/process.

B2 has been mentioned a bit. I've used B2 on multiple occasions in "story now"-type games, but normally just the Keep, plus bits of the cultist cave adapted to other fictional contexts. On both occasions the focus has (unsurprisingly, I think) ended up being on the chaotic priest in the Keep. A deceptive evil priest is a very useful element of framing for a wide variety of fantasy protagonists!



Hussar said:


> Do you see a distinction between the activity being done in creating the setting of something like Keep on the Borderlands and the Village of Hommlet?



The distinction I see is this: a town full of people is a _setting_. An evil priest pretending to be good, and trying to befriend the protagonists so he can betray, them, is a _situation_.

Settings are something of a dime-a-dozen, and I don't need much more than some genre and maybe a few names to get a game going; but I can always use a good situation! (Not that I'm entirely uncreative myself, but I'm not any sort of unsung story writer.)


----------



## pemerton

Deleted redundant post.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> Isle of Dread, for example, strongly follows the Keep on the Borderlands model.  You have a lost island, with natives that are barely defined, pirates that are given zero background, and a lost temple that has virtually no actual description of its history or its inhabitants.



Isle of Dread also has a large-scale hex map in the middle that can be (and IME has been) used as the base setting for an entire campaign; and in that part does more useful and useable worldbuilding than any other early-era module I can think of.

Lan-"the campaign (not mine) I speak of that's based on that map started in 1981 and - now in its third iteration - is still going today"-efan


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> The distinction I see is this: a town full of people is a _setting_. An evil priest pretending to be good, and trying to befriend the protagonists so he can betray, them, is a _situation_.



Ah, but to make that priest complete you'll need to know or determine which deity he's a cleric to; and whether said deity would be cool with him being so deceptive...and the setting/world-building process can spiral outwards from there.



> Settings are something of a dime-a-dozen, and I don't need much more than some genre and maybe a few names to get a game going; but I can always use a good situation! (Not that I'm entirely uncreative myself, but I'm not any sort of unsung story writer.)



So in your view worldbuilding - as opposed to setting-building - only starts when you're trying to, say, determine the distance and terrain between the Keep and the Threshold region from B-10 or the Village of Hommlet from T-1?  If so, that works too.


----------



## eayres33

pemerton said:


> I have a copy of Citizen Kane on my DVD shelf. It remains one of the greatest of all films. (My favourite film from that era, possibly my favourite film per se, is Casablanca, but that's because I'm sentimental.)
> 
> The _standard_ in "standard narrativistic model" isn't describing the model as standard for RPGing. It's standard for narrativistic RPGing. Contrast, say, setting-heavy HeroWars/Quest play, which would be an Alternative Narrativistic Model (see Ron Edwards's discussion here).
> 
> As far as spelling things out, there's a 2000-post thread that most of the posters in this thread have participated in for 100s of posts. I don't think I've been remiss in spelling things out.




I may not find your play style, and since as per protocol your post reflect your preferred playstyle, your post something I agree with on the regular. I will agree with Casablanca being the best film from that era.  Citizen Kane was good but at the same time it is now overrated.

Side note my copy of CK is still on VHS, I need to update that.


----------



## eayres33

Hussar said:


> Missed that.  Have to go back and reread some posts I think.
> 
> /edit to add
> 
> Yup, just went back over the posts from today and yesterday.  other than you specifically agreeing with [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] that world building is the same as setting creation, you actually say nothing about how he and you, have redefined the common definition of the word to suit your own argument.
> 
> Look, I posted three different sources that all agree on this.  World building and setting creation are not the same thing.  Not all setting creation is world building.  World building is going above and beyond what is required by setting.  I've been consistent with my use of the term, and have been consistent in my use going back ten years (since this is a ten year old thread.
> 
> It's those who want to redefine the term that are the issue here.  If you redefine world building to encompass any and all setting construction, then, sure, obviously it's not a bad thing.  It can be but it might not be.  But, that's YOUR definition and not the commonly accepted one.  Nor is that how it's used when used in academic circles to describe second world creation.




So would that be an appeal to authority? Should I trust those sources over Maxperson or Ovinomancer? Should we compare how long they have played the game, what they have written? or hand size? Or should we discuss the issue on its merits and not try to one up each other on who agrees with who? What type of discussion are we trying to have here an honest one or one a side can win?


----------



## eayres33

pemerton said:


> What I'm asking is that if you are doing the stuff that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] _doesn't _call "worldbuilding", which is also the stuff he is quite happy with it (eg B2), why would you care that he doesn't use a particular label?
> 
> And conversely, if you're doing the stuff that he doesn't like, and which he does call "worldbuilding" (eg T1), why does it matter that he doesn't apply that same label to the stuff he does like? I mean, given that there's stuff he does like that he's trying to distinguish the stuff that a T1-er does, it's no surprise that he uses different terms for the two sorts of thing.
> 
> Following on from the previous paragraph: suppose that you persuade Hussar to call B2 as well as T1 worldbuilding. That's not going to make him like T1 any better! He's still going to be critical of it, and - by implication - of the work of those who do that sort of thing themselves. Isn't it those critical differences that are of interest here, rather than the particular terminology being used?




I find this an odd take since your other thread on world building and how others play D&D seems to be focused on the exact verbiage that players and GM’s use.  A lot of your post/threads seem to revolve around correct and proper language use so this seems off.

I am one not to care about verbiage, proper language and all that; if I get the general idea of what you are saying we can move on. (I know that works better in face to face conversations rather than over the internet, but this still feels different from your usual post.)


----------



## eayres33

MichaelSomething said:


> Overdoing World building is putting out a book on your world's history before putting out the sixth novel in your series...




You win the internet for the day, please pick up your prize at booth 8.


----------



## Hussar

Lanefan said:


> Isle of Dread also has a large-scale hex map in the middle that can be (and IME has been) used as the base setting for an entire campaign; and in that part does more useful and useable worldbuilding than any other early-era module I can think of.
> 
> Lan-"the campaign (not mine) I speak of that's based on that map started in 1981 and - now in its third iteration - is still going today"-efan




Fair enough.  And, yes, you ARE going to have to develop the setting in order to run a campaign.  Of course you are.  Whether you do that purely through the DM beforehand, or by the players during play or some combination of both, by the end of the campaign, you're going to have a considerable amount of setting.

Which is fine and dandy.  It's in the service to the game.  There's a dragon turtle hanging around one of the bays, cool, great.  That's, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] calls it, a situation to be dealt with.  

But, and this is where the but comes as you probably knew it would, if I go out and detail the history of that dragon turtle, and that history has little or nothing to do with the campaign at hand, THAT'S what I'm calling world building.  It's not necessary, probably won't come up in game, and is largely self indulgent.  I use this example, because that's precisely what Paizo did when it remade the Isle of Dread for 3e with the Savage Tide AP.  In "The Lightless Depths", Dungeon 144, there's a four PAGE writeup of background notes, 8 point, three column, before you even get to the encounter with Emraag.  We're talking about somewhere in the neighbourhood of two THOUSAND words detailing background that will most likely take about ten seconds to talk about at the table.

For example, the Adventure Background (for an adventure that mostly revolves around bribing a Dragon Turtle to allow ships to pass), starts with:



			
				Dungeon 144 page 30 said:
			
		

> Ages ago, the Olman empire spanned vast reaches of the Vohoun Ocean and the continents to either side.  Perhaps their greatest achievement was the city of Thanaclan, a masterpiece of lakes and stone zuggurats built high on a remote island's central mesa.  They were a wise and powerful people, with abilities far beyond their current descendants.




It goes on this way for about three quarters of the page, at an estimate, about 500 words long.  All completely superfluous information that the players will almost certainly never learn and most likely never give the slightest toss about.  

THAT'S what I'm talking about when I say world building is a  self indulgent waste of time.


----------



## pemerton

eayres33 said:


> I find this an odd take since your other thread on world building and how others play D&D seems to be focused on the exact verbiage that players and GM’s use.  A lot of your post/threads seem to revolve around correct and proper language use so this seems off.



I care a lot about the techniques of RPGing, but I don't generally care too much about terminology (provided there is clarity). For instance, a little way upthread I suggested that, at least for the purposes of this thread, there is no interesting difference between "story now" and "no myth".

I'm not really sure what you've got in mind that runs the contrary way.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> So in your view worldbuilding - as opposed to setting-building - only starts when you're trying to, say, determine the distance and terrain between the Keep and the Threshold region from B-10 or the Village of Hommlet from T-1?  If so, that works too.



Well, as I recently replied to [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], I don't think of world building in terms of _amount_. I think of it in terms of method.

The traditional, and in my view far-and-away most common, way of thinking about worldbuilding _for RPGing_ is that the GM does it, often (even typically) in advance of play, and more-or-less independently of the players, and even moreso independently of any particular moment of play. (So maybe the players contribute in session zero, but not afterwards.)

That method of worldbuilding not only establishes a setting - in virtue of doing that, it also establishes a function for that setting and a way that it will be used. (This has been discussed in detail in the other thread.)

There are other ways of establishing setting than this sort of GM-worldbuilding. And of course presenting a situation also establishes some setting (eg _that a deceptive evil priest exists_). It's these different methods for establishing setting, which give it a different function _in play_, that I care about.



Lanefan said:


> Ah, but to make that priest complete you'll need to know or determine which deity he's a cleric to; and whether said deity would be cool with him being so deceptive...and the setting/world-building process can spiral outwards from there.



I'm not that interested in who the cleric's god is unless that matters to the situation - I don't think, any time I've ever run the Keep, it's been more than colour. If one of the players wants to try and establish some sort of conflict between priest and god over the priest's lying ways then s/he could do so, but for me it's never come up in play.

In other words, the "spiralling" that you describe has never happened to me. What has happened is attempts to identify who else he has corrupted, how to stop the cult, etc. But that doesn't need to be known in advance of play.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I'm not that interested in who the cleric's god is unless that matters to the situation - I don't think, any time I've ever run the Keep, it's been more than colour. If one of the players wants to try and establish some sort of conflict between priest and god over the priest's lying ways then s/he could do so, but for me it's never come up in play.



I certainly would be, both as DM and player; particularly if that cleric's deity is in the same pantheon as any PC clerics' deities - which was the case when I ran it: the evil cleric was to Ares and the party had (among others who came and went) a Demeter cleric, both from the local-to-the-region Greek-based pantheon.

Which also played nicely into my attempts to set Ares up as a long-term quasi-villain much like his role in Xena-Hercules.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> I certainly would be, both as DM and player



Well, both times I've run it the priest's god has been Chemosh. But as I say, this is just colour.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Fair enough.  And, yes, you ARE going to have to develop the setting in order to run a campaign.  Of course you are.  Whether you do that purely through the DM beforehand, or by the players during play or some combination of both, by the end of the campaign, you're going to have a considerable amount of setting.
> 
> Which is fine and dandy.  It's in the service to the game.  There's a dragon turtle hanging around one of the bays, cool, great.  That's, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] calls it, a situation to be dealt with.
> 
> But, and this is where the but comes as you probably knew it would, if I go out and detail the history of that dragon turtle, and that history has little or nothing to do with the campaign at hand, THAT'S what I'm calling world building.  It's not necessary, probably won't come up in game, and is largely self indulgent.  I use this example, because that's precisely what Paizo did when it remade the Isle of Dread for 3e with the Savage Tide AP.  In "The Lightless Depths", Dungeon 144, there's a four PAGE writeup of background notes, 8 point, three column, before you even get to the encounter with Emraag.  We're talking about somewhere in the neighbourhood of two THOUSAND words detailing background that will most likely take about ten seconds to talk about at the table.
> 
> For example, the Adventure Background (for an adventure that mostly revolves around bribing a Dragon Turtle to allow ships to pass), starts with: <snipped quote>
> 
> 
> 
> It goes on this way for about three quarters of the page, at an estimate, about 500 words long.  All completely superfluous information that the players will almost certainly never learn and most likely never give the slightest toss about.




Completely superfluous to whom? You, maybe. But don't assume your experience is the same as everyone's or defines the need of, in this case, the publication. Paizo learned fairly early on that not everyone buys adventures to play them or run them. They found that lots of people buy them simply to *read* them. Sometimes it's just for fun, sometimes I'm sure it sparks creativity that will be used in other campaigns. Published adventures and supplements have multiple demands to fill. And in this case as well, it's part way through a serialized adventure in which they couldn't count on the reader having purchased or read the preceding installments - that certainly expands the need for the backup notes.

Add to all that, this is an encounter significantly above the party's expected level by that point in the campaign. It's pretty difficult to treat it as your basic encounter/sack of hit points. Many of those background notes also serve as advice to a GM, who may not have had to deal with this sort of thing before or often, in handling encounters that could quickly overwhelm the PCs.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> (This is related to my sense, in the RPG context, that "worldbuilding" is generally understood to be something that the GM does as part of the preparation for play.)



I would write that as. Worldbuilding is understood to be something that generally the DM does as part of the preparation for play.  I moved the generally, because as part of player backgrounds they will often do a brief write up on the village that they are from.  They name it, let me know where in the world it is, give some names of NPCs and what they do, with perhaps some traits.  No setting has every village detailed out, so this is not a problem for the players to do and it involves worldbuilding that the DM isn't doing.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Please show me where I said anything about planet.  I think you have me confused with another poster.




So now you're admitting that worldbuilding involves things much smaller in scope, like say a country or city.  Awesome!


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Ok, let's lob the ball back here.
> 
> Do you see a distinction between the activity being done in creating the setting of something like Keep on the Borderlands and the Village of Hommlet?
> 
> Now, if you do see a distinction, which obviously I do, how would you define the distinction?  A little world building and a lot of world building?  I dunno.  I don't know how to define what I see as pretty clearly two very different approaches to adventure and game world design.
> 
> Isle of Dread, for example, strongly follows the Keep on the Borderlands model.  You have a lost island, with natives that are barely defined, pirates that are given zero background, and a lost temple that has virtually no actual description of its history or its inhabitants.




The difference between those is just a matter of amount.  One has more worldbuilding involved in its creation than the other.



> So, fair enough, you don't want me to make a distinction between setting and world building, so, how would you define it and I'll use your definitions so I can get to the freaking point instead of wasting time on this semantic drivel.



There is a distinction.  Setting is the finished product.  Worldbuilding is the process used to get to a setting.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Ok, let's lob the ball back here.
> 
> Do you see a distinction between the activity being done in creating the setting of something like Keep on the Borderlands and the Village of Hommlet?
> 
> Now, if you do see a distinction, which obviously I do, how would you define the distinction?  A little world building and a lot of world building?  I dunno.  I don't know how to define what I see as pretty clearly two very different approaches to adventure and game world design.
> 
> Isle of Dread, for example, strongly follows the Keep on the Borderlands model.  You have a lost island, with natives that are barely defined, pirates that are given zero background, and a lost temple that has virtually no actual description of its history or its inhabitants.
> 
> So, fair enough, you don't want me to make a distinction between setting and world building, so, how would you define it and I'll use your definitions so I can get to the freaking point instead of wasting time on this semantic drivel.




Take it easy, man! We're 155 pages in.....allow for some side conversations. 

I understand perfectly well the complaint you are making. I get your complaint overall. I think you apply it in strange ways, but I get it. 

The clarification about the term worldbuilding is because during the discussion there is obviously confusion about what the term means. So when you use it as a definition for the specific aspect of worldbuilding to which you are applying it, others may think your criticism is being directed at all worldbuilding. 

I think you've made yourself clear about what you are specifically complaining about, but at times it becomes unclear because of the use of the term for ease of reference.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> Well that's true, but the GM could truncate it a whole lot and I still wouldn't be that keen!
> 
> I wasn't meaning to contradict you, but rather to use your post as a launching-pad: while some of the participants in this thread see the worldbuilding "problem" in terms of quantity, others (eg me, to an extent  @_*AbdulAlhazred*_) see it in terms of method/process.
> 
> B2 has been mentioned a bit. I've used B2 on multiple occasions in "story now"-type games, but normally just the Keep, plus bits of the cultist cave adapted to other fictional contexts. On both occasions the focus has (unsurprisingly, I think) ended up being on the chaotic priest in the Keep. A deceptive evil priest is a very useful element of framing for a wide variety of fantasy protagonists!
> 
> The distinction I see is this: a town full of people is a _setting_. An evil priest pretending to be good, and trying to befriend the protagonists so he can betray, them, is a _situation_.
> 
> Settings are something of a dime-a-dozen, and I don't need much more than some genre and maybe a few names to get a game going; but I can always use a good situation! (Not that I'm entirely uncreative myself, but I'm not any sort of unsung story writer.)




What's interesting to me is that you would use predetermined elements like that. Aren't those just GM backstory in another way? Isn't it just a case of Gygax having done the "worldbuilding" beforehand instead of the GM? Do you repurpose the chaotic priest to suit the characters' goals and interests?

Don't get me wrong....I mine published material for all kinds of elements to drop into my campaign. But I have no aversion to using GM backstory (although I agree with you about some of the perils of using it, I like to think I mostly avoid them). So I've taken locations, NPCs, and entire scenarios whole cloth and plopped them down in my game. 

But your willingness to accept a few details...."somne genre and a few names"....to get the game going implies to me that it is indeed a question or quantity. You prefer few details to be determined ahead of time. Others prefer more. 

But the reason for those details is the same, no? 

As for the distinction between T1 and B2, I don't see the distinction that you guys are making. Or at least, I don't think it's that relevant. Each module provides a location to serve as a home base, and then a nearby adventure site. Yes, in the case of Hommlett, I think much more about the village is provided than is necessary. But the two modules largely function the same. 

I do agree with you that a town is a setting and the presence of a nearby evil priest is a situation....but I see that applying to both modules. So again, it seems a matter of quantity.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Fair enough.  And, yes, you ARE going to have to develop the setting in order to run a campaign.  Of course you are.  Whether you do that purely through the DM beforehand, or by the players during play or some combination of both, by the end of the campaign, you're going to have a considerable amount of setting.
> 
> Which is fine and dandy.  It's in the service to the game.  There's a dragon turtle hanging around one of the bays, cool, great.  That's, as @_*pemerton*_ calls it, a situation to be dealt with.
> 
> But, and this is where the but comes as you probably knew it would, if I go out and detail the history of that dragon turtle, and that history has little or nothing to do with the campaign at hand, THAT'S what I'm calling world building.  It's not necessary, probably won't come up in game, and is largely self indulgent.  I use this example, because that's precisely what Paizo did when it remade the Isle of Dread for 3e with the Savage Tide AP.  In "The Lightless Depths", Dungeon 144, there's a four PAGE writeup of background notes, 8 point, three column, before you even get to the encounter with Emraag.  We're talking about somewhere in the neighbourhood of two THOUSAND words detailing background that will most likely take about ten seconds to talk about at the table.
> 
> For example, the Adventure Background (for an adventure that mostly revolves around bribing a Dragon Turtle to allow ships to pass), starts with:
> 
> 
> 
> It goes on this way for about three quarters of the page, at an estimate, about 500 words long.  All completely superfluous information that the players will almost certainly never learn and most likely never give the slightest toss about.
> 
> THAT'S what I'm talking about when I say world building is a  self indulgent waste of time.




While I agree that a lot of that is excessive and likely unnecessary, can it not also lead to inspiration? Sure, for you, that article is a waste (likely for me, too) but for someone else, maybe it sparks some idea. Maybe they want to explore some ideas about the ancient cultures of the region. Or maybe they find Aremag to be an interesting creature, and decide to increase his presence and role in their story. 

This is part of why I don't entirely understand the criticism.....so much of the backstory that we're talking about won't impact play in any way. For those who don't like it, I can't see how it will even come up. Not unless the DM is so married to the material that he forces it to the forefront of the campaign....but then, I see that as more of a DM issue.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> /snip
> 
> They found that lots of people buy them simply to *read* them. Sometimes it's just for fun, /snip.




Yup.  Isn't this, pretty much by definition, self indulgent?  The DM's going to read this information, probably never share it with the players and most likely it will never make it into the game.  

That people like it has never been in dispute [MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]91.  I KNOW people like it.  The great nerd boots range strong.  The same sort of people that want to know the backstory of every single Star Wars character will want endless world building.

The original X1 module that lots of people ran quite successfully, is 32 pages long.  Between Dungeon and Dragon, Paizo banged out about 24 pages of history and backstory of the Isle of Dread.  When your backstory and world building is just about as long as the entire adventure, I'm going to call that self indulgent and largely unnecessary.

To be fair, it was Savage Tide that convinced me that I wanted nothing to do with Pathfinder and Golarian.  The endless setting wank serves virtually no purpose.  It's meant to be read, not played.  I don't see the point of game books that are meant to be read, not played.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> While I agree that a lot of that is excessive and likely unnecessary, can it not also lead to inspiration? Sure, for you, that article is a waste (likely for me, too) but for someone else, maybe it sparks some idea. Maybe they want to explore some ideas about the ancient cultures of the region. Or maybe they find Aremag to be an interesting creature, and decide to increase his presence and role in their story.
> 
> This is part of why I don't entirely understand the criticism.....so much of the backstory that we're talking about won't impact play in any way. For those who don't like it, I can't see how it will even come up. Not unless the DM is so married to the material that he forces it to the forefront of the campaign....but then, I see that as more of a DM issue.




Wouldn't you rather have 24 more pages of adventure material that's directly related to the adventures at hand rather than detailing history of hundreds or thousands of years ago?  I know I would.  I'd much rather have an entire extra module, rather than slog through 20000 words of history that almost certainly will never see the light of day.

Remember, the backstory history in these articles have nothing to do with the actual adventure at hand nor even the larger plot of the Adventure Path (which is to stop Demogorgon).


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> So now you're admitting that worldbuilding involves things much smaller in scope, like say a country or city.  Awesome!




Hey, whatever supports your fantasies.  Keep right on rolling dude.


----------



## Caliban

Hussar said:


> Wouldn't you rather have 24 more pages of adventure material that's directly related to the adventures at hand rather than detailing history of hundreds or thousands of years ago?



  Not always.  I'm coming at it from the point of view of someone who prefers to run their own campaign world instead of using pre-written material, but I think the general principle holds - I like knowing the lore because it helps me do things differently than the pre-written encounters.    And as a player, I like knowing the lore because it helps me come up with backgrounds and motivations for my characters that are tied to the setting.  

Personally, I hate writing up the specifics of encounters that the PC's may or may not have ahead of time.  (It's like herding cats, I swear.   "We are definitely doing this thing next session."  Great, I prepare for that thing.  Next session.  "We decided to do something completely different at the last moment.") 

I prefer to spend my time writing up specific NPC's, monsters and magic items rather than encounters. Then use them as pieces in encounters I create on the fly (with the occasional "set piece" encounter for big stuff).  Or spend that time creating setting lore that allows me to more easily improvise encounters on the fly based on the decisions and actions of the players.  



> I know I would.  I'd much rather have an entire extra module, rather than slog through 20000 words of history that almost certainly will never see the light of day.




Weird.  It's almost like we are all different people with different styles, goals, and preferences instead of being part of a monolithic D&D hive mind.  Crazy how that works.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> The endless setting wank serves virtually no purpose.  It's meant to be read, not played.  I don't see the point of game books that are meant to be read, not played.



They sell.  WWGS had sold a million books like that by 1996 (or so the boxed set of Kindred: the Embraced proudly proclaimed).  



Hussar said:


> Wouldn't you rather have 24 more pages of adventure material that's directly related to the adventures at hand rather than detailing history of hundreds or thousands of years ago?  I know I would.  I'd much rather have an entire extra module, rather than slog through 20000 words of history that almost certainly will never see the light of day.
> 
> Remember, the backstory history in these articles have nothing to do with the actual adventure at hand nor even the larger plot of the Adventure Path (which is to stop Demogorgon).



 IDK.  I don't make heavy use of modules, but if I were using the setting, maybe it'd spark a few ideas, or be worth the read.  That's how I ultimately ended up feeling about most of the M:tA & W:tA books I ended up owning, they were worth the read, but I didn't actually use them, directly, when running, though they informed the setting, some.
FWIW.


----------



## Hussar

Tony Vargas said:


> They sell.  WWGS had sold a million books like that by 1996 (or so the boxed set of Kindred: the Embraced proudly proclaimed).
> 
> IDK.  I don't make heavy use of modules, but if I were using the setting, maybe it'd spark a few ideas, or be worth the read.  That's how I ultimately ended up feeling about most of the M:tA & W:tA books I ended up owning, they were worth the read, but I didn't actually use them, directly, when running, though they informed the setting, some.
> FWIW.




Kinda damning with faint praise no?  

See, I get the point though.  Yup they sell.  And they sell very well.  Which would be great if that didn't mean that people like me, who aren't interested, were catered to as well.  

But, I'm not.  If I want to buy a module, I have to accept that I'm going to have to skip the first five or six pages because it's of virtually no value to me.  I have to accept that any monster book I buy now will be largely useless as written because of endless world building that the book is filled with.  Volo's Guide?  Mordenkainen's?  I wouldn't even consider buying them.   SCAG?  Yup, that's a hard pass thanks.

Like I said, the world builders won this argument years ago.  The market is totally dominated by the folks that eat this stuff up with a spoon.  To the point where actually asking for something different is seen as an attack.  Where any and all criticism of world building must be immediately defended and world building accepted as the baseline of RPG's.


----------



## Caliban

Hussar said:


> Yup.  Isn't this, pretty much by definition, self indulgent?  The DM's going to read this information, probably never share it with the players and most likely it will never make it into the game.




To be honest, isn't the entire hobby, pretty much by definition, self indulgent?  Both for the players and DM's?   

I mean, we could be doing something productive instead of spending our time and money pretending to be people who never exist outside of our imaginations and the imaginations of our friends. 

We just choose to indulge ourselves on different aspects of the hobby.   Some people spend more money and time on miniatures and terrain,  others choose to focus on rulebooks and game mechanics, and still others on setting lore and stories that may never come up in the game itself - but it looms large in their imagination. 

The gaming companies will cater to those who spend the most money on their preferred indulgence.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> Kinda damning with faint praise no?



 Oh, you noticed.  



> See, I get the point though.  Yup they sell.  And they sell very well.  Which would be great if that didn't mean that people like me, who aren't interested, were catered to as well.
> But, I'm not.  If I want to buy a module, I have to accept that I'm going to have to skip the first five or six pages because it's of virtually no value to me.  I have to accept that any monster book I buy now will be largely useless as written because of endless world building that the book is filled with.  Volo's Guide?  Mordenkainen's?



 Correct.  Any given book is probably going to have only a minority of the content of interest  to any given purchaser.



> SCAG?



 I bought SCAG.  I essentially paid $10/page for the content I was interested in, and didn't end up liking even those bits.  If WotC were asking me to buy a book a month like that, I'd give up, but 1/year?  I'll bite.



> Like I said, the world builders won this argument years ago.  The market is totally dominated by the folks that eat this stuff up with a spoon.  To the point where actually asking for something different is seen as an attack.  Where any and all criticism of world building must be immediately defended and world building accepted as the baseline of RPG's.



It seemed, for a year or two in the previous decade, it was going to tip the other way, but I guess not.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Wouldn't you rather have 24 more pages of adventure material that's directly related to the adventures at hand rather than detailing history of hundreds or thousands of years ago?  I know I would.  I'd much rather have an entire extra module, rather than slog through 20000 words of history that almost certainly will never see the light of day.
> 
> Remember, the backstory history in these articles have nothing to do with the actual adventure at hand nor even the larger plot of the Adventure Path (which is to stop Demogorgon).




Possibly? 

I hate to give a vague answer, but it would entirely depend on what else they included in place of the content in question. I get ideas and inspiration from all manner of material, so I like a little of everything. A history like that may evoke some ideas or it may lend context to some game element. 

On the other hand, a couple of pages of drop in encounters or monster/NPC stat blocks would also be welcome. I can understand the appeal of crunchier bits like that. I personally find just as much use for the fluff material as I do the crunch material.


----------



## Darth Solo

Funny.

The OP uses a writer to try and diagnose rpgs. They are not the same, unless you're a Storygamer.

That "advice" is laughable for GMs, at nearly every avenue. Why?

Writers control EVERYTHING in their work. Gamemasters only control everything outside the PCs. It's like a writer with zero control of the protagonists. The OP's point actually defies rpgs. 

Nice. 

Worldbuilding is crucial when dealing with a game that allows players to pursue ANY direction. GMs have to have something ready for them. 

Writers do not have to deal with UNPREDICTABILITY. Ever. 

GMs have to deal with it EVERY SESSION. 

This thread is nonsense.
How is this productive and useful to rpg gamers? How does non-relevant info make us better gamers?


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Like I said, the world builders won this argument years ago.  The market is totally dominated by the folks that eat this stuff up with a spoon.  To the point where actually asking for something different is seen as an attack.  Where any and all criticism of world building must be immediately defended and world building accepted as the baseline of RPG's.




That's probably because you can't have an adventure without a setting, and you can't have a setting without worldbuilding.  I don't see that changing any time soon.


----------



## Campbell

Here's what I really want to talk about: *Playing and Designing with Purpose.* The reason I make the distinction between setting design and world building  is entirely focused on what the driving force or motivating energy is behind the design. What I really want to discuss is designing to enable active play versus designing to share content for others to appreciate after the fact. When I run a game I my primary responsibility is to frame situations that allow the other players to make consequential decisions that impact the fiction through their characters. The role that setting plays in my games is to provide context for what's happening in the fiction right now. The situation is primary. Setting is secondary and should remain so for my play priorities.

When I speak about active play I am really talking about collaborative play, but not in the conch passing or Fate point sense. I am talking about the sort of play environment where we all bring something to the table - characters, setting, prep, whatever. Stuff that we are not all that precious about. Through play of these characters/setting/prep/whatever we get to mess with each others stuff and something that no one could ever plan or would plan comes out simply through skilled play where we advocate for our characters.      

*Aside:* I do not personally have the same issues with being true to your unrevealed prep that   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] does.  I think it can enhance play if utilized in a principled manner. What is important to me is that players can reliably discover it and utilize it for their own ends based on their skill at playing the game. I do not want it used as a means to control and shape the narrative, or to purposefully frustrate players, or to carefully choose when and where players allowed to have an impact on the fiction through their characters.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> So now you're admitting that worldbuilding involves things much smaller in scope, like say a country or city.  Awesome!



I hear that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has also stopped beating his family members.


----------



## pemerton

Darth Solo said:


> Worldbuilding is crucial when dealing with a game that allows players to pursue ANY direction. GMs have to have something ready for them.



There are fairly well-established ways of handling this sort of RPGing without worldbuilding.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> I do not personally have the same issues with being true to your unrevealed prep that   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] does.  I think it can enhance play if utilized in a principled manner. What is important to me is that players can reliably discover it and utilize it for their own ends based on their skill at playing the game. I do not want it used as a means to control and shape the narrative, or to purposefully frustrate players, or to carefully choose when and where players allowed to have an impact on the fiction through their characters.



In the other thread, I suggested that unrevealed information in the context of a framed situation is not the sort of burden on agency that I'm concerned with if (i) it is knowable, (ii) it is salient, and (iii) failing to discover it isn't a total hosing of the players (and their PCs). An invisible opponent in a D&D-style combat encounter is an obvious example, but there could be others (eg certain ways to defeat a trap).

That's not identical to your principled approach, but I think there is some overlap. My (i) is an asepct of your principles. My (ii) is really a complement to my (i), as salience is a big part of knowability. This is also probably my biggest departure from the principles of "classic D&D", which doesn't prioritise salience in the same way (or, alternatively, relies on a dungeon-tropes sense of salience rather than dramatic or genre-salience).

My (iii) sits in something like the same functional space as your "not used as a means to control and shape the narrative, or to purposefully frustrate players", but works differently in that space and probably is more contraining. I would see my approach as broadly consistent with you "the situation is primary; setting is secondary" - but other approches can also be consistent with that yet inconsistent with my own preferences!


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> I don't see the point of game books that are meant to be read, not played.



Given as I'll never have the time to play through all the modules etc. I own, any that are also a halfway-decent read provide at least some small consolation.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I hear that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has also stopped beating his family members.




Great news!


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> So now you're admitting that worldbuilding involves things much smaller in scope, like say a country or city.  Awesome!



Congratulations on winning your strawman argument, Max. I shall give you an XP for winning the Internet.


----------



## Sunseeker

I want to address these two comments in the opposite order, and I want to preface by saying I strongly dislike playing pre-published settings.



Hussar said:


> I don't see the point of game books that are meant to be read, not played.



This comment however, strikes me as odd, because if you remove a couple words for it, it almost sounds like you don't see the point of the founcational literature that feeds into defining a particular game.  If I were to say "I don't see the point of books that are meant to be read, not played." I would sound absurd, but that's the way your comment reads to me.  Does reading LOTR not provide inspiration and to some degree, background for the creative designs of D&D?  Does watching Star Wars or playing Star Wars video games not provide inspiration and background for playing FFG's Star Wars RPG?  

To me, the purpose of any non-rule material is exactly that: information on the who/what/why of the setting in particular and inspiration for what to do within or without of that setting.

Some of the best thing I've added to my campaigns have been inspired by non-rule material.  Movies, books, setting books, comics, you name it.  

I do think there is some degree of "setting wank" issue with every setting, which is what turns me off to playing in official settings, but I still see the point of having that material, even reading that material.  If nothing else, maybe something will provide an interesting jumping-off point for your own creative endeavors.  



Hussar said:


> To be fair, it was Savage Tide that convinced me that I wanted nothing to do with Pathfinder and Golarian.  The endless setting wank serves virtually no purpose.  It's meant to be read, not played.



One of these things is not like the other.  I've never played in Golarion.  Ever.  As a setting it doesn't *do* anything for me.  *BUT*, I have never once felt like Golarion infringed upon my Pathfinder games.  Granted, all their material is written as though it is set within their setting, but the actual amount of setting lore that invades the mechanics is little.  You are of course, welcome to feel differently, but given that I do not like a _single_ D&D setting, I find disregarding an entire game over a fairly non-impactual setting to be a bit of a stretch.


----------



## Hussar

Just to address the Pathfinder thing:  At the time I had a Dungeon and a Dragon subscription when Paizo was offering to turn that over to Pathfinder modules.  But, since that would mean that I'd have to accept the level of world building that Paizo includes in their modules, I was totally turned off. 

And, since I wasn't going to run any of the Pathfinder modules, I figured what was the point in running the Pathfinder system?  If I wanted to, I would stick to 3e.  So, that's why I never changed over.

-----

Now, on the point about inspiration.  Just how much inspiration do you need?  There are over a thousand English language original fantasy novels per year and have been for the last twenty years.  That's not counting media tie in novels like Forgotten Realms stuff or Star Wars.

I mean, just look at Forgotten Realms.  There are what, a hundred, two hundred FR novels out there?  How much information do you need to run a FR campaign?  It's not like this information is hard to find.  "But, we need several pages of largely irrelevant backstory in our modules" seems a bit much when you already have THOUSANDS of pages of backstory available to you.


----------



## Caliban

Hussar said:


> Now, on the point about inspiration.  Just how much inspiration do you need?





All of it.  All the inspirations.


----------



## pemerton

shidaku said:


> If I were to say "I don't see the point of books that are meant to be read, not played." I would sound absurd, but that's the way your comment reads to me.  Does reading LOTR not provide inspiration and to some degree, background for the creative designs of D&D?  Does watching Star Wars or playing Star Wars video games not provide inspiration and background for playing FFG's Star Wars RPG?



Well, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is on record as not enjoying LotR for much the same reasons he doesn't care to read the dragon turtle's backstory. But also, I think implicit in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s comment is the suggestion that setting background in RPG books is not inspirational literature on a par with JRRT or REH or whichver fantasy author one prefers.

Certainly, for my part, if I want to read a story I will do that. If I want a set of RPG rules, I will acquire those. I want my RPG rules to be inspirational, but inspirational of play. I want rules that, when I read them, inspire me to imagine moments of play that might occur at my table. (Eg because of the sorts of situations they will allow me to frame, because of how they handle resolution, etc.) I don't want to pick up a RPG rulebook and find myself reading a second-rate short story. (I would put the Essentials books for 4e in this category, and also quite a bit of The Plane Below and The Plane Above.)


----------



## Sunseeker

pemerton said:


> Well, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is on record as not enjoying LotR for much the same reasons he doesn't care to read the dragon turtle's backstory. But also, I think implicit in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s comment is the suggestion that setting background in RPG books is not inspirational literature on a par with JRRT or REH or whichver fantasy author one prefers.
> 
> Certainly, for my part, if I want to read a story I will do that. If I want a set of RPG rules, I will acquire those. I want my RPG rules to be inspirational, but inspirational of play. I want rules that, when I read them, inspire me to imagine moments of play that might occur at my table. (Eg because of the sorts of situations they will allow me to frame, because of how they handle resolution, etc.) I don't want to pick up a RPG rulebook and find myself reading a second-rate short story. (I would put the Essentials books for 4e in this category, and also quite a bit of The Plane Below and The Plane Above.)




Personally, I think WotC would be better served to create _actual novels_ to be used as their world lore.  I don't know if they still do this with anything other than Drizzt.  I know that my enjoyment for MTG has suffered greatly ever since they stopped writing novels (even bad ones) for their books.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Congratulations on winning your strawman argument, Max. I shall give you an XP for winning the Internet.




Turnabout is fair play


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> Well, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is on record as not enjoying LotR for much the same reasons he doesn't care to read the dragon turtle's backstory. But also, I think implicit in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s comment is the suggestion that setting background in RPG books is not inspirational literature on a par with JRRT or REH or whichver fantasy author one prefers.




Well, to be fair, it's not even really a question of quality.  Let's give credit where credit is due, Eric Mona knows how to spin a story.  So do rest of the Paizo crew.  They write some very excellent stuff.  

But,


> Certainly, for my part, if I want to read a story I will do that. If I want a set of RPG rules, I will acquire those. I want my RPG rules to be inspirational, but inspirational of play. I want rules that, when I read them, inspire me to imagine moments of play that might occur at my table. (Eg because of the sorts of situations they will allow me to frame, because of how they handle resolution, etc.) I don't want to pick up a RPG rulebook and find myself reading a second-rate short story. (I would put the Essentials books for 4e in this category, and also quite a bit of The Plane Below and The Plane Above.)




is dead on target.  I'm not reading the Monster Manual for enjoyment.  I'm reading it because I need a critter to eat my PC's.  I don't know about anyone else, but, I generally start writing the adventure first, and then populate that adventure with critters.  "Hey, there's a hole over here, let's chuck an Otyugh in here.  Oh, wizard's storage room, what kind of weird goodies can I have crawl out of that box?

I've never gone the other way - "Hrm, this bit of backstory about this monster is really interesting, let's write an entire adventure around this".  I've certainly taken novels and short stories that I've read and turned them into adventures.  But, the Monster Manual has almost never led to anything in play.  

Do people just not read very much?


----------



## Caliban

Hussar said:


> I've never gone the other way - "Hrm, this bit of backstory about this monster is really interesting, let's write an entire adventure around this".  I've certainly taken novels and short stories that I've read and turned them into adventures.  But, the Monster Manual has almost never led to anything in play.




I have.  Not incredibly often, but it has happened. Much more frequently I've used the bits of monster lore/ecology included in the Monster Manuel (or Dragon magazine when it existed) to decide how and when to include the monster in an encounter,  or created an encounter based on the monster lore/ecology. 

Not nearly as often as I used too (as I mostly create my own campaign setting and lore these days), but it happened.  

Most recently I used the information on Beholder procreation in Volo's Guide to come up with a weird Beholder NPC - Pac the Beholder, a yellow skinned beholder who was literally created out of the fever dreams of a sick beholder.  (I.e. a beholder loosely themed on the Pac Man video game, obsessed with recreating the mazes from the game in his lair and one day finding his own Ms. Pac - the pinnacle of the beholder form in his eyes. It was a bit of a silly game session.  ) 



> Do people just not read very much?




Well, your problem seems to be that people are wanting to read entirely too much.   Some people just like reading lore and setting material.  I used to do it a lot.   Many gamers like to become an "authority" on their hobbies and learning the lore is part of that.  (Kind of like sports fanatics memorizing reams of stats for sports that will never have a practical value when actually playing the sport, or even doing a fantasy league.) 

Others prefer to focus on the specific areas that interest them.    

Neither is wrong, just different ways of enjoying different parts of the hobby.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> is dead on target.  I'm not reading the Monster Manual for enjoyment.  I'm reading it because I need a critter to eat my PC's.  I don't know about anyone else, but, I generally start writing the adventure first, and then populate that adventure with critters.  "Hey, there's a hole over here, let's chuck an Otyugh in here.  Oh, wizard's storage room, what kind of weird goodies can I have crawl out of that box?
> 
> I've never gone the other way - "Hrm, this bit of backstory about this monster is really interesting, let's write an entire adventure around this".  I've certainly taken novels and short stories that I've read and turned them into adventures.  But, the Monster Manual has almost never led to anything in play.
> 
> Do people just not read very much?




I usually start with the monster or villain.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> ]is dead on target.  I'm not reading the Monster Manual for enjoyment.  I'm reading it because I need a critter to eat my PC's.  I don't know about anyone else, but, I generally start writing the adventure first, and then populate that adventure with critters.  "Hey, there's a hole over here, let's chuck an Otyugh in here.  Oh, wizard's storage room, what kind of weird goodies can I have crawl out of that box?
> 
> I've never gone the other way - "Hrm, this bit of backstory about this monster is really interesting, let's write an entire adventure around this".  I've certainly taken novels and short stories that I've read and turned them into adventures.  But, the Monster Manual has almost never led to anything in play.




I often read D&D RPG supplements for entertainment and ideas, and yes, I've taken lore about a monster and turned that into an adventure.  Why not?  It's a blast and gives you a good seed to create around.  Just because you don't do that, doesn't mean that others don't and WotC needs to give something to all significant groups of people that play their game.  Given that it's much easier to ignore than to create, I doubt that they will appease you and screw over the crowd that uses, or even needs the lore to help them create.



> Do people just not read very much?



Sure they do.  That doesn't keep the above from being true for people who like to read.


----------



## Hussar

But, again, how much do you actually need?

There's thirty years of Dragon magazine out there.  Just the print stuff, not the 4e version.  At about 100 pages per magazine, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 30000 pages of material.  Never minding anything else.  There's religions with less page count.  

 [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] - you usually start with a monster.  Fair enough.  Does that mean you start with the given world building text - start with the Monster Manual, go back through Dragon to look at the Ecology of article, delve into Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk to reference how that creature was used there, then dig into D&D branded novels to give it that final touch?

Or does it mean that you might use a line or two from the Monster Manual, and then 99% of the material is your own?


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> But, again, how much do you actually need?
> 
> There's thirty years of Dragon magazine out there.  Just the print stuff, not the 4e version.  At about 100 pages per magazine, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 30000 pages of material.  Never minding anything else.  There's religions with less page count.




And I still use it.  It is, however, not in the current edition and it's much less work to use things built for the current edition that also match the lore I'm using, which many things from prior editions do not.



> Or does it mean that you might use a line or two from the Monster Manual, and then 99% of the material is your own?



It depends on how much I like all the lore.  I might use 1%, or I might use 100%.  It's rarely 100%, though.


----------



## Caliban

Hussar said:


> But, again, how much do you actually need?




How much of any hobby do you need?   I mean, on a practical level, none of this is necessary - not the dice, not the rulebooks, not the minis, not the setting info.  None of it.

Go write a story or do an improv session with your friends.  Go watch a movie.  Play a sport, take up karate, go hiking.  Play video games.   All are viable alternatives to our particular hobby. 

For many DM's nothing beyone the core rulebooks and dice are necessary - they create their own campaign world and lore and even feats and magic items.  There is no real need for any supplements. 

Some people just want crunch (new "official" races, classes, sub-classes, and/or feats and magic items).   The lore and setting info are just pointless fluff included to pad the page count of the books. 

Other people are just the opposite - they really don't care about all the crunchy bits, but they want more setting info, more lore - something they can create a character's personality and background with.  If that includes a new class or feat that is tied into the lore, so much the better.   Or they simply want to know more - the same reason people study the minutiae of movies and books and TV series and then make wikis about them. 

Some people want it all.  If it's associated with a particular setting, or published from an official source, they'll buy it.  

But none of this - not the crunch, not the fluff - is actually "needed" anymore.  Doesn't stop people from wanting it though.  And paying for it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

hawkeyefan said:


> While I agree that a lot of that is excessive and likely unnecessary, can it not also lead to inspiration? Sure, for you, that article is a waste (likely for me, too) but for someone else, maybe it sparks some idea. Maybe they want to explore some ideas about the ancient cultures of the region. Or maybe they find Aremag to be an interesting creature, and decide to increase his presence and role in their story.
> 
> This is part of why I don't entirely understand the criticism.....so much of the backstory that we're talking about won't impact play in any way. For those who don't like it, I can't see how it will even come up. Not unless the DM is so married to the material that he forces it to the forefront of the campaign....but then, I see that as more of a DM issue.




Its not free! This is a commercial product, so if I paid for it, then I paid for all that excess verbiage that I won't use, INSTEAD of getting something valuable, like 500 words here and 2k words there about additional encounter locations and other elements of that sort which I COULD probably use.


----------



## Caliban

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Its not free! This is a commercial product, so if I paid for it, then I paid for all that excess verbiage that I won't use, INSTEAD of getting something valuable, like 500 words here and 2k words there about additional encounter locations and other elements of that sort which I COULD probably use.




What about the people who *want* that "excess verbiage" and are forced to pay for unnecessary information about "encounter locations' that they don't need?  

I'm just saying, you aren't their entire audience.   It's a lot of different people who prefer different things.   It's a compromise - and not everyone is going to be happy with it, no matter what balance they strike between fluff, crunch, etc.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, again, how much do you actually need?
> 
> There's thirty years of Dragon magazine out there.  Just the print stuff, not the 4e version.  At about 100 pages per magazine, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 30000 pages of material.  Never minding anything else.  There's religions with less page count.
> 
> @_*Bedrockgames*_ - you usually start with a monster.  Fair enough.  Does that mean you start with the given world building text - start with the Monster Manual, go back through Dragon to look at the Ecology of article, delve into Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk to reference how that creature was used there, then dig into D&D branded novels to give it that final touch?
> 
> Or does it mean that you might use a line or two from the Monster Manual, and then 99% of the material is your own?




I don’t run D&D much these days but I certainly make use of the ecology section in the MM if it is there. When I was running Ravenloft I often drew on the Van Richten books for my monsters. It depends.

There is a large spectrum here and I feel like a lot is being cut out. Obviously I don't have to read ten novels and five supplements to run a setting. But that isn't an argument against world building, that is an argument that bloat can be a problem. When it comes to game settings I purchase, my tastes span quite a bit. I like things to be navigable, but I do like good world content (I like HARN for example, and still really enjoy the setting material from Ravenloft). For my own campaigns, I like to world build because you need that deeper layer under the earth when players start digging. It just helps breath more life and potential adventure directions. I find the benefit of good world building is more player freedom in play because I have more pointers toward what may arise if players do X or go in Y direction. That doesn't mean I have to fully commit to these things as if they are a sacred text. At the end of the day it is about what is going on at my table. So I am not advocating canon here. I am saying stuff like a monster ecology section in an MM has its place. And if doesn't for a given GM, they can always ignore it. If I am running monsters on the fly, I am not going to read that many paragraphs at the table. But I may read a deeper monster entry between sessions if I know that kind of creature is becoming important and I want inspiration.


----------



## eayres33

Hussar said:


> Yup.  Isn't this, pretty much by definition, self indulgent?  The DM's going to read this information, probably never share it with the players and most likely it will never make it into the game.
> 
> That people like it has never been in dispute [MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]91.  I KNOW people like it.  The great nerd boots range strong.  The same sort of people that want to know the backstory of every single Star Wars character will want endless world building.
> 
> The original X1 module that lots of people ran quite successfully, is 32 pages long.  Between Dungeon and Dragon, Paizo banged out about 24 pages of history and backstory of the Isle of Dread.  When your backstory and world building is just about as long as the entire adventure, I'm going to call that self indulgent and largely unnecessary.
> 
> To be fair, it was Savage Tide that convinced me that I wanted nothing to do with Pathfinder and Golarian.  The endless setting wank serves virtually no purpose.  It's meant to be read, not played.  I don't see the point of game books that are meant to be read, not played.




Wow, could you be more offensive or condescending in one forum post? “Endless setting wank” that serves no purpose in a forum discussion. 
If you don’t like it that is find, but that comment is over the line.
Also it is meant to be read by GM’s and then played if the characters run into that area, if you want to take a crap over the authors who spent their time for very little money to write that setting you can, but I’m not rubber stamping that BS.


----------



## eayres33

pemerton said:


> I care a lot about the techniques of RPGing, but I don't generally care too much about terminology (provided there is clarity). For instance, a little way upthread I suggested that, at least for the purposes of this thread, there is no interesting difference between "story now" and "no myth".
> 
> I'm not really sure what you've got in mind that runs the contrary way.




From other threads you seem to point out the difference between a player presenting a situation in a passive voice, asking. Versus saying what they are doing and thus making the GM rule. To me they are the same, but to you they are techniques and once again subject to verbiage. The fact that you say you don’t understand a simple concept is again confusing.


----------



## eayres33

pemerton said:


> I hear that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has also stopped beating his family members.




That is not funny and uncalled for, Maxperson did not present a when did stop beating your wife situation, he was calling out Hussar for not phrasing his objections in a clear way.

I understand you wanting to point out that Hussar may have been unclear in his statements or to absolute, but to put that against when did you stop beating your wife, that is a low blow, a very low blow and it has no place on this forum.


----------



## eayres33

pemerton said:


> There are fairly well-established ways of handling this sort of RPGing without worldbuilding.




Can you share your insight, on these well-established ways. I don't expect you to actually detail but perhaps a link. I know its alot to ask because we all should know, but it may help your point.


----------



## eayres33

pemerton said:


> Well, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is on record as not enjoying LotR for much the same reasons he doesn't care to read the dragon turtle's backstory. But also, I think implicit in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s comment is the suggestion that setting background in RPG books is not inspirational literature on a par with JRRT or REH or whichver fantasy author one prefers.
> 
> Certainly, for my part, if I want to read a story I will do that. If I want a set of RPG rules, I will acquire those. I want my RPG rules to be inspirational, but inspirational of play. I want rules that, when I read them, inspire me to imagine moments of play that might occur at my table. (Eg because of the sorts of situations they will allow me to frame, because of how they handle resolution, etc.) I don't want to pick up a RPG rulebook and find myself reading a second-rate short story. (I would put the Essentials books for 4e in this category, and also quite a bit of The Plane Below and The Plane Above.)




That's nice, and while I in general agree, I would like my main rule books to be setting neutral, I know most don't, and I know this because almost every single popular TTRPG writes a setting into their core rule book. Now I may not want that to be true, much like I would like to have enough money to not have to punch into work, or worry about bills, but these are all things I recognize as part of the real world, so I deal with them.


----------



## eayres33

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Its not free! This is a commercial product, so if I paid for it, then I paid for all that excess verbiage that I won't use, INSTEAD of getting something valuable, like 500 words here and 2k words there about additional encounter locations and other elements of that sort which I COULD probably use.




Of course it's not free, unless you stole it, but you didn't have to buy it. There are many reviews of an official product before it is released, and if you wait a week or two there are plenty of player's/DM's that have given an Amazon review, so if you pay for something you don't want that's on you.


----------



## pemerton

deleted double post


----------



## pemerton

eayres33 said:


> From other threads you seem to point out the difference between a player presenting a situation in a passive voice, asking. Versus saying what they are doing and thus making the GM rule.



You either are mistaking me for someone else, or have misunderstood something I've posted. I've never posted on the issue that you describe, and don't care what sorts of words, person, tense, mood, voice, etc players use to declare actions.



eayres33 said:


> Maxperson did not present a when did stop beating your wife situation, he was calling out Hussar for not phrasing his objections in a clear way.



Maxperson congratulated Hussar for finally conceding that worldbuilding need not involve planets; when Hussar had never suggested that it must, indeed had said nothing at all about planets. Hussar's "concession" was purely something imputed by Maxperson.



eayres33 said:


> Can you share your insight, on these well-established ways. I don't expect you to actually detail but perhaps a link. I know its alot to ask because we all should know, but it may help your point.



I thought that this thread, and the other active worldbuilding thread, had canvassed them in some detail.

Here's a link to a discussion of what the blogger calls "no myth"; and here's a link to Christopher Kubasik's "interactive toolkit" articles from the mid-90s.


----------



## darkbard

First this:



eayres33 said:


> Wow, could you be more offensive or condescending in one forum post?




Then these:



eayres33 said:


> if you want to take a crap over the authors who spent their time for very little money to write that setting you can, but I’m not rubber stamping that BS.






eayres33 said:


> Can you share your insight, on these well-established ways. I don't expect you to actually detail but perhaps a link. I know its alot to ask because we all should know, but it may help your point.




Do you not see the offense and condescension in your own posts?


----------



## hawkeyefan

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Its not free! This is a commercial product, so if I paid for it, then I paid for all that excess verbiage that I won't use, INSTEAD of getting something valuable, like 500 words here and 2k words there about additional encounter locations and other elements of that sort which I COULD probably use.




Sure, that’s a valid point. But at the same time, I would think that people buying Dragon Magazine wouldn’t be all that surprised to find a variety of content within. I have my fair share of issues of it and Dungeon, but never really purchased either one regularly. Part of the reason is that i knew any given issue may only offer me a little bit of material to use. So I’d grab one now and again when they seemed to offer something that I knew would be up my alley. Occasionally, I’d find some unexpected inspiration in the kind of article I’d usually avoid. 

So I get the preference....people like what they like, and use what they like in their game. But the expectation is what seems odd to me. Something like Dragon Magazine is already a niche product. They can’t further limit their potential audience by focusing on a subsection of their niche audience.


----------



## TwoSix

darkbard said:


> Do you not see the offense and condescension in your own posts?



It can be difficult to spot, what with the beams in the eye making it more difficult.


----------



## Sunseeker

Hussar said:


> But,
> is dead on target.  I'm not reading the Monster Manual for enjoyment.  I'm reading it because I need a critter to eat my PC's.  I don't know about anyone else, but, I generally start writing the adventure first, and then populate that adventure with critters.  "Hey, there's a hole over here, let's chuck an Otyugh in here.  Oh, wizard's storage room, what kind of weird goodies can I have crawl out of that box?
> 
> I've never gone the other way - "Hrm, this bit of backstory about this monster is really interesting, let's write an entire adventure around this".  I've certainly taken novels and short stories that I've read and turned them into adventures.  But, the Monster Manual has almost never led to anything in play.
> 
> Do people just not read very much?




I don't think the MM is really aimed at experienced game-masters, to be honest.  I don't even use the stat blocks and tend to conclude that I just spend $50 on an art-book.  I suspect _someone_ is probably inspired by the flavor of the monsters in the book.  I buy the book for the art, you buy it for the stats, I'm sure someone buys it for the fluff.  If nothing else, the little fluff block can provide a new DM unfamiliar with the history of the creature or D&D, some guidelines on how to situate a Dragon Turtle in their games.  And for people with lower-levels of inspired ideas floating around in their heads (again due to their newness to the material) it may provide some exciting inspiration.

And to your final question: no, I think a lot of people in this day and age expect their information to be very sound-bytey.  Compressed into relevant chunks of information that can be quickly assimilated.  

But then, I don't really think the _fluff_ that comes along in the Monster Manual is quite the same as the setting lore that comes in a Campaign Book.  For example: when I run Ravenloft, I care nothing for the mechanics of the monsters, what is entirely important is getting the right feel and style to the campaign, which is 100% from those fluff nuggets.  And in that context, I most certainly have used elements of the fluff as jumping-off points to spin new adventures within the setting (and without) and alter certain elements of the game (such as removing the Raven-kin and revamping their related religion to one based around the Raven Queen). 

As was also mentioned, some folks enjoy being authorities on setting lore (see: Star Trek or Star Wars fans and _those_ setting lore books).  And I think some players also expect the DM to be a setting authority.  The latter is a place I always struggle with in campaigns because I like to leave my homebrew worlds fairly open until its absolutely necessary to have specific information about parts of them, but there's always _that guy_​....

Also in your mentioning of the Dragon Turtle I thought it would be interesting to have Dragon Turtles based on different types of real turtles, which then took my mind to silly places (not Camelot but NYC) and I thought up Teenage Mutant Ninja Dragon Turtles.  And the fact that Pathfinder has both a Ninja class and a Kappa race, and I have an upcoming Pathfinder game, I thought it ought to fun to include some little side-adventure related to TMN Dragon Turtles.  No, the fluff in the book had nothing to do with this.  But again, I doubt you or I are really the target for the little block of fluff in the book.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

pemerton said:


> Well, @_*Hussar*_ is on record as not enjoying LotR for much the same reasons he doesn't care to read the dragon turtle's backstory. But also, I think implicit in @_*Hussar*_'s comment is the suggestion that setting background in RPG books is not inspirational literature on a par with JRRT or REH or whichver fantasy author one prefers.
> 
> Certainly, for my part, if I want to read a story I will do that. If I want a set of RPG rules, I will acquire those. I want my RPG rules to be inspirational, but inspirational of play. I want rules that, when I read them, inspire me to imagine moments of play that might occur at my table. (Eg because of the sorts of situations they will allow me to frame, because of how they handle resolution, etc.) I don't want to pick up a RPG rulebook and find myself reading a second-rate short story. (I would put the Essentials books for 4e in this category, and also quite a bit of The Plane Below and The Plane Above.)




IMHO there are two problems with game publisher published setting material. 1) There are maybe 100 guys out there putting out these things, and they've been doing it for 30 years. There are 1000s, maybe 10s of 1000s of fantasy authors, and they and their predecessors have been cranking this stuff out for FIVE THOUSAND YEARS. What we have available to us today is the creme of a vast crop of fantasy material (and basically the same argument goes with other genres). I mean, sure, there's STILL a lot of junk out there, I've read some complete garbage, and most of the FR novels and such generally fall into that category too.

Still, if I want high quality imagination to be inspired by, I'm FAR FAR better off to go to the shelves of my library's fantasy section than to drivethrurpg.com. No offense to anyone who's putting out RPG material, there certainly IS some good material, but proportionately its hard to find anything that holds a candle to anything in Gygax's much vaunted Appendix N (and that's a very tiny sample of some of the good stuff).

2) Now, when it comes to actual adventures and such, well then I can't buy one written by Robert Silverberg, more is the pity, but at least I can get something competently put together by someone who has some understanding of RPGs. Even then though it probably is only useful if I take it apart and use the bits. Still, I can do as well as they can in that department, and with the right game mechanics it isn't even hard (4e, your great selling point!).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Bedrockgames said:


> I usually start with the monster or villain.




For me its kind of a back and forth sort of thing, sometimes I have a vision of a monster and then its place in things comes clear (or not, in which case it may end up in my notebook as a reminder so I can use it in some future time). Sometimes I have a spot that NEEDS a monster. I think usually the concept comes first, but it could also be a situational concept.

1) 'The 1000 legged one' - this was just me feeling Cthulhuoid one week. I was thinking of the description of Wilbur Whately's brother in _The Dunwich Horror_, crashing through the trees and leaving weird trackways everywhere. The party was adventuring in a woods under the influence of an evil sorcerer, so out it came! This was a totally custom monster made to fit my mood.

2) 'The Sorcerers Daughter' - The 4e Lamia monster entry seemed cool, a creature made out of bugs. The Green Adept (the sorcerer) was sort of a Kyuss-like kind of guy, mostly worm-eaten, so it seemed apropos that his daughter would be made of bugs! I think I used the monster pretty much stock from the book. Then I came up with a scenario for it. I definitely started with the monster, but create the lore myself, though it wasn't totally inconsistent with the MM version.

3) 'The Owl Bear' - The party had to traverse an underground cave/river system to get to their destination, and I imagined what it would be like to have this horrible fearsome beast snatching characters one at a time from the darkness with its speed and stealth while they blundered around. I can't remember exactly how it went, but I created a situation where they were forced to put out all their lights. It wasn't pretty, though! The owl bear itself, and its lore, got this one in my head.

4) 'The Ghost Wolf King' - I had this idea to have a scene set in a sawmill with the saw about to chop the damsel in half, and also already had this theme going with a group of werewolf-like ghosts from the plane of shadow. Add one log flume for the PCs to ride in on (yeah, this scenario was very kitsch) and a White Dragon reskinned as a giant nasty ghost wolf-thing with a nasty howl (the breath weapon) and it was awesome! Definitely not inspired by ANY monster lore from 4e (I also recycled jackalweres and a couple other monsters as the footsoldiers of the monster group).

5) 'The Juggernaut' - This was an ancient dwarven mining construct, which the party managed to activate during a battle in an old mine. Its main effect was to go crashing through roof supports until it brought the whole mine down around everyone's ears. Then there was the fun running battle to get out, with the loot. I think I used some sort of ogre or something as the basis for the construct. Again, the situation was the starting point on this one.

I think what I'd say is, that monster lore can be useful, up to a point. I thought 4e MM1 had some good and bad points on that front (the lore check stuff and the encounter groups were useful, the lack of even a basic description of most monsters seemed a bit odd). MM3 was a little heavy on the lore/story side sometimes. It was not BAD when they were creating a whole new monster type, like the Banderhobbs, but other times it was not so useful.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

eayres33 said:


> From other threads you seem to point out the difference between a player presenting a situation in a passive voice, asking. Versus saying what they are doing and thus making the GM rule. To me they are the same, but to you they are techniques and once again subject to verbiage. The fact that you say you don’t understand a simple concept is again confusing.




I missed a few bits of both threads here and there, so its not impossible that I missed something, but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] never used technical terms like 'voice' or seemed to care much about those sorts of details, in what I read. He outlined, in the other thread, a particular technique 'standard narrative model' and pointed to a post about it, and explained the term. There is one particular point that seems to me to be central for [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] in terms of play, but he's consistently been pretty flexible about how its described, as long as the other poster didn't try to hand wave away the important distinction. It wasn't some subtle verbiage, it was 2 fairly different techniques.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

eayres33 said:


> Of course it's not free, unless you stole it, but you didn't have to buy it. There are many reviews of an official product before it is released, and if you wait a week or two there are plenty of player's/DM's that have given an Amazon review, so if you pay for something you don't want that's on you.




I agree. In fact I think one of the main points in commenting on it is to simply register our preferences. I know there are some writers around for one thing. Really never said other people should have to live with my tastes, but [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] did make the point that it seems like EVERYONE is going whole hog into loads of setting everywhere these days. I'm not sure if that's entirely true or not, as I don't tend to buy a huge amount of stuff, but it certainly seems true of a lot of certain people's output, like Paizo.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, that’s a valid point. But at the same time, I would think that people buying Dragon Magazine wouldn’t be all that surprised to find a variety of content within. I have my fair share of issues of it and Dungeon, but never really purchased either one regularly. Part of the reason is that i knew any given issue may only offer me a little bit of material to use. So I’d grab one now and again when they seemed to offer something that I knew would be up my alley. Occasionally, I’d find some unexpected inspiration in the kind of article I’d usually avoid.
> 
> So I get the preference....people like what they like, and use what they like in their game. But the expectation is what seems odd to me. Something like Dragon Magazine is already a niche product. They can’t further limit their potential audience by focusing on a subsection of their niche audience.




My Dragon subscription dates back to Issue #11, and went on up through the mid 100's. After that I found I didn't read all of them, and read some of them not at all, though they could be useful to have around sometimes. Also it got unwieldy to use them as reference material at a certain point.

NOW I wouldn't mind having a PDF collection going from #1 to #400-whatever, fully indexed, etc. In fact I was a great fan of DDI, as it did just that! Definitely not all issues of any mag are going to be totally useful, but I agree they CAN be and I was sad when Dragon finally just died out.


----------



## Maxperson

AbdulAlhazred said:


> My Dragon subscription dates back to Issue #11, and went on up through the mid 100's. After that I found I didn't read all of them, and read some of them not at all, though they could be useful to have around sometimes. Also it got unwieldy to use them as reference material at a certain point.
> 
> NOW I wouldn't mind having a PDF collection going from #1 to #400-whatever, fully indexed, etc. In fact I was a great fan of DDI, as it did just that! Definitely not all issues of any mag are going to be totally useful, but I agree they CAN be and I was sad when Dragon finally just died out.




That would rock.  I have a bunch of Dragons barely used, because I don't remember where all the articles I like are and don't have time to continually look inside of them.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Maxperson said:


> That would rock.  I have a bunch of Dragons barely used, because I don't remember where all the articles I like are and don't have time to continually look inside of them.




Yeah, I still have MOST of issues #11-137 or so. Traded a few, etc over the years, but I do LIKE them. The really early ones have a fun vibe. 

DDI was nice, but of course they only covered the 4e era PDF-only Dragons. A full index and PDFs of all of them would kick butt. Of course it will never happen, since whatever materials they used to create most of them are probably long since lost to time. They'd have to be scanned and OCRed mostly, which is an ugly process at best. Plus TSR probably didn't get perpetual rights to all the material...


----------



## Hussar

Caliban said:


> What about the people who *want* that "excess verbiage" and are forced to pay for unnecessary information about "encounter locations' that they don't need?
> 
> I'm just saying, you aren't their entire audience.   It's a lot of different people who prefer different things.   It's a compromise - and not everyone is going to be happy with it, no matter what balance they strike between fluff, crunch, etc.




What compromise. You folks get 100% what you want and we get left in the cold. Yeah that’s one sort of compromise I suppose.


----------



## Hussar

eayres33 said:


> That is not funny and uncalled for, Maxperson did not present a when did stop beating your wife situation, he was calling out Hussar for not phrasing his objections in a clear way.
> 
> I understand you wanting to point out that Hussar may have been unclear in his statements or to absolute, but to put that against when did you stop beating your wife, that is a low blow, a very low blow and it has no place on this forum.




Yet, funnily enough everyone else in this thread could follow my criticisms perfectly well. To the point where others started pointing out that I never actually said what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] claimed I did. 

Pen hits it pretty square on the head.


----------



## Caliban

Hussar said:


> What compromise. You folks get 100% what you want and we get left in the cold. Yeah that’s one sort of compromise I suppose.




Sorry you feel that way about it.   I don't think anything more can be said.


----------



## pemerton

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I wouldn't mind having a PDF collection going from #1 to #400-whatever, fully indexed, etc.





AbdulAlhazred said:


> Of course it will never happen, since whatever materials they used to create most of them are probably long since lost to time. They'd have to be scanned and OCRed mostly, which is an ugly process at best. Plus TSR probably didn't get perpetual rights to all the material...



In the late 90s TSR released a 5 CD-set with #1 to #250, plus the 7 prior issues of The Strategic Review, as PDFs. All OCRed and Indexed.

I believe that a licensing/rights issue with regard to some Kenzer content was what led to the settlement that allowed the release of Kingdoms of Kalamar using D&D trade dress, and then the use of TSR-era IP in early-00s Hackmaster.

EDIT: I should add, I have this collection.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> What compromise. You folks get 100% what you want and we get left in the cold. Yeah that’s one sort of compromise I suppose.




What are you talking about?  I've never seen a supplement that didn't include things that I didn't want, didn't need and/or didn't like.  I doubt I'm alone in this.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Yet, funnily enough everyone else in this thread could follow my criticisms perfectly well. To the point where others started pointing out that I never actually said what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] claimed I did.
> 
> Pen hits it pretty square on the head.




As I said, turnabout is fair play.  You've twisted the vast majority of what I've said in our many conversations here, which means that you want me to do it to you.  The Golden Rule and all that.


----------



## Hussar

Something [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said stuck in my brain. He’s got so much world building material that he can’t even sift through it all. Presumably he’s got a collection of Dragon Magazines sitting somewhere gathering dust. 

I think that nicely highlights the “compromise “ here. People have so much material that it’s not really usable. 

Heck this month’s Dragon+ has a several thousand word article outlining world building. Plus another few thousand words worth of fiction (part three mind you) set in Chult. 

Sorry [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] but what compromise were you referring to?


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Something [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said stuck in my brain. He’s got so much world building material that he can’t even sift through it all. Presumably he’s got a collection of Dragon Magazines sitting somewhere gathering dust.




I said I don't have time to sift through my Dragon Magazines, because they don't any kind of system organizing every Dragon Magazine where I can quickly look up what I need like.  If there were some sort of Table of Contents that showed me all the articles and crunch for all of the Dragons, separated out by world, general content, and theme, I'd use them just like I do all of my other supplements.  

I didn't say that I have so much material that I can't go through it.  Once again, you are twisting what I say.



> I think that nicely highlights the “compromise “ here. People have so much material that it’s not really usable.




And there you respond to your twisting, engaging in a beeeautiful Strawman.  This is typical of your responses to and about me.


----------



## Imaculata

Hussar said:


> Something [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said stuck in my brain. He’s got so much world building material that he can’t even sift through it all. Presumably he’s got a collection of Dragon Magazines sitting somewhere gathering dust.
> 
> I think that nicely highlights the “compromise “ here. People have so much material that it’s not really usable.




All that tells me, is that having tons of issues of Dragon Magazine makes it really hard to find something specific in them, but nothing about worldbuilding.

I have all my own world building neatly organized in multiple word documents, one file for each location. It usually starts with a basic description of the location, then a list of points of interest and npc's, and then more detailed descriptions of each point of interest. I just grab whatever location the players are at, and it quickly tells me everything I need to know.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> What compromise. You folks get 100% what you want and we get left in the cold. Yeah that’s one sort of compromise I suppose.




I can understand your gripe, but I think your math seems a bit off. You're saying that everything WotC publishes is ALL worldbuilding? You can use 0% of it? 

I don't think that can be the case. There are plenty of maps and encounters and NPCs and locations that are portable enough to be used in any way you like. Sure, you'd prefer that the books were nothing but that kind of crunch material, but that seems unlikely at this point. 

And that's because they have indeed compromised.


----------



## Hussar

Again, I’ll point to Dragon+ for a good example of what you are calling compromise. 

We have:  an article specifically about world building, a part three of short fiction, an article detailing the history of githyanki and githzerai, including links to PDFs of more articles detailing them. 

On the non world building side, we have an article of maps for the latest AP, and an adverticle, linking to modules for sale. 

Umm, again, you think that’s a compromise?
 [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I’m not twisting anything. You have so much material that you cannot even find what you are looking for. You stated that. A lack of indexing means that you can’t really use the material you have. Right?  So, it’s perfectly fair to say you have more than you can use.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Again, I’ll point to Dragon+ for a good example of what you are calling compromise.
> 
> We have:  an article specifically about world building, a part three of short fiction, an article detailing the history of githyanki and githzerai, including links to PDFs of more articles detailing them.
> 
> On the non world building side, we have an article of maps for the latest AP, and an adverticle, linking to modules for sale.
> 
> Umm, again, you think that’s a compromise?
> [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I’m not twisting anything. You have so much material that you cannot even find what you are looking for. You stated that. A lack of indexing means that you can’t really use the material you have. Right?  So, it’s perfectly fair to say you have more than you can use.




That isn't world building though. He's talking about Dragon magazine back issues which include all kinds of things. Let's not confuse world building with product lines that simply go back to the 70s. I don't know anyone who runs a setting or world based on obscure Dragon magazine articles. 

But I am not sure what the angst is in this discussion. Maybe I am missing something. World building is something you can engage as little or as much of as you like as a gm. In terms of product lines out there, there are a wide variety of games offering just about every imaginable approach (and a good many are d20 if your concern is applying them to D&D). There is also the HARN approach, which I find pretty useful because I can buy what I want and ignore what I don't want; and it works pretty well piecemeal. In terms of your own settings, if you hate world building, think only a small amount is called for, etc, you are perfectly free to make your setting as you see fit. If someone wants to go deeper, they can. 

The original article posted at the start of this is, I think useful to fiction writers. But even then it is the kind of advice (like 'never use the passive voice' or 'never use adverbs') that can be taken way too far or become dull if everyone abides by it. And even then, a story like Dune doesn't work without heavy world building. Or even a fairly simple story like the City and the Stars by Arthur C. Clarke, still demands good world building to be what it is. World Building is fine. The bigger problem I encounter in science fiction is when it becomes the point itself. 

I think in gaming, there is a lot more value to world building than in fiction because you often need those kinds of deep details when players do unexpected things or go to unexpected places. At the same time, you want information that is easy to deploy, so ideally the good world building can be organized in such a way that it isn't deeply confusing to navigate in play. But here, again, all kinds of approaches are available. In the OSR there is a large emphasis on world building, but also an emphasis on brevity of text so things are navigable during play. More and more that has been the approach that works for me. But it isn't the only approach I take. Sometimes I need more text for certain things in my campaigns. 

At the end of the day, for, I don't think any of us have to compromise. If you've found a way to approach this that works for you, then you don't need to change it for anyone (and hopefully you share it so others with similar aims can benefit). 

Again, though, maybe I am missing something here.


----------



## Caliban

Bedrockgames said:


> Again, though, maybe I am missing something here.




Not entirely sure myself.   

But I think the gist of it is that those who prefer to have encounters, stat blocks, and game mechanics provided for them by WOTC are not having their particular indulgences catered to like those who prefer stories, world building, and setting lore are having their particular indulgences catered too.  Or something.   

Whatever it is, it's bad, and if you don't agree then you are on the other side and your opinion doesn't count because you are already being 100% catered too. 

And Dragon+ (which I've never even looked at) is somehow catering to me specifically.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I’m not twisting anything. You have so much material that you cannot even find what you are looking for. You stated that. A lack of indexing means that you can’t really use the material you have. Right?  So, it’s perfectly fair to say you have more than you can use.




This is flat out wrong.  It's like saying that because I have $20 lost in my attic somewhere and it's too much effort to go find it, that I have more money than I can use.  It's an absurd statement.  The stuff in the Dragon Magazine is plenty usable by me.  It's just too much effort to get.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Caliban said:


> Not entirely sure myself.
> 
> But I think the gist of it is that those who prefer to have encounters, stat blocks, and game mechanics provided for them by WOTC are not having their particular indulgences catered to like those who prefer stories, world building, and setting lore are having their particular indulgences catered too.  Or something.
> 
> Whatever it is, it's bad, and if you don't agree then you are on the other side and your opinion doesn't count because you are already being 100% catered too.
> 
> And Dragon+ (which I've never even looked at) is somehow catering to me specifically.




If all we are talking about is WOTC, I feel like they are in a bit of an impossible position. I mean, they are trying to get the widest possible segment of D&D fans they can (and in honesty it seems like they've done a pretty good job of achieving that with 5E, even if I don't play it myself). Whatever they put out is going to be a compromise that maximizes their customer base. I imagine the people on the extreme ends of any playstyle will feel snubbed. But on the whole, I hear people from a wide range of styles saying they like 5E. If people want another approach, the market is literally flooded with options.


----------



## Sunseeker

Hussar said:


> *People have so much material that it’s not really usable. *




If your line is "If it's not a stat block its useless to me."  Well okay then YOU are the one stating the unreasonable position and YOU are the one making the impossible demand.  

This goes back to my comment on the upcoming Pathfinder edition: this reads a lot like "How dare WOTC not design everything without taking my specific feelings and emotions about D&D into consideration!"  Like, dude, take a little ego off the top.

Lots of things in official books are useless to me, to any given person.  I doubt I've met anyone who found 100% of any book useful.  That's just kinda the way the cookie crumbles.


----------



## Hussar

shidaku said:


> If your line is "If it's not a stat block its useless to me."  Well okay then YOU are the one stating the unreasonable position and YOU are the one making the impossible demand.
> 
> This goes back to my comment on the upcoming Pathfinder edition: this reads a lot like "How dare WOTC not design everything without taking my specific feelings and emotions about D&D into consideration!"  Like, dude, take a little ego off the top.
> 
> Lots of things in official books are useless to me, to any given person.  I doubt I've met anyone who found 100% of any book useful.  That's just kinda the way the cookie crumbles.




Why would you even think that that's my position?  Since when have I even suggested that?  Oh, right, if everything setting related is world building, then, obviously, all I want is flavorless stat blocks and number charts.  Sorry, that's the straw man position that people have attributed to me, not the position I take.

I have no problems with flavor text.  That's fine.  No problem.  Like I said many times, if you have a Throat Warbler Mangrove in the game, you actually have to tell folks what a Throat Warbler Mangrove is.  Fair enough.  No problems.  

What I don' need is pages upon pages of background material on a Throat Warbler Mangrove with absolutely nothing I can actually plug into my game.

So, basically, the "compromise" is, suck it up or find a new game to play.  After all, there are lots of other games out there.  The world builders have taken over D&D, and everyone else can just get off the train.

I fail to understand how a more pragmatic, useful approach to game material, as things to be USED rather than things to be READ is such a horrible idea.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> Again, I’ll point to Dragon+ for a good example of what you are calling compromise.
> 
> We have:  an article specifically about world building, a part three of short fiction, an article detailing the history of githyanki and githzerai, including links to PDFs of more articles detailing them.
> 
> On the non world building side, we have an article of maps for the latest AP, and an adverticle, linking to modules for sale.
> 
> Umm, again, you think that’s a compromise?



There's only one thing missing from that list in comparison to most old-time Dragon magazines: rules tweaks.

Early Dragons always had at least one or two or three articles that were, in effect, either homebrew rules ideas or trial balloons from the TSR design team; these might include new classes, new magic items, a rebuild of a rules system e.g. initiative, or whatever.  Once 3e hit this sort of content almost disappeared, as where TSR saw rules as guidelines to be tweaked WotC saw them as inviolate.

But most Dragons didn't have adventure modules in them; and none at all once they started putting Dungeon mag. out.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Why would you even think that that's my position?  Since when have I even suggested that?  Oh, right, if everything setting related is world building, then, obviously, all I want is flavorless stat blocks and number charts.  Sorry, that's the straw man position that people have attributed to me, not the position I take.
> 
> I have no problems with flavor text.  That's fine.  No problem.  Like I said many times, if you have a Throat Warbler Mangrove in the game, you actually have to tell folks what a Throat Warbler Mangrove is.  Fair enough.  No problems.
> 
> What I don' need is pages upon pages of background material on a Throat Warbler Mangrove with absolutely nothing I can actually plug into my game.
> 
> So, basically, the "compromise" is, suck it up or find a new game to play.  After all, there are lots of other games out there.  The world builders have taken over D&D, and everyone else can just get off the train.
> 
> I fail to understand how a more pragmatic, useful approach to game material, as things to be USED rather than things to be READ is such a horrible idea.




A lot of OSR material follows the philosophy you lay out. If you haven't you might want to check out some of it. Because the focus is usually very much about utility over reading.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Why would you even think that that's my position?  Since when have I even suggested that?  Oh, right, if everything setting related is world building, then, obviously, all I want is flavorless stat blocks and number charts.  Sorry, that's the straw man position that people have attributed to me, not the position I take.




Everything setting related is not worldbuilding.  Worldbuilding is the act, and setting is the result.  Everything in a setting is related TO worldbuilding, but it is not the same as worldbuilding.



> What I don' need is pages upon pages of background material on a Throat Warbler Mangrove with absolutely nothing I can actually plug into my game.
> 
> So, basically, the "compromise" is, suck it up or find a new game to play.  After all, there are lots of other games out there.  The world builders have taken over D&D, and everyone else can just get off the train.
> 
> I fail to understand how a more pragmatic, useful approach to game material, as things to be USED rather than things to be READ is such a horrible idea.




What I don't need are plant monsters and oozes.  I almost never use them, so I have to suck it up when they are given to me in monster books or find another game to play.  You aren't alone in this, so you might as well stop pretending that you are the wounded one here and the rest of us are skipping merrily along, happy with everything we are getting.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Again, I’ll point to Dragon+ for a good example of what you are calling compromise.
> 
> We have:  an article specifically about world building, a part three of short fiction, an article detailing the history of githyanki and githzerai, including links to PDFs of more articles detailing them.
> 
> On the non world building side, we have an article of maps for the latest AP, and an adverticle, linking to modules for sale.
> 
> Umm, again, you think that’s a compromise?
> [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I’m not twisting anything. You have so much material that you cannot even find what you are looking for. You stated that. A lack of indexing means that you can’t really use the material you have. Right?  So, it’s perfectly fair to say you have more than you can use.




Yes, it’s a conpromise. A specific issue may lean one way more than another, but I’m reasonably sure they’ve been giving an entire adventure for free with any issie, right? Maybe not with this last one...I haven’t checked it out.

At this point, all I can say is that it’s pretty much impossible not to include at least some fluff material with any bit of crunch because without it, the mechanics lack context. So even in a best case scenario from your point of view, you’re going to be looking at a 50/50 split. I think that’s just a given.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

pemerton said:


> In the late 90s TSR released a 5 CD-set with #1 to #250, plus the 7 prior issues of The Strategic Review, as PDFs. All OCRed and Indexed.
> 
> I believe that a licensing/rights issue with regard to some Kenzer content was what led to the settlement that allowed the release of Kingdoms of Kalamar using D&D trade dress, and then the use of TSR-era IP in early-00s Hackmaster.
> 
> EDIT: I should add, I have this collection.




I knew they released a set of CDs. I never knew all of those Dragons were on it. Just never paid that much attention I guess. Late 90's TSR was kinda off my radar.


----------



## TheSword

World building was already defined in the original posts quotation as “the attempt to exhaustively survey a place that isn’t there.”

World building is defining the 20 gods in your pantheon, their complex personal relationships, followers and traditions.
World build is mapping out continents and cities and population sizes, demographics, locations etc.
World building is specifying the ten most dangerous dungeons, the key enemies within and the treasures.
It is effectively writing your own equivalent of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting and a Volos guide. 

It isn’t writing flavor text.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, it’s a conpromise. A specific issue may lean one way more than another, but I’m reasonably sure they’ve been giving an entire adventure for free with any issie, right? Maybe not with this last one...I haven’t checked it out.
> 
> At this point, all I can say is that it’s pretty much impossible not to include at least some fluff material with any bit of crunch because without it, the mechanics lack context. So even in a best case scenario from your point of view, you’re going to be looking at a 50/50 split. I think that’s just a given.




But, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] just posted, he didn't say "no fluff!" he just wants some actual stat blocks and mechanics and stuff. That is something that I also appreciated about 4e, it always had a pretty decent mix. Maybe a given book might slant a bit one way or the other, but on the whole there was a lot of 'crunch' and a very solid and not too overly harped upon bunch of 'flavor' that was created with a real genuine eye to being maximally usable in play. 

I bought easily $2k worth of 4e stuff, I have bought pretty much zilch since then. It is what it is, and I was never that wedded to needing a huge amount of extra stuff anyway, so I don't care all that much, but I might buy a crunchier line of products that was suitable to the kind of play I enjoy.


----------



## hawkeyefan

AbdulAlhazred said:


> But, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] just posted, he didn't say "no fluff!" he just wants some actual stat blocks and mechanics and stuff. That is something that I also appreciated about 4e, it always had a pretty decent mix. Maybe a given book might slant a bit one way or the other, but on the whole there was a lot of 'crunch' and a very solid and not too overly harped upon bunch of 'flavor' that was created with a real genuine eye to being maximally usable in play.
> 
> I bought easily $2k worth of 4e stuff, I have bought pretty much zilch since then. It is what it is, and I was never that wedded to needing a huge amount of extra stuff anyway, so I don't care all that much, but I might buy a crunchier line of products that was suitable to the kind of play I enjoy.




Sure and that’s fair. I can understand the preference. I don’t think that what WOTC has published for 5E is as unbalanced toward the fluff as he is implying. The big books seem pretty evenly split, don’t they? 

And then there’s the AL modules that are available through the DMsGuild. Those are short adventures that seem to be very much what he has in mind. 

But it still may not be enough of a shift for him. Which is fine, that’s his preference and I don’t blame him for it.


----------



## Maxperson

TheSword said:


> World building was already defined in the original posts quotation as “the attempt to exhaustively survey a place that isn’t there.”
> 
> World building is defining the 20 gods in your pantheon, their complex personal relationships, followers and traditions.
> World build is mapping out continents and cities and population sizes, demographics, locations etc.
> World building is specifying the ten most dangerous dungeons, the key enemies within and the treasures.
> It is effectively writing your own equivalent of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting and a Volos guide.
> 
> It isn’t writing flavor text.




You don't get that stuff without flavor text, though.  The flavor is part and parcel of everything you listed, so it's a part of worldbuilding, too.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure and that’s fair. I can understand the preference. I don’t think that what WOTC has published for 5E is as unbalanced toward the fluff as he is implying. The big books seem pretty evenly split, don’t they?




Only if you count adventure paths as crunch.  If you're just looking at the stuff that you can put into any setting(classes, feats, etc.), the fluff vastly outweighs the crunch, and most of the crunch is monsters.


----------



## eayres33

Hussar said:


> Yet, funnily enough everyone else in this thread could follow my criticisms perfectly well. To the point where others started pointing out that I never actually said what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] claimed I did.
> 
> Pen hits it pretty square on the head.




I'm sorry I did not know that popular opinion trumped what was right. So should Maxperson and I give you tribute, or do you need a lamb or goat for slaughter?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Only if you count adventure paths as crunch.  If you're just looking at the stuff that you can put into any setting(classes, feats, etc.), the fluff vastly outweighs the crunch, and most of the crunch is monsters.




I’m going off the kinds of things Hussar mentioned: maps, NPCs, monsters, encounters, etc. I think you have to consider the adventure books as presenting a good amount of crunch. The locations and encounters are very easy to port to a home game.


----------



## Tony Vargas

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure and that’s fair. I can understand the preference. I don’t think that what WOTC has published for 5E is as unbalanced toward the fluff as he is implying. The big books seem pretty evenly split, don’t they?



It's hard to say, as there's not always a clear line between fluff and rules text, and both are mutable at the whim of the DM.  One DM may interpret a sentence as fluff and not consider it when ruling, another may base a ruling almost entirely upon the same sentence.



Maxperson said:


> You don't get that stuff without flavor text, though.  The flavor is part and parcel of everything you listed, so it's a part of worldbuilding, too.



Squares & rectangles.  Fluff about a PC, for instance, is not worldbuilding.  Worldbuilding requires a lot of fluff, and part of the objection to it is that it's useless fluff the players may never experience, but not all fluff is worldbuilding.  FWIW (nothing I can see).


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> A lot of OSR material follows the philosophy you lay out. If you haven't you might want to check out some of it. Because the focus is usually very much about utility over reading.




Yeah.  I agree here.  And, I'd point out, it follows my point rather well.  OSR material draws very heavily on how the game was presented (largely pre-2e) before the world builders took things over.  Material to be used, rather than read.



hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, it’s a conpromise. A specific issue may lean one way more than another, but I’m reasonably sure they’ve been giving an entire adventure for free with any issie, right? Maybe not with this last one...I haven’t checked it out.
> 
> At this point, all I can say is that it’s pretty much impossible not to include at least some fluff material with any bit of crunch because without it, the mechanics lack context. So even in a best case scenario from your point of view, you’re going to be looking at a 50/50 split. I think that’s just a given.




Even in the releases where there is a free module, you still have about 90% of the material related to world building.  There has not been a 50/50 split in material between stuff to read and stuff to use in decades.

So, no, it's not a given.

Are there a metric ton of modules out there for 5e?  Yuppers, it's great.  Fantastic stuff.  Mostly DM's Guild stuff true, but, there's a buttload of stuff.

Trick is, so much of it is there to be read.  As in, the DM will read it, most likely forget about 90% of it and then get on with building his or her own adventures, largely without any help from the publishers.

I said this earlier.  To me, a perfect Monster Manual would have about 1/4 the monsters, but, every monster would come with 1-4 very short adventures/encounters, complete with maps, treasure, all the stuff you need to run that adventure.  String together a bunch of those and you've got a complete adventure.  

My absolute favorite 3e supplement was the Foul Locales series from Mystic Eye Games.  Fantastic stuff.  Each one focused on a certain type of location (urban, wilderness, whatever) and gave about 20 adventure locations you can plug and play.  Great stuff.  Used the heck out of those books.  Heck, I STILL use them.  Or, as another example, I used to callect the Dragonlance modules.  The ones I got the most use out of were the last two (DL 15 and 16?  is that the right number?).  They were collections of 10 or 15 short adventures in Krynn that you could plug and play.  FANTASTIC.  I used the crap out of those.

THAT'S what I want.  All this "10000 years ago, the ____ were a proud ___" stuff can go jump in the lake.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure and that’s fair. I can understand the preference. I don’t think that what WOTC has published for 5E is as unbalanced toward the fluff as he is implying. The big books seem pretty evenly split, don’t they?
> 
> And then there’s the AL modules that are available through the DMsGuild. Those are short adventures that seem to be very much what he has in mind.
> 
> But it still may not be enough of a shift for him. Which is fine, that’s his preference and I don’t blame him for it.




Yeah, I don't know. I have my own particular drum, so I tend not to try to project my own tastes too far. I don't really use adventures much, but I do like crunchy monster books, and rule books that add new fun material. Now, 5e obviously has core books and such which meet the criteria, in fact there's not really a LOT of fluff in the 5e core books. No more than you'd expect, certainly.

I think there have been some publishers however in the last few years, and maybe sometimes WotC is one of them, which go 'fluff crazy'. So, my eschewing of 5e material may be partly that, and just partly that I LIKE 4e fine and have a HUGE pile of 'stuff' to go with it that I will never exhaust.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> I said this earlier.  To me, a perfect Monster Manual would have about 1/4 the monsters, but, every monster would come with 1-4 very short adventures/encounters, complete with maps, treasure, all the stuff you need to run that adventure.  String together a bunch of those and you've got a complete adventure.




Ugh!  They tried this with the higher numbered monster manuals in 3e and I refused to waste my money on them.  I'm not going to pay money for something I can do myself very easily, AND that everyone and their mother can just go out and read.


----------



## Imaculata

Maxperson said:


> Ugh!  They tried this with the higher numbered monster manuals in 3e and I refused to waste my money on them.  I'm not going to pay money for something I can do myself very easily, AND that everyone and their mother can just go out and read.




Those Monster Manuals are awesome. Especially Fiend Folio.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Yeah.  I agree here.  And, I'd point out, it follows my point rather well.  OSR material draws very heavily on how the game was presented (largely pre-2e) before the world builders took things over.  Material to be used, rather than read.




I think we might be conceiving world building differently in that case. To me the setting bloat, particularly the stuff you had in the 90s, seemed more a byproduct of a focus on storytelling than world building. The classic stuff had lots of world building (and you can look at a line like Harn which has a lot of that brevity and still creates a pretty deep world). I don't think world building is about filling books with multi-page entries for each place. In fact, a lot of those multipage style entries are long because of how they are written (the info can often be boiled down to much shorter entries). 

Still, in general I take a don't throw the baby out with the bathwater approach. I think there is still a lot the 90s stuff did well, and am glad it's available. For example, setting material might have been wordy, but there is a lot of cool seating stuff to be found. And with certain kinds of books, the wordiness isn't as much of an issue as others. I think it is mainly when the books are meant to be used during play that you run into issues. An approach focused on brevity is very good for fast deployment at the table. On the other hand, I drew countless hours of play and inspiration from longer form books like the Van Richten Guidebooks. So personally, I kind of like how things are presently, where both options are available to me as a GM.


----------



## Maxperson

Imaculata said:


> Those Monster Manuals are awesome. Especially Fiend Folio.




The Fiend Folio wasn't one of those monster manuals.  The MMI, MMII and Fiend Folio just had monsters in them and were great.  It was the MMIV and MMVI that did it.  Maybe the MMIII, but I can't remember if that one was like that.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Yeah.  I agree here.  And, I'd point out, it follows my point rather well.  OSR material draws very heavily on how the game was presented (largely pre-2e) before the world builders took things over.  Material to be used, rather than read.
> 
> 
> 
> Even in the releases where there is a free module, you still have about 90% of the material related to world building.  There has not been a 50/50 split in material between stuff to read and stuff to use in decades.
> 
> So, no, it's not a given.
> 
> Are there a metric ton of modules out there for 5e?  Yuppers, it's great.  Fantastic stuff.  Mostly DM's Guild stuff true, but, there's a buttload of stuff.
> 
> Trick is, so much of it is there to be read.  As in, the DM will read it, most likely forget about 90% of it and then get on with building his or her own adventures, largely without any help from the publishers.
> 
> I said this earlier.  To me, a perfect Monster Manual would have about 1/4 the monsters, but, every monster would come with 1-4 very short adventures/encounters, complete with maps, treasure, all the stuff you need to run that adventure.  String together a bunch of those and you've got a complete adventure.
> 
> My absolute favorite 3e supplement was the Foul Locales series from Mystic Eye Games.  Fantastic stuff.  Each one focused on a certain type of location (urban, wilderness, whatever) and gave about 20 adventure locations you can plug and play.  Great stuff.  Used the heck out of those books.  Heck, I STILL use them.  Or, as another example, I used to callect the Dragonlance modules.  The ones I got the most use out of were the last two (DL 15 and 16?  is that the right number?).  They were collections of 10 or 15 short adventures in Krynn that you could plug and play.  FANTASTIC.  I used the crap out of those.
> 
> THAT'S what I want.  All this "10000 years ago, the ____ were a proud ___" stuff can go jump in the lake.




So there is a ton of material of the kind you like, but you want to actively get rid of the kind you don't like? Okay, cool.

Listen, I get it that there can easily be too much world lore or fluff included in many products. I just skip whatever I don't like. Problem solved. I don't think it needs to be eliminated. Because the truth is it's subjective, and the line will be different for everyone, and there needs to be at least some fluff to lend context to the mechanics. You mentioned an Otyugh in an earlier post....and there's a reason you know why an Otyugh would be an appropriate creature in a given situation, and that's because of the world lore. 

So your line is drawn sooner than many others. Mine is honestly probably not drawn that much further along than yours. I get some inspiration from some of those lore bits, but I'm just as likely to get inspiration from any other source. I do think that many folks tend to overthink worldbuilding in actual play itself....how many days of travel from X to Y, and weather tables, and lists of imports and exports and all of that. But there are a lot of people who like that stuff.

Edited to add:
I meant to mention that one of my favorite products of all time is _Uncaged: Faces of Sigil_. It is almost entirely lore in the form of NPCs and their backstories. A stat block is given for each NPC, but that amounts to a fraction of the material. A couple of maps and other supplemental type of bits are also given. But the bulk of the book is by far just the story of these NPCs and their goals and motivations, and how those connect them to others. 

I've been mining that book for story material for 20 years. It's an amazing source, honestly, and I'm curious if you're familiar with it and how you feel about it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, I don't know. I have my own particular drum, so I tend not to try to project my own tastes too far. I don't really use adventures much, but I do like crunchy monster books, and rule books that add new fun material. Now, 5e obviously has core books and such which meet the criteria, in fact there's not really a LOT of fluff in the 5e core books. No more than you'd expect, certainly.
> 
> I think there have been some publishers however in the last few years, and maybe sometimes WotC is one of them, which go 'fluff crazy'. So, my eschewing of 5e material may be partly that, and just partly that I LIKE 4e fine and have a HUGE pile of 'stuff' to go with it that I will never exhaust.




Sure, WotC and certainly TSR could be lore crazy at times. And that's not unique to them, or to a specific edition. 

But limiting the discussion to the 5E material published by WotC, I don't think the label applies. The core books are almost lore free, or lore neutral in the sense that they offer examples from all of their classic game worlds. The adventures are obviously Forgotten Realms specific, but that's easy to change, and an implied or default setting has almost always been the case in their previous material. 

I have several of the published module books, and with the exception of Curse of Strahd, I've not run any of them as intended. I use them as a source for maps and NPCs and monsters and scenarios. They are very easily broken up into bits that can be repurposed and used in any way you like. To me, this is pretty much exactly what Hussar is saying he wants. Now, it is true that some of the pages in the books will be lost because they're devoted to the story of the adventure....but isn't that almost always true of game supplements? 

Occasionally, you'll find a product that seems designed specifically for you, and you'll use all of it. But most of the time, you get one and you use a good chunk of it, and but there is still material you don't use. I've always accepted this as just the fact that they need to appeal to a wide audience.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> /snip
> 
> Edited to add:
> I meant to mention that one of my favorite products of all time is _Uncaged: Faces of Sigil_. It is almost entirely lore in the form of NPCs and their backstories. A stat block is given for each NPC, but that amounts to a fraction of the material. A couple of maps and other supplemental type of bits are also given. But the bulk of the book is by far just the story of these NPCs and their goals and motivations, and how those connect them to others.
> 
> I've been mining that book for story material for 20 years. It's an amazing source, honestly, and I'm curious if you're familiar with it and how you feel about it.




Considering my very strong dislike for Planescape, no, I haven't looked at it.  Sorry.  I see Planescape as probably one of the biggest examples of "Material to Read rather than Play".  Endless setting stuff, much of which you can't even adventure in (how, exactly, does one adventure in the Elemental Plane of Fire?  The Blood War is pretty much unstoppable and pointless.  Oh, you think Elminister is a Mary Sue?  Howzabout a leader in your city that can kill gods?).  I welcomed the 4e planes with open arms.

And, the reason I welcomed the 4e cosmology was because of the big shift in approach.  The Astral Sea stuff is a place to ADVENTURE.  It's not a place to read about and publish endless world building books about.  I actually bought the two demon and devil books at the tail end of 3e (I can't remember their titles, and I'm too lazy to look it up).  Read them.  Enjoyed the reading and then realized that they were both utterly, utterly useless.  I bought them used and only paid a couple of bucks for each, so, I wasn't too bothered by it, but, again, burned out totally by all the pointless setting stuff.

Hrm, a setting where the players are completely incapable of making any lasting changes, wrapped in a system that completely fails to address the central themes of the setting.  No thanks.  I'm not terribly interested in reading about settings.  I want to play them.


----------



## Hussar

Look, I have a pretty good example of what I'm talking about.  I am running an urban campaign soon.  So, I went over to DM's Guild to find some good Thieves Guild material to help with prep.  Best one I've found so far is Ebonclad.  Looks great, right, a 200 (ish) page supplement on Thieves.  Fantastic.  Right up my alley.

Now, here's the writeup of the product:



> Ebonclad is a thieves' guild campaign setting for the 5th edition of the world's greatest roleplaying game!
> 
> Inside Ebonclad you'll find:
> 
> 170 pages of setting lore and history, accompanied by lavish illustrations and short stories to bring the setting to life.
> 7 adventures for character levels 1 - 4 GMs can use to introduce new players to the setting, or customize for use in their own campaigns.
> Tons of character options including new backgrounds, subclasses, feats, equipment, poisons, and spells.
> Tools for GMs to generate random citizens, valuables they may possess, the contents of their pockets or purses, and ways of determining how connected they are and how they'd react to witnessing crimes.
> Dozens of new NPCs, from generic stat blocks for thieves in the Ebonclad guild or town guard, to specific characters living in the city.
> A primer on thievery, for characters who live the life of crime.
> Over 30 random street encounters with different customization options a GM can use.
> New urban chase complications specific to the setting.
> More than a dozen encounter area maps saved as PNG files to print or use online




So, of a 200 ish page book, 3/4 of it is "setting lore and history".  THAT'S my beef.  This is pretty much standard for most RPG books.  It's actually pretty rare, outside of maybe specific modules, to find that ratio reversed or even close to even.  Considering my group will be 9th level by the time I start this part of the campaign, that means that 90% of this book is useless to me before I even start.  Whoopee, I might get some maps and some random street encounters.  Nothing I can't get online already.

When people talk about "compromise", this is what I see.  Virtually all the material that comes out is geared for the world builders, with drips and drops left over for those of us who aren't interested.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hussar said:


> Considering my very strong dislike for Planescape, no, I haven't looked at it.  Sorry.  I see Planescape as probably one of the biggest examples of "Material to Read rather than Play".  Endless setting stuff, much of which you can't even adventure in (how, exactly, does one adventure in the Elemental Plane of Fire?  The Blood War is pretty much unstoppable and pointless.  Oh, you think Elminister is a Mary Sue?  Howzabout a leader in your city that can kill gods?).  I welcomed the 4e planes with open arms.
> 
> And, the reason I welcomed the 4e cosmology was because of the big shift in approach.  The Astral Sea stuff is a place to ADVENTURE.  It's not a place to read about and publish endless world building books about.  I actually bought the two demon and devil books at the tail end of 3e (I can't remember their titles, and I'm too lazy to look it up).  Read them.  Enjoyed the reading and then realized that they were both utterly, utterly useless.  I bought them used and only paid a couple of bucks for each, so, I wasn't too bothered by it, but, again, burned out totally by all the pointless setting stuff.
> 
> Hrm, a setting where the players are completely incapable of making any lasting changes, wrapped in a system that completely fails to address the central themes of the setting.  No thanks.  I'm not terribly interested in reading about settings.  I want to play them.




Yeah, Planescape was crap in my book. Nothing but endless backstory and very little focus on anything really playable. At best a character is some tiny cipher in some vast and unstoppable, and totally pointless, history that goes on endlessly.

Contrast this with the 4e cosmology and all its associated materials. DRIPPING with adventure! I mean, every time I picked up and read one of these books my GM blood was up in 5 seconds with 'Wow I can USE THIS!' This is a big reason I simply never buy more stuff anymore. I have 30 books packed solid with this material, it will never give out. I could drive 10 campaigns, each with an awesome and well-thought-out set of conflicts and themes taking it from level 1-30 using that material. I would certainly have to come up with the specifics of the encounters and build things out, but there is this crazy well-thought-out background for it all. One that is both very open, and at the same time rich with conflict.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Considering my very strong dislike for Planescape, no, I haven't looked at it.  Sorry.  I see Planescape as probably one of the biggest examples of "Material to Read rather than Play".  Endless setting stuff, much of which you can't even adventure in (how, exactly, does one adventure in the Elemental Plane of Fire?  The Blood War is pretty much unstoppable and pointless.  Oh, you think Elminister is a Mary Sue?  Howzabout a leader in your city that can kill gods?).  I welcomed the 4e planes with open arms.
> 
> And, the reason I welcomed the 4e cosmology was because of the big shift in approach.  The Astral Sea stuff is a place to ADVENTURE.  It's not a place to read about and publish endless world building books about.  I actually bought the two demon and devil books at the tail end of 3e (I can't remember their titles, and I'm too lazy to look it up).  Read them.  Enjoyed the reading and then realized that they were both utterly, utterly useless.  I bought them used and only paid a couple of bucks for each, so, I wasn't too bothered by it, but, again, burned out totally by all the pointless setting stuff.
> 
> Hrm, a setting where the players are completely incapable of making any lasting changes, wrapped in a system that completely fails to address the central themes of the setting.  No thanks.  I'm not terribly interested in reading about settings.  I want to play them.




Ha okay. I explained how one supplement has given me material I’ve used for 20 years and you ignore that and instead rant about a setting.

Obviously, you have strong feelings that won’t even really allow for discussion, so I’ll leave you to it.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> Ha okay. I explained how one supplement has given me material I’ve used for 20 years and you ignore that and instead rant about a setting.
> 
> Obviously, you have strong feelings that won’t even really allow for discussion, so I’ll leave you to it.




Sorry, I was just using your point as a springboard for my own.  It's fantastic that you've gotten so much use out of a single product.  Great.  

I guess that my basic point is that usability, AFAIC, trumps all other considerations.  It doesn't matter how inspiring, or how wonderfully written a supplement is to me.  If I then have to spend hours taking that material and then writing up all the stuff I need to actually USE that material, it's completely useless to me.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Considering my very strong dislike for Planescape, no, I haven't looked at it.  Sorry.  I see Planescape as probably one of the biggest examples of "Material to Read rather than Play".  Endless setting stuff, much of which you can't even adventure in (how, exactly, does one adventure in the Elemental Plane of Fire?




With a bit of prep.  It's not one large fire.  There are solid portions to walk on, rivers, lakes and oceans of liquid fire, nodes of other elements like earth, air and water, and palaces.  You can adventure there if you prepare for the heat and such.



> The Blood War is pretty much unstoppable and pointless.




Since when has pointless meant that it shouldn't be in a game.  You've just eliminated the band of misfits trying to stop the invading army, and who need the help of the PCs, and many other great ideas and situations.  



> Howzabout a leader in your city that can kill gods?




Assuming you're talking about Sigil, there's no such leader.  The Lady of Pain doesn't lead the city in any way.  She's more of a security system than anything else.



> And, the reason I welcomed the 4e cosmology was because of the big shift in approach.  The Astral Sea stuff is a place to ADVENTURE.  It's not a place to read about and publish endless world building books about.  I actually bought the two demon and devil books at the tail end of 3e (I can't remember their titles, and I'm too lazy to look it up).  Read them.  Enjoyed the reading and then realized that they were both utterly, utterly useless.  I bought them used and only paid a couple of bucks for each, so, I wasn't too bothered by it, but, again, burned out totally by all the pointless setting stuff.




Whereas I ran many adventures on many planes and used those books.  Maybe you just lack the imagination required to run adventures out on the traditional planes.  That's perfectly fine.  I have trouble running Oriental Adventures.  Nobody can do every genre well



> Hrm, a setting where the players are completely incapable of making any lasting changes, wrapped in a system that completely fails to address the central themes of the setting.  No thanks.  I'm not terribly interested in reading about settings.  I want to play them.



There's no such setting put out by TSR or WotC.  All of them are settings where the players are capable of making lasting changes.  You just have to think on a much larger scale out on the planes.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Look, I have a pretty good example of what I'm talking about.  I am running an urban campaign soon.  So, I went over to DM's Guild to find some good Thieves Guild material to help with prep.  Best one I've found so far is Ebonclad.  Looks great, right, a 200 (ish) page supplement on Thieves.  Fantastic.  Right up my alley.
> 
> Now, here's the writeup of the product:
> 
> 
> 
> So, of a 200 ish page book, 3/4 of it is "setting lore and history".  THAT'S my beef.  This is pretty much standard for most RPG books.  It's actually pretty rare, outside of maybe specific modules, to find that ratio reversed or even close to even.  Considering my group will be 9th level by the time I start this part of the campaign, that means that 90% of this book is useless to me before I even start.  Whoopee, I might get some maps and some random street encounters.  Nothing I can't get online already.
> 
> When people talk about "compromise", this is what I see.  Virtually all the material that comes out is geared for the world builders, with drips and drops left over for those of us who aren't interested.




I opened two links to find the Ultimate Urban Fantasy.  While it's modern and not traditional D&D, it doesn't seem to have an ounce of lore in it.



> This book has everythign you need to take your D&D game to the modern era with new setting rules, backgrounds, race options, skills, and gear including:
> 
> 18 New Background Options including rules on having and changing careers.
> 13 New Feats
> New Racial Options for your all human games
> Computers & Hacking: In depth rules for hackers in the modern world
> Drugs & Addiction: Using and abusing drugs along with their cost, benefits, & drawbacks
> Explosives & Crafting:  Buying, making, & using explosives both military and improvised.
> Guns & Modern Melee: Everything from pistols and shotguns to pepper spray and tazers
> Vehicles: Stats for basic vehicles as well as rules for high speed chases and stunts.
> Running games in a modern setting
> Working around cellphones and other shortcuts
> Keeping magic secret
> Making a fantasy underworld
> Intrepid Investigators: A pre-made modern fantasy setting
> 11 Urban NPCs: Including beat cops, mobster thugs, private eyes, club owners and more.
> 8 Urban Monsters: Including city gremlins, sewer lurkers, rabid wererats and more




And...



> Urban Encounters: Shops and Houses
> 
> This book contains 97 pages of original encounters and mini-dungeons set within shops and houses of all sorts. The settings within these pages will take you from the terrifying Vampire's Manse to the fully automated Home of the Future, all the way back around to the vicious Gambling Den and a maddening, saddening Possessed Orphanage. Each entry in the book outlines a building with between 4 and 24 rooms, with each room furthering a self-contained story that will play out as adventurers explore and interact with the denizens within. Every house and shop also includes a map and a set of rumors to help lead the party to the adventure.
> 
> This book is a perfect way to fill out a D&D session, adding a bit of extra adventure when needed. If your table loves to open every door, barter with every shopkeep and take shelter in every rural barn, these encounters will add a little bit of excitement to their exploration. The adventures within can also easily be used as a jumping off point for adventure, with open-ended story hooks that can easily extend to full-length campaigns as you follow up on the threads generated within each encounter. With 32 original full length encounters, there's something for every table and every level.




So it would seem that it's pretty easy to find crunch without much in the way of lore if you want to look for it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Maxperson said:


> With a bit of prep.  It's not one large fire.  There are solid portions to walk on, rivers, lakes and oceans of liquid fire, nodes of other elements like earth, air and water, and palaces.  You can adventure there if you prepare for the heat and such.



Right, but 4e's Elemental Chaos simply improved on this drastically in terms of 'adventurability'. All the elements exist in the EC, as well as an open-ended list of 'domains'. You can have a region of pure fire if you want, those exist, as well as regions of fire+ice (and the resulting fogs and steams I would assume). Its an infinite place, so anything must exist somewhere. 

I mean, I'm sure you could put the same things in the old GW version of the inner planes, it just wasn't how it was envisaged. You kind of had to adulterate the concept, whereas the WA version does it naturally. 



> Since when has pointless meant that it shouldn't be in a game.  You've just eliminated the band of misfits trying to stop the invading army, and who need the help of the PCs, and many other great ideas and situations.



I think when he says pointless he means stuff that will never really matter and probably won't even ever come up. Things that literally are just in the book and you read them, but they never show at the table at all.



> Assuming you're talking about Sigil, there's no such leader.  The Lady of Pain doesn't lead the city in any way.  She's more of a security system than anything else.



but she is quite a Mary Sue nonetheless. I always found Sigil to be a bit silly myself, though I admit that it at least has gaming potential. In some sense it seemed kind of TOO gamist. Its interesting that this is one of the few locations in GW that is directly reproduced with almost no changes in 4e WA.



> Whereas I ran many adventures on many planes and used those books.  Maybe you just lack the imagination required to run adventures out on the traditional planes.  That's perfectly fine.  I have trouble running Oriental Adventures.  Nobody can do every genre well
> 
> There's no such setting put out by TSR or WotC.  All of them are settings where the players are capable of making lasting changes.  You just have to think on a much larger scale out on the planes.




I disagree about the Planescape GW. Its very concept is something that is inevitable, inexorable, has existed forever, and has a structure, purpose, and function entirely beyond even the gods who seem to live on it as basically vermin. Obviously you can change that, but in any larger sense, as written, it is vastly beyond what any PC can affect.

The World Axis of 4e OTOH is quite the opposite. The struggle between the order of the gods and the chaos of the primordials is fundamental, but approachable. The stakes are human and comprehensible, and a small band of heroes could easily be the most influential actors in the entire grand scheme, the lynchpins of the defense/destruction of the whole multiverse, or at least the world itself.

And its a stage on which everything is not set. While the GW is vast and you could certainly invent some niche to cram anything into, the WA is fundamentally open. There's always room for another Astral Dominion or Elemental Realm in there. 4e's MotP starts out with a whole discussion of how to USE the material in play, and quite a lot of it is directly usable without further preparation, up to a point. Its a masterful blend of possibility, color, and crunch.


----------



## Maxperson

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, but 4e's Elemental Chaos simply improved on this drastically in terms of 'adventurability'. All the elements exist in the EC, as well as an open-ended list of 'domains'. You can have a region of pure fire if you want, those exist, as well as regions of fire+ice (and the resulting fogs and steams I would assume). Its an infinite place, so anything must exist somewhere.
> 
> I mean, I'm sure you could put the same things in the old GW version of the inner planes, it just wasn't how it was envisaged. You kind of had to adulterate the concept, whereas the WA version does it naturally.




Yeah.  There are a number of ways to do the planes and the elemental chaos I think is a good one.  I like the Great Wheel too much to alter the outer planes, but I've been toying with the idea of making the inner planes one big elemental chaos plane.



> I think when he says pointless he means stuff that will never really matter and probably won't even ever come up. Things that literally are just in the book and you read them, but they never show at the table at all.




That misses the point, though.  That stuff isn't there to always come up.  It's there to come up as needed.  When the players are in a region with that kind of lore, some NPCs will draw on the lore when appropriate, so some of it always gets used.  Most doesn't, but the next time the PCs or another set of PCs in another campaign comes through, some other piece of lore comes out.  It adds a lot to the game and my players really enjoy when they encounter things like this.  

Another thing to consider is that when WotC or TSR writes 100 pieces of fluff for an area, even if I use 1, you use one, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] uses 0, we are not all that will be using it.  With millions of players, each and every piece of fluff that they write will see plenty of use, so it's not pointless to the company to include it.



> but she is quite a Mary Sue nonetheless. I always found Sigil to be a bit silly myself, though I admit that it at least has gaming potential. In some sense it seemed kind of TOO gamist. Its interesting that this is one of the few locations in GW that is directly reproduced with almost no changes in 4e WA.




Doesn't a Mary Sue need to be a protagonist or antagonist?  She's neither.  All she is, is fluff.  If the PCs ever see her, they are dead or imprisoned forever.  She's no different than saying that Sigil is a tire with the city built on the inside.



> I disagree about the Planescape GW. Its very concept is something that is inevitable, inexorable, has existed forever, and has a structure, purpose, and function entirely beyond even the gods who seem to live on it as basically vermin. Obviously you can change that, but in any larger sense, as written, it is vastly beyond what any PC can affect.




Part of planescape is that one of the layers of an outer plane goes missing.  Belief has altered it so that it shifts from one plane to another plane, altering the landscape of the outer planes.  Belief is something the PCs can shape through their actions.  That's why I said it has to be on a grand scale for the PCs to affect things, but they can do it.  Starting another faction.  Reviving or eliminating gods through belief.  Becoming gods or even something greater through the manipulation of belief.  And more.  There's quite a bit they can do to alter things in the out planes.  It just takes longer and more effort to accomplish than it would on a prime world.



> The World Axis of 4e OTOH is quite the opposite. The struggle between the order of the gods and the chaos of the primordials is fundamental, but approachable. The stakes are human and comprehensible, and a small band of heroes could easily be the most influential actors in the entire grand scheme, the lynchpins of the defense/destruction of the whole multiverse, or at least the world itself.
> 
> And its a stage on which everything is not set. While the GW is vast and you could certainly invent some niche to cram anything into, the WA is fundamentally open. There's always room for another Astral Dominion or Elemental Realm in there. 4e's MotP starts out with a whole discussion of how to USE the material in play, and quite a lot of it is directly usable without further preparation, up to a point. Its a masterful blend of possibility, color, and crunch.




That's cool, too.


----------



## hawkeyefan

There is no functional difference in the planes as presented in Planescape and the planes as presented in 4E. Both are designed with the intention that they be locations for the PCs to actually go to at much lower level and not be reserved for only the hughestlevel characters.


----------



## Hussar

Thanks for that second link [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].  Will definitely check that out.  The first one, not so much since I don't do modern.

But this point,



> Another thing to consider is that when WotC or TSR writes 100 pieces of fluff for an area, even if I use 1, you use one, @Hussar uses 0, we are not all that will be using it. With millions of players, each and every piece of fluff that they write will see plenty of use, so it's not pointless to the company to include it.




Means that 99% of everything WotC or TSR writes is not getting used at any given table.  Isn't that a huge waste of time?  For me, this is thre reason that I rarely buy WotC books.  Other than core, all I've bought of 5e is Xanathar's, and even then, it was the electronic form for Fantasy Grounds - something I'm going to get considerable use out of.

Like I said, books are meant to be used, not read.  Well, game books that is (ahem).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

hawkeyefan said:


> There is no functional difference in the planes as presented in Planescape and the planes as presented in 4E. Both are designed with the intention that they be locations for the PCs to actually go to at much lower level and not be reserved for only the hughestlevel characters.




There seems to be a difference in intent though. 4e's planes were designed to focus on adventure. The whole cosmology is a ready-built epic conflict. The GW... I have no idea what the heck the concept was!


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> You mentioned an Otyugh in an earlier post....and there's a reason you know why an Otyugh would be an appropriate creature in a given situation, and that's because of the world lore.



I don't remember ever having used an otyugh in 30-odd years of GMing. But I had a look at the flavour text in my AD&D and 4e MMs:



			
				AD&D MM said:
			
		

> These weird monsters are omnivorous scavengers, not at all hesitant about adding a bit of fresh meat to their diet of dung, offal, and carrion. They hate direct sunlight or bright light, so they are often found underground in most cases. Usually (90%) only a single individual is encountered, for otyugh typically live in partnership with other subterranean monsters. The otyugh will dwell in a truce state with other powerful monsters in order to scavenge droppings and other leavings. In most cases otyugh live in pliles of dung and rubbish, and thrive there. . . .
> 
> These monsters have no interest whatsoever in treasure as humans know it, but their partners may, occasionally making the guarding of treasure they value a condition of allowing otyugh to dwell in semi-symbiosis with them.





			
				4e MM said:
			
		

> This tentacled scavenger feeds on carrion and lurks under mounds of filth and refuse. . . .
> 
> Some intelligent monsters capture otyughs and use them as guardians, but otyughs are best used as living garbage disposals. Otyughs often infest the sewer systems of large cities, lurking in the darkest and most stagnant portions. . . .
> 
> Groups of otyughs do not cooperate in any way, and an unfortunate adventurer caught between several otyughs is likely to be dragged from one to the other several times as the monsters fight for their prize.



Are you characterising this as worldbuilding?


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Thanks for that second link [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].  Will definitely check that out.  The first one, not so much since I don't do modern.




Sure, and I really didn't look that hard.  There's probably a lot more like that on the DM Guild site, because a lot of people like crunch over fluff.  



> But this point,
> 
> Means that 99% of everything WotC or TSR writes is not getting used at any given table.  Isn't that a huge waste of time?  For me, this is thre reason that I rarely buy WotC books.  Other than core, all I've bought of 5e is Xanathar's, and even then, it was the electronic form for Fantasy Grounds - something I'm going to get considerable use out of.
> 
> Like I said, books are meant to be used, not read.  Well, game books that is (ahem).




It wasn't really a point.  I was describing an extreme and showing how even at that extreme, it will still be useful to a lot of people.  I personally don't think that most of the products are that extreme.  I find many pieces useful in most products.  Also, while you don't buy this sort of product, I don't buy the ones you described earlier.  The Monster Manuals that were mostly pages of encounters built for the monsters inside of them were quickly put back on the shelf by me.  We all have criteria where we will and won't buy a product.  WotC figures that into their product design.


----------



## hawkeyefan

AbdulAlhazred said:


> There seems to be a difference in intent though. 4e's planes were designed to focus on adventure. The whole cosmology is a ready-built epic conflict. The GW... I have no idea what the heck the concept was!




Well the Great Wheel cosmology predates Planescape, so I don’t know if its conception is relevant to my point. Planescape took that concept and made it accessible. With a major emphasis being accessibility from the very start, with Level 1 PCs. Prior to that, the planes seemed intended to be stomping grounds for high level characters. Planescape did away with that...how does this not fit with what you’re saying? 

I wouldn’t say every product with the Planescape logo is of equal quality, but the original boxed swt and many of the supplements are great. They do exactly what you’re describing with 4E’s World Axis cosmology. I didn’t mind 4E’s approach, really, and I don’t even see them being all that different. The only difference when you boil it down is the “geography” of the planes. Which doesn’t really matter all that much in how you use these locations in a game.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> I don't remember ever having used an otyugh in 30-odd years of GMing. But I had a look at the flavour text in my AD&D and 4e MMs:
> 
> 
> Are you characterising this as worldbuilding?




Well, I was speaking to Hussar about balancing fluff and crunch, and how one is meaningless without the other. He made a comment about designing encounters, and said something along the lines of  “there’s a refuse pit....so I’ll have an Otyugh”. So my comment was about why he knew to use an Otyugh, a creature that I don’t believe has any mythological origin, and is purely a creation of D&D (I could of course be wrong, but I don’t think I am).

He knew because the creature was designed to explain where all the refuse and waste from dungeon denizens went. It’s a living toilet. That is its place in the fictional world. So yes, I’d call this worldbuilding. Not of the kind the GM or the players engage in as part of play, but of the kind a specific GM (likely Gygax, but maybe Arneson of Kuntz or one of the other OG crew) came up with to explain how his world worked. 

Hussar would prefer this type of material be kept to a minimum. And that’s fine, that’s his preference. But much of it is inseperable from the game. The lore...or fluff or worldbuilding....is what goves context to things. This is why it’s so prevalent in game books, and why it’s not likely to go away.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, I was speaking to Hussar about balancing fluff and crunch, and how one is meaningless without the other. He made a comment about designing encounters, and said something along the lines of  “there’s a refuse pit....so I’ll have an Otyugh”. So my comment was about why he knew to use an Otyugh, a creature that I don’t believe has any mythological origin, and is purely a creation of D&D (I could of course be wrong, but I don’t think I am).
> 
> He knew because the creature was designed to explain where all the refuse and waste from dungeon denizens went. It’s a living toilet. That is its place in the fictional world. So yes, I’d call this worldbuilding. Not of the kind the GM or the players engage in as part of play, but of the kind a specific GM (likely Gygax, but maybe Arneson of Kuntz or one of the other OG crew) came up with to explain how his world worked.
> 
> Hussar would prefer this type of material be kept to a minimum. And that’s fine, that’s his preference. But much of it is inseperable from the game. The lore...or fluff or worldbuilding....is what goves context to things. This is why it’s so prevalent in game books, and why it’s not likely to go away.




See, that's the point I keep trying to make though and this is why we keep talking past each other.  An Otyugh is a trash monster isn't world building IMO.  It's simply stating what the thing is.  Obviously you need that much.  That's just basic setting stuff that every story must have.  World building would be going beyond that.  A several page treatise on the life cycle of an Otyugh such as this: On the Ecology of the Otyugh or a 15 minute video description:

[video=youtube_share;-1Wa_w4G0Pw]https://youtu.be/-1Wa_w4G0Pw[/video]

That's what I consider to be world building.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, I was speaking to Hussar about balancing fluff and crunch, and how one is meaningless without the other. He made a comment about designing encounters, and said something along the lines of  “there’s a refuse pit....so I’ll have an Otyugh”. So my comment was about why he knew to use an Otyugh, a creature that I don’t believe has any mythological origin, and is purely a creation of D&D (I could of course be wrong, but I don’t think I am).
> 
> He knew because the creature was designed to explain where all the refuse and waste from dungeon denizens went. It’s a living toilet. That is its place in the fictional world. So yes, I’d call this worldbuilding.



I guess this goes back to the discussion about whether it's world building to write into a gamebook that kobolds are mini-dragons.

Like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I don't see this sort of sketching of the basic essence of an imaginary creature as world-building. Once we start to get some concrete assertions like "There're otyughs here but not there" I see worldbuidling.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> See, that's the point I keep trying to make though and this is why we keep talking past each other.  An Otyugh is a trash monster isn't world building IMO.  It's simply stating what the thing is.  Obviously you need that much.  That's just basic setting stuff that every story must have.  World building would be going beyond that.  A several page treatise on the life cycle of an Otyugh such as this: On the Ecology of the Otyugh or a 15 minute video description:
> 
> That's what I consider to be world building.



We understand that.  The reality is, though, that what you don't consider world building is worldbuilding, and what you consider to be worldbuilding is just excessive worldbuilding.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I don't see this sort of sketching of the basic essence of an imaginary creature as world-building. Once we start to get some concrete assertions like "There're otyughs here but not there" I see worldbuidling.



If it's part of building the world, then it's worldbuilding.  Creating a monster, or adding an already created monster to your world, or coming up with lore for your monster like, "It's a trash monster", are all worldbuilding.  All of that goes into building the world.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> If it's part of building the world, then it's worldbuilding.  Creating a monster, or adding an already created monster to your world, or coming up with lore for your monster like, "It's a trash monster", are all worldbuilding.  All of that goes into building the world.



How is creating a monster worldbuilding? What bit of the gameworld did I establish by buying a MM?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> How is creating a monster worldbuilding? What bit of the gameworld did I establish by buying a MM?




You built the existence of that monster into your world.  There are two possibilities when you buy the MM.  All monsters in it are in your game world, in which case you just worldbuilt all of them into it, or else not all monsters in it are in your game world, so you worldbuild them in individually when you use them.  In both cases you are building your world, albeit in a minor way, when you add the monsters to your game world.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> See, that's the point I keep trying to make though and this is why we keep talking past each other.  An Otyugh is a trash monster isn't world building IMO.  It's simply stating what the thing is.  Obviously you need that much.  That's just basic setting stuff that every story must have.  World building would be going beyond that.  A several page treatise on the life cycle of an Otyugh such as this: On the Ecology of the Otyugh or a 15 minute video description:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;-1Wa_w4G0Pw]https://youtu.be/-1Wa_w4G0Pw[/video]
> 
> That's what I consider to be world building.




Yeah, I get your preference. 

I don’t like Sushi, Sushi is Food, therefore Food is disgusting. 

I absolutely understand your preference. My point is that worldbuilding (not in your definition where only the negative aspects are included, but all aspects are included) is essential, and therefore will always be prevalent. The line for each person is what’s different, and that’s fine, but it’s also why we continue to get this kind of material. Obviously, the average line drawn by customers is a bit higher than yours. Or at least, it has been in the past. For the current edition, I’m not really sure it’s as bad as you think. However, since you haven’t purchased any of the books beside’s Xanathar’s, it’s hard to determine.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> I guess this goes back to the discussion about whether it's world building to write into a gamebook that kobolds are mini-dragons.
> 
> Like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I don't see this sort of sketching of the basic essence of an imaginary creature as world-building. Once we start to get some concrete assertions like "There're otyughs here but not there" I see worldbuidling.




Okay....don’t you feel you’ve edited out part of my comment that would go a long way toward addressing this? I know you may claim that you edit posts for the sake of brevity, but please....you clearly are not concerned with brevity based on many of your posts which sometimes require an index and visits to multiple websites. Which is fine, they are very informed and insightful. But that makes it odd when you only seem to be concerned with brevity when quoting others.

Would you say that when Gygax (let’s assume it was him for the purpose of discussion) introduced the Otyugh into a game with the intention of explaining where all the waste from the dungeon’s denizens went, that this was an instance of worldbuilding?


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> Considering my very strong dislike for Planescape, no, I haven't looked at it.  Sorry.  I see Planescape as probably one of the biggest examples of "Material to Read rather than Play".



My impression of it at the time was that it was overtly derivative of what WWGS had been doing with the WoD.  Which was understandable, as that's what was selling well in the 90s:  books that were a better read than a resource.   

It makes sense, really:  it's easier to find a little time now and then to read a book then it is to find a few hours to game, when that also requires a circle of friends who can also set aside the same few hours and are all interested in playing that same game.

But the result was still a terrible setting, whether you love* worldbuidling or hate it, Planescape was an awful place to try to run or play in a campaign.




> Hrm, a setting where the players are completely incapable of making any lasting changes, wrapped in a system that completely fails to address the central themes of the setting.  No thanks.  I'm not terribly interested in reading about settings.  I want to play them.



 Making setting material a good read across multiple supplements (as many as a book a month in the 90s, it was) was like keeping a good novel series going, you had to have continuity & interest across the series, which meant keeping authorial control over the setting, which further limited what a given GM could do for stories in that setting....








* and, really, if you love world/building/ you'd be building your own - consumers of WoD, Planescape, and the like aren't building those worlds.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> My impression of it at the time was that it was overtly derivative of what WWGS had been doing with the WoD.  Which was understandable, as that's what was selling well in the 90s:  books that were a better read than a resource.
> 
> It makes sense, really:  it's easier to find a little time now and then to read a book then it is to find a few hours to game, when that also requires a circle of friends who can also set aside the same few hours and are all interested in playing that same game.
> 
> But the result was still a terrible setting, whether you love* worldbuidling or hate it, Planescape was an awful place to try to run or play in a campaign.
> 
> 
> Making setting material a good read across multiple supplements (as many as a book a month in the 90s, it was) was like keeping a good novel series going, you had to have continuity & interest across the series, which meant keeping authorial control over the setting, which further limited what a given GM could do for stories in that setting....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * and, really, if you love world/building/ you'd be building your own - consumers of WoD, Planescape, and the like aren't building those worlds.




I gamed all through the 90s, with lots of different people, and my experience was most everyone in my game group who bought these books and settings were also running them (I played in Planescape campaigns, Darksun campaigns, WoD campaigns, etc). They were designed to be enjoyable to read, and that has downsides when it comes to running them on the table. But most of the people I encountered were reading them to run (I knew one person who only read the books and setting material for fun but even that person was a player in our games on occasion). I can't speak to the quality of planescape from a GMing point of view, since I never ran it. But the GM who did run it, didn't seem to have a lot of trouble doing so. Most of the GMs I knew at the time, just didn't mind reading hundreds of pages of setting material between games. I think where the stuff had more of an issue was being friendly to play at the table. Again though, I tend to come back to a 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' with all this stuff. You need material that is easy to deploy in the chaos of the gaming table, but it is also very helpful to have deeper, inspirational material to draw on.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> I gamed all through the 90s, with lots of different people, and my experience was most everyone in my game group who bought these books and settings were also running them (I played in Planescape campaigns, Darksun campaigns, WoD campaigns, etc). ....



Nod, that's kinda inevitable, really.
If you were buying the book to read, not run/play, you wouldn't be in a group playing in that setting.  Heck, if you liked a setting but couldn't find a group, buying the books to read may have been what you settled for, at least, initially.  As the trend of writing supplements to be read as entertainment advanced, that could change...


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> Okay....don’t you feel you’ve edited out part of my comment that would go a long way toward addressing this?



Obviously not, or I wouldn't have snipped it out!



hawkeyefan said:


> Would you say that when Gygax (let’s assume it was him for the purpose of discussion) introduced the Otyugh into a game with the intention of explaining where all the waste from the dungeon’s denizens went, that this was an instance of worldbuilding?



If Gygax put an otyugh into a dungeon for the reason you give, that would be worldbuilding (on a fairly modest scale).

But writing up a monster to serve a certain ecological role isn't worldbuilding. No world has been built. And buying a MM isn't worldbuilding, for the same reason.



hawkeyefan said:


> The lore...or fluff or worldbuilding....is what goves context to things. This is why it’s so prevalent in game books, and why it’s not likely to go away.



I don't think "lore", "fluff" and "worldbuilding" are synonyms in this context.

_That troglodytes live in caves and give of a stink that nauseates most other creatures_ is lore, or "fluff", but in itself isn't worldbulding.



Maxperson said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is creating a monster worldbuilding? What bit of the gameworld did I establish by buying a MM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You built the existence of that monster into your world.  There are two possibilities when you buy the MM.  All monsters in it are in your game world, in which case you just worldbuilt all of them into it, or else not all monsters in it are in your game world, so you worldbuild them in individually when you use them.
Click to expand...


So, buying a MM _isn't_ worldbuilding. And nor is creating a monster. Neither of those involves _using a monster in play_. They may be preliminaries to such a thing.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> We understand that.  The reality is, though, that what you don't consider world building is worldbuilding, and what you consider to be worldbuilding is just excessive worldbuilding.




THANK YOU!

Finally, after 1600+ posts in the thread, you folks finally have given me a term I can use without having to explain my point of view repeatedly, time after time, because you folks insist on trying to make it sound like I'm saying something I'm not.

Excessive World Building is the acceptable term?  If I use Excessive World Building every time I post in this thread, does that mean I can stop having to re-explain myself over and over again?

Ok, so, is Excessive World Building bad?  IMO, yes, yes it is.  For all the reasons I've elucidated in this thread.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> Ok, so, is Excessive World Building bad?  IMO, yes, yes it is.  For all the reasons I've elucidated in this thread.



 IDK, what makes it 'excessive?'  ;P

Seriously, though (not too seriously), I dropped the term 'Setting Tourism' somewhere up-thread, and that's kinda my personal line beyond which World Building becomes excessive, not when you've done too much world building, but when the need to show it off becomes overwhelming and you drag your poor PCs through it just for that purpose....


----------



## Hussar

Tony Vargas said:


> IDK, what makes it 'excessive?'  ;P
> 
> Seriously, though (not too seriously), I dropped the term 'Setting Tourism' somewhere up-thread, and that's kinda my personal line beyond which World Building becomes excessive, not when you've done too much world building, but when the need to show it off becomes overwhelming and you drag your poor PCs through it just for that purpose....




But, here's the point.  I posted a quote from a Dungeon module above about how, thousands of years ago, the Olman people were more advanced than they are now.  Ok, fair enough.  We can agree (I think) that that's world building.

And it has zero to do with the actual adventure and virtually no way to actually come up at the table unless the DM specifically makes a point to do so.

So much of the hobby is chock a block with this sort of thing.  Stuff to be read and not used.  It becomes very intrusive as well.  Planescape has completely dominated any planar material for D&D for several editions.  Saying that kobolds are sometimes slaves to dragons changes both kobolds and dragons.  Since when did dragons keep slaves?  I'm drawing a blank on a single genre story that talks about our dragon slaying hero having to wade through hordes of slaves to get to the dragon.

Once that stuff starts getting established, it's virtually impossible to change.  People internalize it, despite the fact that it probably never actually appeared in their games, to the point where any change to that excessive world building is viewed as bad, not because the idea is necessarily bad, but, because it changes lore that virtually no one ever used in the first place.  

It's unnecessary, fills book after book after book with pointless trivia, and claims a place of much more importance than it really should.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> THANK YOU!




Er, you're welcome, but I've said that like 3-4 times now, at least twice to you 



> Excessive World Building is the acceptable term?  If I use Excessive World Building every time I post in this thread, does that mean I can stop having to re-explain myself over and over again?
> 
> Ok, so, is Excessive World Building bad?  IMO, yes, yes it is.  For all the reasons I've elucidated in this thread.




Sure, but excessive is in the eye of the beholder.  What is excessive to you, isn't going to be excessive to me, and what you find fine, might be excessive to someone else.  Since 1e, only 2e had times where I thought that it got excessive.  Personally, I'd rather have the problem of excessive worldbuilding than too little worldbuilding.  It's simple to chop out as much as I like, but making more is a lot tougher.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> So, buying a MM _isn't_ worldbuilding. And nor is creating a monster. Neither of those involves _using a monster in play_. They may be preliminaries to such a thing.




Buying a MM is not itself worldbuilding since we don't know if or what you will choose to place into your world.  Building a monster usually will be worldbuilding, because most of the time people will be building it to place into their game.  I suppose someone might just build monster for fun and not for use, but that seems a lot less likely.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> If Gygax put an otyugh into a dungeon for the reason you give, that would be worldbuilding (on a fairly modest scale).



That'd be adventure-building, more likely; as part of that process is stocking the dungeon with inhabitants.



> But writing up a monster to serve a certain ecological role isn't worldbuilding. No world has been built. And buying a MM isn't worldbuilding, for the same reason.
> 
> I don't think "lore", "fluff" and "worldbuilding" are synonyms in this context.
> 
> _That troglodytes live in caves and give of a stink that nauseates most other creatures_ is lore, or "fluff", but in itself isn't worldbulding.



Agreed.

But as soon as you decide that some of those stinky trog caves are going to be on the west shore of Wycliff Lake and that said trogs have recently started becoming much more of a danger to fisherfolk on said lake...now you're into worldbuilding, in terms of either (likely) setting the scene for a potential adventure or (less likely) setting up a background story that may or may not become relevant later.



> So, buying a MM _isn't_ worldbuilding. And nor is creating a monster. Neither of those involves _using a monster in play_. They may be preliminaries to such a thing.



Even 'using a monster in play' isn't necessarily worldbuilding.  It's the step between these pahses where worldbuilding may occur.  So, it goes:

1. Buy a MM or invent a new monster or whatever, and maybe give it an 'ecology' and-or some setting-neutral lore (no worldbuilding here)
2. Place those monsters within your world, in terms of what regions in which they are most commonly found etc. (this is the worldbuilding bit)
3. Use the monsters in an adventure or dungeon (this is adventure design).

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I suppose someone might just build monster for fun and not for use, but that seems a lot less likely.



I wrote up a sphinx in Burning Wheel to see what it might look like. I have no idea if I'll ever use it!


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Since when did dragons keep slaves?  I'm drawing a blank on a single genre story that talks about our dragon slaying hero having to wade through hordes of slaves to get to the dragon.



I think this is more a function of D&D's various systems, including combat resolution and monster-building: historically it was hard to build an effective "solo" dragon, and to make the struggle to climb the slag-pile of the dragon's lair interesting and challenging in play, and so instead the dragon was given servitors instead.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I wrote up a sphinx in Burning Wheel to see what it might look like. I have no idea if I'll ever use it!




Okay.  Is that supposed to prove something?


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> That'd be adventure-building, more likely; as part of that process is stocking the dungeon with inhabitants.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> But as soon as you decide that some of those stinky trog caves are going to be on the west shore of Wycliff Lake and that said trogs have recently started becoming much more of a danger to fisherfolk on said lake...now you're into worldbuilding, in terms of either (likely) setting the scene for a potential adventure or (less likely) setting up a background story that may or may not become relevant later.
> 
> Even 'using a monster in play' isn't necessarily worldbuilding.  It's the step between these pahses where worldbuilding may occur.  So, it goes:
> 
> 1. Buy a MM or invent a new monster or whatever, and maybe give it an 'ecology' and-or some setting-neutral lore (no worldbuilding here)
> 2. Place those monsters within your world, in terms of what regions in which they are most commonly found etc. (this is the worldbuilding bit)
> 3. Use the monsters in an adventure or dungeon (this is adventure design).
> 
> Lanefan




Adventure building is just a subsection of worldbuilding, though.  The adventure(dungeon, inhabitants, story, etc.) is built into the world.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> Adventure building is just a subsection of worldbuilding, though.  The adventure(dungeon, inhabitants, story, etc.) is built into the world.




See, that's the thing though.  It doesn't need to be.  Back in the day, you had the town and you had the dungeon.  That was it.  There was no real attempt to create a functional world (which is the goal of world building) and it wasn't even remotely expected that you would.  

IOW, you certainly don't need a world to run a campaign.  Particularly if you run episodic campaigns.  It's just completely unnecessary.

edit to add:

And, this is why I have such a problem with your definition [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].  You're including STORY in world building?  Seriously?  That's plot.  That's not world building AT ALL.  Basically, you're trying to say that every single thing committed to paper is world building.  Heck, you've even included character here as well with "inhabitants".  That's far, far too broad of a definition of world building.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> See, that's the thing though.  It doesn't need to be.  Back in the day, you had the town and you had the dungeon.  That was it.  There was no real attempt to create a functional world (which is the goal of world building) and it wasn't even remotely expected that you would.
> 
> IOW, you certainly don't need a world to run a campaign.  Particularly if you run episodic campaigns.  It's just completely unnecessary.
> 
> edit to add:
> 
> And, this is why I have such a problem with your definition [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].  You're including STORY in world building?  Seriously?  That's plot.  That's not world building AT ALL.  Basically, you're trying to say that every single thing committed to paper is world building.  Heck, you've even included character here as well with "inhabitants".  That's far, far too broad of a definition of world building.




It is worldbuilding.  It builds the world, which is the very definition of worldbuilding.  When you write a story about an assassin taking out the King, that has a profound impact on the shape of the world.  If your story has a child kidnapped from a farmer, that has a minor impact on the world.  Both of those acts are worldbuilding.  There is nothing about a functional world required for worldbuilding, and back in the day, the town and dungeon was the functional world.  It functioned as needed to set the games in.  That's all worldbuilding is for an RPG.  Creation of a setting to play the game in, and story is part of the setting.


----------



## Aldarc

Tony Vargas said:


> IDK, what makes it 'excessive?'  ;P
> 
> Seriously, though (not too seriously), I dropped the term 'Setting Tourism' somewhere up-thread, and that's kinda my personal line beyond which World Building becomes excessive, not when you've done too much world building, but when the need to show it off becomes overwhelming and you drag your poor PCs through it just for that purpose....



"Setting Tourism" would more likely be a frequent symptom of excess. 



Maxperson said:


> It is worldbuilding.  It builds the world, which is the very definition of worldbuilding.  When you write a story about an assassin taking out the King, that has a profound impact on the shape of the world.  If your story has a child kidnapped from a farmer, that has a minor impact on the world.  Both of those acts are worldbuilding.  There is nothing about a functional world required for worldbuilding, and back in the day, the town and dungeon was the functional world.  It functioned as needed to set the games in.  That's all worldbuilding is for an RPG.  Creation of a setting to play the game in, and story is part of the setting.



The problem is that your definition of 'worldbuilding' makes the term so broad that the term is simultaneously rendered virtually meaningless. It reminds me of Schopenhauer's criticism of pantheism: "to call the world 'God' is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word 'world'." In this case, however, it is about the term 'worldbuilding,' where you seemingly take it to mean "everything inside and outside of a game," in which 'worldbuilding' becomes synonymous and superfluous with 'fiction' or 'creative writing.'

But again, in so doing, it seems as your primary motivator for making "worldbuilding" so vaguely broad and meaningless is to protect "worldbuilding" from any and all reproach.


----------



## Sadras

@_*Maxperson*_ although I understand your definition of worldbuilding and have no issue with it really, I seem to believe the general practice is that when one adds something to the fiction/game if it is predominantly in favour of adventure design or something else then one generally would classify it as that and not worldbuilding.

i.e. Character creation is character creation even though those characters will _live and breathe_ in the world.
i.e. The prince is secretly planning to overthrow the king is Plot even though said prince's actions affect the world.
i.e. The rocky trail to the dragon's lair is littered with the bones of its victims, mostly stolen cattle but the remains of humanoids and failed adventurers are all too common. However hidden among the bones and carcasses one may find small trinkets and baubles which were overlooked by the dragon. Investigation DC 10 will uncover 2d6 gold coins worth of treasure with every 5 above the DC 10 uncovering an additional 1d6 worth. Although this is describing the terrain leading to the dragon's lair (the world), it would be classified as Adventure Design.


----------



## Maxperson

Sadras said:


> @_*Maxperson*_ although I understand your definition of worldbuilding and have no issue with it really, I seem to believe the general practice is that when one adds something to the fiction/game if it is predominantly in favour of adventure design or something else then one generally would classify it as that and not worldbuilding.
> 
> i.e. Character creation is character creation even though those characters will _live and breathe_ in the world.
> i.e. The prince is secretly planning to overthrow the king is Plot even though said prince's actions affect the world.
> i.e. The rocky trail to the dragon's lair is littered with the bones of its victims, mostly stolen cattle but the remains of humanoids and failed adventurers are all too common. However hidden among the bones and carcasses one may find small trinkets and baubles which were overlooked by the dragon. Investigation DC 10 will uncover 2d6 gold coins worth of treasure with every 5 above the DC 10 uncovering an additional 1d6 worth. Although this is describing the terrain leading to the dragon's lair (the world), it would be classified as Adventure Design.




That's why I said it was a subclass of worldbuilding.  It gets classified as adventure design/building, but it's still a part of building the world, even if it has a separate subclassification.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> The problem is that your definition of 'worldbuilding' makes the term so broad that the term is simultaneously rendered virtually meaningless.




Broad does not mean meaningless.  Worldbuilding is what you do when creating a setting to play in, and an adventure is part of that.



> where you seemingly take it to mean "everything inside and outside of a game,"




No.  That's wrong and nowhere near what I have been saying.



> But again, in so doing, it seems as your primary motivator for making "worldbuilding" so vaguely broad and meaningless is to protect "worldbuilding" from any and all reproach.



Then you haven't been reading my posts.  Excessive worldbuilding is a thing, and reproach worthy.

You should stop trying to read my motives, as you aren't very good at it.  If you want to know my motivation, just ask.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Broad does not mean meaningless.  Worldbuilding is what you do when creating a setting to play in, and an adventure is part of that.



Your second sentence fails to provide convincing support in favor for your first sentence as it does little to dissuade that your definition is not superfluous, redundant, and synonymous to the process of creative writing or fiction-making.  



> No.  That's wrong and nowhere near what I have been saying.



So far your response to nearly everything has been "that's worldbuilding too," and I don't think that is a mischaracterized paraphrase of your most common refrain. I apologize, but I am hardpressed to determine what exactly isn't 'worldbuilding' in your sense of meaning? 



> Then you haven't been reading my posts.  Excessive worldbuilding is a thing, and reproach worthy.
> 
> You should stop trying to read my motives, as you aren't very good at it.  If you want to know my motivation, just ask.



What are your motives then? But I'm not sure how obfuscating the meaning and sense of 'worldbuilding' serves any noble purpose.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> Obviously not, or I wouldn't have snipped it out!
> 
> If Gygax put an otyugh into a dungeon for the reason you give, that would be worldbuilding (on a fairly modest scale).
> 
> But writing up a monster to serve a certain ecological role isn't worldbuilding. No world has been built. And buying a MM isn't worldbuilding, for the same reason.




Yes, this is a modest example, I agree. But I’m not sure I see the distinction in your two comments. What makes it worldbuilding (albeit modest) when Gygax does it, but not worldbuilding when another DM decides to introduce that monster for that same reason? 

To me, the “world” implied in worldbuilding is simply the fictional world being established in the game. It can be as small as one room, or as cast as the cosmos. So establishing what is in the one room is just as much worldbuilding as determining how the cosmos functions. Sure, the scope is different, but it’s still the same thing.



pemerton said:


> I don't think "lore", "fluff" and "worldbuilding" are synonyms in this context.
> 
> _That troglodytes live in caves and give of a stink that nauseates most other creatures_ is lore, or "fluff", but in itself isn't worldbulding.




Well it depends on the context. I think they certainly CAN be synonyms. I think that in the context of my comment to Hussar they are synonyms. Each of them is a word for fictional details that grant context to a game element.

In your example if troglodytes, there’s probably a bit of difference. What you’ve descrined is the lore of a creature...the default lore as established by the game based loosely on mythology. It’s a collection of ideas. Once a DM takes those ideas and decides to use them in a game, then he is building a world. So in that sense, the lore of trogs amounts to a brick that the DM uses to build the world.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Aldarc said:


> "Setting Tourism" would more likely be a frequent symptom of excess.
> 
> The problem is that your definition of 'worldbuilding' makes the term so broad that the term is simultaneously rendered virtually meaningless. It reminds me of Schopenhauer's criticism of pantheism: "to call the world 'God' is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word 'world'." In this case, however, it is about the term 'worldbuilding,' where you seemingly take it to mean "everything inside and outside of a game," in which 'worldbuilding' becomes synonymous and superfluous with 'fiction' or 'creative writing.'
> 
> But again, in so doing, it seems as your primary motivator for making "worldbuilding" so vaguely broad and meaningless is to protect "worldbuilding" from any and all reproach.




Not to speak for Maxperson, but as someone who also holds a broader view of worldbuilding, I absolutely understand your point and I agree with it. It is an incredibly broad way to view the term. 

It's clear from the OP and most of the rest of the thread that the criticism is actually about worldbuilding to excess. This seems a perfectly valid criticism, in my opinion. I even share it. I think it's been established at this point that most people agree. 

But what constitutes excessive is what varies. For some, anything beyond the bare minimum needed to grant context to a monster stat block seems to be excessive. For others, it's anything that won't actually come up in play. For others, it's excessive when the material in question becomes the focus of the game regardless of player interest. This is probably where I would come in. To me, it's a tail wagging the dog situation. 

If the game serves the worldbuilding rather than the worldbuilding serving the game, that's a problem.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> And, this is why I have such a problem with your definition [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].  You're including STORY in world building?  Seriously?  That's plot.  That's not world building AT ALL.  Basically, you're trying to say that every single thing committed to paper is world building.  Heck, you've even included character here as well with "inhabitants".  That's far, far too broad of a definition of world building.




I got say, I think your definition of world building is far too narrow. I don't know any GM who doesn't include the creation of characters in the setting as a basic element of world building. Cities, towns, dungeons, other locations, cultures, NPCs, groups, institutions, history, etc; these are all part of world building. How deep you need to go, is totally up to you. Everyone is different. But world building has a definite use in game. Even things that don't come up, but could, are helpful to create a world that feels a bit more real (otherwise the setting can feel like a set in a movie studio, where a parking lot exists beyond that wall or curtain). And all that stuff can be very useful. Knowing what is important to locals in a given area in terms of survival and economy, gives you very important motivations for why people even leave their village to do things like seek out adventurers. Understanding how institutions work also is important for similar reasons (what officials would PCs deal with in this case? what powers do they have? what rewards can they offer in this society?). Again, you don't have to go any more deep than you need on this stuff, but a lot of these are things that may never emerge in play. When they do, that information is very useful to have on hand or in your memory. And it makes great fuel for building adventures.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Your second sentence fails to provide convincing support in favor for your first sentence as it does little to dissuade that your definition is not superfluous, redundant, and synonymous to the process of creative writing or fiction-making.




This is a bad argument. Do you seriously need him to support the assertion that broad does not equate to meaningless?. Because by any rational definition of those words, they have distinct meanings. I think the onus is on you to prove his definition is meaningless. You didn't. You simply asserted it. 

Either way, this isn't a logic class. We're speaking in plain language and expressing opinions here. We don't need to construct syllogisms for teacher.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> This is a bad argument. Do you seriously need him to support the assertion that broad does not equate to meaningless?. Because by any rational definition of those words, they have distinct meanings. I think the onus is on you to prove his definition is meaningless. You didn't. You simply asserted it.
> 
> Either way, this isn't a logic class. We're speaking in plain language and expressing opinions here. We don't need to construct syllogisms for teacher.



His statement "broad does not mean meaningless" is a bad argument when that is not what I said, but I'm so glad that you failed to pick up on that,  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]. I think the onus is on you to actually read.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> His statement "broad does not mean meaningless" is a bad argument when that is not what I said, but I'm so glad that you failed to pick up on that,  @_*Bedrockgames*_. I think the onus is on you to actually read.




I am struggling to understand what you meant then. His first sentence was "Broad does not mean meaningless" when you accused him of having a definition of world building so broad, it became meaningless. You then said his second sentence didn't support his first. I am assuming what you wanted from him was a sentence that helped prove his case that broad does not mean meaningless. If you meant something else, that is fine. I am not trying to pin you to something you didn't intend. My main point was we are getting lost in the thickets of minutiae and definitions (which I think this exchange helps demonstrate).

Mainly what I am taking issue with is the definition game people are playing in these threads. Every step of the way people are redefining words, and narrowing them down to points that don't really match how I see them getting used at the table, in regular conversations with gamers etc. If you are going to take language away from people in a discussion, number one, you just confuse things, number two, people will react negatively. I think people can reasonably quibble over whether 'adventures' are part of world building. But I don't think you can remove basic stuff like characters from world building.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> See, that's the thing though.  It doesn't need to be.  Back in the day, you had the town and you had the dungeon.  That was it.



To be fair, while the town and dungeon might have been the only things written up in the module there was always an assumption that there was more "out there", if for no other reason than most of the early dungeons were either implicitly or explicitly set in either Greyhawk or Blackmoor (or City State... for Judges' Guild stuff).


> There was no real attempt to create a functional world (which is the goal of world building)



The authors of the modules already by and large had a setting behind them and so they didn't need to (re-)create it.  That they didn't refer to it much if at all in the modules (notable exception: X1 Isle of Dread) just left each DM free to use her own ideas for what filled in the blank bits between dungeon sites.


> and it wasn't even remotely expected that you would.



Unless you were running a campaign set entirely in a single mega-dungeon, some worldbuilding would end up being inevitable as the campaign went along.  Sure, you could keep it to a minimum if you liked, but it would still be there:

- what's the terrain etc. like between the Hill Giant Steading and the Glacial Rift?
- the Village of Hommlet doesn't have the supplies we need, where else can we go to acquire them?
- where is Restenford (L1 Bone Hill's town) in relation to the borderlands keep?

And so on....



> IOW, you certainly don't need a world to run a campaign.  Particularly if you run episodic campaigns.  It's just completely unnecessary.



Only until you hit questions like my examples above; and those questions can be self-asked by the DM or asked of a DM by the players.

Obviously you don't need volumes of work to give the answers you need, but you need something - even just a knocked-off map on a scrap of paper.

Lanefan


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> To be fair, while the town and dungeon might have been the only things written up in the module there was always an assumption that there was more "out there", if for no other reason than most of the early dungeons were either implicitly or explicitly set in either Greyhawk or Blackmoor (or City State... for Judges' Guild stuff).
> 
> Lanefan




Whenever I ran published material, I always assumed maps were just a sketch of the things the writer considered important for that particular book, but that there was more there. If you look at most world maps for TSR in the 90s for instance, there would be enormous gaps between cities and towns. I always fleshed out the areas in between. Heck, when I make my own published world maps, it is assumed there is more there, but you give the GM room to work with.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> What makes it worldbuilding (albeit modest) when Gygax does it, but not worldbuilding when another DM decides to introduce that monster for that same reason?



Introducing an otyugh for the same reason - ie specifying that, in such-and-such a place an otyugh is to be found performing sanitation services - would be worldbuilding (on a similarly modest scale).

I was contrasting _actually describing a part of the gameworld as including an otyugh_ with _writing up a monster description that includes notes about the ecological role that otyught's serve_. I don't think that the latter is worldbuidling.

  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] regards writing up a monster desctiption which says "this monster is/was a servant of this other monster" as worlduilding (eg kobolds as slaves of dragons). I don't think I agree: the AD&D MM tells me that hobgbolins hate elves, that goblins hate gnomes, etc, but I don't really see that as worldbuidlding either.

That said, maybe the difference is this: _hobgoblins hate elves_ doesn't mean that if you use hobgoblins you have to use elves; it just means that if you don't use elves you have a "gap" in your account of hobgoblins (they have no one to hate). Whereas _kobolds typically serve as slaves to dragons_ tends to imply that if there are kobolds, there are also dragons. So using a kobold commits you also to using a dragon. I can see how that's more like wordlbuilding.

Using an otyugh commits you to there being refuse - but that's hardly anything specific about a world at all, and so I don't think that using an otyugh is, per se, worldbuilding beyond the bare fact of the otyugh being there.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> His first sentence was "Broad does not mean meaningless" when you accused him of having a definition of world building so broad, it became meaningless.



 We're talking about an aspect of writing (be it fiction or RPGs), if you broaden the definition to include the whole thing, well, it's become meaningless.  It's a neat way of building a defense, you can't say 'world building' is bad if 'world building' is part of everything that makes an RPG, well, exist, _because then you're just arguing that all RPGs are bad..._

...which, come to think of it, would still be a tenable argument.  Darn.

...hm... maybe I'll try again later...



Lanefan said:


> To be fair, while the town and dungeon might have been the only things written up in the module there was always an assumption that there was more "out there"...



...could we, perhaps, break out world-implication from world-building?  

IDK.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> We're talking about an aspect of writing (be it fiction or RPGs), if you broaden the definition to include the whole thing, well, it's become meaningless.  It's a neat way of building a defense, you can't say 'world building' is bad if 'world building' is part of everything that makes an RPG, well, exist, _because then you're just arguing that all RPGs are bad..._
> .




I think we keep stumbling into this somehow. People use a word for what it generally means in the hobby, then it gets labeled so broad it encompasses all of roleplaying. I am not really sure how we can proceed here. World building naturally includes characters and groups. All the things I listed. I think the only questionable entries on his list were adventures and stories. But characters, groups, locations, history, culture, institutions, etc. That is pretty much a given and a very basic aspect of world building. If you are ignoring all those things that belong to world building, to argue that world building isn't useful, then you are not making a real argument against world building. Further, if you are arguing that world building=excessive world building. I don't think that is much of an argument either. The reason people are reacting so strongly to this notion by the way, is world building is incredibly useful to most GMs. From my own experience, how much fun and easy to run a given session or campaign is, is almost always directly proportional to the amount of world building I invest into it. 

I think what people are arguing is "At what point is world building unneccessary or counter productive.". I think the answer to that really depends on your needs as a GM and the needs of your group. But most people probably want enough world building to give a sense of depth to the world, without having too much content that it becomes unwieldy (or at least having content easy to find during play). 

Personally I think arguments against world building as navel gazing, while they can definitely apply well to fiction, apply less well to gaming. Because in gaming that stuff under the surface that may or may not come up or be relevant, is incredibly important.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> What are your motives then? But I'm not sure how obfuscating the meaning and sense of 'worldbuilding' serves any noble purpose.




It's not obfuscation, it's clarity.  Worldbuilding encompasses anything you do to build the world/setting.  There are subsections like adventure building, but to say that definitions have to be narrow to have meaning is absurd.  It's broad.  It has meaning.


----------



## Maxperson

Tony Vargas said:


> We're talking about an aspect of writing (be it fiction or RPGs), if you broaden the definition to include the whole thing, well, it's become meaningless.  It's a neat way of building a defense, you can't say 'world building' is bad if 'world building' is part of everything that makes an RPG, well, exist, _because then you're just arguing that all RPGs are bad..._




I've never said or implied that everything that makes an RPG is part of worldbuilding, though.  That's a misrepresentation of others here.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> I've never said or implied that everything that makes an RPG is part of worldbuilding, though.  That's a misrepresentation of others here.




What is excluded then?  You've included character creation, setting creation, adventure creation and probably a few other bits and bobs.  What else is there?  You've have a character, you have an adventure, you have a setting.  That's the sum total of the entire game.  What, in your view, is part of an RPG that isn't included in your definition of world building?  it would be very helpful if you could be a bit more specific. Because, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you've included every single act before, during and after play under the umbrella of world building.



Maxperson said:


> It is worldbuilding.  It builds the world, which is the very definition of worldbuilding.  When you write a story about an assassin taking out the King, that has a profound impact on the shape of the world.  If your story has a child kidnapped from a farmer, that has a minor impact on the world.  Both of those acts are worldbuilding.  There is nothing about a functional world required for worldbuilding, and back in the day, the town and dungeon was the functional world.  It functioned as needed to set the games in.  That's all worldbuilding is for an RPG.  Creation of a setting to play the game in, and story is part of the setting.




Sorry, but, no.  World building is NOT plot.  You can have plot with zero world building - theater does it all the time.  There is no world building in Waiting for Godot.  Heck, Phantom of the Opera has no world building.  Don't think so?  What time period does Phantom occur in?  What city?  What is outside the opera house?  After all, people come and go to and from the opera house, so, they have to have somewhere to go to.  Yet, none of that is described in Phantom.

IOW, you can have a pretty elaborate plot and story with tons of characterization without a shred of world building.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> Sorry, but, no.  World building is NOT plot.  You can have plot with zero world building - theater does it all the time.  There is no world building in Waiting for Godot.  Heck, Phantom of the Opera has no world building.  Don't think so?  What time period does Phantom occur in?  What city?  What is outside the opera house?  After all, people come and go to and from the opera house, so, they have to have somewhere to go to.  Yet, none of that is described in Phantom.
> 
> IOW, you can have a pretty elaborate plot and story with tons of characterization without a shred of world building.



Phantom of the Opera has a rather large advantage over the typical RPG campaign in that it is designed to be performed over but a few hours in one sitting, and has to get its story told within that time.  At best it goes on for about the length of one (1) D&D session.

Were it expected to go on for several (or many) more "sessions", and assuming the performers were off-script but still in character i.e. similar to player role-playing their game characters, it is inevitable they would sooner or later want to move the story and-or plot beyond the confines of the theatre; meaning they need to somehow be informed what's out there so they can interact with it.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar

Of course [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].  But, again, I've always said that you need setting.  That's fine.  What wouldn't be needed is the last five hundred years of history of the city they were in.  Or the last five thousand.  Which is where world building kicks in.

But, again, my point is that world building is distinct from plot and character.  And, frankly, it's distinct from setting as well.  It's when setting building becomes an end in its own.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> World building is NOT plot.  You can have plot with zero world building - theater does it all the time.  There is no world building in Waiting for Godot.  Heck, Phantom of the Opera has no world building.  Don't think so?  What time period does Phantom occur in?  What city?  What is outside the opera house?  After all, people come and go to and from the opera house, so, they have to have somewhere to go to.  Yet, none of that is described in Phantom.
> 
> IOW, you can have a pretty elaborate plot and story with tons of characterization without a shred of world building.



A couple of additional points.

(1) Even if the action (of the play, of the RPG session) extends beyond the opera house, you can add on that stuff as needed. In serial fiction, new elements of the setting are established as needed. In RPGing the same thing is possible. The fact that some GMs and some RPG groups prefer that it all be done in advance doesn't show that it _has_ to be. So someone who says "I find worldbuilding to be unhelpful/counterproductive" isn't necessarily confused about what RPGing involves. Nor are they necessarily saying that those who enjoy it are confused.

(2) This semantic debate seems exceptionally pointless. If someone says "Worldbuilding is bad" because eg_ it kills spontaneity_ or _it bogs down narration in needless detail_, it's pretty clear what they have in mind. Someone else may or may not _agree _with that; but it adds nothing to the conversation to bog it down with discussion of whether "worldbuilding" is the word that ought to have been used to express that preference.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> It's not obfuscation, it's clarity.  Worldbuilding encompasses anything you do to build the world/setting.  There are subsections like adventure building, but to say that definitions have to be narrow to have meaning is absurd.  It's broad.  It has meaning.



Sure, but repeating that assertion that I disagree with isn't going to make me agree with it. I doubt, however, that further conversation on this point will bear ripe fruit. 



Bedrockgames said:


> I think we keep stumbling into this somehow. *People use a word for what it generally means in the hobby,* then it gets labeled so broad it encompasses all of roleplaying. I am not really sure how we can proceed here.



I would say that is also a stumbling block: a few people make an assertion for "what it generally means in the hobby" when it runs counter to the experience or understanding of others. Attempting to steamroll others by repeating your assertion that your definition is "conventional" or "generally means in the hobby" only exacerbates the frustration with definitions. You think people are narrowing the definition down, when in fact they are working with their own sense of the conventional definition, cognitive sense, or meaning. Again, I would say that a simple Google search about "worldbuilding tips" demonstrates that the word's general meaning often has a more restricted cognitive and connotative sense. 



> Personally I think arguments against world building as navel gazing, while they can definitely apply well to fiction, apply less well to gaming. Because in gaming that stuff under the surface that may or may not come up or be relevant, is incredibly important.



It strikes me as a vanity to think that this applies more to fiction than than gaming, because such excess worldbuilding IMHO often comes from GMs who are using their worldbuilding as an exercise of self-indulgence.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> It strikes me as a vanity to think that this applies more to fiction than than gaming, because such excess worldbuilding IMHO often comes from GMs who are using their worldbuilding as an exercise of self-indulgence.




I think you are projecting here. All I can go on is what works when I run games, and what I've seen from other GMs. I just know from experience, the more world building effort I put in, the easier my games are to run and the more fun they tend to be. There is definitely a point of diminishing returns, and there is definitely a point at which you are just spending too much free time on world building that could be better spent on something else in your life, but world building (even if we go with a more narrow definition) is still crucial for me when I am running a game. 

That said, I run more spontaneous games as well. I understand you don't have to world build everything under the sun. But there are definitely campaigns that benefit strongly from world building. Heck, I think most of those anti-world building advice articles for fiction are pretty stupid as well. I mean some of the best science fiction, fantasy and literature I've read took time to world build. I don't need every book of fiction I read to be focused on world building, because lots of stories don't need that. But something like Dune or City and the Stars, or Ringworld, or even The End of Eternity, requires world building to make sense and be interesting.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> What is excluded then?  You've included character creation, setting creation, adventure creation and probably a few other bits and bobs.  What else is there?  You've have a character, you have an adventure, you have a setting.  That's the sum total of the entire game.




You just create a setting and then just sit there do you?  My group, we actually play the game when the worldbuilding of the setting done.  That doesn't mean that all worldbuilding ceases after play begins.  If the DM hasn't created all of the adventures prior to the start of play, he will be engaged in worldbuilding as he builds more adventures.  That's not game play, though.




> Sorry, but, no. World building is NOT plot. You can have plot with zero world building - theater does it all the time. There is no world building in Waiting for Godot. Heck, Phantom of the Opera has no world building. Don't think so? What time period does Phantom occur in? What city? What is outside the opera house? After all, people come and go to and from the opera house, so, they have to have somewhere to go to. Yet, none of that is described in Phantom.




I don't know why you persist in showing me something that isn't an RPG as an example of an RPG.  Showing me an apple when I'm talking about oranges accomplishes nothing.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Phantom of the Opera has a rather large advantage over the typical RPG campaign in that it is designed to be performed over but a few hours in one sitting, and has to get its story told within that time.  At best it goes on for about the length of one (1) D&D session.
> 
> Were it expected to go on for several (or many) more "sessions", and assuming the performers were off-script but still in character i.e. similar to player role-playing their game characters, it is inevitable they would sooner or later want to move the story and-or plot beyond the confines of the theatre; meaning they need to somehow be informed what's out there so they can interact with it.
> 
> Lanefan




You would need that in the first few hours as well, if it were an RPG where the participants would be coming up with their own script and questions.  Phantom is not an RPG and the way it is set up does not at all represent an RPG adventure.  It's apples and oranges.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> (1) Even if the action (of the play, of the RPG session) extends beyond the opera house, you can add on that stuff as needed. In serial fiction, new elements of the setting are established as needed. In RPGing the same thing is possible. The fact that some GMs and some RPG groups prefer that it all be done in advance doesn't show that it _has_ to be.




Yes, story now worldbuilds as it goes along.  I don't think anyone here has claimed that it all has to be done in advance.



> So someone who says "I find worldbuilding to be unhelpful/counterproductive" isn't necessarily confused about what RPGing involves. Nor are they necessarily saying that those who enjoy it are confused.




But someone who gives a non-RPG setting like Phantom is confused about what RPGing involves.   A movie, play or TV show is never going to play out like an RPG would and doesn't involve the same kind of worldbuilding needs as an RPG does.



> (2) This semantic debate seems exceptionally pointless. If someone says "Worldbuilding is bad" because eg_ it kills spontaneity_ or _it bogs down narration in needless detail_, it's pretty clear what they have in mind. Someone else may or may not _agree _with that; but it adds nothing to the conversation to bog it down with discussion of whether "worldbuilding" is the word that ought to have been used to express that preference.



Definitions are not pointless.  When you have someone misrepresenting a word, it's incredibly unhelpful to just wander on through the conversation with people using a word that is central to the conversation in different ways.  It's not only unhelpful, but it actively harms communication.  Until people get on the same page, the conversation can't go forward.  Once [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] acknowledged the definition and moved on to his position as dislike of excessive worldbuilding, the conversation started to progress and we started to have discussions going on as to what excessive meant.  Once he dug in his heels again, it derailed once more.  It seems like he doesn't actually want the conversation to happen.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I think you are projecting here. All I can go on is what works when I run games, and what I've seen from other GMs.



And clearly people who disagree with you don't as they are just "projecting" and going on inexperience, paint chips, and bad faith. Furthermore, if you are going to quote my comment, I would certainly appreciate if you showed signs of reading it. I did clarify that this was not all worldbuilding but "excess worldbuilding." I would prefer if you would spend less time accusing others of projecting and more time treating the experiences and viewpoints of others who may disagree with you as being similarly rooted in their own game experiences and observation. 



Maxperson said:


> *Until people get on the same page, the conversation can't go forward.*  Once [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] acknowledged the definition and moved on to his position as dislike of excessive worldbuilding, the conversation started to progress and we started to have discussions going on as to what excessive meant.  Once he dug in his heels again, it derailed once more.  It seems like he doesn't actually want the conversation to happen.



This obligation works both ways, Max. It looked like to me that you refused to move the conversation forward with your heels dug in deep until Hussar offered a temporary concession for the sake of moving the conversation forward. I am hardpressed to find any signs of your attempts to meet in the middle and reach an understanding. If you are insisting that you have the only correct understanding for the definition of "worldbuilding" and expect everyone to kowtow to it then this conversation will most certainly not move forward.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> When you have someone misrepresenting a word, it's incredibly unhelpful to just wander on through the conversation with people using a word that is central to the conversation in different ways.  It's not only unhelpful, but it actively harms communication.  Until people get on the same page, the conversation can't go forward.



This just isn't true. As long as I know what someone means by a word they are using, I can discuss things with them even though I would use the word differently.

I don't get discombobulated everytime I experience a North American using the word "bathroom" or "liberal" differently from how I would.

When it comes to words, like "worldbuilding" in this thread, where differences of usage reflect broader differences of approach to what is valuable or not valuable in the broader activity (RPGing) being discussed, paying attention to those differences actually _helps_ understanding, by helping locate a given poster's contribution in a broader conception of what is worthwhile about the hobby.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> someone who gives a non-RPG setting like Phantom is confused about what RPGing involves.   A movie, play or TV show is never going to play out like an RPG would and doesn't involve the same kind of worldbuilding needs as an RPG does.





Aldarc said:


> It strikes me as a vanity to think that this applies more to fiction than than gaming, because such excess worldbuilding IMHO often comes from GMs who are using their worldbuilding as an exercise of self-indulgence.



To the extent that these two posts express conflicting views on the matter, I'm firmly with Aldarc. RPGing, and it's "need" for worldbuilding, is not wildly different from any other narrative artform.



Maxperson said:


> You would need that in the first few hours as well, if it were an RPG where the participants would be coming up with their own script and questions.  Phantom is not an RPG and the way it is set up does not at all represent an RPG adventure.  It's apples and oranges.





Maxperson said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the action (of the play, of the RPG session) extends beyond the opera house, you can add on that stuff as needed. In serial fiction, new elements of the setting are established as needed. In RPGing the same thing is possible. The fact that some GMs and some RPG groups prefer that it all be done in advance doesn't show that it has to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, story now worldbuilds as it goes along. I don't think anyone here has claimed that it all has to be done in advance.
Click to expand...


But what do you think the OP is talking about? What do you think  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is talking about? And what are _you_ talking about when you say that, unlike a play, worldbuildinfg would be needed "in the first few hours" of a RPG?

Do you think that the sort of stuff the OP, or Hussar, is objecting to - eg thousand-year histories of a place or a people that have no bearing on the actual situation presented in play - is going to come up in circumstances in which setting is established on an as-needed basis?


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> Introducing an otyugh for the same reason - ie specifying that, in such-and-such a place an otyugh is to be found performing sanitation services - would be worldbuilding (on a similarly modest scale).
> 
> I was contrasting _actually describing a part of the gameworld as including an otyugh_ with _writing up a monster description that includes notes about the ecological role that otyught's serve_. I don't think that the latter is worldbuidling.




Okay. But what if a DM selects such a monster for inclusion in their game world? Presumably when "stocking" a dungeon or similar. Isn't that DM deciding to include a world element? 

I would say so. Sure, it may be a minor element, but so much of this discussion seems to rely on scope, so I think that's relevant. 



pemerton said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] regards writing up a monster desctiption which says "this monster is/was a servant of this other monster" as worlduilding (eg kobolds as slaves of dragons). I don't think I agree: the AD&D MM tells me that hobgbolins hate elves, that goblins hate gnomes, etc, but I don't really see that as worldbuidlding either.




It depends. If this is what is in the Monster Manual or whatever source is being used, then there certainly seems to be a world that is being implied. For example, the world of Toril or Oerth, etc. Now, any given DM can choose to use those elements or not, which is really just a case of the DM building a world of his own. 

I think the connections that are offered in the material....that hobgoblins hate elves and the like....are really key to what I am talking about. Those bits that establish or attempt to establish a larger world. Taken as written, the inclusion of hobgoblins implies the inclusion of elves....and if you then look at the information about elves, then several other elements become implied, as well. 

Now, a GM can alter these to suit his or his players' tastes, and he is therefore building the world in which they will play. 



pemerton said:


> That said, maybe the difference is this: _hobgoblins hate elves_ doesn't mean that if you use hobgoblins you have to use elves; it just means that if you don't use elves you have a "gap" in your account of hobgoblins (they have no one to hate). Whereas _kobolds typically serve as slaves to dragons_ tends to imply that if there are kobolds, there are also dragons. So using a kobold commits you also to using a dragon. I can see how that's more like wordlbuilding.
> 
> Using an otyugh commits you to there being refuse - but that's hardly anything specific about a world at all, and so I don't think that using an otyugh is, per se, worldbuilding beyond the bare fact of the otyugh being there.




Well, it possibly commits you to more than that, depending on circumstances. It could commit you to the presence of monsters if none have been established prior. Or perhaps to the presence of aberrations, which have their own possible implications from a worldbuilding aspect. Again, these may or may not apply, but this is certainly possible, and I would imagine that we can easily select a monster that would serve as a better example in this regard. 

Ultimately, these bits of lore are the tools of worldbuilding, I'd say. I think I made a comment just a bit upthread about them being the bricks that the DM uses to build the world.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> And clearly people who disagree with you don't as they are just "projecting" and going on inexperience, paint chips, and bad faith. Furthermore, if you are going to quote my comment, I would certainly appreciate if you showed signs of reading it. I did clarify that this was not all worldbuilding but "excess worldbuilding." I would prefer if you would spend less time accusing others of projecting and more time treating the experiences and viewpoints of others who may disagree with you as being similarly rooted in their own game experiences and observation.
> 
> This obligation works both ways, Max. It looked.




I am reading it. And I think you guys have too low a bar for 'excessive world building'. I think what people here are decrying as excessive world building, to a lot of posters, feels like the right amount. No one has said, the bar for how much is right, should be the same for everyone. But only one side seems to be taking the position that the amount of world building needs to be extremely low, before it becomes 'excessive world building'. I think that line of reasoning is as flawed as the OP assertion that World Building is bad. I am reading what you are saying. I just don't agree with what you are saying.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> To the extent that these two posts express conflicting views on the matter, I'm firmly with Aldarc. RPGing, and it's "need" for worldbuilding, is not wildly different from any other narrative artform.




It is different, and its different for the very reason that RPGs are always different around this stuff than movies, books and television. In a movie or book, the director/writer has complete control over what we see and where the characters go. In RPGs, the GM does not have control over what the players characters do. A script writer who hasn't fleshed out a given section of town beyond the one room the hero is in, simply doesn't show us what is beyond that room if he doesn't have material on it. In a game, players at any point can start opening doors, moving in unexpected directions, and blowing up walls. You can do it on the fly as well, if you are able to (and even people who do a lot of world building come up with stuff all the time when they need it). But world building gives you a good foundation to work off of during play. 

I do think world building can be useful in fiction too. I don't agree with the OP at all in that respect. But I do think it is less crucial in those mediums than in RPGs. 

And again, if people have an approach they are comfortable with that involves zero world building, more power to them. That is great and fine. But when people say 'world building is bad' or 'too much world building is a problem' (and mean anything beyond a minimal amount), it leaves those of us who use world building as an essential tool, and have seen its utility in practice for years, scratching our heads.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> It is different, and its different for the very reason that RPGs are always different around this stuff than movies, books and television. In a movie or book, the director/writer has complete control over what we see and where the characters go. In RPGs, the GM does not have control over what the players characters do.....



 Well, it varies a bit in a couple of ways.  In some RPGs the GM & players share that authorial power/director stance/whatever to varying degrees.  In some RPGs, the GM has a great deal of control (subtle or not so subtle) over what the player characters can/may do, and/or whether they succeed or fail, in others, the players have a great deal more control.  
So it can be very much like fiction (movies/books/TV/pick your medium), but with a team doing the writing & directing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, it varies a bit in a couple of ways.  In some RPGs the GM & players share that authorial power/director stance/whatever to varying degrees.  In some RPGs, the GM has a great deal of control (subtle or not so subtle) over what the player characters can/may do, and/or whether they succeed or fail, in others, the players have a great deal more control.
> So it can be very much like fiction (movies/books/TV/pick your medium), but with a team doing the writing & directing.





I don't know that I would agree with all those breakdowns of play style and approach, but even accounting for variations of how people play the game, the fact that the characters themselves have agency through the players makes anything to do with world building completely different. All it takes is someone asking a question like "where do they get the grain from" and suddenly a world building consideration that writers can avoid by deciding the characters don't ask the question, GMs and players have to deal with. And none of us are saying world building is a requirement of every style. If you have a collaborative style that doesn't seem to need it (or at least needs a minimal amount). That is fine. I think what we are saying is the vast, vast majority of games do seem to require world building. And it requires it in part because of the things that make RPGs so different from literature and movies.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know that I would agree with all those breakdowns of play style and approach, but even accounting for variations of how people play the game, the fact that the characters themselves have agency through the players makes anything to do with world building completely different.



Not even meant as a breakdown or analysis, just acknowledging there's a range out there.  That range does include depriving players of a great deal of 'agency,' not only in the context of worldbuilding, but certainly in that context if you prioritize it.



> All it takes is someone asking a question like "where do they get the grain from" and suddenly a world building consideration that writers can avoid by deciding the characters don't ask the question, GMs and players have to deal with.



 Heh, depending on their audience, writers may very well have to consider that (and get soundly mocked when they don't) - and depending on their players, DMs may not...



> And none of us are saying world building is a requirement of every style.



 I got the impression Max was saying something close to that - if not a requirement than an inevitable product. 







> If you have a collaborative style that doesn't seem to need it (or at least needs a minimal amount). That is fine. I think what we are saying is the vast, vast majority of games do seem to require world building.



 Honestly don't care about 'vast majority' so much when talking something so theoretical as that.  Not that I care a great deal about theorizing, or at least, not in a positive way, but appealing to (relative) popularity doesn't help.



> And it requires it in part because of the things that make RPGs so different from literature and movies.



 They're both exercises in creating fiction, and they're both meant to entertain.  The similarities are pretty important, too.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> Not even meant as a breakdown or analysis, just acknowledging there's a range out there.  That range does include depriving players of a great deal of 'agency,' not only in the context of worldbuilding, but certainly in that context if you prioritize it.




We had a whole discussion on agency. I think it is safe to assume half the room is on a separate page from the other half when it comes to determine what agency means and what styles impact it. My quibble was over how you seemed to be characterizing each style in the mix. But it is a quibble and largely off topic. 



> Heh, depending on their audience, writers may very well have to consider that (and get soundly mocked when they don't) - and depending on their players, DMs may not...




There are always edge cases. But the point is, a writer can easily sidestep areas of world building he or she doesn't want to engage. If thinking too deeply on where people get their grain from in this village, isn't important, the writer can just make sure that question never comes up. In most RPGs, a GM can't predict what the players will say or do. This difference is so obvious, it shouldn't even need to be argued. The characters in books and movies do what the writers want. The characters in RPGs do what they want, because they are controlled by players. That right there creates a massive difference in how important world building is. Sure, something might not come up because players don't think to ask. But it could. I know that I need to come up with at least some sort of answer for things like this prior to starting the campaign. If I were writing a movie script, I could just make sure that grain source, never becomes an issue in the story. 



> I got the impression Max was saying something close to that - if not a requirement than an inevitable product.  Honestly don't care about 'vast majority' so much when talking something so theoretical as that.  Not that I care a great deal about theorizing, or at least, not in a positive way, but appealing to (relative) popularity doesn't help.




Like I said, I wasn't embracing everything max was saying. But I also wasn't accepting the extremely narrow definition of world building being offered. Like I've said this whole time. If people are redefining world building to prove it is bad, or it is good, that isn't an argument. We need to deal with the term as it is used by most people in the hobby. We can talk about other definitions. But you can't use those narrow fringe definitions to then equivocate and prove all world building is bad. 



> They're both exercises in creating fiction, and they're both meant to entertain.  The similarities are pretty important, too.




We are kind of going in circles here. But this is a major source of contention. Particularly when dealing with the way 'fiction' gets used in these threads by these posters. Not everyone agrees with this assumption at all. I am not saying there are not similarities. There are. But there are major differences in how RPGS function, that mean you can't just port in a rule or principle from fiction and expect it to work out all the time. But then, I'd even argue that fiction often needs good world building.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Tony Vargas said:


> Honestly don't care about 'vast majority' so much when talking something so theoretical as that.  Not that I care a great deal about theorizing, or at least, not in a positive way, but appealing to (relative) popularity doesn't help.
> .




Worldbuilding and whether it is good or bad isn't a theoretical thing. It is something people do in very practical ways for RPGs. You can ignore the majority of play if you want. But in a thread where the central topic is, "is world building bad?", it would seem we are trying to arrive at an answer that applies to most tables, not a narrow sliver of the gaming community. If world building is bad for a small group that plays style X; no one here objects to that assertion. What people object to is the broad declaration that world building is bad because at our tables, world building is important and useful, and it adds to the fun of actual play. If your conclusion is "World building is bad for X play style" that is a very different statement from "World building is bad".


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> *We need to deal with the term as it is used by most people in the hobby.* We can talk about other definitions. But you can't use those narrow fringe definitions to then equivocate and prove all world building is bad.



You keep saying this with the implicit assumption that your definition is the norm when I don't think that is necessarily true, particularly when you don't substantiate it or even acknowledge that the contextual understanding of "used by most people" clearly varies in this thread.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> /snip Dune
> /snip




It's interesting that you mention Dune.  Because if you read the original novel - heck even the original Frank Herbert (not his son's stuff), there is surprisingly little world building.  Virtually none.  It's a very strongly plot based story that's heavy on character.

For example, what does a Guildsman look like?  I know you're probably thinking of the movies here when you envision it, but, in the novels, they are never actually really described.  We know nothing about where they come from or how they got that way other than "Spice did it".  A major element of the story is completely absent of any world building.

 [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - please, can you answer the question?  What part of an RPG is excluded from your definition of world building.

----

And, as far as bringing up Phantom, there's nothing stopping a campaign being one adventure long, for one.  In which case, you certainly don't need world building.  But, for another, there's nothing stopping you from running an episodic campaign where each adventure is self contained.  Hell, that's the way I grew up playing D&D.  Go from Keep on the Borderlands to the Isle of Dread to Against the Giants.  Or Cult of the Reptile God to the Slave Lords series to a couple of home brew adventures to Tomb of Horrors for a campaign capper.

The notion that world building is required for play is pretty easily disproven.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> It's interesting that you mention Dune.  Because if you read the original novel - heck even the original Frank Herbert (not his son's stuff), there is surprisingly little world building.  Virtually none.  It's a very strongly plot based story that's heavy on character.
> .




I've read Dune plenty. It is one of my favorite science fiction series. This strikes me as a very unusual take on the amount of world building in the novels. Certainly isn't 'virtually none'. Absolutely this is a character heavy story, but culture, economy, politics, and ecology, not to mention technology, are all crucial features of the story and play into that characterization. Everything down to the stillsuits and Muad'Dib is important. Not to mention the exploration of the setting's language. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion on the story. It never struck me as light on world building, and I've honestly never heard anyone describe it as such either.


----------



## Hussar

Actually, coming back to Dune for a second, because it makes for a very good example.  Take one of the most basic elements of the story - the Stillsuit.  Now, we know that a stillsuit recycles your water and lets you survive in the desert.  Very important for the plot of the story.

But, what does it look like?  What color is it?  Who makes it?  What's it made out of?  

These are all basic world building questions because none of them actually matter in the context of the story.   And, none of them are actually answered because Herbert was a fantastic author that wrote incredibly tight stories that didn't wallow in tons of extraneous details.  

To me, those four questions above, THAT'S world building.  Having a still suit isn't world building because it's necessary to the plot.  You have to have them in order to write the story.  But, all that extra stuff?  Not needed, so, it isn't included.  

And the same works quite well for RPG's.  You don't need to know the 500 year history of the city you are in.  No one really cares.  It's maybe fun to read, but, as far as actually running your game?  Totally unnecessary.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> For example, what does a Guildsman look like?  I know you're probably thinking of the movies here when you envision it, but, in the novels, they are never actually really described.  We know nothing about where they come from or how they got that way other than "Spice did it".  A major element of the story is completely absent of any world building.
> .




It has been about six years since I've read the books again, so I can't really comment specifically on this claim, except to say, I do remember finding concept of the guildsman being enormously evocative and a product of world building. World building doesn't mean you have to explain everything in excruciating detail. And if I recall, they are meant to be pretty mysterious. But they have an important presence in the story Herbert clearly gave a good deal of thought to. But again, I'd need to read the books again to go over the finer details like this. I am pretty sure they do get some description by the second or third book though. Either way, the spice, and space navigation are all dealt with in ways I would regard as world building. But Dune was just one example, so I wouldn't want to get hung up on it. To me it sounds like you have a never different notion of what constitutes world building than I do.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Actually, coming back to Dune for a second, because it makes for a very good example.  Take one of the most basic elements of the story - the Stillsuit.  Now, we know that a stillsuit recycles your water and lets you survive in the desert.  Very important for the plot of the story.
> 
> But, what does it look like?  What color is it?  Who makes it?  What's it made out of?
> .




You are hairsplitting. Again I'd have to read the books again to see if these are answered or not. The crucial world building feature is their function and what this tells you about the climate and culture. If you don't see that as world building, we are just simply on a different page and talking past each other.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> It's interesting that you mention Dune.  Because if you read the original novel - heck even the original Frank Herbert (not his son's stuff), there is surprisingly little world building.  Virtually none.  It's a very strongly plot based story that's heavy on character.
> 
> For example, what does a Guildsman look like?  I know you're probably thinking of the movies here when you envision it, but, in the novels, they are never actually really described.  We know nothing about where they come from or how they got that way other than "Spice did it".  A major element of the story is completely absent of any world building.
> 
> @_*Maxperson*_ - please, can you answer the question?  What part of an RPG is excluded from your definition of world building.
> 
> ----
> 
> And, as far as bringing up Phantom, there's nothing stopping a campaign being one adventure long, for one.  In which case, you certainly don't need world building.  But, for another, there's nothing stopping you from running an episodic campaign where each adventure is self contained.  Hell, that's the way I grew up playing D&D.  Go from Keep on the Borderlands to the Isle of Dread to Against the Giants.  Or Cult of the Reptile God to the Slave Lords series to a couple of home brew adventures to Tomb of Horrors for a campaign capper.
> 
> The notion that world building is required for play is pretty easily disproven.




In the case of Dune, I wouldn’t say it’s absent of worldbuilding. The guildsmen lack a specific description, sure, but they do possess many other qualities that establish their role in the world and their relation to others. 

As for episodic campaigns, sure, I think a game can function without any consideration for how the episodes really fit together. There’s nothing stopping a game group from playing that way. 

I don’t think that  proves or disproves anything, really. 

For the broad definition of worldbuilding, such an episodic game provides only the essential details. In this case, that the characters exist and are adventurers for hire, and they wander from place to place and get themselves into trouble. But those episodes still define a wolrd, however loosely.

For the more narrow definition of worldbuilding in the sense of information beyond what is necessary, excessive worldbuilding, then I’d agree with you that this episodic campaign doesn’t have that. But I don’t know if anyone has really said that excessive worldbuilding is necessary. Anyone saying worldbuilding is necessary is using the broader definition.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> And the same works quite well for RPG's.  You don't need to know the 500 year history of the city you are in.  No one really cares.  It's maybe fun to read, but, as far as actually running your game?  Totally unnecessary.




Except when the players ask "who was the last king?" or "what was the city like 200 years ago". Again, I appreciate that in a novel, an overabundance of world building can be a negative (though it really does depend on the book). But in RPGs this stuff is helpful to have in play. I think utility is always helpful. So providing timelines and kings lists, or short entries, is great for play at the table. I don't mind though when there is longer form material that I can dive into between sessions. 

I get that you don't care about these details. But plenty of people do. And I consider them useful. Obviously what you make is going to depend on the campaign and players. Not every campaign needs historical details like that. But most seem to. I think people will debate the best way to present world info. Ease of use and brevity are always helpful, for example. And a lot of people advocate for that. But I think most folks don't question world building itself for an RPG (especially when so many people campaigns that are about exploring a world).


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> Except when the players ask "who was the last king?" or "what was the city like 200 years ago". Again, I appreciate that in a novel, an overabundance of world building can be a negative (though it really does depend on the book). But in RPGs this stuff is helpful to have in play. I think utility is always helpful. So providing timelines and kings lists, or short entries, is great for play at the table. I don't mind though when there is longer form material that I can dive into between sessions.
> 
> I get that you don't care about these details. But plenty of people do. And I consider them useful. Obviously what you make is going to depend on the campaign and players. Not every campaign needs historical details like that. But most seem to. I think people will debate the best way to present world info. Ease of use and brevity are always helpful, for example. And a lot of people advocate for that. But I think most folks don't question world building itself for an RPG (especially when so many people campaigns that are about exploring a world).




See that is the kind of information that, unless it’s somehow essential to the game...perhaps there’s a question of royal succession or something like that...I don’t think really needs a lot of work beforehand. For me, if a player asked a question like that, I can improv an answer that would be just as useful and meaningful as if I’d mapped out 8 generations of royal lineage beforehand. My prep time would be better spent on some other aspect of the game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> For the more narrow definition of worldbuilding in the sense of information beyond what is necessary, excessive worldbuilding, then I’d agree with you that this episodic campaign doesn’t have that. But I don’t know if anyone has really said that excessive worldbuilding is necessary. Anyone saying worldbuilding is necessary is using the broader definition.




What is necessary is going to vary a lot. And I think this is the core issue people are having. Also this business of world buidling=excessive world building makes no sense to me. 

I think fiddling with world building details is fine, if it gives you something under the tip of the ice berg you can potentially use. Where it becomes a problem, in my view, is when the material is unwieldy or when the GM throws out unimportant information for its own sake during play. But if the players decide to go north all of a sudden and see what is happening in the city of Dee, I am happy if I have the location mapped out, the organizations and groups in the city planned, the local culture, etc. All those details about Dee weren't necessary when the campaign was about a mystery in the south, but it becomes necessary. And if the players start probing the details of Dee more, further details can become necessary. Hashing out those details before hand is just a good way of avoiding issues in play, and keeping things consistent (because you have time to think through the implications of all the details).


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> See that is the kind of information that, unless it’s somehow essential to the game...perhaps there’s a question of royal succession or something like that...I don’t think really needs a lot of work beforehand. For me, if a player asked a question like that, I can improv an answer that would be just as useful and meaningful as if I’d mapped out 8 generations of royal lineage beforehand. My prep time would be better spent on some other aspect of the game.




I don't think this sort of thing is always required, but on many occasions I've found having king lists handy. The reason is, if I am just making it up on the fly, I find it too easy to be inconsistent. I also think it is a good way to help establish some basic guideposts for the history of the place, so when you are doing things like making ancient artifacts, you have some context to draw on. If you don't find this useful, that's great. Like I've been saying the whole time. People should run and prep however they want. But I can honestly tell you, I've found things like kings lists to be far from frivolous in my own campaigns and a very useful tool. Part of that may have to do with the kinds of games I run.


----------



## Calithorne

Most sci-fi has no world building at all.  The story is about one thing that is different from our world, and everything in the story is about that.  There is literally nothing else going on in this world other than this one thing.

For example, I just saw a movie called Anon, which is about a world where everyone has a computer in his head tracking everything he sees, and this information can be used by the police to solve crimes.  Anon is a character who can delete this information and remain anonymous, and charge people money to remove bad information from their heads.

And that's all the movie is about, so there's no need to build a world that's different from our world in any other way.

Making a world for role playing is not at all like that, in any well developed world there is lots of stuff going on, and its much too detailed to cram it all into one story.  The point is that every player group can have their own story, and the world is built detailed enough to allow the story to happen.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> This obligation works both ways, Max. It looked like to me that you refused to move the conversation forward with your heels dug in deep until Hussar offered a temporary concession for the sake of moving the conversation forward. I am hardpressed to find any signs of your attempts to meet in the middle and reach an understanding. If you are insisting that you have the only correct understanding for the definition of "worldbuilding" and expect everyone to kowtow to it then this conversation will most certainly not move forward.




What are you talking about?  As soon as he offered the concession of excessive worldbuilding, I started talking about what constituted excessive and acknowledge that excessive exists, even for someone like me who loves much more worldbuilding.  If you think I wasn't moving the conversation forward, you weren't paying attention.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> But what do you think the OP is talking about? What do you think  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is talking about? And what are _you_ talking about when you say that, unlike a play, worldbuildinfg would be needed "in the first few hours" of a RPG?




I was talking about the first few hours of the play.  If it were an RPG, the world as built for the play is insufficient as the "actors"(PCs) would be doing things, investigating places, and asking questions that are outside of the phantom script.  More worldbuilding would be required to play the Phantom of the Opera RPG than is involved with the play.



> Do you think that the sort of stuff the OP, or Hussar, is objecting to - eg thousand-year histories of a place or a people that have no bearing on the actual situation presented in play - is going to come up in circumstances in which setting is established on an as-needed basis?



Nothing I've seen from him says that he plays Story Now, so he worldbuilds in advance just like I do.  He just does less of it.  While YOU may be worldbuilding a setting virtually entirely on an as needed basis, I don't think he is.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - please, can you answer the question?  What part of an RPG is excluded from your definition of world building.




I already answered it.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> To me, those four questions above, THAT'S world building.  Having a still suit isn't world building because it's necessary to the plot.  You have to have them in order to write the story.  But, all that extra stuff?  Not needed, so, it isn't included.




So now we're back to anything you don't like being worldbuilding, and the worldbuilding you do like not being worldbuilding.  What happened to excessive worldbuilding being the problem?


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> /snip
> 
> World building doesn't mean you have to explain everything in excruciating detail. /snip




Yes, it does.  That's the definition of world building.  If you're not explaining things in detail, excruciating or not, you are not engaging in world building.



Bedrockgames said:


> Except when the players ask "who was the last king?" or "what was the city like 200 years ago". /snip




Unless it's tied to the actual adventure that's going on, why would they ever ask this?  You actually have players who ask these kinds of questions out of the blue with no connection to the ongoing adventure/campaign?



> All those details about Dee weren't necessary when the campaign was about a mystery in the south, but it becomes necessary. And if the players start probing the details of Dee more, further details can become necessary.




So, the players abandon your campaign in order to go somewhere else?  I think I'd have a much larger issue at my table if that were to happen on a regular enough basis that I need to detail entirely random locations unrelated to the campaign.



Maxperson said:


> What are you talking about?  As soon as he offered the concession of excessive worldbuilding, I started talking about what constituted excessive and acknowledge that excessive exists, even for someone like me who loves much more worldbuilding.  If you think I wasn't moving the conversation forward, you weren't paying attention.




No, as soon as I gave an inch, you took a mile.  You have now defined all activities occurring in playing an RPG as under the rubric of world building.  You've done nothing, that I've seen, to back away from that position.  Granted, it's a fairly fast moving thread, so I might have missed it.  But, from where I'm standing, you've basically staked out that everything from chargen to the end of the campaign is world building.

So, again, because I certainly missed it if you said otherwise, and others have apparently missed it as well, what ISN'T world building?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Yes, it does.  That's the definition of world building.  If you're not explaining things in detail, excruciating or not, you are not engaging in world building.




according to who? World Building just means making content for your world, details or not. There is an enormous spectrum of focus. You are simply decreeing that world building is an exercise in making excessive details. That is a bad definition of the term.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Unless it's tied to the actual adventure that's going on, why would they ever ask this?  You actually have players who ask these kinds of questions out of the blue with no connection to the ongoing adventure/campaign?




I have players who ask questions about the places, people, etc when they are interacting with the setting. Players ask all kinds of questions when they are concocting plans, trying to figure out a place, or whatever. They rarely come up entirely out of the blue, there is usually a context, but the questions are often ones I wouldn't have predicted. I don't have to have an answer for everything. But if the players want to know something relevant about a local organization, an important person in the area, etc, I like to have that kind of information developed before hand. Keep in mind, I tend to run open style campaigns. There isn't necessarily a planned adventure. I tend to be more reactive to what the players try to do, and having setting details really helps me in that respect. 





> So, the players abandon your campaign in order to go somewhere else?  I think I'd have a much larger issue at my table if that were to happen on a regular enough basis that I need to detail entirely random locations unrelated to the campaign.




Can you stop being so snarky Hussar? And can you please stop constructing straw men and putting words into peoples' mouths? Is it really that difficult for you to imagine people play the game differently from you? 

I run open style campaigns. I don't always run campaigns this way, but I often do. In a sandbox like this, players are not obligated to 'complete' adventures if they don't want to. There are lots of good reasons in game to stop what you are doing now, and go do something else. Again, if you don't like this style of play, I am not asking you to run games this way. But lots of players really enjoy this style. And one of the key features is letting them find their own way in the setting. That doesn't mean what they did in the south is inconsequential. Ninety percent of the time, the party probably sees through whatever they've started. But they do have the option of walking away from a situation, a dungeon, etc, if it is reasonable for them to do so. But again, this was just a random example. The party could just as easily have completed the mystery, then decided to go to Dee. It is ultimately up to them where they go in the setting.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> No, as soon as I gave an inch, you took a mile.  You have now defined all activities occurring in playing an RPG as under the rubric of world building.




That's false.  I never said or implied that.



> You've done nothing, that I've seen, to back away from that position.




I can't back away from a place I never went.



> Granted, it's a fairly fast moving thread, so I might have missed it.




How do you miss a post where I quoted you?  You get notified.



> So, again, because I certainly missed it if you said otherwise, and others have apparently missed it as well, what ISN'T world building?




The vast majority of game play does not involve worldbuilding, and the game play is the vast majority of the game.


----------



## Hussar

But, then [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], why not actually make that clear?

Something like, "If you run open ended, sandbox style campaigns, then world building becomes more necessary"?  Instead of, "Well, world building is good" which is what I generally get replied to me over and over again.  

And, as far as the generally agreed upon definition goes, I suggest Wikipedia, or TV Tropes.  Both have excellent definitions that I've been following all the way along.  "All setting is world building" is a definition of world building that is largely distinct to the folks in this thread.  No one else uses that definition.  Which is why we talk about world building in something like Lord of the Rings or SoFA but not works like Phantom of the Opera.

Take Star Wars.  If you only watched Ep's IV through VI, there's extremely little world building going on there.  Take Chewbacca.  All you would know about Chewie is that he is a Wookie.  That's about it.  You wouldn't know the name of his planet, how old he is, or anything else.  

Now, as soon as you open up the extended universe and let the world builders run wild, you get the Wookipedia, and EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in A New Hope gets its own novel.  THAT'S world building.  You certainly don't need to know anything about Chewbacca to play in a Star Wars game.  You don't need to know anything about Chewbacca to enjoy the movies.  

But, the world builders, with their great clomping nerd boots, insist that we include all this extra material and scream bloody murder when all that stuff gets swept under the rug by JJ Abrams.  

So, no, world building is most certainly a more limited term than what you folks want it to be.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> /snip
> How do you miss a post where I quoted you?  You get notified.




Turned that off years ago.  Sorry.




> The vast majority of game play does not involve worldbuilding, and the game play is the vast majority of the game.




Can you please be more specific?  If the party goes on an adventure to save the princess, and does so, is that world building or not?  

And, as far as defining world building as stuff I like vs stuff I don't like, no, that's never been my definition.

My definition of world building is any material that is not needed by the plot.  Anything that goes above and beyond the needs of the story is world building.  Whether I happen to like it or not is irrelevant.  We don't need to know what color a still suit is or what planet Chewbacca comes from.  It isn't necessary.  

Where the needs of the story end is where world building starts.  If you're running a very open ended campaign, then fair enough, you're likely going to need more setting.  Ok, I get that.  But, that's the result of a specific kind of campaign, not the needs of the game itself.  In an episodic game, there is virtually no need for world building.

So, statements that world building is needed for roleplaying games are heavily dependent on the kind of game you are running.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, the world builders, with their great clomping nerd boots, insist that we include all this extra material and scream bloody murder when all that stuff gets swept under the rug by JJ Abrams.
> .




You're bringing in stuff that has nothing to do with world building in an RPG. I don't care for canon lawyering either. But as a player, I respect a GM who puts in the effort to world build. And in the context of an RPG, world building is going to include the elements that help you establish a setting. I don't see how you can talk about world building in a gaming context, if you remove groups, npcs, cultures, etc. But even with your narrow definition, the other stuff is still important for reasons that have been explained (and even the wikipedia definition you reference includes designing cultures as a feature of world building---and that naturally would extend to things like institutions in the world). I get, you may not need them in your style of play. But just because one style doesn't rely heavily on it, that doesn't make world building bad (and no, world building does not equal excessive content like you have in expanded universe). And that is the premise of the thread: world building is bad. I reject the premise. It is a tool. Whether it is useful depends on what you want to achieve.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Something like, "If you run open ended, sandbox style campaigns, then world building becomes more necessary"?  Instead of, "Well, world building is good" which is what I generally get replied to me over and over again.
> .




Mostly I have been arguing world building isn't bad, and that it can be a useful tool. I'd say it is useful for more than just an open sandbox style. I think it is valuable tool for lots of different styles. If you have no use for world building that is fine. I don't particularly care. But as a general principle of design and GMing? I don't think 'world building is bad' is sound advice at all.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

hawkeyefan said:


> Well the Great Wheel cosmology predates Planescape, so I don’t know if its conception is relevant to my point. Planescape took that concept and made it accessible. With a major emphasis being accessibility from the very start, with Level 1 PCs. Prior to that, the planes seemed intended to be stomping grounds for high level characters. Planescape did away with that...how does this not fit with what you’re saying?
> 
> I wouldn’t say every product with the Planescape logo is of equal quality, but the original boxed swt and many of the supplements are great. They do exactly what you’re describing with 4E’s World Axis cosmology. I didn’t mind 4E’s approach, really, and I don’t even see them being all that different. The only difference when you boil it down is the “geography” of the planes. Which doesn’t really matter all that much in how you use these locations in a game.




Yeah, I just never really liked the Great Wheel at all. For a long time I just didn't know WHY, but eventually I realized it just didn't have a point. Planescape might have made it more useful, to an extent. I think WA did that even better. Just being unshackled from the basically arbitrary nature of the formulation of the Great Wheel did a lot for it.

I don't honestly have a beef with Planescape per-se either. In fact I basically ignored all that late 2e stuff. By that point we had tired completely of AD&D and moved on forever.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> My definition of world building is any material that is not needed by the plot.  Anything that goes above and beyond the needs of the story is world building.  Whether I happen to like it or not is irrelevant.  We don't need to know what color a still suit is or what planet Chewbacca comes from.  It isn't necessary.
> .




This is a very weird definition of world building. I am happy to talk about world building just in terms of the obvious stuff: history, culture, cosmology, etc. But 'anything that is not needed for the plot' makes no sense to me as a working definition. It often can be stuff that isn't needed for the plot, but that definition also is going to include stuff that has nothing to do with world building. Either way, details that are not strictly necessary for the plot, but add to a sense of a larger world existing, I am fine with. I don't need pages of explanation anytime something like a stillsuit comes up, but if the color and texture are described, that kind of thing can definitely help pull me into the setting. 

Good world building can be very enjoyable. A lot of movies and books that I enjoy, I like because they create a world and I feel like I am in the world. 

That said, a lot of world building I don't need to see directly as a reader, but it can improve a story greatly if there is a real foundation lying underneath it that helps create a sense of a real world. World building can produce consistency. I don't think it is necessary, but I am certainly glad we have room for people who employ lots of world building and people who don't. I certainly wouldn't want the situation to be one where everyone aspires to avoiding unnecessary detail. That seems fanatically minimalist to me.


----------



## Garthanos

With the thread this long... I am sure someone has mentioned the thought I have done world building to give players a contextual starting point for character building as inspiration and guidance, and their motivations are strongly plot drivers.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Can you please be more specific?  If the party goes on an adventure to save the princess, and does so, is that world building or not?




No, why would it be?



> My definition of world building is any material that is not needed by the plot.  Anything that goes above and beyond the needs of the story is world building.  Whether I happen to like it or not is irrelevant.  We don't need to know what color a still suit is or what planet Chewbacca comes from.  It isn't necessary.




You realize that C3-PO and Chewbacca(forget his planet) aren't necessary to that plot, right?  The Cantina is right out.  No need for Greedo at all.  Luke and Ben could have gone straight to the spaceport and hired Solo.  R2-D2 could have made it to the pod and down to the planet by himself.  There didn't need to be a dinner scene at Luke's home.  The trash compactor scene could be removed.  And so on.  If you're going to take out everything that isn't NEEDED for the plot, you aren't going to have a movie(or play or T.V. show) worth watching any longer.



> Where the needs of the story end is where world building starts.  If you're running a very open ended campaign, then fair enough, you're likely going to need more setting.  Ok, I get that.  But, that's the result of a specific kind of campaign, not the needs of the game itself.  In an episodic game, there is virtually no need for world building.



Like Star Wars above, I'm willing to bet that your game has quite a bit going on that isn't strictly NEEDED for the plot.


----------



## eayres33

Not worth it.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> What are you talking about?  *As soon as he offered the concession* of excessive worldbuilding, I started talking about what constituted excessive and acknowledge that excessive exists, even for someone like me who loves much more worldbuilding.  If you think I wasn't moving the conversation forward, you weren't paying attention.



That's what I'm talking about. He offered a concession. You didn't. You haven't. You continue to dig your heels deep into the underdark regarding your own definition and sense of worldbuilding.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> what if a DM selects such a monster for inclusion in their game world? Presumably when "stocking" a dungeon or similar. Isn't that DM deciding to include a world element?



I think so. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] doesn't count this as worldbuilding, though - I think because in and of itself it implicates nothing beyond the actual situation currently in play.



hawkeyefan said:


> Taken as written, the inclusion of hobgoblins implies the inclusion of elves



I don't quite agree - I'll explain why below.



hawkeyefan said:


> Ultimately, these bits of lore are the tools of worldbuilding



This seems pretty plausible. Eg if you read that hobgoblins hate orcs, you may well be prompted to make a hobgoblin/elf conflict part of your setting.

But you don't _have_ to. You can use hobgoblins and just ignore the bits about elves. I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s concern (at least as I understand it) is that the more the account of what an X is presupposes Ys as well (kobolds as dragon-slaves is, again, an example of this) the harder it becomes to use the game element but ignore/strip away the lore. Expectations are also part of this: if you use hobgoblins then players expect them to be hostile to any elves that turn up; but maybe no elves do. The fact that hobgoblins are said to hate elves doesn't mean that the use of hobgoblins in play signals, in and of itself, the use of elves. Whereas if you use kobolds, players start wondering when the dragon is going to show up.

I think it is these different ways lore can be used, and these different ways it affects expectations, that tend to make it unhelpful just to group it all together as worldbuilding.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I was talking about the first few hours of the play.  If it were an RPG, the world as built for the play is insufficient as the "actors"(PCs) would be doing things, investigating places, and asking questions that are outside of the phantom script.  More worldbuilding would be required to play the Phantom of the Opera RPG than is involved with the play.



But if the Phantom of the Opera was a RPG, then we _know_ what happened, and we _know_ exactly how much setting was required - namely, the opera house and the subterranean lair beneath it.

That is - at least as I understand it - [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] (i) is pointing out that a story can proceed without worldbuilding beyond the immediate setting/situation in which the action unfolds, and (ii) is asserting that this is possible for RPGing.



Maxperson said:


> Nothing I've seen from him says that he plays Story Now, so he worldbuilds in advance just like I do.  He just does less of it.



His point is that _he does not author any more setting in advance than he anticipates will be needed for the situations that will be the focus of play_. Now because even [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is only human, perhaps he sometimes misjudges - he authors something but it turns out it never gets used in play (eg the PCs never actually venture into the Phantom's lair); or he hasn't authored something but it turns out that he needs it (eg one of the PCs visits a theatrical agent, and so Hussar has to ad lib an account of the streets of Paris and the agent's wood-panelled office).

That doesn't change the fact that (i) he is not engaging in worldbuilding as he characterises it, namely, the authoring of fictional details with no intention that they be part of play and even knowledge that they won't be, and (ii) in virtue of (i), is _proving by doing_ that worldbuilding as he characterises it is not, per se, needed for RPGing.

For what it's worth, I agree with him.


----------



## Imaro

I'm sorry but I'm still failing to see how worldbuilding = bad.  I can understand one's preference for more  or less worldbuilding (and thus picking a playstyle that speaks to that preference)... but so far, and maybe I've missed it in this enormous thread, what I haven't seen is a good argument for why it should be considered "bad" as a default.  I mean it's a hobby, it's supposed to be fun and if for some people fleshing out their imaginary world or reading about the numerous details found in a published imaginary setting increases the enjoyment of participating in the hobby, I can't see how that could be considered a bad thing, especially when (in the case of a published world it can be ignored by those who don't want it) or in the case of a homebrew isn't impacting the game in a negative way for the players.  Which brings me to another point...

How much worldbuilding should be considered excessive... well IMO, that's totally dependent on the players of the game.  I know my players, I know what they're likely to seek information about, what they are likely to investigate in a given situation and even what they are likely to do in a general sense (and if I honestly have no clue I will ask them outside of playing time about their plans before our next gaming session)... so while the details I create may seem superfluous or excessive to someone not running for my group, they aren't for me because even though they may not be used in the game session they are providing a buffer that makes running a game a more comfortable experience for me with my particular group.  I mean really that's the only measure that matters to me... whether the worldbuilding that has been undertaken (irregardless of actual direct usage in tonight's particular adventure) has enhanced the play experience in some way.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> That's what I'm talking about. He offered a concession. You didn't. You haven't. You continue to dig your heels deep into the underdark regarding your own definition and sense of worldbuilding.




What should I concede exactly?  If he were to claim that that an apple was an orange, and then later concede that it was in fact an apple, why would I be expected to concede that it's not an apple?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I don't quite agree - I'll explain why below.
> 
> This seems pretty plausible. Eg if you read that hobgoblins hate orcs, you may well be prompted to make a hobgoblin/elf conflict part of your setting.
> 
> But you don't _have_ to. You can use hobgoblins and just ignore the bits about elves. I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s concern (at least as I understand it) is that the more the account of what an X is presupposes Ys as well (kobolds as dragon-slaves is, again, an example of this) the harder it becomes to use the game element but ignore/strip away the lore. Expectations are also part of this: if you use hobgoblins then players expect them to be hostile to any elves that turn up; but maybe no elves do. The fact that hobgoblins are said to hate elves doesn't mean that the use of hobgoblins in play signals, in and of itself, the use of elves. Whereas if you use kobolds, players start wondering when the dragon is going to show up.
> 
> I think it is these different ways lore can be used, and these different ways it affects expectations, that tend to make it unhelpful just to group it all together as worldbuilding.




I agree with you that you can ignore bits of what is written.  However, ignoring bits of what is written and what [MENTION=61721]Hawke[/MENTION]yfan wrote "Taken as written, the inclusion of hobgoblins implies the inclusion of elves." are mutually exclusive positions.  You cannot both "take what is written" and "ignore the bits about elves."  One includes all of what is written and the other doesn't.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> But if the Phantom of the Opera was a RPG, then we _know_ what happened, and we _know_ exactly how much setting was required - namely, the opera house and the subterranean lair beneath it.
> 
> That is - at least as I understand it -  @_*Hussar*_ (i) is pointing out that a story can proceed without worldbuilding beyond the immediate setting/situation in which the action unfolds, and (ii) is asserting that this is possible for RPGing.




Then it's not an RPG.  In an RPG I can talk about things outside the opera house.  What you are describing is just a bunch of people sitting around reading a script, not a game where people roleplay and can ask questions beyond a building that they are in.



> His point is that _he does not author any more setting in advance than he anticipates will be needed for the situations that will be the focus of play_. Now because even  @_*Hussar*_ is only human, perhaps he sometimes misjudges - he authors something but it turns out it never gets used in play (eg the PCs never actually venture into the Phantom's lair); or he hasn't authored something but it turns out that he needs it (eg one of the PCs visits a theatrical agent, and so Hussar has to ad lib an account of the streets of Paris and the agent's wood-panelled office).




I hope never to play with a DM that considers one building as all that is needed for a setting or adventure.  It bodes ill for his ability to foresee what might be used.



> That doesn't change the fact that (i) he is not engaging in worldbuilding as he characterises it, namely, the authoring of fictional details with no intention that they be part of play and even knowledge that they won't be, and (ii) in virtue of (i), is _proving by doing_ that worldbuilding as he characterises it is not, per se, needed for RPGing.




You and @_*Hussar*_ have convinced me. The next time I get pulled over for speeding, I'm going to tell the cop that I don't define/characterize going above the speed limit as speeding or unsafe driving and let him know that I expect him to conform to my new definition.  Then I'll point him to these threads so he can see the truth of my words.


----------



## Sadras

Maxperson said:


> You and @_*Hussar*_ have convinced me. The next time I get pulled over for speeding, I'm going to tell the cop that I don't define/characterize going above the speed limit as speeding or unsafe driving and let him know that I expect him to conform to my new definition.  Then I'll point him to these threads so he can see the truth of my words.




To be clear this was funny.

EDIT: If the cop is a fellow roleplayer and agrees with your definition of worldbuilding, I'm sure he will let you off.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> That's what I'm talking about. He offered a concession. You didn't. You haven't. You continue to dig your heels deep into the underdark regarding your own definition and sense of worldbuilding.




This isn't a political negotiation. It is a discussion about world building. People are not going to concede basic facts about what they believe world building means, especially with some of the definitions being proposed. No one is digging in their heels. They just know what they like, what works, and what they consider world building to be when they prep their games. No amount of linguistic wrestling is going to change that sort of thing.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think this sort of thing is always required, but on many occasions I've found having king lists handy. The reason is, if I am just making it up on the fly, I find it too easy to be inconsistent. I also think it is a good way to help establish some basic guideposts for the history of the place, so when you are doing things like making ancient artifacts, you have some context to draw on. If you don't find this useful, that's great. Like I've been saying the whole time. People should run and prep however they want. But I can honestly tell you, I've found things like kings lists to be far from frivolous in my own campaigns and a very useful tool. Part of that may have to do with the kinds of games I run.




Oh sure....I was just stating my preference. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what you’re describing. Just that I’ve found for my games my prep time is better spent in other ways.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> I think so. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] doesn't count this as worldbuilding, though - I think because in and of itself it implicates nothing beyond the actual situation currently in play.




I'm sure he doesn't, which is fine. I can understand his take on worldbuilding, even if I think his definition is too narrow. But it is certainly not a case of excessive detail to pick a monster for an appropriate location or function in a dungoen or other location. 

Why I consider it worldbuilding in the broader sense is because I think it does implicate things, or at least it potentially does. 



pemerton said:


> I don't quite agree - I'll explain why below.
> 
> This seems pretty plausible. Eg if you read that hobgoblins hate orcs, you may well be prompted to make a hobgoblin/elf conflict part of your setting.
> 
> But you don't _have_ to. You can use hobgoblins and just ignore the bits about elves. I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s concern (at least as I understand it) is that the more the account of what an X is presupposes Ys as well (kobolds as dragon-slaves is, again, an example of this) the harder it becomes to use the game element but ignore/strip away the lore. Expectations are also part of this: if you use hobgoblins then players expect them to be hostile to any elves that turn up; but maybe no elves do. The fact that hobgoblins are said to hate elves doesn't mean that the use of hobgoblins in play signals, in and of itself, the use of elves. Whereas if you use kobolds, players start wondering when the dragon is going to show up.
> 
> I think it is these different ways lore can be used, and these different ways it affects expectations, that tend to make it unhelpful just to group it all together as worldbuilding.




Absolutely, we're all free to alter the monster descriptions and functions to our particular tastes and purposes. But that's why I said "taken as written...". And sure, this could create expectations at the table, and sometimes such expectations can cause a problem. For Hussar, that certainly seems to be the case, which makes his view understandable. 

But I don't know if that means it's an issue for other groups. I mean...I expect we've all played against expectations at some point. We've all used a monster in a way that was different than expected....a brute that uses its head, a monster with an unexpected ability, and so on.....and the reason those things become interesting is because they subvert expectation. But I don't think any of us would say that subverting expectation is always bad. 

So when I as a GM decide to include hobgoblins in my world, but instead of being militaristic humanoids that hate elves, I make them humanoids that have been persecuted by some of the other races of the world because far in the past, they were militaristic and warred with many other races. So I've changed the lore for hobgoblins in the game world. 

How is that not a case of me building a world? Making a different setting than the default or expected version.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> I'm sorry but I'm still failing to see how worldbuilding = bad.  I can understand one's preference for more  or less worldbuilding (and thus picking a playstyle that speaks to that preference)... but so far, and maybe I've missed it in this enormous thread, what I haven't seen is a good argument for why it should be considered "bad" as a default.  I mean it's a hobby, it's supposed to be fun and if for some people fleshing out their imaginary world or reading about the numerous details found in a published imaginary setting increases the enjoyment of participating in the hobby, I can't see how that could be considered a bad thing, especially when (in the case of a published world it can be ignored by those who don't want it) or in the case of a homebrew isn't impacting the game in a negative way for the players.  Which brings me to another point...
> 
> How much worldbuilding should be considered excessive... well IMO, that's totally dependent on the players of the game.  I know my players, I know what they're likely to seek information about, what they are likely to investigate in a given situation and even what they are likely to do in a general sense (and if I honestly have no clue I will ask them outside of playing time about their plans before our next gaming session)... so while the details I create may seem superfluous or excessive to someone not running for my group, they aren't for me because even though they may not be used in the game session they are providing a buffer that makes running a game a more comfortable experience for me with my particular group.  I mean really that's the only measure that matters to me... whether the worldbuilding that has been undertaken (irregardless of actual direct usage in tonight's particular adventure) has enhanced the play experience in some way.




Well, I agree that you are right and that it will vary greatly from person to person and from gaming group to gaming group. And I don't think that worldbuilding is inherently bad. The idea from the article in the OP is that you do not need to detail an entire world before you even begin to write. Now, the article is more about fiction writing than RPGing, so right there, there's a bit of loss in relevance. 

But to translate that idea to RPGing, I think it's a valid concern. How much do we need to detail ahead of time? Again, this will vary, as you mention. But in general, I think that most GMs can likely get away with less worldbuilding than they think is necessary. 

I used to do a lot of worldbuilding ahead of play. I found it to be entertaining in and of itself. But I do think it tended to lock me in to what I wanted the game to be about. Not completely, but at least partially. It didn't matter if my players expressed little interest in Cool Idea A that I introduced....I would find a way to get them to engage with it. Now, very often the players wouldn't mind and they'd accept that's the way the game is going, so let's go. But what if I didn't feel the need to shift things back to what I wanted? What would have come up? Did I miss out on something spontaneous and more in line with what the players would have wanted, and which was at least as cool as Cool Idea A? 

I mean, when people talk about what makes a good GM, adaptability is one of the top qualities that is mentioned. So I think that's what it boils down to; worldbuilding should be a tool that can be used to help the game. It should not be the point of the game. 

These days, I still come up with ideas ahead of time. But I keep them loosely defined. I keep things flexible so that I'm not so married to my pre-written material that I can't let it go in favor of an idea that comes up spontaneously in play. 

This applies to backstory, too, which I think also gets criticized in a similar way. So much of the backstory that is done by a GM won't actually come up in play. Sure, it may inform things that impact play, especially GM decisions, but it remains an unknown factor from the players' perspectives. So again, best to keep this stuff minimal. Have a basic idea of the lineage of the current king and how he rose to power. You don't need a full family tree and detailed history for this guy. I don't think having that info is inherently bad...but how else could that time have been spent? Perhaps there is a more productive way to prepare for the game than to write up this level of detail. 

So I think that the criticism has some merit. I don't think it's anything like a universal truth. Nor do I think that it tends to be a huge problem in most cases because most players and GMs will likely talk about this stuff, and try to resolve any problems. 

But I do think it's something that each GM should keep in mind. Something to be aware of when you are GMing and working on worldbuilding or writing backstory. It's a potential pitfall, and it can be avoided. But you have to know about it to avoid it.

Now, when it comes to published products and the amount of space they devote to worldbuilding...in that case, I think a variety of products is best. Something like Vornheim the city guide which is entirely utilitarian in its approach is just as valid as something like the Grand History of the Realms, which is purely setting background. I don't get the desire to limit such products to one extreme or the other.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I'm sorry but I'm still failing to see how worldbuilding = bad.  I can understand one's preference for more  or less worldbuilding (and thus picking a playstyle that speaks to that preference)... but so far, and maybe I've missed it in this enormous thread, what I haven't seen is a good argument for why it should be considered "bad" as a default.



Well, obviously you haven't seen a *good* argument that it's bad, because you think worldbuilding is good!

But various posters have put _sincere_ and _reasoned_ explanations of why they think that, as a default, worldbuilding isn't helpful and can be a barnacle on the hull of RPGing. You just happen not to agree with them!


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I agree with you that you can ignore bits of what is written.  However, ignoring bits of what is written and what [MENTION=61721]Hawke[/MENTION]yfan wrote "Taken as written, the inclusion of hobgoblins implies the inclusion of elves." are mutually exclusive positions.  You cannot both "take what is written" and "ignore the bits about elves."  One includes all of what is written and the other doesn't.



I'll repeat what I said:

If I place hobgoblins in my AD&D game, and I also place some elves (or a player brings along a PC elf), then the MM tells us that the hobgoblins hate the elves.

But the mere presence of hobgoblins in the game _does not imply that any elves are part of the game_. And I don't have to _ignore_ any lore to produce that result. I just have to not introduce any elves into play!



hawkeyefan said:


> Absolutely, we're all free to alter the monster descriptions and functions to our particular tastes and purposes. But that's why I said "taken as written...".



Using hobgoblins in my game, and not using elves in my game, is not "altering a monster description" nor is it "altering a monster function". It's just not using elves, and therefore not activating some particular part of the hobgoblin description.

AD&D hobgoblins also have a chance to detect sloping passages, like a dwarf (the chance is 40%). That doesn't mean that if I build a dungeon that has hobgoblins in it, yet no sloping passages, I'm changing the description or function of hobgoblins!


----------



## pemerton

For those who think that lore is worldbuilding:

The AD&D MM describes giant rats as coming from Sumatra, rakshasa as coming from India, ogre magi as coming from Japan, and (in Latin) gold dragons as coming from China. Does that mean that Asia (the actualy Asia of earth where all these places are found) is, by default, part of all AD&D worlds? I've never encountered anyone who thinks so.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> For those who think that lore is worldbuilding:
> 
> The AD&D MM describes giant rats as coming from Sumatra, rakshasa as coming from India, ogre magi as coming from Japan, and (in Latin) gold dragons as coming from China. Does that mean that Asia (the actualy Asia of earth where all these places are found) is, by default, part of all AD&D worlds? I've never encountered anyone who thinks so.




Does this matter? There are more versions of the Monster Manual that don't make such references.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> Does this matter? There are more versions of the Monster Manual that don't make such references.



Well, you seem to be asserting that the AD&D Monster Manual, with its reference to hobgoblins hating elves, is worldbuidling - to the extent that if I drop hobgoblins into my dungeon I've now implicated the existence of elves.

But no one thinks that using giant rats implicates that Sumatra is part of my gameworld!

I don't see the difference between the elves and the Asian localities. Which is to say, buying a Monster Manual, and then using monsters from it, is not worldbuilding just because some of those monsters have various bits and pieces of lore mentioned.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if the Phantom of the Opera was a RPG, then we know what happened, and we know exactly how much setting was required - namely, the opera house and the subterranean lair beneath it.
> 
> That is - at least as I understand it - @Hussar (i) is pointing out that a story can proceed without worldbuilding beyond the immediate setting/situation in which the action unfolds, and (ii) is asserting that this is possible for RPGing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not an RPG.  In an RPG I can talk about things outside the opera house.  What you are describing is just a bunch of people sitting around reading a script, not a game where people roleplay and can ask questions beyond a building that they are in.
Click to expand...


I'll try again:

First, if the Phantom of the Opera was an RPG then it woudln't have a script! Rather, the "script" would be the transcript of an episode of RPGing.

Second, if a transcript of an episode of RPGing gave us something resembling The Phantom of the Opera, we would have an intance of an episode of RPGing that required, as setting, an opera house and a subterranean lair.

Three, it is possible for a transcript of an episode of RPGing to give us something like that.



Maxperson said:


> I hope never to play with a DM that considers one building as all that is needed for a setting or adventure.



Well, here are some fairly well-known examples of adventures that, as published, are expected to take place in a single building:

B1 In Search of the Unknown

The Haunted Keep, a sample dungeon in Moldvay Basic

C2 The Ghost Tower of Inverness

C1 The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan

S1 The Tomb of Horrors

G1 The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief​
I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting at the moment.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> Well, you seem to be asserting that the AD&D Monster Manual, with its reference to hobgoblins hating elves, is worldbuidling - to the extent that if I drop hobgoblins into my dungeon I've now implicated the existence of elves.
> 
> But no one thinks that using giant rats implicates that Sumatra is part of my gameworld!
> 
> I don't see the difference between the elves and the Asian localities. Which is to say, buying a Monster Manual, and then using monsters from it, is not worldbuilding just because some of those monsters have various bits and pieces of lore mentioned.




No, I said the lore is more like a brick that you can use to worldbuild. But you can change it however you like.....thereby building your world to your tastes. 

There's no reason that someone can't place a campaign in the ancient world and use those exact references from the AD&D Monster Manual, placing the monsters in areas where they sprang from myth. 

Buying the monster manual is of course not worldbuilding, I don't know why you keep repeating that. Choosing which monsters to use from it, and whether to use the lore given or change it for your own purposes? Yes, that is worldbuilding as I conceive it.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Well, obviously you haven't seen a *good* argument that it's bad, because you think worldbuilding is good!
> 
> But various posters have put _sincere_ and _reasoned_ explanations of why they think that, as a default, worldbuilding isn't helpful and can be a barnacle on the hull of RPGing. You just happen not to agree with them!




Yes but that's not the same as showing it's bad as in actively harmful to a game.  That's showing you have a reason for your preference (that it's unhelpful which is not the same as "bad").  And no I don't mean the (silly??) extreme where worldbuilding is causing the GM to neglect all the other things he needs for his game because well then the game would fall apart and it'd be self evident (and also because this extreme = bad can be applied to nearly anything).  But looking at the GM who does more worldbuilding than some deem necessary but is still creating whatever he needs for his coming session... how is worldbuilding in and of itself "bad" for him or her?  How is it hurting for him to spend more time, if he or she has it on worldbuilding beyond what is immediately necessary?


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> Buying the monster manual is of course not worldbuilding, I don't know why you keep repeating that. Choosing which monsters to use from it, and whether to use the lore given or change it for your own purposes? Yes, that is worldbuilding as I conceive it.



I am making the following assertion: using a giant rat in an AD&D game, but _not_ having Sumatra as part of one's gameworld, is _not_ and instance of _changing_ lore. And it's not an instance of worldbuilding, beyond the utterly trivial (_in this place there are giant rats_).

Likewise,  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] dropping down an otyugh is not worldbuilding beyond the similarly trivial. In an of itself it implicates nothing about there being other monsters, or a world of aberrations, or anything else. It just means, "Here's an otyugh in a pile of *****."


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Yes but that's not the same as showing it's bad as in actively harmful to a game.  That's showing you have a reason for your preference (that it's unhelpful which is not the same as "bad").  And no I don't mean the (silly??) extreme where worldbuilding is causing the GM to neglect all the other things he needs for his game because well then the game would fall apart and it'd be self evident (and also because this extreme = bad can be applied to nearly anything).  But looking at the GM who does more worldbuilding than some deem necessary but is still creating whatever he needs for his coming session... how is worldbuilding in and of itself "bad" for him or her?  How is it hurting for him to spend more time, if he or she has it on worldbuilding beyond what is immediately necessary?



I don't see why "unhelpful" must mean something different from "bad". If someone says "That's a pretty bad knife" they might mean that it's unhelpful because eg blunt, or poorly shaped in the handle, or . . .

In any event, I don't think the OP, or others who sympathise with it, are asserting that worldbuilding is bad for GMs in the same way that (say) not eating healthily might be. It's an aesthetic judgement that is connected to features of the RPGing experience, and what enhances or undermines them; it's not a moral or ethical judgement.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> I am making the following assertion: using a giant rat in an AD&D game, but _not_ having Sumatra as part of one's gameworld, is _not_ and instance of _changing_ lore. And it's not an instance of worldbuilding, beyond the utterly trivial (_in this place there are giant rats_).




Sure, it's a trivial example. Are you incapable of finding a more meaningful example? Didn't you mention up thread that kobolds serving dragons would have more impact than hobgoblins hating elves? You clearly realize there are degrees. 



pemerton said:


> Likewise,  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] dropping down an otyugh is not worldbuilding beyond the similarly trivial. In an of itself it implicates nothing about there being other monsters, or a world of aberrations, or anything else. It just means, "Here's an otyugh in a pile of *****."




I would disagree with this. As I mentioned, it depends on what has already been established. If my game is set in a world that is very much like Westeros let's say, then dropping an otyugh into a location certainly implies much more than if I used one in a game set on Oerth, where the presence of monsters is a given. 

So no, it doesn't just mean "here's an otyugh"; what it means will vary from game to game, depending on the world that's been established.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, I agree that you are right and that it will vary greatly from person to person and from gaming group to gaming group. And I don't think that worldbuilding is inherently bad. The idea from the article in the OP is that you do not need to detail an entire world before you even begin to write. Now, the article is more about fiction writing than RPGing, so right there, there's a bit of loss in relevance.
> 
> But to translate that idea to RPGing, I think it's a valid concern. How much do we need to detail ahead of time? Again, this will vary, as you mention. But in general, I think that most GMs can likely get away with less worldbuilding than they think is necessary.




Well I think one of the problems is approaching this from a "need" perspective.  To play D&D all you technically need is your PC's, a room, an orc and some treasure.  Not my cup of tea and I wouldn't want to play in such a barebones game... but technically that's all one needs to play D&D.  So I definitely think approaching a hobby that is generally done for enjoyment from a need perspective obfuscates the issue... unless all GM's/DM's are concerned with running minimalist games... which I know at least for me isn't really a concern of mine.   



hawkeyefan said:


> I used to do a lot of worldbuilding ahead of play. I found it to be entertaining in and of itself. But I do think it tended to lock me in to what I wanted the game to be about. Not completely, but at least partially. It didn't matter if my players expressed little interest in Cool Idea A that I introduced....I would find a way to get them to engage with it. Now, very often the players wouldn't mind and they'd accept that's the way the game is going, so let's go. But what if I didn't feel the need to shift things back to what I wanted? What would have come up? Did I miss out on something spontaneous and more in line with what the players would have wanted, and which was at least as cool as Cool Idea A?




But couldn't this be alleviated through discussing the campaign with your players beforehand?  Getting buy in, and understanding their interests around said buy in before creating the world?  Or if using a published campaign setting running it by them first?  Perhaps that's where we differ, I don't tend to design a world without being sure my players are interested enough in the world (at least at a high level) that they will want to play, explore and game in it. 



hawkeyefan said:


> I mean, when people talk about what makes a good GM, adaptability is one of the top qualities that is mentioned. So I think that's what it boils down to; worldbuilding should be a tool that can be used to help the game. It should not be the point of the game.




No argument here on this point.



hawkeyefan said:


> These days, I still come up with ideas ahead of time. But I keep them loosely defined. I keep things flexible so that I'm not so married to my pre-written material that I can't let it go in favor of an idea that comes up spontaneously in play.
> 
> This applies to backstory, too, which I think also gets criticized in a similar way. So much of the backstory that is done by a GM won't actually come up in play. Sure, it may inform things that impact play, especially GM decisions, but it remains an unknown factor from the players' perspectives. So again, best to keep this stuff minimal. Have a basic idea of the lineage of the current king and how he rose to power. You don't need a full family tree and detailed history for this guy. I don't think having that info is inherently bad...but how else could that time have been spent? Perhaps there is a more productive way to prepare for the game than to write up this level of detail.




Well I think keeping an adventure flexible (as opposed to the world) is my preference (I tend to write adventures in an outline-esque form) but I can see the argument for either one depending on your preferences...

That said I keep seeing this strange assumption where there must be something better you can do for the game with your time besides worldbuilding or besides backstory... but honestly, at least IME, once I have the first adventure sketched out... there really isn't much for me to do before the first session (or usually even for a couple sessions once play begins) besides add to the world.  FOr context we tend to alternate DM's in our group and so we have plenty of notice when a campaign is nearing it's wrap up point and another GM will be stepping in). I am curious though about what these other things I could be doing are (not being sarcastic or snarky but am honestly thinking maybe I'm missing something here)?  



hawkeyefan said:


> So I think that the criticism has some merit. I don't think it's anything like a universal truth. Nor do I think that it tends to be a huge problem in most cases *because most players and GMs will likely talk about this stuff*, and try to resolve any problems.




 Emphasis mine... bingo, I think this is not only the key to a good campaign but also the key to relevant worldbuilding.



hawkeyefan said:


> But I do think it's something that each GM should keep in mind. Something to be aware of when you are GMing and working on worldbuilding or writing backstory. It's a potential pitfall, and it can be avoided. But you have to know about it to avoid it.




See to me this would be a much more constructive conversation vs. trying to paint worldbuilding as "bad" or  in terms of need.  what are some best practices for worldbuilders (and when should you break or subvert those), what types of games benefit from worldbuilding, how do people go about building out their worlds, etc.  I know at leats for me it's be more helpful than this endless argument where everyone has already dug in their heels and picked a side.



hawkeyefan said:


> Now, when it comes to published products and the amount of space they devote to worldbuilding...in that case, I think a variety of products is best. Something like Vornheim the city guide which is entirely utilitarian in its approach is just as valid as something like the Grand History of the Realms, which is purely setting background. I don't get the desire to limit such products to one extreme or the other.




Yeah I'm not really understanding this line of reasoning either...


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I don't see why "unhelpful" must mean something different from "bad". If someone says "That's a pretty bad knife" they might mean that it's unhelpful because eg blunt, or poorly shaped in the handle, or . . .




Well when I hear "bad" I don't tend to think of something that when used/done/etc. keeps you in a neutral state instead I tend to equate it with something that actively detracts from or hinders what you are doing in a negative way.  Smoking is bad for your health... but I readily admit it could just be my view



hawkeyefan said:


> In any event, I don't think the OP, or others who sympathise with it, are asserting that worldbuilding is bad for GMs in the same way that (say) not eating healthily might be. It's an aesthetic judgement that is connected to features of the RPGing experience, and what enhances or undermines them; it's not a moral or ethical judgement.




But what is it undermining?  Even if it's not used in play what does having the information jotted down actively undermine?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> Well I think one of the problems is approaching this from a "need" perspective.  To play D&D all you technically need is your PC's, a room, an orc and some treasure.  Not my cup of tea and I wouldn't want to play in such a barebones game... but technically that's all one needs to play D&D.  So I definitely think approaching a hobby that is generally done for enjoyment from a need perspective obfuscates the issue... unless all GM's/DM's are concerned with running minimalist games... which I know at least for me isn't really a concern of mine.




Sorry...I didn't mean the minimal needs of the game, but rather whatever is needed for the game you want. So, if you're going to play a game that revolves around the PCs being in a thieves' guild, then having rival guilds and similar material is probably a good idea. Who happened to be the current king's predecessor and why was he dethroned isn't likely going to be as relevant, for example. The folks who are criticizing worldbuilding are generally doing so based on the idea that the GM is determining as much info ahead of time as possible, regardless of the relevance to the actual game that is to be played. 



Imaro said:


> But couldn't this be alleviated through discussing the campaign with your players beforehand?  Getting buy in, and understanding their interests around said buy in before creating the world?  Or if using a published campaign setting running it by them first?  Perhaps that's where we differ, I don't tend to design a world without being sure my players are interested enough in the world (at least at a high level) that they will want to play, explore and game in it.




Sure, that's a big part of it. But even then, you can't possibly have complete agreement on what can or can't come up in play, so there is always the chance that a GM introduces something that wasn't explicitly discussed, but which the players don't want to interact with. Even if there's setting and genre agreed upon, individual elements may come up that don't engage the players.



Imaro said:


> Well I think keeping an adventure flexible (as opposed to the world) is my preference (I tend to write adventures in an outline-esque form) but I can see the argument for either one depending on your preferences...
> 
> That said I keep seeing this strange assumption where there must be something better you can do for the game with your time besides worldbuilding or besides backstory... but honestly, at least IME, once I have the first adventure sketched out... there really isn't much for me to do before the first session (or usually even for a couple sessions once play begins) besides add to the world.  FOr context we tend to alternate DM's in our group and so we have plenty of notice when a campaign is nearing it's wrap up point and another GM will be stepping in). I am curious though about what these other things I could be doing are (not being sarcastic or snarky but am honestly thinking maybe I'm missing something here)?




That's a good question. I'm sure the answer woudl very greatly from poster to poster. I'd love to see some answers from other people. 

For me, I started eschewing backstory and world material in favor of having some details handy based on where I thought my players may go. So after a session, I'd prep for the next one by considering what I thought may happen, and then have some bits ready for any of those possibility. This could consist of a map or an encounter idea, or some NPCs....it varied by session. 



Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... bingo, I think this is not only the key to a good campaign but also the key to relevant worldbuilding.




Yeah, again, I don't think that most of the concerns people have in regard to this topic are as major as they seem to think. I understand the concern, and I can see how it could cause some issues, and I've recognized how it has done so in the past for me....but none of it has ever been that big a deal, really. 



Imaro said:


> See to me this would be a much more constructive conversation vs. trying to paint worldbuilding as "bad" or  in terms of need.  what are some best practices for worldbuilders (and when should you break or subvert those), what types of games benefit from worldbuilding, how do people go about building out their worlds, etc.  I know at leats for me it's be more helpful than this endless argument where everyone has already dug in their heels and picked a side.




I agree. If you ignore a lot of the sidetaking and heel digging that goes on in these conversations (and I don't excuse myself from that, I can be guilty of it, too) then there are some bits that are worth hearing and worth discussing. 



Imaro said:


> Yeah I'm not really understanding this line of reasoning either...




Well, I can understand preferring one or the other. But I don't get the need to eliminate anything that doesn't match your personal preference. Different people get inspired by different types of gaming products.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> But what is it undermining?  Even if it's not used in play what does having the information jotted down actively undermine?



Well, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] thinks it bogs down published material in unnecessary stuff that doesn't contribute to play. I think (and he may agree - I can't remember all the posts) that it pushes towards an approach to play which emphasises pre-authored fiction as a focus of play, rather than something more spontaneous and mutual between those at the table.

I'm sure you disagree with these thoughts. But that's the nature of these sorts of discussions!


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, it's a trivial example. Are you incapable of finding a more meaningful example? Didn't you mention up thread that kobolds serving dragons would have more impact than hobgoblins hating elves? You clearly realize there are degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree with this. As I mentioned, it depends on what has already been established. If my game is set in a world that is very much like Westeros let's say, then dropping an otyugh into a location certainly implies much more than if I used one in a game set on Oerth, where the presence of monsters is a given.
> 
> So no, it doesn't just mean "here's an otyugh"; what it means will vary from game to game, depending on the world that's been established.



Yes. I'm not saying that it's _impossible_ to do more worldbuilding by using an otyugh, or writing lore into a MM. I'm saying that those things need not, as such, be worldbuilding.

I'm not dkisputing that sometimes RPGers worldbuild and MM-authors worldbuild (though my threshold for the latter I think is higher than [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s). I'm disputing that it is _inherent_ in running a game and setting up a situation.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> And, as far as bringing up Phantom, there's nothing stopping a campaign being one adventure long, for one.  In which case, you certainly don't need world building.  But, for another, there's nothing stopping you from running an episodic campaign where each adventure is self contained.  Hell, that's the way I grew up playing D&D.  Go from Keep on the Borderlands to the Isle of Dread to Against the Giants.  Or Cult of the Reptile God to the Slave Lords series to a couple of home brew adventures to Tomb of Horrors for a campaign capper.



"Go from Keep on the Borderlands to the Isle of Dread"...OK.  Did you not do anything with the overland journey or the ship trip to get to the Isle?  Hell, X1 even gives you a map of a fair chunk of the setting that later became Mystara, to show where the Isle is in relation to other stuff.

And though I may be wrong (it's been a while since I ran them) I seem to recall the A-series dungeons providing a few notes on how far apart the different sites - the Slave Pits, the Stockade, Suderham - are, and what the DM might put between them.  For sure we're told there's a volcano near Suderham and that the town sits on a harbour.

Also, did your parties never have any downtime spent in town recovering and spending treasure etc.?  If yes, where were these towns?



> The notion that world building is required for play is pretty easily disproven.



Er...not so easily, methinks. 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> See that is the kind of information that, unless it’s somehow essential to the game...perhaps there’s a question of royal succession or something like that...I don’t think really needs a lot of work beforehand. For me, if a player asked a question like that, I can improv an answer that would be just as useful and meaningful as if I’d mapped out 8 generations of royal lineage beforehand. My prep time would be better spent on some other aspect of the game.



However once you've improv'ed that answer you're stuck with it, and have to do the work now of writing it down that you could have done earlier.

Me, I'd rather do the work beforehand and get it out of the way, even if I risk doing some work I end up not needing to have done.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Well, here are some fairly well-known examples of adventures that, as published, are expected to take place in a single building:
> 
> B1 In Search of the Unknown
> 
> The Haunted Keep, a sample dungeon in Moldvay Basic
> 
> C2 The Ghost Tower of Inverness
> 
> C1 The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan
> 
> S1 The Tomb of Horrors
> 
> G1 The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief​
> I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting at the moment.



But for all of those - possibly except Haunted Keep which I've never seen - you still have to get to that single building somehow.  

With C2 there has to be an outdoors of some sort as there are, if memory serves, 4 different entrances from the surface to the dungeon; meaning that even if you teleport the PCs into the place they're still going to go outside at some point (as they need to go through all four bits to trigger the final bit) and will probably ask about their surroundings.

S1 has three entrances from the surface, so the same applies here as to C2 except there's a 1-in-3 chance the party hit the right entrance on the first try.

G1 is also on the surface; I believe there's reference to lookouts etc. which means the module writers are expecting the PCs to approach from the surrounding area...meaning you need to give them a surrounding area from which to approach. 

Lanefan


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> However once you've improv'ed that answer you're stuck with it, and have to do the work now of writing it down that you could have done earlier.
> 
> Me, I'd rather do the work beforehand and get it out of the way, even if I risk doing some work I end up not needing to have done.




Well you’re assuming I write it down at all! 

If it’ important enough, someone will remember it. If not....well then problem solved.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> But for all of those - possibly except Haunted Keep which I've never seen - you still have to get to that single building somehow.



I'm reporting the adventures as they're actually published, not as someone might choose to run them.

Eg in C1 the approach to the building is all done by GM narration - the adventre starts with the PCs having stumbled into the Hidden Shrine. A group might choose to run it differently, but there is no requirement to do so.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Well you’re assuming I write it down at all!



Yes, I am.  It's not the players' job to record your world for you.



> If it’ important enough, someone will remember it. If not....well then problem solved.



And if it's important enough but not written down, three people will each remember it differently and the DM might not remember it at all; and that never ends well.

Lanefan


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Well,  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] thinks it bogs down published material in unnecessary stuff that doesn't contribute to play.




Doesn't contribute to play for who?  If he's only speaking for himself.. Cool, I have no reason to doubt his claim but if he's claiming to speak for others then yes I disagree. 

Neither [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or anyone else can claim to have knowledge of what others use at their table, so unless he's the sole audience for said material its going to be nigh impossible to prove his assertion applies to those in the hobby as a whole.

Look, anyone is free to use or discard material as they see fit in their games so the only way it will undermine his goals is if he tries to use material he has no use for... which makes no sense.



pemerton said:


> I think (and he may agree - I can't remember all the posts) that it pushes towards an approach to play which emphasises pre-authored fiction as a focus of play, rather than something more spontaneous and mutual between those at the table.
> 
> I'm sure you disagree with these thoughts. But that's the nature of these sorts of discussions!




What in the published material forces someone who wants to run such a game to use it?  Better yet why would someone who doesn't want to use pre-authored fiction in their game buy and utilize pre-authored material? That's not the material undermining your playstyle that's you choosing the wrong tool for the job.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I'm reporting the adventures as they're actually published, not as someone might choose to run them.
> 
> Eg in C1 the approach to the building is all done by GM narration - the adventre starts with the PCs having stumbled into the Hidden Shrine. A group might choose to run it differently, but there is no requirement to do so.



I'll have to take your word for this for now, as I've neither played through nor DMed C1 and though I own it it's many years since I read it.

Yet even then, that "GM narration" has to consist of something.  And if the module assumes the PCs "stumble into" the Hidden Shrine, that presupposes a further (unwritten) assumption that the PCs are doing something else that brings them there in the first place such that they can do said stumbling-into....hm?


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> Well you’re assuming I write it down at all!
> 
> If it’ important enough, someone will remember it. If not....well then problem solved.




Yeah my experiences with this type of situation have been more in line with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. IME.. all it does is look bad when something like this is only vaguely remembered by the PC's or remembered differently by various players and they look to the DM to settle the matter and realize he/she cant because it was made up on the fly and not written down.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> This isn't a political negotiation. It is a discussion about world building. People are not going to concede basic facts about what they believe world building means, especially with some of the definitions being proposed. No one is digging in their heels. They just know what they like, what works, and what they consider world building to be when they prep their games. No amount of linguistic wrestling is going to change that sort of thing.




And yet, I'm expected in this thread to ignore the accepted definition of world building and use the one presented by [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] which is far, far broader than what is typically defined as world building.


----------



## Hussar

Ok, perhaps a point form list of how I think that world building is bad might be a good idea.

I.  How Worldbuilding is Bad for the DM/Table


Worldbuilding takes away from time that could be spent writing the actual adventure.  The more time the DM spends detailing Elven Tea Ceremonies, the less time he or she has to write an actual adventure.
Some DM's become very, very attached to their creations.  To the point where any attempt by the players to change that creation will be met with very stiff resistance.  
The possibility of the "Tour Des Realms" campaign where the PC's are basically just tourists in the game and are expected to make the appropriate oohing and ahhhing noises at the DM's wonderful creation.
The narrowing of possibilities in the game.  The DM is a heavy world builder but the player doesn't want to play one of the pre-approved races.  She wants to play something else.  The DM nixes the idea, not because the idea is necessarily bad or powergaming or anything like that, but, because it doesn't fit with the DM's preconceptions of the campaign.  This could also apply to any number of player concepts.

II How Worldbuilding is Bad in Published Works


It's needless padding.  Instead of getting material that can be directly used in the game, game books become things to be read.
It's intrusive.  As more and more world building accumulates, any attempt to use the material other than specifically as written becomes more and more difficult.  DM's have to spend more and more time slicing away the stuff they don't want to use in order to get that that nugget that is actually useful at the table.
Dogamtism.  As world building material accretes, those that dive deep into that material become more and more resentful of any attempt to change that material to the point where changes become virtually impossible to implement, regardless of the actual value of the new idea.


----------



## Hussar

Just a point about X1 Isle of Dread.

One of the major elements of X1 is actually traveling to the island.  That's a big part of the adventure.  So, of course, you're going to need to detail out getting to the island, which means you need some sort of map (whether it's an actual map or just a timeline of events) in order to get from A to B.  That's just basic setting building.  

But, in Tomb of Horrors, for example, the adventure STARTS at the three caves.  There's no details about the surrounding area because that's not part of the adventure.  Why am I pissing about with getting there?  That's precisely my point about world building being unnecessary.  The adventure isn't getting to the Tomb of Horrors, it's going INTO the Tomb of Horrors.  So, all the stuff outside the Tomb is largely irrelevant and unnecessary.  

It's "Tour Des Realms" gaming.  We're showing off the wonderful scenery of the game world because... well... why?  The Tomb is where the adventure is.  Spending time designing the area around the tomb and then spending time traveling to the Tomb is just a waste of everyone's time.  HERE is the adventure.  That stuff over there is pretty much unimportant at least in the context of the adventure.  

Why are you wasting your and your player's time poncing about getting to the Tomb?  Get INTO the adventure.  Why wait?  What's gained by having a couple of random encounters and a description of mountains?  Skip the boring stuff and get on with the show.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I'll repeat what I said:
> 
> If I place hobgoblins in my AD&D game, and I also place some elves (or a player brings along a PC elf), then the MM tells us that the hobgoblins hate the elves.
> 
> But the mere presence of hobgoblins in the game _does not imply that any elves are part of the game_. And I don't have to _ignore_ any lore to produce that result. I just have to not introduce any elves into play!




It doesn't matter if you introduce elves or not.  The hobgoblin write-up says that they hate elves, which implies that elves exist in your game whether or not you introduce them.  You have to remove that lore about elves to remove that implication.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> For those who think that lore is worldbuilding:
> 
> The AD&D MM describes giant rats as coming from Sumatra, rakshasa as coming from India, ogre magi as coming from Japan, and (in Latin) gold dragons as coming from China. Does that mean that Asia (the actualy Asia of earth where all these places are found) is, by default, part of all AD&D worlds? I've never encountered anyone who thinks so.




Why not?  A D&D Earth has been one of the prime worlds for a long time.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I'll try again:
> 
> First, if the Phantom of the Opera was an RPG then it woudln't have a script! Rather, the "script" would be the transcript of an episode of RPGing.
> 
> Second, if a transcript of an episode of RPGing gave us something resembling The Phantom of the Opera, we would have an intance of an episode of RPGing that required, as setting, an opera house and a subterranean lair.
> 
> Three, it is possible for a transcript of an episode of RPGing to give us something like that.




I've never seen a game or adventure that takes place within a single building without there also being at least some of the outside world known.



> Well, here are some fairly well-known examples of adventures that, as published, are expected to take place in a single building:
> 
> B1 In Search of the Unknown
> 
> The Haunted Keep, a sample dungeon in Moldvay Basic
> 
> C2 The Ghost Tower of Inverness
> 
> C1 The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan
> 
> S1 The Tomb of Horrors
> 
> G1 The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief




Okay.  That' really proves nothing as all of those also exist within the game world at large and that larger game world has information about it that exists outside of the building.  The Phantom "RPG"  being described has no such world at large.



> I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting at the moment.




Because it doesn't matter, I'll toss in Tegal Manor, one of my all time favorites.  It also has a world outside of it that can be talked about.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Ok, perhaps a point form list of how I think that world building is bad might be a good idea.
> 
> I.  How Worldbuilding is Bad for the DM/Table
> 
> 
> Worldbuilding takes away from time that could be spent writing the actual adventure.  The more time the DM spends detailing Elven Tea Ceremonies, the less time he or she has to write an actual adventure.
> Some DM's become very, very attached to their creations.  To the point where any attempt by the players to change that creation will be met with very stiff resistance.
> The possibility of the "Tour Des Realms" campaign where the PC's are basically just tourists in the game and are expected to make the appropriate oohing and ahhhing noises at the DM's wonderful creation.
> The narrowing of possibilities in the game.  The DM is a heavy world builder but the player doesn't want to play one of the pre-approved races.  She wants to play something else.  The DM nixes the idea, not because the idea is necessarily bad or powergaming or anything like that, but, because it doesn't fit with the DM's preconceptions of the campaign.  This could also apply to any number of player concepts.




The first doesn't apply anywhere near universally.  For some it's quick and easy to throw together an adventure.  For others they don't need to prep it all and can wing adventures all day long and twice on Sunday.  Others need that time.  

The second and third aren't even about worldbuilding.  They both about bad DMs, and bad DMs will be bad regardless of the amount of worldbuilding involved in the game.  

The last one is about bad players.  If a player is trying to play a race that he knows isn't in the game, he's playing in bad faith.   You shouldn't agree to play in a game with pre-approved races and then ask for a race that isn't on the list.



> It's needless padding.  Instead of getting material that can be directly used in the game, game books become things to be read.
> It's intrusive.  As more and more world building accumulates, any attempt to use the material other than specifically as written becomes more and more difficult.  DM's have to spend more and more time slicing away the stuff they don't want to use in order to get that that nugget that is actually useful at the table.
> Dogamtism.  As world building material accretes, those that dive deep into that material become more and more resentful of any attempt to change that material to the point where changes become virtually impossible to implement, regardless of the actual value of the new idea.



The first isn't true for a great many of us.  We use that material in our games.

The second is just plain false.  I've never had an issue with altering anything I want in pre-built worlds with a lot of worldbuilding.  You just change it and move on.

The third is also just a bad DM red flag.  

You haven't presented anything that is bad for the game, except for maybe the first one for the DM/table, and then only if you lack the ability to create adventures without taking forever to iron out the details.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Yet even then, that "GM narration" has to consist of something.  And if the module assumes the PCs "stumble into" the Hidden Shrine, that presupposes a further (unwritten) assumption that the PCs are doing something else that brings them there in the first place such that they can do said stumbling-into....hm?



But starting Isle of Dread with "You're sailing from X to Y and then a storm blows up, and beaches you on this lonely island . . ." isn't worldbuilding. (Hussar's post indicates that this isn't the canonical way of starting X1. But it is a possible way, which is enough for my point.)

Which is  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point. The Phantom of the Opera happens in Paris, but we don't actually need to _build_ Paris; we just allude to it. The GM can narrate that the PCs are sailing from X to Y without anyone actually having to _build_ X or Y. They are just names in a bit of introductory framing.



Maxperson said:


> all of those also exist within the game world at large and that larger game world has information about it that exists outside of the building.



What's the larger game world for B1? Moldvay Basic stipulates dungeon-only adventuring. The journey to and from the dungeon happens in imagination, but is not played at the table.

Here's the "game world at large" for B1 (it's p 6 of my PDF version):

area, Rogahn the Fearless (a fighter of renown) and Zelligar the Unknown (a magic-user of mystery and power) pooled their resources and expertise to construct a home and stronghold for the two of them to use as a base of operations. The location of this hidden complex was chosen with care, since both men disliked visitors and intruders. Far from the nearest settlement, away from traveled routes, and high upon a craggy hill, the new construction took shape. Carved out of the rock protrusion which crested the heavily forested hill, this mystical hideaway was well hidden, and its rumored existence was never common knowledge. Even less well known was its name, the Caverns of Quasqueton.​
The fact that there is a largely unknown (in terms of existence and name) stronghold constructed in an isolated, craggy, heavily-forested hill, is not worldbuilding. That's the barest of flavour. The only actual bit of the world that's been "built" for this adventure is the caverns.



Maxperson said:


> It doesn't matter if you introduce elves or not.  The hobgoblin write-up says that they hate elves, which implies that elves exist in your game whether or not you introduce them.  You have to remove that lore about elves to remove that implication.



No I don't! Proof positive - I've used hobgoblins in a game with no elves! (An old AD&D OA campaign.)

That's my whole point: choosing to use hobgoblins from the MM isn't making a commitment to also have elves in the game. It implies nothing, except that _if elves turn up_, then the hobgoblins _will_ be angry at them.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> This isn't a political negotiation. It is a discussion about world building. *are not going to concede basic facts about what they believe world building means, especially with some of the definitions being proposed.* No one is digging in their heels. They just know what they like, what works, and what they consider world building to be when they prep their games. No amount of linguistic wrestling is going to change that sort of thing.



Then this is absolutely hypocritical to expect others to do the same about their own beliefs, because the reality is that people clearly have different "basic facts about what they believe world building means." I hardly think that "some of the definitions being proposed" veer any, if at all, from "how it generally means in the hobby," and it may be your own preconceptions and biases in place that prevent you from seeing that rather than any failures, shortcomings, or radicalism of the "proposed definitions" themselves. 



Maxperson said:


> What should I concede exactly?  If he were to claim that that an apple was an orange, and then later concede that it was in fact an apple, why would I be expected to concede that it's not an apple?



Cut it out with the false equivalence, Max. We are discussing of abstract ideas and not the classification of fruits. 



Maxperson said:


> You and @_*Hussar*_ have convinced me. The next time I get pulled over for speeding, I'm going to tell the cop that I don't define/characterize going above the speed limit as speeding or unsafe driving and let him know that I expect him to conform to my new definition.  Then I'll point him to these threads so he can see the truth of my words.



"New definition" implies the establishment of an "old definition," yet the argument transpiring is about establishing what that "old definition" entails. You referring to your opponents' definition as a "new definition" is a pretty sleezy rhetorical way to position your own idiomatic definition as the "old definition" when you have not made a convincing case for that at all yet.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> It's "Tour Des Realms" gaming.  We're showing off the wonderful scenery of the game world because... well... why?  The Tomb is where the adventure is.  Spending time designing the area around the tomb and then spending time traveling to the Tomb is just a waste of everyone's time.  HERE is the adventure.  That stuff over there is pretty much unimportant at least in the context of the adventure.
> 
> .





Again, it comes down to playsstyle and preference. If you want to start adventures at the tomb because you feel that is where adventure is: I say go for it. That is a very efficient style of play, and I am sure it is going to work for plenty of groups. But I've gamed with too many players who can't stand that kind of approach, and who want the ability to say "well what happens if I go over here", that I think you need a tool like world building as one answer to that issue. It isn't a matter of going to the hills and having an encounter or two. In most cases, what it is about the ability to move freely through the world, in a way that isn't unlike our freedom in the real world. And that trip to the hills can become an adventure. Even random encounters can lead to something in that respect. The GMs job isn't to bore the players. The GM is still expected to keep the game alive (and if sufficient world building has gone on at those hills, there is more opportunity for adventure there should the players leave the tomb. 



> Why are you wasting your and your player's time poncing about getting to the Tomb?  Get INTO the adventure.  Why wait?  What's gained by having a couple of random encounters and a description of mountains?  Skip the boring stuff and get on with the show




The approach you describe is one I've taken myself at times. It is totally fine. I occasionally run 'monster of the week' style adventures when I don't want to do Sandbox, and those are pretty much "this is where the adventure is this week" type campaigns. But just because that can work, that doesn't mean world building is bad (and I would say, I still do plenty of what I would regard in world building in those scenarios). It is all in what you want to do. I think the mistake here would be to say "hey this works for me" or "this works in this instance" so it should be standard advice. I believe in helping people find the tools that will fit their style and their group (and I feel the same way about RPG systems). What you are describing is a fine tool or approach, and for certain people or circumstances, I might recommend it. But I would also recommend a world building heavy approach for other groups. 

The reason people react so strongly to "world building is bad" is it is the advice that is only going to work for certain GMs and certain conditions. Too many people see value from world building at the table to just go along with that kind of conclusion. And this is being expressed as an absolute, objective, Hussar has the answer for everyone.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> What's the larger game world for B1? Moldvay Basic stipulates dungeon-only adventuring. The journey to and from the dungeon happens in imagination, but is not played at the table.
> 
> Here's the "game world at large" for B1 (it's p 6 of my PDF version):
> 
> area, Rogahn the Fearless (a fighter of renown) and Zelligar the Unknown (a magic-user of mystery and power) pooled their resources and expertise to construct a home and stronghold for the two of them to use as a base of operations. The location of this hidden complex was chosen with care, since both men disliked visitors and intruders. Far from the nearest settlement, away from traveled routes, and high upon a craggy hill, the new construction took shape. Carved out of the rock protrusion which crested the heavily forested hill, this mystical hideaway was well hidden, and its rumored existence was never common knowledge. Even less well known was its name, the Caverns of Quasqueton.​
> The fact that there is a largely unknown (in terms of existence and name) stronghold constructed in an isolated, craggy, heavily-forested hill, is not worldbuilding. That's the barest of flavour. The only actual bit of the world that's been "built" for this adventure is the caverns.




And yet you don't just *poof* and arrive there.  You travel there from somewhere.  Probably that distant town.  

As for Moldvay Basic, not only does it not stipulate dungeon only adventuring, it explicitly mentions other types of adventures.  From page B3...

"It is the DM's job to prepare the setting for each adventure before the game begins. This setting is called a dungeon since *most* adventures take place in underground caverns or stone rooms beneath old ruins or castles."

Most adventures, not all adventures.  If most take place underground or inside and are called dungeons, then some don't and take place in the countryside or in towns and cities.



> No I don't! Proof positive - I've used hobgoblins in a game with no elves! (An old AD&D OA campaign.)




Then the elves were implied.  Implied doesn't mean anything other than that by the way.  Just because elves are implied, doesn't mean that they exist, so the lack of elves in your OA campaign doesn't remove the implication if you leave elves in the lore.  To remove the implication, you have to take out the lore pertaining to elves.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Ok, perhaps a point form list of how I think that world building is bad might be a good idea.
> 
> 
> I. How Worldbuilding is Bad for the DM/Table
> 
> 
> Worldbuilding takes away from time that could be spent writing the actual adventure. The more time the DM spends detailing Elven Tea Ceremonies, the less time he or she has to write an actual adventure.





Writing an adventure takes a finite amount of time. If you don't have enough time to finish an adventure then yes worldbuilding along with... updating the campaign blog, testing the VTT equipment, studying up on rules, reading inspirational work, watching tv, creating artwork for your campaign, and so on are all things that take time and said time would probably be better put to use making an adventure. Does that mean all of the things I listed are bad? Or maybe we shouldn't assume that the GM/DM is willfully neglecting his adventure since if that's really what he wants to do there are a ton of things he could do beside adventure creation, some related to the game and others not so much. 




Hussar said:


> Some DM's become very, very attached to their creations. To the point where any attempt by the players to change that creation will be met with very stiff resistance.





IMO this is a weak argument... First because even you admit it's only a subset of GM's who use worldbuilding and also succumb to this. It's also a weak argument because it's pointing out that using a tool the wrong way is bad not that the tool itself is bad. Some people use knives to unscrew a screw... does that mean knives are bad tools or that this particular application of the knife is bad?




Hussar said:


> [*]The possibility of the "Tour Des Realms" campaign where the PC's are basically just tourists in the game and are expected to make the appropriate oohing and ahhhing noises at the DM's wonderful creation.





Eh, some people like exploration campaigns, some people actually enjoy discovering and exploring the GM's creation. If they are having fun why is that a bad thing, and who are you to claim it as such? If anything I would say when this is an issue it's a mismatch of player and GM desires and expectations. You don't like discovery/exploration campaigns, cool... but worldbuilding is necessary for such campaigns So IMO the answer isn't worlduilding is bad... it's [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] isn't a good fit for a GM/group that enjoys such things. 




Hussar said:


> The narrowing of possibilities in the game. The DM is a heavy world builder but the player doesn't want to play one of the pre-approved races. She wants to play something else. The DM nixes the idea, not because the idea is necessarily bad or powergaming or anything like that, but, because it doesn't fit with the DM's preconceptions of the campaign. This could also apply to any number of player concepts.





I don't see this as a problem anymore than theme or genre constraints would be a problem. If the player bought into the campaign concept this shouldn't be an issue. If they haven't well that's a communication issue. If I'm running a game in Middle Earth and you agreed to play in a Middle Earth campaign there shouldn't be an issue if I'm not allowing you to play a tieflinf, irregardless of how cool you make it sound or how badly you want it. We'll play D&D eventually but until then you should try to abide by the social contract implied when agreeing to play in a particular world.




Hussar said:


> II How Worldbuilding is Bad in Published Works
> It's needless padding. Instead of getting material that can be directly used in the game, game books become things to be read.





One man's "garbage" is another man's "treasure". Oh, and let me guess it would be you that decided exactly what everyone can or can't directly use in their particular games...  Ah...no thanks, I can do that for myself.




Hussar said:


> It's intrusive. As more and more world building accumulates, any attempt to use the material other than specifically as written becomes more and more difficult. DM's have to spend more and more time slicing away the stuff they don't want to use in order to get that that nugget that is actually useful at the table.





Haven't experienced this at all. It's pretty easy to declare what is or isn't part of one's game... either by book (only the core camapign book is canon for this game), by level of granularity (This is a high level Greyhawk campaign with differeing details at the micro level or we're only using geography and place names), or even by timeline (This is a Pre-Faction War Campaign). Nothing inherent in worldbuilding forces a GM to use everything published for it and excluding things isn't hard at all if you have a particular vision for your camapign... I would argue it's no harder than making everything up from scratch ahead of the game or trying to improvise everything as it comes up.




Hussar said:


> Dogamtism. As world building material accretes, those that dive deep into that material become more and more resentful of any attempt to change that material to the point where changes become virtually impossible to implement, regardless of the actual value of the new idea.







This argument makes no sense to me... I can't have the official changes to a particular world I want so there shouldn't be any worldbuilding. It's akin to the kid who wants to kick the sandcastle over because the kids who are having fun didn't build it exactly the way he wanted it... even though there's plenty of room in the sandbox for him to build his own customized castle. Also "value" is so subjective as to be almost meaningless in this context. What one person considers a great change others will hate and there's no way to judge whose particular likes have more value than other's likes.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Cut it out with the false equivalence, Max. We are discussing of abstract ideas and not the classification of fruits.




There is no False Equivalence going on with my posts.  



> "New definition" implies the establishment of an "old definition," yet the argument transpiring is about establishing what that "old definition" entails. You referring to your opponents' definition as a "new definition" is a pretty sleezy rhetorical way to position your own idiomatic definition as the "old definition" when you have not made a convincing case for that at all yet.




 [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] provided definitions that fail to back him up.  More than one of them in fact.  His claim that worldbuilding involves building the world, EXCEPT when it pertains to the plot(Then it's magically not worldbuilding) is absurd and doesn't mean the definitions even he provided.  I reject his selective worldbuilding re-definition in favor of the old ones which involve those things that make up building the world.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> The reason people react so strongly to "world building is bad" is it is the advice that is only going to work for certain GMs and certain conditions.



I also disagree with this assertion, and I believe that [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] may have made a similar comment earlier in his summation of topic. 

Again, I would like to revisit the earlier analogy that I raised. I don't think fundamentally that people are reacting so strongly to "world building is bad" because of the advice, facts, or definitions, but, rather, because they are emotionally feeling that they (and their worldbuilding efforts) are being morally judged for doing it. This gets back to my earlier analogy of "drinking" in which an article entitled "Why Drinking is Bad" will receive a lot of emotional pushback. However, the pushback will not be rooted in the actual advice "you should drink alcohol in moderation" or based on disagreement with basic facts like "alcohol has well-documented negative side-effects" but because their response will invariably be guided by their own emotional knee-jerk reaction of "I enjoy drinking and I am feeling morally judged for drinking alcohol ergo the article must be wrong and drinking is not bad." Nevertheless, most rational people should be able to pick up on how an article entitled "Why Drinking is Bad" is not meant to be a blanket moral judgment against drinking. Though most rational people _should_ be able to understand that, that will not always be the case as people are not entirely rational people. 

You could replace the word "worldbuilding" with just about any issue and see a similar brand of emotionally-charged pushback that speaks less about the validity of the argument and more about the persecution complex of the respondants. 



Bedrockgames said:


> And this is being expressed as an absolute, objective, Hussar has the answer for everyone.



I think you are projecting here or at least exposing your own knee-jerk reaction. I don't think that Hussar is expressing this sentiment, as he is fairly clear about his own viewpoint and perspective on the matter. 



Maxperson said:


> There is no False Equivalence going on with my posts.



Your analogy was a false equivalence between situations, Max. Your false equivalence literally was a case of apples and oranges to debating the definition of 'worldbuilding.' If you honestly believe that this wasn't a case of false equivalence or have no intent to sincerely reflect on why that is the case, then I am hard-pressed to see how you have any intent whatsoever to engage in this conversation with any shred of good faith or self-respect. 



> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] provided definitions that fail to back him up.  More than one of them in fact.  His claim that worldbuilding involves building the world, EXCEPT when it pertains to the plot(Then it's magically not worldbuilding) is absurd and doesn't mean the definitions even he provided.



And here you are not citing [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]; instead, you are citing your own strawmen arguments about Hussar that you have been repeatedly rebuked about. 



> I reject his selective worldbuilding re-definition in favor of the old ones which involve those things that make up building the world.



There you go again with your beloved fallback tactic: fallacy of assertion regarding your unsubstantiated "old [definitions]" claim. You can repeat it until your face turns blue, but that does not make it true.


----------



## Sadras

We need a new topic. 

Too soon?


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I think you are projecting here or at least exposing your own knee-jerk reaction. I don't think that Hussar is expressing this sentiment, as he is fairly clear about his own viewpoint and perspective on the matter.




Then what exactly are we discussing?  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] clearly knows what is better for his specific game (something that hasn't really been addressed or acknowledged from those against worldbuilding) so that begs the question... what is the conversation supposed to be around if he's asserting this only for himself and his particular game?


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I also disagree with this assertion, and I believe that @_*Imaro*_ may have made a similar comment earlier in his summation of topic.




That's interesting but do you have anything to back this disagreement up with, because so far I've seen one style that eschews pre-authored content that has validity around worldbuilding being "bad" for it.  And even with that one I would say worldbuilding isn't relevant for it vs. actually being bad.



Aldarc said:


> Again, I would like to revisit the earlier analogy that I raised. I don't think fundamentally that people are reacting so strongly to "world building is bad" because of the advice, facts, or definitions, but, rather, because they are emotionally feeling that they (and their worldbuilding efforts) are being morally judged for doing it. This gets back to my earlier analogy of "drinking" in which an article entitled "Why Drinking is Bad" will receive a lot of emotional pushback. However, the pushback will not be rooted in the actual advice "you should drink alcohol in moderation" or based on disagreement with basic facts like "alcohol has well-documented negative side-effects" but because their response will invariably be guided by their own emotional knee-jerk reaction of "I enjoy drinking and I am feeling morally judged for drinking alcohol ergo the article must be wrong and drinking is not bad." Nevertheless, most rational people should be able to pick up on how an article entitled "Why Drinking is Bad" is not meant to be a blanket moral judgment against drinking. Though most rational people _should_ be able to understand that, that will not always be the case as people are not entirely rational people.




Lol... what a way to dismiss the other side of a conversation...  Don't address their responses and counterpoints, just declare their perspective as emotionally driven and use a bad analogy (oh the irony) to characterize their responses as both illogical and ill-infomed.  See it's this type of declaration that gets conversations emotionally driven.  

How about this... some posters have made specific points around why worldbuilding is bad (Outside of the original context of the article which was left behind some time ago in this conversation) and those points have been countered, not with emotion but with fact.  How about addressing those specific counterpoints as opposed to throwing out a blanket dismissal or arguing about definitions? 



Aldarc said:


> You could replace the word "worldbuilding" with just about any issue and see a similar brand of emotionally-charged pushback that speaks less about the validity of the argument and more about the persecution complex of the respondants.




Yep that's exactly what the arguments for worldbuilding so far have been based on (and this doesn't apply to the ones against worldbuilding because??)... persecution complexes... *sigh* ... I can't even...


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Your analogy was a false equivalence between situations, Max. Your false equivalence literally was a case of apples and oranges to debating the definition of 'worldbuilding.' If you honestly believe that this wasn't a case of false equivalence or have no intent to sincerely reflect on why that is the case, then I am hard-pressed to see how you have any intent whatsoever to engage in this conversation with any shred of good faith or self-respect.




My example was purely about not conceding a definition that is correct for one that is wrong.  There was no False Equivalence and it would be bad faith on my part if I partook in such a disingenuous exercise.  If you can't respect me for sticking to a true definition, instead of "admitting" to a false one, then that's on you.  It's no sweat off my back if some faceless person on the internet doesn't have respect for me.  



> And here you are not citing @_*Hussar*_
> 
> There you go again with your beloved fallback tactic: fallacy of assertion regarding your unsubstantiated "old [definitions]" claim. You can repeat it until your face turns blue, but that does not make it true.





LOL  He posted this example as a definition of his worldbuilding.

"Worldbuilding is the process of constructing an imaginary world, sometimes associated with a whole fictional universe. ... Developing an imaginary setting with coherent qualities such as a history, geography, and ecology is a key task for many science fiction or fantasy writers"

But he intentionally left out these portions of the link.

"Worldbuilding often involves the creation of maps, a backstory, and people for the world." which lists people and for RPGs would include monsters.

"From a game-design perspective, the goal of worldbuilding is to *create the context for a story*. Consistency is an important element, since the world provides a *foundation for the action of a story*." which completely refute his argument that any part of building the world that deals with plot is not worldbuilding.  It's says that the freaking goal of worldbuilding in a game is for the story(plot).

So I stand by my assertion that he is selectively re-defining worldbuilding.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I think you are projecting here or at least exposing your own knee-jerk reaction. I don't think that Hussar is expressing this sentiment, as he is fairly clear about his own viewpoint and perspective on the matter.
> 
> .




I would just have to echo Imaro's response to this. If this is the case, I am really not sure what this discussion is meant to achieve. Everyone has said, over and over again, Hussar is perfectly entitled to not use world building, to take another approach. I've repeated statements like this throughout the discussion. People are just reacting to his broad statements that world building is bad. And I don't think people are taking it personally. People are taking the snark and condescension personally. But when it comes to the basic point he is making, we are just giving our honest opinion, which is "this is a useful tool, we shouldn't say a useful tool is bad". If he wants to make an argument like "a knife isn't good for turning a screw" or "world building is bad if you get so invested in it, you ignore other things" that is fine. But he doesn't do that. He continuously makes it a concrete "World building is bad because GMs ignore other aspects of play", "world building is bad because...". What I am getting from Hussar, is he thinks world building on the whole is bad, and people engage in far too much of it for his taste, that the hobby would be better to move away from world building.


----------



## Maxperson

Imaro said:


> Lol... what a way to dismiss the other side of a conversation...  Don't address their responses and counterpoints, just declare their perspective as emotionally driven and use a bad analogy (oh the irony) to characterize their responses as both illogical and ill-infomed.  See it's this type of declaration that gets conversations emotionally driven.




That seems par for the course.  Take a look at him saying that I'm arguing in bad faith for sticking to the definition of worldbuilding, and not accepting [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s re-definition of the term to mean the opposite of what the definition [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] provides says is the goal of worldbuilding in a game.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I would just have to echo Imaro's response to this. If this is the case, I am really not sure what this discussion is meant to achieve. Everyone has said, over and over again, Hussar is perfectly entitled to not use world building, to take another approach.




Well, not to use excessive worldbuilding anyway. It's not possible for him to avoid using worldbuilding completely, since the construction of a setting, however small, for the purpose of the story/plot is worldbuilding.  He's just free to use however small an amount of worldbuilding as he desires for his game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Well, not to use excessive worldbuilding anyway. It's not possible for him to avoid using worldbuilding completely, since the construction of a setting, however small, for the purpose of the story/plot is worldbuilding.  He's just free to use however small an amount of worldbuilding as he desires for his game.




I think your splitting hairs.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I also disagree with this assertion, and I believe that [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] may have made a similar comment earlier in his summation of topic.
> 
> Again, I would like to revisit the earlier analogy that I raised. I don't think fundamentally that people are reacting so strongly to "world building is bad" because of the advice, facts, or definitions, but, rather, because they are emotionally feeling that they (and their worldbuilding efforts) are being morally judged for doing it. This gets back to my earlier analogy of "drinking" in which an article entitled "Why Drinking is Bad" will receive a lot of emotional pushback. However, the pushback will not be rooted in the actual advice "you should drink alcohol in moderation" or based on disagreement with basic facts like "alcohol has well-documented negative side-effects" but because their response will invariably be guided by their own emotional knee-jerk reaction of "I enjoy drinking and I am feeling morally judged for drinking alcohol ergo the article must be wrong and drinking is not bad." Nevertheless, most rational people should be able to pick up on how an article entitled "Why Drinking is Bad" is not meant to be a blanket moral judgment against drinking. Though most rational people _should_ be able to understand that, that will not always be the case as people are not entirely rational people.
> .




Again, have to echo what others have said in response to this. I mean, this is a weird argument and it completely ignores the actual points we made. 

Anyways a better analogy would be hosting a discussion panel entitled "Beer is Bad" at a conference for alcohol enthusiasts. People are not feeling judged, they just disagree with the statement in the context that it is expressed.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Then what exactly are we discussing?  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] clearly knows what is better for his specific game (something that hasn't really been addressed or acknowledged from those against worldbuilding) so that begs the question... what is the conversation supposed to be around if he's asserting this only for himself and his particular game?



One would certainly hope that you would know that before you chose to wade into it. There are multiple divergent conversations at play here though. On this point, however, I think that Hussar is clearly discussing his own preferences that he would like expressed in published materials. As to the rest of the conversations? That might be a bit much to summarize. 



Imaro said:


> That's interesting but do you have anything to back this disagreement up with, because so far I've seen one style that eschews pre-authored content that has validity around worldbuilding being "bad" for it.  And even with that one I would say worldbuilding isn't relevant for it vs. actually being bad.



I would say that the argument that [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] presented was insufficient for explaining the reactions, and I provided another explanation that I believe describes it or that would supplement Bedrock's. 



> Lol... what a way to dismiss the other side of a conversation...  *Don't address their responses and counterpoints,* just declare their perspective as emotionally driven and use a bad analogy (oh the irony) to characterize their responses as both illogical and ill-infomed.  See it's this type of declaration that gets conversations emotionally driven.



But the bold is where you are wrong, Imaro. Their responses and counterpoints have been addressed repeatedly by me and others, but addressing those points was not my intent here, Imaro, as the goal was explaining the source of the emotional backlash. You were talking about the emotional content of the word "bad" that you felt was laden in the title "Why Worldbuilding is Bad" and Bedrockgames why people were reacting so strongly to the central premise. And given how there is a lot of misinterpretation of perspectives regarding the whole issue of "worldbuilding is bad," it is incumbent to explain why that may be the case - because they are not entirely "fact-based" or rooted in a close-reading of the text - and I do think that the feeling of moral judgment regarding the enterprise of worldbuilding is a component of the visceral pushback against the premise. You are certainly welcome to dismiss my explanation with your own gaslighting, but you should at least be aware that the "emotional" component of the pushback was already raised/acknowledged by you and others. 

Re: analogy: [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], when I initially raised this analogy many pages ago, I did indicate that no analogy was perfect and that I was open to alternatives. If you would like to discuss my "bad analogy" in further detail I am open to that, assuming that you are open to civil discussion here. I would welcome a more appropriate analogy to describe this particular phenomenon that so frequently transpires. 



> How about this... some posters have made specific points around why worldbuilding is bad (Outside of the original context of the article which was left behind some time ago in this conversation) *A) and those points have been countered*, not with emotion but with fact.  How about addressing those specific counterpoints as opposed to throwing out a blanket dismissal or arguing about definitions?



How about this instead... you are presuming (1) that those points have been soundly countered (presumably by yourself and others) and (2) that they have been done so with "fact." The continued disagreement on these points kinda throw both of your premises into contention. "Fact" amounts to more than a repetition of assertions of opinions, and the use of logic means little when based on fawlty premises. This is not to say that the premises of the "other side" - a term I loathe to use given how there are posters in this thread with far more welcomed nuanced perspectives - are rooted in fawtly logic, only that the presence of logic is not necessarily the presence of truth or validity.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Yes, I am. It's not the players' job to record your world for you.
> 
> And if it's important enough but not written down, three people will each remember it differently and the DM might not remember it at all; and that never ends well.
> 
> Lanefan




But going off my original statement, we're talking about a detail that I didn't think was relevant enough to warrant knowing ahead of time. So if one of my players asks who was the king before the current king, I can make it up on the spot and achieve the same effect as I would have by writing up a grand history of the throne....because all they asked for was a name.

I think that summarizes the point of the article in the OP pretty nicely. If all that's needed is a name, then there's no need for much more info than that.

Now, if the PCs show an incredible interest in examining the prior king's downfall and I decide to make it part of the story, then I trust myself and my players to remember the guy's name. And if we don't, then I can just make it up again, and it's not a problem.

As for different people remembering different things....I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It happens in the real world all the time. If that happens, then it's just a case of the characters remembering things differently the way people do all the time. We can take one of the versions and then treat it like the "real" one.




Imaro said:


> Yeah my experiences with this type of situation have been more in line with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. IME.. all it does is look bad when something like this is only vaguely remembered by the PC's or remembered differently by various players and they look to the DM to settle the matter and realize he/she cant because it was made up on the fly and not written down.




But the original comment was about a detail that was not immediately relevant. If that's the case, I can't see how it's an issue. If it's a case of a detail that starts off as irrelevant, and then becomes relevant, then I'm confident that I'll remember it. I do have some notes written down, so I might add a detail like that when it becomes important. But if it's just "hey, who used to be the king here?" then I'll come up with the name on the fly, and take things from there. 

It works fine for me, and is not an issue at our table.


----------



## Imaro

Want to address this and get some clarity first but I'll get to your other points later...



Aldarc said:


> One would certainly hope that you would know that before you chose to wade into it. There are multiple divergent conversations at play here though. On this point, however, I think that Hussar is clearly discussing his own preferences that he would like expressed in published materials. As to the rest of the conversations? That might be a bit much to summarize.




So just to be clear, when [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] posts...



Hussar said:


> Ok, perhaps a point form list of how I think that world building is bad might be a good idea.
> 
> I.  How Worldbuilding is Bad for the DM/Table
> 
> 
> Worldbuilding takes away from time that could be spent writing the actual adventure.  The more time the DM spends detailing Elven Tea Ceremonies, the less time he or she has to write an actual adventure.
> Some DM's become very, very attached to their creations.  To the point where any attempt by the players to change that creation will be met with very stiff resistance.
> The possibility of the "Tour Des Realms" campaign where the PC's are basically just tourists in the game and are expected to make the appropriate oohing and ahhhing noises at the DM's wonderful creation.
> The narrowing of possibilities in the game.  The DM is a heavy world builder but the player doesn't want to play one of the pre-approved races.  She wants to play something else.  The DM nixes the idea, not because the idea is necessarily bad or powergaming or anything like that, but, because it doesn't fit with the DM's preconceptions of the campaign.  This could also apply to any number of player concepts.




You believe he's stating personal preference and applying these reasons to... himself only as opposed to making a general statement about why he believes world building is bad in general?  If so that seems like an interesting way of interpreting his statement, and certainly not how I read it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Ok, perhaps a point form list of how I think that world building is bad might be a good idea.
> 
> I.  How Worldbuilding is Bad for the DM/Table
> 
> 
> Worldbuilding takes away from time that could be spent writing the actual adventure.  The more time the DM spends detailing Elven Tea Ceremonies, the less time he or she has to write an actual adventure.
> Some DM's become very, very attached to their creations.  To the point where any attempt by the players to change that creation will be met with very stiff resistance.
> The possibility of the "Tour Des Realms" campaign where the PC's are basically just tourists in the game and are expected to make the appropriate oohing and ahhhing noises at the DM's wonderful creation.
> The narrowing of possibilities in the game.  The DM is a heavy world builder but the player doesn't want to play one of the pre-approved races.  She wants to play something else.  The DM nixes the idea, not because the idea is necessarily bad or powergaming or anything like that, but, because it doesn't fit with the DM's preconceptions of the campaign.  This could also apply to any number of player concepts.




I'll start this off by saying that I personally try to keep my worldbuilding not necessarily to a minimum, but at least focused on what I think is relevant. And I do tend to agree that I think most GMs probably could do less worldbuilding than they think they need to do. I wouldn't go so far as to label it as inherently bad, though....mostly because all of the concerns you mention, and all those brought up in this thread are only possibilities, not certainties.

* It doesn't necessarily do that.
* This is possible, yes, but seems to be more of a DM problem.
* Again, possible but more of a DM issue. 
* I agree with this. I tend to think of restrictions on such options as being a last resort. I would need a very, very strong reason to ban a race or something else from the game. Most reasons that are typically sited when this topic comes up fall far short in my opinion. 



Hussar said:


> II How Worldbuilding is Bad in Published Works
> 
> 
> It's needless padding.  Instead of getting material that can be directly used in the game, game books become things to be read.
> It's intrusive.  As more and more world building accumulates, any attempt to use the material other than specifically as written becomes more and more difficult.  DM's have to spend more and more time slicing away the stuff they don't want to use in order to get that that nugget that is actually useful at the table.
> Dogamtism.  As world building material accretes, those that dive deep into that material become more and more resentful of any attempt to change that material to the point where changes become virtually impossible to implement, regardless of the actual value of the new idea.




Now these bits about published work I find to be even more subjective because when one uses a published work, very often they actually want many details to be decided for them. So it seems a bit odd to go to a published work and then expect for things to not be created with a setting in mind. Sure, things can be kept general enough so that they're usable by anyone...and I do think that WotC's recent offerings have been exactly that....but I think you have to expect at least some specificity of setting in a published book. 

* This varies by product. Some will be almost entirely flavor material. Others will be far more utilitarian. I mentioned "Vornheim, The Complete City Guide" a few posts ago. It's a 64 page book that is designed to help create city details on the fly. It's incredibly utilitarian, designed to be used at the table during a game. I think it's great, and I would agree that we can use more products like that. But I also like products that are more flavor based. I very much design adventures or come up with story ideas based on these. So I think there's very clearly a place for both kinds of products, and everything in between.
* I disagree. It's incredibly easy to only use what I'd like for a particular game element. Sometimes the abundance of material about a given topic can be a bit of an obstacle to finding the things you may like, I agree with you on that, but chances are you aren't going to wade through all that info when a summary is likely available, or unless you're not willing to dive into the lore and check things out, and then decide what you like. 
* This seems more a player issue. If you have a player who loves Greyhawk, and you plan on setting your game there, but with keeping it lore-light and making up your own stuff as needed, then you just need to work that out ahead of time. If you don't, and it comes up in play, then you work it out then. 

I don't blame you for your preferences, and I'm sure they've formed as a result of your actual experiences, but I don't think they are universal enough to consider worldbuilding as bad. I just don't think it's all that different from any other tool the DM can use....they can be used effectively, or they can be abused.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> But the original comment was about a detail that was not immediately relevant. If that's the case, I can't see how it's an issue. If it's a case of a detail that starts off as irrelevant, and then becomes relevant, then I'm confident that I'll remember it. I do have some notes written down, so I might add a detail like that when it becomes important. But if it's just "hey, who used to be the king here?" then I'll come up with the name on the fly, and take things from there.
> 
> It works fine for me, and is not an issue at our table.




Ok, I guess if it's a known irrelevant that makes sense but it's hard (at least for me it is) to know what is irrelevant to your players in the moment... I've had players pick up on something that was a minor detail and run with it for some purpose I wouldn't have fathomed and honestly if it's something I improv'd I just come clean and tell them I don't remember it... but I hate doing that and it tends to make my players feel as if I'm just pulling things out of thin air in the moment (which of course I am) and that's not a playstyle they tend to enjoy, especially once it's revealed to them.

All that said you could just be a better improviser than many, one of the things that gets looked over in these types of discussion around playstyle is that different GM's have different strengths and weaknesses.  For some improvising the world may be a strong skill they wield and track with ease but for others it may be a weakness.  For me personally coming up with stuff on the fly isn't an issue but tracking it all is a headache for me so I tend to rely on a moderately fleshed out world with smaller doses of improvisation at the adventure level.  

OAN: I will readily admit that the difficulty with tracking improv'd things may also arise from the fact that I and my group tend to enjoy a little scotch and often our fair share of beer when gaming...


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> My example was purely about not conceding a definition that is correct for one that is wrong.  There was no False Equivalence and it would be bad faith on my part if I partook in such a disingenuous exercise.  If you can't respect me for sticking to a true definition, instead of "admitting" to a false one, then that's on you.  It's no sweat off my back if some faceless person on the internet doesn't have respect for me.



However, we are not discussing whether an orange is an apple or an apple is an orange. 'Apples' and 'oranges' are physical objects that have physical properties that we can ascertain. We are discussing what constitutes the definition for an abstract concept that pertains to fiction-making: e.g., "Mary Sue," "Anti-hero," "Second World," etc. 



> LOL  He posted this example as a definition of his worldbuilding.
> 
> "Worldbuilding is the process of *constructing an imaginary world,* sometimes associated with a whole fictional universe. ... Developing an imaginary setting with coherent qualities such as a history, geography, and ecology is a key task for many science fiction or fantasy writers"



Yes, and you and you alone misread what he quoted to mean "the entire world" and then proceded to gloat in song and dance that you got [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] to "refute" a point that he never made. "LOL," indeed. 



> But he intentionally left out these portions of the link.
> 
> "Worldbuilding often involves the creation of maps, a backstory, and people for the world." which lists people and for RPGs would include monsters.



Simply pulling monsters from a monster manual, however, would likely not fall within the conventional usage or sense of "worldbuilding." Again, to echo Bedrockgames, I think that this is you splitting hairs. 



> "From a game-design perspective, the goal of worldbuilding is to *create the context for a story*. Consistency is an important element, since the world provides a *foundation for the action of a story*." which completely refute his argument that any part of building the world that deals with plot is not worldbuilding.  It's says that the freaking goal of worldbuilding in a game is for the story(plot).



Did you have a reason for _intentionally_ leaving out the following sentence? "However, J. R. R. Tolkien described the goal of worldbuilding as creating immersion, or "enchantment" as he put it, and descriptions of the world can be wholly disconnected from the story and narrative." This implies that worldbuilding can be done without regard for story or plot, simply as an exercise or process in itself. That in itself implies a distinction between "story" and "worldbuilding" in which "story" is not inherently a sub-section of "worldbuilding." And just because that is the ideal "goal" of worldbuilding that does mean that is the result. 



> So I stand by my assertion that he is selectively re-defining worldbuilding.



I don't think that he is intentionally or even "selectively" leaving these out to "redefine" the term, Max. That seems either disingenuous or a misreading, whether intentional or not, of his argument. In terms of cognitive linguistics, it's about determining what definition(s) and meaning(s) are more central and integral to the term and its most common sense of usage. This is not to discount other meanings, but, rather, the goal is determining the core and most frequent sense of meaning of the term. I.e., What central ideas are most likely to be "tapped" in the usage of the term? Again, this is by no means about re-defining the term: it's about the core (and contextualized) sense and not the exhaustive sense. This is why I frequently find your meaning less conventional than Hussar's. If we were hypothetically to provide a survey of the meaning of "worldbuilding" in its use and implied use - particularly in articles, threads, and books about "worldbuilding" tips - we would likely find some meanings or senses of the word more frequently understood than others. We can even limit that contextualized usage to RPGs, and there would likely be a similarly restricted range of meaning(s) in terms of conventional usage. In my estimation - and likely that of Hussar, Pemerton, and others - the most frequent set of recurring tips would likely pertain to the more limited scope(s) that we seem to be collectively operating under to varying degrees.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Just a point about X1 Isle of Dread.
> 
> One of the major elements of X1 is actually traveling to the island.  That's a big part of the adventure.  So, of course, you're going to need to detail out getting to the island, which means you need some sort of map (whether it's an actual map or just a timeline of events) in order to get from A to B.  That's just basic setting building.
> 
> But, in Tomb of Horrors, for example, the adventure STARTS at the three caves.  There's no details about the surrounding area because that's not part of the adventure.  Why am I pissing about with getting there?  That's precisely my point about world building being unnecessary.  The adventure isn't getting to the Tomb of Horrors, it's going INTO the Tomb of Horrors.  So, all the stuff outside the Tomb is largely irrelevant and unnecessary.
> 
> It's "Tour Des Realms" gaming.  We're showing off the wonderful scenery of the game world because... well... why?  The Tomb is where the adventure is.  Spending time designing the area around the tomb and then spending time traveling to the Tomb is just a waste of everyone's time.  HERE is the adventure.  That stuff over there is pretty much unimportant at least in the context of the adventure.
> 
> Why are you wasting your and your player's time poncing about getting to the Tomb?  Get INTO the adventure.  Why wait?  What's gained by having a couple of random encounters and a description of mountains?  Skip the boring stuff and get on with the show.




Well, I would imagine most of us are used to a campaign style game, where we move from adventure to adventure. Some people might be fine with the PCs simply showing up at a location to start a new adventure without worrying about the travel from the last adventure location. I have no problem with that. I tend to move things to what I consider the interesting parts, too.

But there's also no reason that the journey to the Isle of Dread can't be an adventure unto itself. It can be just as interesting as the Isle itself, depending on what's done with it. There's no reason it needs to be simply narrating a daily log of what the PCs see mixed with random encounter rolls on the ocean chart. 

Since most of us are going to play adventure after adventure after adventure....why not connect them a bit more? Sure, maybe you don't prefer that, and want a more episodic feel. But that doesn't have to be the case.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> So just to be clear, when [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] posts...
> 
> You believe he's stating personal preference and applying these reasons to... himself only as opposed to making a general statement about why he believes world building is bad in general?  If so that seems like an interesting way of interpreting his statement, and certainly not how I read it.



In general, yes, I believe that he is expressing his own preferences here, but that these preferences also stem from his observations about the problems with how worldbuilding is frequently expressed in the hobby. Here, I read "how I think that world building is bad" along the lines of "_why/how_ I think that worldbuilding _can be problematic_." His list entails pitfalls, red flags, and a hierarchy of gameplay values in regards to worldbuilding. The content of his clarifies how I read this statement "how I think that world building is bad". 

As an aside, I don't think, however, that one should dismiss some of these as "bad GM" problems, as I think that there are sometimes "good GMs" who engage in these practices. Dismissing these as "bad GMs" seems like an easy out that makes the problems the result of "those people" rather than addressing why these tendencies perpetuate themselves in the context of worldbuilding and how to address them.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> In general, yes, I believe that he is expressing his own preferences here, but that these preferences also stem from his observations about the problems with how worldbuilding is frequently expressed in the hobby. Here, I read "how I think that world building is bad" along the lines of "_why/how_ I think that worldbuilding _can be problematic_." His list entails pitfalls, red flags, and a hierarchy of gameplay values in regards to worldbuilding. The content of his clarifies how I read this statement "how I think that world building is bad".
> 
> As an aside, I don't think, however, that one should dismiss some of these as "bad GM" problems, as I think that there are sometimes "good GMs" who engage in these practices. Dismissing these as "bad GMs" seems like an easy out that makes the problems the result of "those people" rather than addressing why these tendencies perpetuate themselves in the context of worldbuilding and how to address them.




This seems like a roundabout way of saying he's making general statements about worldbuilding based on his experiences which isn't the same as just expressing your preferences


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> This seems like a roundabout way of saying he's making general statements about worldbuilding based on his experiences which isn't the same as just expressing your preferences



Your reading of his statement does not exclude the fact that he has done both in the thread.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Your reading of his statement does not exclude the fact that he has done both in the thread.




But I was asking about that specific passage... Him having done both in the thread means he has made general statements about worldbuilding while you claimed he was only stating preference.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc, I share a lot of Imaro's sentiments here. I think you and Hussar are trying to have it both ways, on the one hand saying "this is just my opinion and if you object you are reacting because you feel morally judged", on the other hand saying "but this is a real problem the hobby needs to address". 

I don't know. In terms of published content, people are addressing all kinds of concerns and approaches to world building. There are plenty of people out there offering very lean content with random methods for generating things like names in play (and I make pretty good use of that stuff myself), there are also people putting out more in depth material. It is a spectrum. I think the ideal scenario is one where a number of approaches are available. Seems to be close to what we have now. Especially with so much compatible material out there under the OGL and similar arrangements. 

In terms of personal games and campaigns, you keep saying it is just his preference, but then you say things like that the issues he presents are pitfalls even good GMs succumb to. You say these are problems. And problems presumably need addressing. So we looked at his list and responses. Again, we take issues with those individual points, because we don't find them to be problematic in our own games, and we think his solutions, would make our games worse. I don't know how you want us to respond to his statements. If he is free to say he thinks this or that aspect of world building is a problem, we're free to point out where we think his solutions and criticisms are a problem. You keep saying you don't respond to our points because they've either been responded to, they are unconvincing, or you believe deep down we feel morally shamed and are projecting...leaving aside the bizarre quality of the last point, I think it is fair for us to point out, we don't find his points convincing. We can do this dance all day, if this is just a contest of wills. If it is a conversation, people need to respond to at least some of the points being made.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> Ok, I guess if it's a known irrelevant that makes sense but it's hard (at least for me it is) to know what is irrelevant to your players in the moment... I've had players pick up on something that was a minor detail and run with it for some purpose I wouldn't have fathomed and honestly if it's something I improv'd I just come clean and tell them I don't remember it... but I hate doing that and it tends to make my players feel as if I'm just pulling things out of thin air in the moment (which of course I am) and that's not a playstyle they tend to enjoy, especially once it's revealed to them.




Oh I've had my players take a throwaway comment and decide to make the entire session about that thing. It happens. In a case like that, the improvised detail becomes a more relevant detail. In a case like that, I tend to remember what it was that I said. Or if I don't, the players have since they are the ones who latched onto it. 

I'm also open about forgetting details like that....I'll lean on my players to remind me of things, and they have no problem like that. I think it's a case of making up details on the fly more than making up everything on the fly. They're fine with the first, but can sometimes be a bit wary of the second. 



Imaro said:


> All that said you could just be a better improviser than many, one of the things that gets looked over in these types of discussion around playstyle is that different GM's have different strengths and weaknesses.  For some improvising the world may be a strong skill they wield and track with ease but for others it may be a weakness.  For me personally coming up with stuff on the fly isn't an issue but tracking it all is a headache for me so I tend to rely on a moderately fleshed out world with smaller doses of improvisation at the adventure level.




I tend to outline ahead of time, but I keep it very loose. I have story ideas, and I have some campaign notes written down, but it's not a lot. My notes that I tend to use for any given session usually consist of a list of bullet points of things I expect to happen, or that are likely given my players and their characters. I try to predict and account for the most obvious courses of action, but there's never any way to fully predict what these maniacs may do, so I do wind up having to improvise a bit. 

However, I find my loose outline to actually be a better tool to help improvise than a ton of specific details.  I think it's good to have information to lean on when the players go off in a direction you did not expect, but I think having that info be broadly defined allows you to adapt things easily. So the thieves guild members stats that I came up with can instead become orc raiders when the PCs abandon investigating the thieves and go off in the hills to chase orcs. That kind of thing. 



Imaro said:


> OAN: I will readily admit that the difficulty with tracking improv'd things may also arise from the fact that I and my group tend to enjoy a little scotch and often our fair share of beer when gaming...




If I did that, then the entire game would be improvised, and quite sloppily!


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> But I was asking about that specific passage... Him having done both in the thread means he has made general statements about worldbuilding while you claimed he was only stating preference.



Let's retrace our steps a bit for contextualization because this entire line of thinking is becoming absurd, and I have little desire to perpetuate that absurdity. I disagreed with [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]'s assertion and kinda spiteful characterization that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was expressing his opinion "as an absolute" and that "Hussar has the answer for everyone." This runs counter, IME, to how I see Hussar expressing his viewpoints in the context of the wider conversation. You asked what then we were discussing. And in the context of this entire conversation, one portion of that is Hussar's preferences rooted in and based on his general observations about worldbuilding as an enterprise of RPGs. I am talking about the wider context of his conversation in this thread. You then asked for my reading on a specific passage. My reading of this passage is again tied to my understanding of Hussar's argument in this entire thread, and I do think that his post in question that you quoted is led by those preferences. 



Bedrockgames said:


> Aldarc, I share a lot of Imaro's sentiments here. I think you and Hussar are trying to have it both ways, on the one hand saying *"this is just my opinion and if you object you are reacting because you feel morally judged"*, on the other hand saying "but this is a real problem the hobby needs to address".



(1) I would decouple these two clauses, if not remove the second entirely. (2) It seems absurd to think that one is forbidden in rational discourse to identify a perceived problem rooted in engendered from experiences and then desire to want this rectified. Who other but [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is held to this absurd standard on this thread? 



> In terms of personal games and campaigns, you keep saying it is just his preference, but then you say things like that the issues he presents are pitfalls even good GMs succumb to. You say these are problems. And problems presumably need addressing.



Again, this strikes me as a false dichotomy. These are his preferences, but he also sees the core issues being discussed as perceived problems. 



> So we looked at his list and responses. Again, we take issues with those individual points, *because we don't find them to be problematic in our own games,* and we think his solutions, would make our games worse.



And this is part of the problem. You don't see it as a problem in your games does not mean that the problem does not exist in many other games as experienced by Hussar and others. 



> You keep saying you don't respond to our points because they've either been responded to, they are unconvincing, or you believe deep down we feel morally shamed and are projecting...leaving aside the bizarre quality of the last point,



/sigh. Please have some basic human decency and read what I wrote if you are going to bother summarizing them respectfully, because your persisting misreadings or mis-characterizations are grating my nerves. I have not "[kept] saying _ don't respond to [your] points because they've either been responded to, they are unconvincing, or  believe deep down [you] feel morally shamed and are projecting." I am not even sure where to begin refuting this because of how utterly bizarre your reading of the situation is. I have not "kept saying" anything of that sort, Bedrock. But if I was not clear, then my apologies and I will do my best now to clarify. 

At the initial point where this increasingly absurd line of conversation began, you and Imaro both raised the issue of emotional content in both (1) the pushback and (2) the word "bad" attached to 'worldbuilding,' as in the OP. I do not think that you or Imaro are necessarily "morally shamed." I am not talking specific people here, but the general trend of counter-responses in the thread to the OP. I have provided my analogy only twice. So the idea that I "keep saying" that you somehow feel morally shamed is not only untrue but also a gross exaggeration. And I do think that some, albeit not all, can be explained by the hypothesis that I put forth. In this matter, I am only speaking of the tone of those responses and not the content. Elsewhere I have responded to particular points raised by you and others. But I also do not feel morally obligated to respond to every single new point raised, particularly when I am not necessarily the person in question to whom you are responding. I hope that clarifies things somewhat. Please feel free to ask for further clarification if you are afraid of misstating the views that I have expressed. 




			I think it is fair for us to point out, we don't find his points convincing.
		
Click to expand...


Do you really think so poorly of me that you honestly think that I believe or have said otherwise? I certainly hope not. But I would certainly hope that you would address his points fairly rather than attack Hussar or assign him malicious motive or purpose. I think that Hussar is giving you greater benefit of the doubt than you are with him, and that does give me cause for concern regardless of whether I agree or disagree with those points he raised. 




			If it is a conversation, people need to respond to at least some of the points being made.
		
Click to expand...


Holy Gaslighting, Batman!_


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Let's retrace our steps a bit for contextualization because this entire line of thinking is becoming absurd, and I have little desire to perpetuate that absurdity. I disagreed with [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]'s assertion and kinda spiteful characterization that  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was expressing his opinion "as an absolute" and that "Hussar has the answer for everyone." This runs counter, IME, to how I see Hussar expressing his viewpoints in the context of the wider conversation. You asked what then we were discussing. And in the context of this entire conversation, one portion of that is Hussar's preferences rooted in and based on his general observations about worldbuilding as an enterprise of RPGs. I am talking about the wider context of his conversation in this thread. You then asked for my reading on a specific passage. My reading of this passage is again tied to my understanding of Hussar's argument in this entire thread, and I do think that his post in question that you quoted is led by those preferences.




 [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] restated his points in the post I quoted, I chose it because it's a clarification of his position in this thread... and it calls into question problems around worldbuilding as a whole not as they pertain to his preferences...


----------



## TheSword

There is so much straw in this thread now I’m concerned about fire safety. We’re now down to quite long arguments about what is being argued about.

The debate probably should have been framed better in the first few posts - instead we’ve got the apples lot saying the oranges aren’t crunchy enough.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] restated his points in the post I quoted, I chose it because it's a clarification of his position in this thread... and it calls into question problems around worldbuilding as a whole not as they pertain to his preferences...



Then I will leave that to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] to clarify, as I can only speak for my own reading of the situation in the context of the thread. But I do hope that you better understand the contextualization of my own response to you.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc, I read your whole response twice, and again, it just seems like you want it both ways to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> /sigh. Please have some basic human decency and read what I wrote if you are going to bother summarizing them respectfully, because your persisting misreadings or mis-characterizations are grating my nerves. I have not "[kept] saying _ don't respond to [your] points because they've either been responded to, they are unconvincing, or  believe deep down [you] feel morally shamed and are projecting." I am not even sure where to begin refuting this because of how utterly bizarre your reading of the situation is. I have not "kept saying" anything of that sort, Bedrock. But if I was not clear, then my apologies and I will do my best now to clarify.
> n!_



_

 I have read your posts. I make a point of reading them slowly and even more than once, because you've expressed this criticism multiple times. I am taking the time to read what you say. It is possible I am misunderstanding you, but I am reading what you write._


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> But starting Isle of Dread with "You're sailing from X to Y and then a storm blows up, and beaches you on this lonely island . . ." isn't worldbuilding. (Hussar's post indicates that this isn't the canonical way of starting X1. But it is a possible way, which is enough for my point.)
> 
> Which is  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point. The Phantom of the Opera happens in Paris, but we don't actually need to _build_ Paris; we just allude to it. The GM can narrate that the PCs are sailing from X to Y without anyone actually having to _build_ X or Y. They are just names in a bit of introductory framing.



If you're playing/running Isle of Dread as a one-off adventure then sure, what you say is absolutely true.

But I'm assuming in all cases here that these adventures are embedded in an ongoing campaign...which in this case means the PCs were in X for a reason (even if only to get on the ship to sail to Y) and are...were...intent on going to Y for a reason.  That they were in X means I've had to narrate at least a bit of description about the place; and whatever Y is would have to have had some sort of narration or description or clues because otherwise why would they be going there?



> Here's the "game world at large" for B1 (it's p 6 of my PDF version):
> 
> area, Rogahn the Fearless (a fighter of renown) and Zelligar the Unknown (a magic-user of mystery and power) pooled their resources and expertise to construct a home and stronghold for the two of them to use as a base of operations. The location of this hidden complex was chosen with care, since both men disliked visitors and intruders. Far from the nearest settlement, away from traveled routes, and high upon a craggy hill, the new construction took shape. Carved out of the rock protrusion which crested the heavily forested hill, this mystical hideaway was well hidden, and its rumored existence was never common knowledge. Even less well known was its name, the Caverns of Quasqueton.​
> The fact that there is a largely unknown (in terms of existence and name) stronghold constructed in an isolated, craggy, heavily-forested hill, is not worldbuilding. That's the barest of flavour. The only actual bit of the world that's been "built" for this adventure is the caverns.



We're also told that it's far from the nearest settlement and away from travelled routes, strongly implying that the PCs will not be easily able to go back to town and resupply and-or recruit new characters to replace their dead.  Because of this, and because low-level D&D play tends toward resource management, a DM is going to want to know how many days it takes to travel from town to the adventure site so as to monitor the PCs' food supply...which makes positioning both the dungeon and the "nearest settlement" on a map a rather useful thing to do.  Noting any intervening terrain features that may help or hinder travel would also be useful. It's also trivially easy to do these things; then later as the campaign goes on they can be expanded upon until soon enough you've the genesis of a game world.

Me, I just prefer to move that work from within the campaign to before it starts.  That way I can think through the in-play implications of what I've designed* and tweak it to suit.

* - a process I manage to mess up at every opportunity, but hey - live and learn... 

Lanefan


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> And this is part of the problem. You don't see it as a problem in your games does not mean that the problem does not exist in many other games as experienced by Hussar and others.
> !




But what is the result he wants to see from making this observation? And any time Hussar has weighed in, he seems to be saying more and more this is a problem that needs some kind of addressing. I think it is fair when someone says X is a problem, that others can weigh in and say if they think it is a problem or not. Particularly if people are debating for what should be considered 'best practices' in the hobby/industry (and my impression of Hussar's position---and I'll gladly take Hussar's correction if this is wrong---is he thinks this is a best practices issue). If he isn't saying that, people have said, over and over again, they have no problem with his position. 

I'm not going to respond to your points anymore if all you are going to do is get meta about the debate. Let's just put this into more concrete ground, since as someone has already pointed out, we are debating what is being argued, and that is pretty useless and confusing for all involved.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Holy Gaslighting, Batman!




This is both very melodramatic and a serious mischaracterization of my posts.


----------



## hawkeyefan

TheSword said:


> There is so much straw in this thread now I’m concerned about fire safety. We’re now down to quite long arguments about what is being argued about.
> 
> The debate probably should have been framed better in the first few posts - instead we’ve got the apples lot saying the oranges aren’t crunchy enough.




That depends on how you define crunch...


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> That depends on how you define crunch...




Stop projecting your mushy center on us all


----------



## Lanefan

Another reason in favour of up-front world-building, or at least an aspect of current game design that will tend to force some world-building by default, just occurred to me: the increasing importance of and emphasis on character backgrounds.

In 0e-1e days - the era of the various classic adventures we're referencing - character background wasn't really much of a thing.  You banged out a PC and only once it survived a few adventures did you bother giving it any history or background or whatever.

Fast-forward to 5e, where character background and history are much more formally a part of the game and need to be determined up front.  Why does this matter for this discussion?

Because one of the first questions to arise in any sort of character history or background is going to be "where am I from?"; and the second is likely to be a variant on "how did I get to <where the campaign starts>?"; and answering these questions - likely for a variety of races and classes within your starting party - is by default going to force a surprising amount of world-building.  Also note that the answers to some of these questions can be provided by the player, but will still impact the design of the game world.

Let's take a relatively basic starting party:

1. Human Wizard
2. Elf Ranger
3. Dwarf Fighter
4. Hobbit Rogue
5. Gnome Cleric

Each of these characters represent some background questions, answering which will either require or achieve - in sum total - a lot of world-building:

1. Where did I get my wizard training?  Was it from a formal guild (thus implying wizards have guilds as a thing), or informal tutoring, or self-taught; and if self-taught whose equipment was I using?  Can <campaign start location = CSL> support this or did I do it elsewhere?  Am I from the same Human culture as CSL or a different one, and if different where does that culture tend to live as that's most likely where my family is and-or my ancestry hails from?

2. Where do Elves tend to live?  Is that where I'm from, and if not where is my home?  Where have I travelled during my Elvenly-long life, other than from my home to CSL?  How familiar am I with other races (in other words, what else lives near the Elves that I could reasonably expect to have encountered)?

3. Where do Dwarves tend to live?  Is that where I'm from, and if not where is my home?  Where have I travelled during my life, other than from my home to CSL?  How familiar am I with other races (in other words, what else lives near the Dwarves that I could reasonably expect to have encountered) or are the Dwarves isolationist?

4. Where do Hobbits tend to live?  Is that where I was born?  Where is my home now?  Where did I learn my Rogue skills - on the streets (where?), or from a guild (where?; and this makes Rogues' guilds a thing), or self-taught?  Are there any towns or places I shouldn't return to, and if yes what are they and what did I do there?  If guilds exist, which one(s) am I a member of?

5. Where do Gnomes tend to live?  Who's my deity?  If Gnomes are not monotheistic, who are the rest of the deities in my pantheon?  Is my faith represented in CSL with a temple?  If not, where's my nearest temple or other contact with those of my faith?  Is that where I studied to become a Cleric?

So, unless a DM wants to end up with something of a hodge-podge game world it would probably make sense to know ahead of time - at least in vague terms - what lives where and in relative proximity to what else.  It could be as simple as "campaign starts here, lots of Elves to the west, Dwarves in mountains to the south, Hobbits kind of scattered everywhere, Gnomes only to the far south so any Gnome's background is going to include significant travel; Humans here are kind of Greek-based, Celts to the north, Vikings to the far north, Egyptians in deserts to the east, ... (etc.)".  Then throw this all onto a rough map to give proximities and vague distances...and about now it's probably also a good idea to figure out if there's any major wars or conflicts going on as that could really impact play at the table - if there's a long-standing war between the Dwarves and the Celts, for example, then no matter what you do it's inevitable someone will roll up a Dwarf PC and someone else a Celt PC. 

Having the pantheons somewhat nailed down ahead of time is also useful - it's nearly guaranteed someone's going to play a Cleric at some point and will ask about his/her deity and pantheon; and even beyond that, knowing what sort of deities are worshipped wherever the party might go is handy info to have.

Lanefan


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I think your splitting hairs.




I don't think so.  A good analogy for this would be if [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said, "I don't like vehicles, because they're too big.  Cars, trucks, semis, and airplanes are just too much.  That's why I ride a motorcycle.  That's not a vehicle."  Pointing out that a motorcycle IS a vehicle, just a smaller one that he does like is not splitting hairs.  It's similarly not splitting hairs to point out the fact that he does worldbuild, even if on a smaller scale.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> /snip
> 
> The reason people react so strongly to "world building is bad" is it is the advice that is only going to work for certain GMs and certain conditions. Too many people see value from world building at the table to just go along with that kind of conclusion. And this is being expressed as an absolute, objective, Hussar has the answer for everyone.




I'd posit that the reason that people react so strongly to "world building is bad" is that they likely fall pretty heavily somewhere on the list I gave a few pages back and they can't handle the idea that their DMing isn't the perfect approach to gaming.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> That depends on how you define crunch...




This does it for me! 

https://youtu.be/O6rHeD5x2tI


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> /snip
> 
> There's no reason it needs to be simply narrating a daily log of what the PCs see mixed with random encounter rolls on the ocean chart.
> 
> Since most of us are going to play adventure after adventure after adventure....why not connect them a bit more? Sure, maybe you don't prefer that, and want a more episodic feel. But that doesn't have to be the case.




Because, typically, a narrated daily log with random encounters is pretty much all that connective bits amounts to.  If it was actually important, you'd take the time to actually make an adventure about it (see, for example, the Paizo remake of Isle of Dread where they actually spend three complete adventures just getting to the village on the island).  

But, for the most part, it's utterly forgettable cruft that just wastes everyone's time at the table.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> I'd posit that the reason that people react so strongly to "world building is bad" is that they likely fall pretty heavily somewhere on the list I gave a few pages back and they can't handle the idea that their DMing isn't the perfect approach to gaming.




Or else it's because it has no inherent property of good or bad, so calling it bad is wrong.  You can dislike it, but it can't be bad.  I can like it,  but it can't be good.


----------



## Hussar

Lanefan said:


> If you're playing/running Isle of Dread as a one-off adventure then sure, what you say is absolutely true.
> 
> But I'm assuming in all cases here that these adventures are embedded in an ongoing campaign...which in this case means the PCs were in X for a reason (even if only to get on the ship to sail to Y) and are...were...intent on going to Y for a reason.  That they were in X means I've had to narrate at least a bit of description about the place; and whatever Y is would have to have had some sort of narration or description or clues because otherwise why would they be going there?
> 
> We're also told that it's far from the nearest settlement and away from travelled routes, strongly implying that the PCs will not be easily able to go back to town and resupply and-or recruit new characters to replace their dead.  Because of this, and because low-level D&D play tends toward resource management, a DM is going to want to know how many days it takes to travel from town to the adventure site so as to monitor the PCs' food supply...which makes positioning both the dungeon and the "nearest settlement" on a map a rather useful thing to do.  Noting any intervening terrain features that may help or hinder travel would also be useful. It's also trivially easy to do these things; then later as the campaign goes on they can be expanded upon until soon enough you've the genesis of a game world.
> 
> Me, I just prefer to move that work from within the campaign to before it starts.  That way I can think through the in-play implications of what I've designed* and tweak it to suit.
> 
> * - a process I manage to mess up at every opportunity, but hey - live and learn...
> 
> Lanefan




But, in my mind, none of that is world building.  That's just basic adventure design because all of that material is going to be used in the adventure.  Totally agree that this is necessary and a good use of DM prep time. 

Note what you leave out though.  No mention of the history of the area.  What happened here ten years ago?  Fifty?  A hundred?  Who, other than world builders, cares?  It's not needed for the adventure, it's not important, so, skip it.  

IOW, you didn't need to do any world building to run your In Search of the Unknown adventure.  None.  ((Well, unless you go with [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s rather broader definition that everything you do is world building))  It's all necessary stuff that you should do as a DM.  Who runs the town?  Who lives in the town?  Again, who cares?  It's not important.  Add as needed.  It's a town.  In the town you can find anything you would normally expect to find in a town.  End of story.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> I don't think so.  A good analogy for this would be if [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said, "I don't like vehicles, because they're too big.  Cars, trucks, semis, and airplanes are just too much.  That's why I ride a motorcycle.  That's not a vehicle."  Pointing out that a motorcycle IS a vehicle, just a smaller one that he does like is not splitting hairs.  It's similarly not splitting hairs to point out the fact that he does worldbuild, even if on a smaller scale.




Funny how all your definition jokes keep requiring the change of definitions of known words.  I've posted the definition of world building, a few times now, and you've still insisted on the notion that your definition is the only possible one.  Does make winning a discussion easier when you think that you can control what words mean.

-------

 [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] - what I would like to see is a heck of a lot less world building, both at the table and in publication.  Instead of Dragon+ having 3/4 of its material (and Dragon before it wasn't much different) revolve around world building, focus more on practical stuff - things that can actually, directly be used at the table.

Give me setting material in a form I can directly use - adventures are great.  Setting guides that spend page after page after page detailing Elven Tea Ceremonies, not so much.  

Given that there are about 20000 pages of setting material for Forgotten Realms, do we actually need any more?  Don't give me the history of that town, give me a town with 6 interesting locations fully statted up, with maps, that I can plug and play.

Don't give me a Mordenkainens Monster book, full of setting crap that I will never use.  Give me less monsters, but, in a form that I can just drop into my game with little or no work.

As a DM, my advice is GET TO THE POINT.  Quit faffing about with pointless trivia and trivial encounters that are immediately forgotten.  Endless dice fapping to fill in the time between stuff that actually matters.  Endless, interminable history lessons that are irrelevant to the game and just as quickly forgotten.  Why faff about getting to the adventure?  Just GET TO THE ADVENTURE.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I'd posit that the reason that people react so strongly to "world building is bad" is that they likely fall pretty heavily somewhere on the list I gave a few pages back and they can't handle the idea that their DMing isn't the perfect approach to gaming.




I am fully aware my GMing style isn't the perfect approach to gaming. I think I have all kinds of flaws as a GM. And I don't think there is one, perfect style of play. What I do know, is world building has made my games more successful and fun when I've engaged it well. I just see it as one tool in the box of tools i have to draw on. Like I said earlier, my prep approach shifts depending on what I am trying to do. If I am doing monster of the week, I am not going to lean as much on world building. If I am trying to launch a long term campaign, where we just kind of see where things go, I think world building is a lot more helpful. I am not at all advocating a one-size-fits all approach.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> As a DM, my advice is GET TO THE POINT.  Quit faffing about with pointless trivia and trivial encounters that are immediately forgotten.  Endless dice fapping to fill in the time between stuff that actually matters.  Endless, interminable history lessons that are irrelevant to the game and just as quickly forgotten.  Why faff about getting to the adventure?  Just GET TO THE ADVENTURE.




I think you should just relax, and if this is a problem in your group, consider that it might not be the best fit for you. But I definitely think you are far too aggressive in pushing your play style here. 

In terms of the other stuff you listed, like I said before, there are tons of products out there if you are not happy with official Pathfinder or WOTC material. I don't run WOTC stuff anymore. But I also don't complain about what is being published, because I found stuff that fit my concerns. I think if you look beyond this material, to other products (and there are a lot of different approaches available out there), you'd be happier. But no reason to scream at people who play the game differently from you.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Funny how all your definition jokes keep requiring the change of definitions of known words.  I've posted the definition of world building, a few times now, and you've still insisted on the notion that your definition is the only possible one.  Does make winning a discussion easier when you think that you can control what words mean.
> 
> -------
> 
> [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] - what I would like to see is a heck of a lot less world building, both at the table and in publication.  Instead of Dragon+ having 3/4 of its material (and Dragon before it wasn't much different) revolve around world building, focus more on practical stuff - things that can actually, directly be used at the table.
> .




Whose table though? If you only want to see change at your table, no one objects to 'world building is bad for Hussar'. If you want others to follow suit, if you think we are doing something wrong because we see value in world building at our table...you can see how people might react negatively. 

In terms of published material from big companies like WOTC, people argue because they all want their style to be catered to. If you are going to make an argument for D&D or Pathfinder to be different than they are, you will meet resistance from people who like things the way they are. Again, I don't play either of those anymore (largely because the products do things that just don't suit what I want at the table).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I don't think so.  A good analogy for this would be if [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said, "I don't like vehicles, because they're too big.  Cars, trucks, semis, and airplanes are just too much.  That's why I ride a motorcycle.  That's not a vehicle."  Pointing out that a motorcycle IS a vehicle, just a smaller one that he does like is not splitting hairs.  It's similarly not splitting hairs to point out the fact that he does worldbuild, even if on a smaller scale.




I think your definition is a little too expansive.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Funny how all your definition jokes keep requiring the change of definitions of known words.  I've posted the definition of world building, a few times now, and you've still insisted on the notion that your definition is the only possible one.  Does make winning a discussion easier when you think that you can control what words mean.




Funny how your own quotes back me up.  The link you provided states very clearly that the goal of worldbuilding in a game is to create context for the story(plot) and provide the story(plot) a foundation.  Pointing at different formats of entertainment like novels and movies doesn't change how worldbuilding works in a game.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I think your definition is a little too expansive.




What would you take out?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Because, typically, a narrated daily log with random encounters is pretty much all that connective bits amounts to.




Sure, that is often the case, and if so, I’d agree with you and not bother. 



Hussar said:


> If it was actually important, you'd take the time to actually make an adventure about it (see, for example, the Paizo remake of Isle of Dread where they actually spend three complete adventures just getting to the village on the island).




Have you never done this? Do your PCs just show up at each new adventure location? Again, I understand just getting to the point, but I also think that journeys can be adventures, too.

There’s no reason that the PCs shouldn’t encounter pirates on their way to the isle, or any other manner of adventure. As you say, Paizo expanded on the idea into multiple parts of their adventure path. 

Why is your assumption that others would most likely just do random encounters for X days until they reach the island? What are you basing this on?  



Hussar said:


> But, for the most part, it's utterly forgettable cruft that just wastes everyone's time at the table.




Again, I would agree in the sense that I’d prefer not to just do random encounters. But my preference isn’t “right”. There may be plenty of people who enjoy exactly that.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> What would you take out?




I'd have to see it again, but plot and adventure.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I'd have to see it again, but plot and adventure.




For me the criteria is, "Is it building up the game world?"  For instance, an adventure plot to have the lord assassinated during a feast for the PCs would not be worldbuilding, but the creation of a dungeon as part of adventure building would be worldbuilding.  I'm adding a dungeon t the world, building it up.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> I'd posit that the reason that people react so strongly to "world building is bad" is that they likely fall pretty heavily somewhere on the list I gave a few pages back and they can't handle the idea that their DMing isn't the perfect approach to gaming.




*shrug* I'll do you one better and posit you'd probably be wrong...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Garthanos said:


> With the thread this long... I am sure someone has mentioned the thought I have done world building to give players a contextual starting point for character building as inspiration and guidance, and their motivations are strongly plot drivers.




Welcome to the pits of heck!  I don't know really, the thread was necro'd and I didn't really read it, lol. At this point it has simply become a second copy of the 'What is World Building For?' thread... Frankly I think I tire of the whole discussion.


----------



## Sunseeker

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Welcome to the pits of heck!  I don't know really, the thread was necro'd and I didn't really read it, lol. At this point it has simply become a second copy of the 'What is World Building For?' thread... Frankly I think I tire of the whole discussion.




And the Game Mechanics & Player Agency thread too.  I think there's another one starting up in the Pathfinder sub-forum too.


----------



## Hussar

Yeah, this was fun, but, now it's time to let this one die. 

I've made my points, you can agree or disagree as you like.

To me, world building and world builders have taken over the hobby to the degree that it has driven me largely out of it.  I almost never buy any products anymore because most of the products are geared almost entirely for world builders.  I'm quite happy in our group because our group gets it - get to the point and quit faffing about.  

When this thread started, some ten years or more ago, I was in a very different group and was so burned out by all the world building stuff.  I'm still burned out on it today.  I haven't picked up a fantasy novel in years for exactly this reason.  And, well, it does help me to choose DM's to be honest.  If the DM's description of his game world starts with something like "Thousands of years ago..." I'm taking a hard pass.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> To me, world building and world builders have taken over the hobby to the degree that it has driven me largely out of it.  I almost never buy any products anymore because most of the products are geared almost entirely for world builders.  I'm quite happy in our group because our group gets it - get to the point and quit faffing about.




My bad for not "getting" the One True Way.  Sorry.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Maxperson said:


> I agree with you that you can ignore bits of what is written.  However, ignoring bits of what is written and what @_*Hawke*_yfan wrote "Taken as written, the inclusion of hobgoblins implies the inclusion of elves." are mutually exclusive positions.  You cannot both "take what is written" and "ignore the bits about elves."  One includes all of what is written and the other doesn't.




Right, so both of them are reasonable positions. I don't quite understand what ANYONE here is disagreeing about. These sorts of 'arguments' are silly. 'Hobgoblins as written' imply elves, but you don't have to use them 'as written', you can use PART of what was written, and delete the elves part! I mean, I do this all the time. I am pretty sure MOST GMs do this all the time. I'd be pretty surprised if anyone who's GMed enough to bother to post in this thread has NOT done both of these things at one time or another, taken some lore complete with all that it implies, from some book, and also taken some other lore and lifted some subset of it out. What is even interesting about this? (not that I'm especially asking YOU this Max, I'm pretty sure we agree on this one). I mean, I guess its a rhetorical question. Maybe the whole thread is losing me. I'm feeling like between this thread and the other one, maybe I'm become another [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]....


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> And yet you don't just *poof* and arrive there.  You travel there from somewhere.  Probably that distant town.



It's Moldvay Basic. The game starts at the dungeon entrance. If the group wanted to, I guess they could describe the trip from the town if they wanted. But they don't have to. And even if they do, it's just free narration.

From B3, a paragraph or two below the quote you posted:

An adventure begins when the party enters a dungeon, and ends when the party has left the dungeon and divides up treasure.​
Part 4: The Adventure, beginning on p B19, is entirely about dungeon adventures. (The distinctive features of the Expert set are (i) rules for PCs above 3rd level, and (ii) wilderness adventuring.

Part 8: Dungeon Master Information opens, on p B51, by saying that

Before players can take their characters on adventures into dungeons, the DM must either create a dungeon or draw its map, or become familiar with one of TSR's dungeon modules.​
A group might use the Moldvay Basic rules and extrapolate beyond a dungeon. But the rules very clearly contemplate adventures that invovle no setting, and no worldbuilding, beyond a single (probably underground) building.



Maxperson said:


> Then the elves were implied.  Implied doesn't mean anything other than that by the way.  Just because elves are implied, doesn't mean that they exist, so the lack of elves in your OA campaign doesn't remove the implication if you leave elves in the lore.  To remove the implication, you have to take out the lore pertaining to elves.



What does it mean to say that elves are _implied_, but don't exist. If X implies Y, and X is the case, then so is Y. That's what _implied_ means.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> some people like exploration campaigns, some people actually enjoy discovering and exploring the GM's creation.



On the other thread, when I've suggested this is one thing that worldbuilding is for, there has been a lot of disagreement. Most posters on that thread seem to _deny_ that one function of worldbuilding is to establish stuff for the GM to tell to the players.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> An adventure begins when the party enters a dungeon, and ends when the party has left the dungeon and divides up treasure.



While I've used this same definition* forever for what represents an adventure I don't at all agree that there is an implication or suggestion or rule that there be no play outside these borders.

The "adventure" ends when they divide up treasure.  Fine.  But what do they spend their shares on; and where; and what do those who don't need training do while those who do need it do it; and how and when does the party decide what their next adventure will be; etc.

* - or close; as the end is when they get back to town and do treasury, I usually put the start as when they set out from town.



> Part 4: The Adventure, beginning on p B19, is entirely about dungeon adventures. (The distinctive features of the Expert set are (i) rules for PCs above 3rd level, and (ii) wilderness adventuring.



All that tells us is that the designers either a) hadn't considered non-dungeon adventuring at all yet when Basic was released; or more likely b) had considered it and were intentionally saving that part of the game for the next release.



> What does it mean to say that elves are _implied_, but don't exist. If X implies Y, and X is the case, then so is Y. That's what _implied_ means.



I think what he's saying is that the lore tying Hobgoblins and Elves together forces one of two things to happen if you decide to use Hobgoblins in your game.  Either:

1. You by default will also have Elves in your game world, as the lore states there is a known relationship between Hobs and Elves and thus the existence of one drags the other in by default; or
2. You have to specifically change the lore under "Hobgoblin" to remove the reference to Elves (and at your option put another species in their stead, or not).

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> "Worldbuilding is the process of constructing an imaginary world, sometimes associated with a whole fictional universe. ... Developing an imaginary setting with coherent qualities such as a history, geography, and ecology is a key task for many science fiction or fantasy writers"



If this is worldbuilding, then B2 doesn't have it. There is no coherent history, geography or ecology in that module - I mean, there are dozens of powerful warriors (many superior to their human opponents) living a hour or two's walk away from a modestly defended keep. And with no obvious food supply for either side. And no coherent history either.

It's a framing for play, not something that answers the description you've quoted.



Maxperson said:


> "Worldbuilding often involves the creation of maps, a backstory, and people for the world." which lists people and for RPGs would include monsters.



Building a fence often involves the hammering of nails into wood. It doesn't follow that every time someone hammers a nail into some wood they're building a fence. Not all creating of maps is worldbuilding in the sense you yourself quoted.



Maxperson said:


> "From a game-design perspective, the goal of worldbuilding is to *create the context for a story*. Consistency is an important element, since the world provides a *foundation for the action of a story*." which completely refute his argument that any part of building the world that deals with plot is not worldbuilding.



Again, worldbuiding may have the goal of creating context. It doesn't follow that all context is worldubilding. And nor does it follow that all RPGing even has some context. There is no context to B1 other than "Let's earn some XP by exploring a dungeon." The context for S1 (Tomb of Horrors) is similar.

The context in B2 is marginally thicker, but only marginally. Likewise S2 (White Plume Mountain), which is - by the way - another single-building adventure.

Going back to Tomb of Horrors, contrast S1 with the Return to . . .  version, which (I understand by reputation - I've never read it) _does_ engage in a whole lot of worldbuilding, establishing all this backstory to try and make the dungeon actually make sense in the context of a consistent, coherent world. This seems to me to be exactly the sort of distinction  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is drawing, between adventure design and worldbuilding.



Imaro said:


> You believe he's stating personal preference and applying these reasons to... himself only as opposed to making a general statement about why he believes world building is bad in general?  If so that seems like an interesting way of interpreting his statement, and certainly not how I read it.





hawkeyefan said:


> I don't blame you for your preferences, and I'm sure they've formed as a result of your actual experiences, but I don't think they are universal enough to consider worldbuilding as bad. I just don't think it's all that different from any other tool the DM can use....they can be used effectively, or they can be abused.



Let's take it, for the sake of argument, that  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s comments are grounded primarily in personal preference grounded in personal experience.

Are  [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s grounded in anything more robust or objective? I doubt it.

In other words, the claims _worldbuilding is not bad_ is not grounded more firmly than the claim that _worldbuilding is bad_. So what's the objection to Hussar that doesn't apply to hawkeyefan? That he's hurting feelings?

EDIT:


Lanefan said:


> Another reason in favour of up-front world-building, or at least an aspect of current game design that will tend to force some world-building by default, just occurred to me: the increasing importance of and emphasis on character backgrounds.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> one of the first questions to arise in any sort of character history or background is going to be "where am I from?"; and the second is likely to be a variant on "how did I get to <where the campaign starts>?"; and answering these questions - likely for a variety of races and classes within your starting party - is by default going to force a surprising amount of world-building.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So, unless a DM wants to end up with something of a hodge-podge game world it would probably make sense to know ahead of time - at least in vague terms - what lives where and in relative proximity to what else.



Here we have Lanefan saying that _a reason in favour of worldbuilding_ is to avoid _something of a hodge-podge game world_.

Are all the posters who are outraged by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] expressing a strong opinion about the problems with worldbuilding now going to attack [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] for putting forward this reason (which clearly is nothing more than a preference grounded in his experience) as objective in some fashion? Or is it only those who dislike worldbuilding who get held to that standard?


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, I would imagine most of us are used to a campaign style game





Lanefan said:


> If you're playing/running Isle of Dread as a one-off adventure then sure, what you say is absolutely true.
> 
> But I'm assuming in all cases here that these adventures are embedded in an ongoing campaign



Well, if someone says "worldbuilding isn't necessary for RPGing", and you agree that it's not necessary for a one-shot, then why would you just assume they're talking about something else?

And now, once we've got that possibility on the table, what about a campaign in which the players turn up each session and either recommence where they left off in the current dungeon, or else find out which new adventure the GM has planned for today. That sort of campaign doesn't seem like it would need worldbuilding either.

And now, are there other sorts of campaigns that (unlike the one described in the previous paragraph) involve scenario-to-scenario continuity, but don't require worldbuilding? I can report from experience that there are.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Or else it's because it has no inherent property of good or bad, so calling it bad is wrong.  You can dislike it, but it can't be bad.  I can like it,  but it can't be good.



So I take it you think [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is wrong to have said there is _a reason_ in favour of worldbuilding, namely, that otherwise there is a serious risk of a _hodge-podge_ world. I assume you are going to take him to task for confusing "bad GMing" with some objective risk.

Or, alternatively, this whole pseuo-moralising attack on [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is nonsense. Yes, I think that's it.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> I think what he's saying is that the lore tying Hobgoblins and Elves together forces one of two things to happen if you decide to use Hobgoblins in your game.  Either:
> 
> 1. You by default will also have Elves in your game world, as the lore states there is a known relationship between Hobs and Elves and thus the existence of one drags the other in by default; or
> 2. You have to specifically change the lore under "Hobgoblin" to remove the reference to Elves (and at your option put another species in their stead, or not).



What does "you by default will also have elves in your game world" mean? Who is writing them in? Is the spirit of D&D descending on the land and making unbidden entries in my note book?

And riddle me this: in my OA game I used hobgoblins and never used elves. And I don't think the players were shocked by this. Where did I _specificially change the lore_? At what point in time?

You and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] are advocating a type of Platonism that can make sene in mathematics (if I say there are 4 hobgoblins, then it's true that the number of hobgoblins equals 2 squared, even if I never thought of that) as if it also applies in fiction. It's ridiculous, and creates nonsense ideas like someone _specifically doing something_ that they never even turned their mind to.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> We're also told that it's far from the nearest settlement and away from travelled routes, strongly implying that the PCs will not be easily able to go back to town and resupply and-or recruit new characters to replace their dead.  Because of this, and because low-level D&D play tends toward resource management, a DM is going to want to know how many days it takes to travel from town to the adventure site so as to monitor the PCs' food supply



Which GM are you talking about? _You_ might want to do this. Nothing in the Moldvay Basic rules implies that a GM might do tjhis.



Lanefan said:


> The "adventure" ends when they divide up treasure.  Fine.  But what do they spend their shares on; and where; and what do those who don't need training do while those who do need it do it; and how and when does the party decide what their next adventure will be; etc.




Because B1 is an introductory module, Mike Carr has a lot of GMing tips at the start of the module. But none of them deal with the stuff you mention. Here is the advice on resting:

If the exploring adventurers wish to suspend the game temporarily during a rest period (when the adventuring characters stop to sleep, as they must do every 24 hours), appropriate notes should be made of each adventurer's status so that resumption of the game can begin at the same point on the next meeting of the players. Their choice of where to camp is a factor to consider, as well, since in this dungeon a check for wandering monsters must be made up to three times for any 8-hour period they remain there (these checks are made at a normal 1 in 6 chance). It is customary to have one or more adventurers in the party standing guard at any one time, as the party members sleep in shifts in order to always have continual protection (although the devious DM may give a slight chance of a guard being asleep if a monster comes. . .). Just as with march order, it is important that players provide the DM with the sleeping location of each member and the placement of the guard or guards, since this may be crucial if and when a monster 
approaches from a given direction.

Experience points earned and any benefits gained will only be applicable if and when the adventurers successfully exit the dungeon; experience gained in an adventure is only credited after the adventure is complete. However, successfully exiting the dungeon and then returning later would allow the characters to use experience gained on the previous foray, if applicable. . . .

Generally, eight hours of each twenty-four must be spent resting and sleeping, and prudent adventurers will sleep in shifts with a guard always awake. In this dungeon, three checks will be made each "night" for possible wandering monsters.​
Notice that it is _not_ assumed that exit from the dungeon will be trivial, as there are various features of the dungeon that mean the PCs may not be able to find their way out without need to sleep first.

Again, it's obvious that you wouldn't run a game this way. But Mike Carr's advice to new GMs clearly contemplates running a game in which nothing in the gameworld is established except for the dungeon.



Lanefan said:


> All that tells us is that the designers either a) hadn't considered non-dungeon adventuring at all yet when Basic was released; or more likely b) had considered it and were intentionally saving that part of the game for the next release.



The next release - Expert - included wilderness adventuring. So did the AD&D DMG, which was published before either Moldvay Basic or Cook/Marsh Expert.

But the point of my posts isn't to discuss commercial publication strategy. It's to point out that there is a perfectly respectable, well-known, approach to D&D adventuring in which (i) the setting is nothing but a single building or underground complex, and (ii) there is no worldbuidling beyond this.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> On the other thread, when I've suggested this is one thing that worldbuilding is for, there has been a lot of disagreement. Most posters on that thread seem to _deny_ that one function of worldbuilding is to establish stuff for the GM to tell to the players.




No, you referred to some "Choose your own Adventure Game"... which is not the same as what I said and a mis-characterization of the playstyle.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Yeah, this was fun, but, now it's time to let this one die.
> 
> I've made my points, you can agree or disagree as you like.
> 
> To me, world building and world builders have taken over the hobby to the degree that it has driven me largely out of it.  I almost never buy any products anymore because most of the products are geared almost entirely for world builders.  I'm quite happy in our group because our group gets it - get to the point and quit faffing about.
> 
> When this thread started, some ten years or more ago, I was in a very different group and was so burned out by all the world building stuff.  I'm still burned out on it today.  I haven't picked up a fantasy novel in years for exactly this reason.  And, well, it does help me to choose DM's to be honest.  If the DM's description of his game world starts with something like "Thousands of years ago..." I'm taking a hard pass.




I think you are way over-estimating the number of world builders in the hobby. Again, we live in a time where there are so many different kinds of RPGs to choose from, and so many different groups consciously shooting for their own style of play, people can connect to what type of style they prefer pretty easily. Plus there is now online play, so it is much easier to get a session going. I think there is always going to be a mainstream approach, and I learned the hard way when 4E came out, what WOTC is offering won't always be what I want to play. Once I stopped worrying about what WoTC was doing and looked around to see what other people were doing with nearly identical core systems, I had a much easier time. 

I can appreciate that you feel like a style of play you strongly dislike has overtaken things. I don't share your conclusion, but I understand the perspective. You can get bitter about that, and try to destroy the play style you are angry with, or you can help show people an alternative approach. But if you go around attacking something people consider to be an essential tool, and getting as worked up about it as you seem to be, I promise you, your following is going to be much smaller than it otherwise would be. For all I know, you have some great techniques and tools you've developed in service to the approach you are advocating for. But if you have, me and the others haven't noticed, because we're reacting to your negative comments about world building (which is an important underpinning in most of our games, and we can assure you, we are not using it for the jerk-like reasons you attribute it to).


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> It's Moldvay Basic. The game starts at the dungeon entrance. If the group wanted to, I guess they could describe the trip from the town if they wanted. But they don't have to. And even if they do, it's just free narration.
> 
> From B3, a paragraph or two below the quote you posted:An adventure begins when the party enters a dungeon, and ends when the party has left the dungeon and divides up treasure.​
> Part 4: The Adventure, beginning on p B19, is entirely about dungeon adventures. (The distinctive features of the Expert set are (i) rules for PCs above 3rd level, and (ii) wilderness adventuring.
> 
> Part 8: Dungeon Master Information opens, on p B51, by saying thatBefore players can take their characters on adventures into dungeons, the DM must either create a dungeon or draw its map, or become familiar with one of TSR's dungeon modules.​
> A group might use the Moldvay Basic rules and extrapolate beyond a dungeon. But the rules very clearly contemplate adventures that invovle no setting, and no worldbuilding, beyond a single (probably underground) building.




Yes, Moldvay Basic doesn't give you the tools to have an adventure in a city, but they do exist in Moldvay Basic.  The portion I quoted says that they do.



> What does it mean to say that elves are _implied_, but don't exist. If X implies Y, and X is the case, then so is Y. That's what _implied_ means.




Implied just means that the existence is implied, not that the existence is a fact.  In essence, it's a very strong hint, but not a guarantee.  For instance, from what I say I can imply that every person I see is a jerk.  That doesn't actually make every person I see a jerk.



Lanefan said:


> I think what he's saying is that the lore tying Hobgoblins and Elves together forces one of two things to happen if you decide to use Hobgoblins in your game.  Either:
> 
> 
> 1. You by default will also have Elves in your game world, as the lore states there is a known relationship between Hobs and Elves and thus the existence of one drags the other in by default; or
> 2. You have to specifically change the lore under "Hobgoblin" to remove the reference to Elves (and at your option put another species in their stead, or not).





3. The lore is wrong. Elves are mythical and hobgoblins hate something that doesn't exist.

If I ask you, "What are you smoking right now?", I'm implying that you are high.  That doesn't mean that you actually are high.  The hobgoblin lore implies elves exist.  That doesn't mean that elves do exist.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> On the other thread, when I've suggested this is one thing that worldbuilding is for, there has been a lot of disagreement. Most posters on that thread seem to _deny_ that one function of worldbuilding is to establish stuff for the GM to tell to the players.




Because that's not the purpose.  The purpose is to create a setting to play the game in.  Exploration is one part of game play, but that's not the purpose of worldbuilding.  As an example, the purpose of building a house is for someone to live inside of it.  That doesn't mean that the person won't also look around the new house to learn all it has to offer.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> So I take it you think  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is wrong to have said there is _a reason_ in favour of worldbuilding, namely, that otherwise there is a serious risk of a _hodge-podge_ world. I assume you are going to take him to task for confusing "bad GMing" with some objective risk.
> 
> Or, alternatively, this whole pseuo-moralising attack on [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is nonsense. Yes, I think that's it.




You are assuming that a hodge-podge world is inherently bad, rather than [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] simply not liking a hodge-podge world.  All of these things are just likes and dislikes of individuals.  Many people don't care if some things don't line up exactly in a world.  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] does.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> What does "you by default will also have elves in your game world" mean? Who is writing them in? Is the spirit of D&D descending on the land and making unbidden entries in my note book?
> 
> And riddle me this: in my OA game I used hobgoblins and never used elves. And I don't think the players were shocked by this. Where did I _specificially change the lore_? At what point in time?
> 
> You and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] are advocating a type of Platonism that can make sene in mathematics (if I say there are 4 hobgoblins, then it's true that the number of hobgoblins equals 2 squared, even if I never thought of that) as if it also applies in fiction. It's ridiculous, and creates nonsense ideas like someone _specifically doing something_ that they never even turned their mind to.




The discussion was about taking the lore "as is", meaning you didn't change it.  If you put hobgoblins into your game and took the lore "as is", then elves were mentioned in your game world.  If there were no elves in your game world, then the elves implied in the lore was simply in error for some reason.  Maybe elves are mythological and don't exist.  Maybe they left thousands of years ago.  Maybe the hobgoblins call spirit folk elves for some reason.  There are lots of ways that the lore implies elves, without elves actually being there.

Now, if the lore wasn't taken "as is" and elves were not mentioned in the lore of your OA hobgoblins, then you did in fact change the lore.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Which GM are you talking about? _You_ might want to do this. Nothing in the Moldvay Basic rules implies that a GM might do tjhis.




So are you exhibiting selective memory and you have just "forgotten" the portion of Moldvay Basic that I quoted that does in fact imply that there are adventures above ground?  I'll help you recover your memory by posting it again.

"It is the DM's job to prepare the setting for each adventure before the game begins. This setting is called a dungeon since *most adventures take place in underground caverns or stone rooms beneath old ruins or castles.*" 

Those two sentences make it a fact that in Moldvay Basic, not all adventures are in underground places and in ruins.  That means that some are in other places like forests, towns and cities.  Moldvay Basic just doesn't give the DM the tools to create those adventures.  It's focus is on the typical dungeon.

Below are more quotes(not an exhaustive list) from Moldvay Basic that shows a world outside of the dungeon, some specifically mentioning taverns and one that lists towns as a place to adventure.

"Elves are slender, graceful demi-humans with delicate features andslightly pointed ears. They are 5 to 5'2" feet tall and weigh about120 pounds. They can be dangerous opponents, able to fight withany weapon and use magic spells as well, but* prefer to spend theirtime feasting and frolicking in wooded glades. They rarely visit thecities of men.* Elves are fascinated by magic and never grow tired ofcollecting spells and magic items, especially if the items are beautifullycrafted."

"HIRING: To hire a retainer, a character must first find NPCs whoare interested in the job. *Characters will have to go somewherethey might find and interview interested NPCs, such as a tavern orthey must pay a fee to advertise for NPCs to come and see them.*"

"Acolytes are 1st level NPC clerics *on a pilgrimage to or from a holy(or unholy) shrine* — or perhaps merely seeking adventure."

I love this one.  Talk your way out of the bolded portion here, "Bandits are NPC thieves who have joined together for the purposeof robbing others. Bandits will act as normal humans in order tosurprise their intended victims. Treasure Type (A) is only foundwhen bandits are encountered* in the wilderness* in their lair."

"Black bears have black fur and stand about 6' tall.They are omnivorous (will eat almost anything), but prefer rootsand berries. A black bear will not usually attack unless it is corneredand cannot escape. Adult black bears will fight to the death to protecttheir young. *They have been known to raid camps, seekingfood.* They are especially fond of such treats as fresh fish andsweets."

"Grizzly bears have silver-tipped brown or reddishbrown fur, and stand about 9' tall. They are fond of meat and aremuch more likely to attack than black bears. *Grizzlies are found inmost climates, but are most common in mountains and forests*."

"*Wild boars generally prefer forested areas, but can be found nearlyeverywhere*. They are omnivorous (eating almost anything), andhave extremely nasty tempers when disturbed."

"*The party is hired to map unknownterritory.* The area might once have been familiar butis now overrun or destroyed; a strange tower might mysteriouslyappear overnight in a familiar area."

"To remove a curse or recover asacred item, the *players must travel to a shrine which hasbeen lost for ages*. The characters usually have only a roughidea of its location. The players may have to consult anoracle or seer during their visit."

Kings hang out at the entrance to dungeons with quest signs do they?  "This is a scenario in which a* king (orother NPC) provides a reason for adventuring*."

"It is not necessary to draw a detailed map of the dungeon first, butit is useful to have a general idea of what it will look like. When decidingon the shape of the dungeon, the DM should also outlineideas for rooms or areas in the dungeon. A few common settingsinclude:1. Castle or tower 4. Crypt or tomb2. Caves or cavern 5. Ancient temple3. Abandoned mine 6. Stronghold or* town*"

At this point I've proven that Moldvay Basic expects the game to take place outside of the classic dungeon as it mentions going to taverns and plenty of outdoor regions and creatures for those outdoor adventures the DM creates.  If you want to claim that Moldvay Basic focuses on the underground adventure, I'll agree with you.  If you want to continue to claim that it's only about underground adventures, you will be continue to be wrong.  Up to you.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

pemerton said:


> On the other thread, when I've suggested this is one thing that worldbuilding is for, there has been a lot of disagreement. Most posters on that thread seem to _deny_ that one function of worldbuilding is to establish stuff for the GM to tell to the players.




I think the difficulty isn't in denying that it is to 'establish stuff for the GM to tell to the players.' I think they are objecting to the entire concept of analyzing play from a standpoint of what the people at the table DO. They want to only look at what is going on fictionally. Beyond that they wanted to emphasize the tentative, provisional, and incomplete nature of what was world built in order to reduce its significance to being more of a way to establish general character knowledge, mapping of genre tropes to their instantiation within the given milieu, and as a 'convenience feature' for the GM. This lead, more or less directly, to a rather long drawn out debate between [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and others about exactly where 'world building' ended and 'adventure design' (or whatever terms you want to use, don't drag me into that) began. 

Of course, YOU pretty much relegated adventure design itself to the category of world building back in the start of the other thread ('What is World Building For?'). I assume there was, long ago, a similar debate in this thread. I happen to agree with you that for the purposes of analysis the two activities are closely related, but obviously for someone who wants to kind of pass off world building as a sort of side activity it becomes convenient to draw a stronger line between them. 

So that might be ANOTHER way in which worldbuilding was 'denied' to be a source of information to dictate to players, because the people who did the denying called it something else! Nevertheless, your central assertion, that material produced by the GM exists for the purpose of telling the players how things are in the game world rather than establishing it by some form of mutual collaboration is pretty much inarguable. To the extent that others claim collaboration I have to assume they are basically denying the existence, or at least significance, of pregenerated material. If it isn't something to tell the players, either directly or in some secondary received form, then what WOULD it be for?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> While I've used this same definition* forever for what represents an adventure I don't at all agree that there is an implication or suggestion or rule that there be no play outside these borders.
> 
> The "adventure" ends when they divide up treasure.  Fine.  But what do they spend their shares on; and where; and what do those who don't need training do while those who do need it do it; and how and when does the party decide what their next adventure will be; etc.
> 
> * - or close; as the end is when they get back to town and do treasury, I usually put the start as when they set out from town.



Given the place that Moldvay Basic has in the evolution of D&D its clear that the game was, by that time (1981 or so, I don't recall exactly, but after 1980) well extended past dungeon delves exclusively. Still, Moldvay is ONLY about delving. It literally doesn't even suggest the existence of a 'town' except maybe as an abstract concept where the players can restock their characters from whatever is in the equipment lists in the book, hire henchmen, and acquire replacement characters. I don't think Moldvay HAS a training rule BTW, though I could be wrong. If it does its pretty abstract from what I can recall. It also requires spell casters to go to town to regain their spells, stating flat out that wizards have to 'consult their spell books' and clerics have to perform religious observances and prayers. 

So the assertion is correct, for Moldvay itself. I think its non-controversial to state that players were probably often familiar with overland adventuring as a concept and could extrapolate it into their Basic D&D play (IE they might have a 1e DMG or a copy of OD&D, Expert, etc. to rely on). But at that point they're not just playing 'Moldvay Basic' anymore!



> All that tells us is that the designers either a) hadn't considered non-dungeon adventuring at all yet when Basic was released; or more likely b) had considered it and were intentionally saving that part of the game for the next release.



Sure, they left it out, as I said above, its not there, so it isn't part of THAT game! Moldvay Basic literally is a system for running dungeon crawls and NOTHING ELSE as-written.



> I think what he's saying is that the lore tying Hobgoblins and Elves together forces one of two things to happen if you decide to use Hobgoblins in your game.  Either:
> 
> 1. You by default will also have Elves in your game world, as the lore states there is a known relationship between Hobs and Elves and thus the existence of one drags the other in by default; or
> 2. You have to specifically change the lore under "Hobgoblin" to remove the reference to Elves (and at your option put another species in their stead, or not).
> 
> Lanefan




Yeah, I think the whole debate is preposterous! People ignore lore all the time if they want to, so merely stating that you "have hobgoblins in your campaign" doesn't automatically demand that you have elves too. What the Game Police are going to enforce lore? LOL.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Well, if someone says "worldbuilding isn't necessary for RPGing", and you agree that it's not necessary for a one-shot, then why would you just assume they're talking about something else?



Er...because that's how the game is usually played, perhaps?

Sure one-shots happen - convention play wouldn't exist without 'em - but you're not going to get much story out of them.  And as we've been more or less talking about story for these last many pages and the means to generate a backdrop for such, an assumption that we're by default talking about games that go on long enough* to generate a story seems reasonable.

* - doesn't have to be all that long - a few decent-length sessions might even be enough, but a one-session one-off doesn't usually have time to generate much beyond a couple of combats and maybe a boss battle if the party gets that far.



> And now, once we've got that possibility on the table, what about a campaign in which the players turn up each session and either (1) recommence where they left off in the current dungeon, or else (2) find out which new adventure the GM has planned for today. That sort of campaign doesn't seem like it would need worldbuilding either.



Bracketed numbers added by me.

(1) is how I've played forever.

(2) needs clarification on one point: are the adventures run each week supposed to be connected in any way (e.g. the same PCs, and-or a continuing storyline) or are they completely independent of each other.  If the latter then you're talking about each week just being a one-shot.  If the former, then sooner or later someone - be it the DM or one or more players - is going to start considering how these various adventures might be connected plot-wise or in-game-world history-wise or geographically.  Add to this the need for (a) town(s) to support treasury division, training (if used) and downtime** and you're well on your way to building a setting whether you intended to or not.

** - an essential component, I think.  A campaign where play stops at the end of one dungeon and starts at the entrance to the next with nothing in between is, I posit, severely lacking.



> And now, are there other sorts of campaigns that (unlike the one described in the previous paragraph) involve scenario-to-scenario continuity, but don't require worldbuilding? I can report from experience that there are.



Depends on what one defines as scenario-to-scenario continuity.

Sure I can have one scene where the party agree to recover the Baron's stolen treasure from the orcs and then jump to the next scene where the party approach the orcs' lair...but in that jump I've skipped a lot, and what I've skipped (the travel, the preparations, the planning, etc.) just happens to be the part that demands some setting foundation.  Fancy that.  

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> What does "you by default will also have elves in your game world" mean? Who is writing them in?



The default lore of the game is writing them in. 


> Is the spirit of D&D descending on the land and making unbidden entries in my note book?



No, it's merely pointing you to what's already written in the MM.



> And riddle me this: in my OA game I used hobgoblins and never used elves. And I don't think the players were shocked by this. Where did I _specificially change the lore_? At what point in time?



You specifically changed the lore if-when you banned Elves as PCs and gave as the reason that the setting doesn't have any.  If Elves were allowed as PCs you didn't change anything; it just happened that no Elves ever entered the PCs' view during that campaign.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

pemerton said:


> Well, if someone says "worldbuilding isn't necessary for RPGing", and you agree that it's not necessary for a one-shot, then why would you just assume they're talking about something else?
> 
> And now, once we've got that possibility on the table, what about a campaign in which the players turn up each session and either recommence where they left off in the current dungeon, or else find out which new adventure the GM has planned for today. That sort of campaign doesn't seem like it would need worldbuilding either.
> 
> And now, are there other sorts of campaigns that (unlike the one described in the previous paragraph) involve scenario-to-scenario continuity, but don't require worldbuilding? I can report from experience that there are.




My experience is that 'episodic play' which focuses on a series of fairly unrelated incidents, often featuring a 'cast' of recurring characters, but not always is one of these. I like to use the example of the good old Stargate series. Each episode generally begins with the protagonists (a mostly continuing cast of characters, though which ones are involved on any given episode varies) opening the Stargate to a new set of coordinates. There's usually some backstory to WHY, but often its just exploration. The whole thing is tied together by a set of global assumptions (the Goa'uld, etc.) which provide fodder for the elements of each successive episode. There's usually a modest meta-plot in most of these things, but it can be very weak to basically non-existent, as desired. Usually the early stages of a campaign of this type would be largely exploratory or highly mission-oriented, with the characters developing and acquiring more complex links to an emerging overall context. 

OFTEN, I would estimate USUALLY, the overall world is not defined at the start in any great detail. Star Trek, for example, starts in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and establishes only the existence of the ship, its bridge crew, the existence of a 'United Federation of Planets', and that's about it. A few additional details are established during the episode, that the USS Enterprise is on a long-range exploration mission, that without its warp drive it is decades or centuries of travel time to home, etc. Now, SOME additional things were established by the show's producers by this time, but most of the detailed 'lore' of the milieu was established by writers in their scripts on a weekly basis from whole cloth. I expect the same would be true for Stargate SG1, etc. 

The same pattern holds for other genre. In the D&D cartoon stuff is pretty much established as it happens. Mission Impossible simply created whatever organizations, locations, geopolitical situations, countries, etc. that were required for each week's episode. 

Obviously in an RPG context it can easily work the same way. All that need be established at first is the bare minimum framework to allow for the basic episode structure to be established. The rest will take care of itself. In a Story Now kind of rendition the nature of the episodic format will be partly dictated by the player's stated goals and interests, or perhaps by an overall campaign theme that is agreed on by the participants before it starts. Genre conventions can take care of much of the details, and the rest will come out through play. Each episode would probably address a specific character's or several character's dramatic needs. Judging by the kinds of things seen in the TV shows I mentioned there would likely be existential threats, moral quandries, physical danger, possibly threats to the status quo of the 'team' itself, etc.


----------



## Bedrockgames

AbdulAlhazred said:


> My experience is that 'episodic play' which focuses on a series of fairly unrelated incidents, often featuring a 'cast' of recurring characters, but not always is one of these. I like to use the example of the good old Stargate series. Each episode generally begins with the protagonists (a mostly continuing cast of characters, though which ones are involved on any given episode varies) opening the Stargate to a new set of coordinates. There's usually some backstory to WHY, but often its just exploration. The whole thing is tied together by a set of global assumptions (the Goa'uld, etc.) which provide fodder for the elements of each successive episode. There's usually a modest meta-plot in most of these things, but it can be very weak to basically non-existent, as desired. Usually the early stages of a campaign of this type would be largely exploratory or highly mission-oriented, with the characters developing and acquiring more complex links to an emerging overall context.
> 
> OFTEN, I would estimate USUALLY, the overall world is not defined at the start in any great detail. Star Trek, for example, starts in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and establishes only the existence of the ship, its bridge crew, the existence of a 'United Federation of Planets', and that's about it. A few additional details are established during the episode, that the USS Enterprise is on a long-range exploration mission, that without its warp drive it is decades or centuries of travel time to home, etc. Now, SOME additional things were established by the show's producers by this time, but most of the detailed 'lore' of the milieu was established by writers in their scripts on a weekly basis from whole cloth. I expect the same would be true for Stargate SG1, etc.
> 
> The same pattern holds for other genre. In the D&D cartoon stuff is pretty much established as it happens. Mission Impossible simply created whatever organizations, locations, geopolitical situations, countries, etc. that were required for each week's episode.
> 
> Obviously in an RPG context it can easily work the same way. All that need be established at first is the bare minimum framework to allow for the basic episode structure to be established. The rest will take care of itself. In a Story Now kind of rendition the nature of the episodic format will be partly dictated by the player's stated goals and interests, or perhaps by an overall campaign theme that is agreed on by the participants before it starts. Genre conventions can take care of much of the details, and the rest will come out through play. Each episode would probably address a specific character's or several character's dramatic needs. Judging by the kinds of things seen in the TV shows I mentioned there would likely be existential threats, moral quandries, physical danger, possibly threats to the status quo of the 'team' itself, etc.




But all those details are thought about, developed and then put into an episode. It is very hard to write star trek style on the fly, because there is an element of thought experiment to most of the alien races they end up facing. I think you could just as easily take this analogy and liken it to a GM world building between sessions.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Bedrockgames said:


> But all those details are thought about, developed and then put into an episode. It is very hard to write star trek style on the fly, because there is an element of thought experiment to most of the alien races they end up facing. I think you could just as easily take this analogy and liken it to a GM world building between sessions.




I think you COULD world build between sessions. I think you can also play in a Story Now fashion. My point was that pre-established world details are not that big a deal in this kind of format. Things are generally established incrementally during each 'episode'. 

Imagine that I created a game of episodic space exploration ala Star Trek, but without the existing 'Trek Universe'. The players would then be free to establish goals and resolve conflicts for their characters without reference to specific 'facts' beyond "we're explorers" and the bare essentials of the episodic framework (a starship operating far beyond routine trade routes and such, finding new things each episode). They would be free to establish the parameters of the sponsoring organization, how the economy, laws, society, and probably a lot of the tech, work in their milieu. 

Again, this is roughly analogous to how TOS was experienced, the first episode established the major characters and the core concept. Each additional episode established more details. The Romulans, for example, were established in IIRC the next episode to be aired, along with some facts about Federation history and its basic nature and core values. Some things were really NEVER established. The only mentions of the economy of the 22nd Century in TOS are the existence of merchant ships, Orion Traders, and the suggestion of some shady dealings implied by things like Mudd and the trader in 'The Trouble with Tribbles' for instance. I'm not even sure 'credits' were actually mentioned even once in that series, and if they were it was very much in passing. TNG developed the whole milieu much more, but it was also much less episodic in its format.

That's my point, episodic formats are good for minimal initial world building. Obviously SOME things are going to be established during play. Its possible a LOT of things will be, if the game goes on long enough. SG1 and TNG both ran for around 10 years and their lore became pretty well established by the end of that time.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Er...because that's how the game is usually played, perhaps?



If someone is saying that X is not necessary to Y, and you know of a way of Y-ing that - even if not usual - doesn't need X, wouldn't you at first assume that the someone is talking about that way of Y-ing?

And then maybe try to extrapolate from that instance that you're famiiar with to see what else they have in mind?

Rather than just assume they're talking about the mode of Y-ing that _does_ require X, and are idiots?



Lanefan said:


> are the adventures run each week supposed to be connected in any way (e.g. the same PCs, and-or a continuing storyline) or are they completely independent of each other.  If the latter then you're talking about each week just being a one-shot.  If the former, then sooner or later someone - be it the DM or one or more players - is going to start considering how these various adventures might be connected plot-wise or in-game-world history-wise or geographically.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> A campaign where play stops at the end of one dungeon and starts at the entrance to the next with nothing in between is, I posit, severely lacking.



I'm interested in [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s take on this - how is "severely lacking" different from "bad"?


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> No, you referred to some "Choose your own Adventure Game"... which is not the same as what I said and a mis-characterization of the playstyle.



I referred to a number of things. Including that one point of worldbuilding is to give the GM stuff to tell the players. Just as you said. There might be more than one thing that worldbuilding does, and more than one way that it is expereinced (both in a given game, and across games).


----------



## Lanefan

AbdulAlhazred said:


> OFTEN, I would estimate USUALLY, the overall world is not defined at the start in any great detail. Star Trek, for example, starts in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and establishes only the existence of the ship, its bridge crew, the existence of a 'United Federation of Planets', and that's about it. A few additional details are established during the episode, that the USS Enterprise is on a long-range exploration mission, that without its warp drive it is decades or centuries of travel time to home, etc. Now, SOME additional things were established by the show's producers by this time, but most of the detailed 'lore' of the milieu was established by writers in their scripts on a weekly basis from whole cloth.



The problem with this is unless all the writing is being done by the same person or very few people (almost never the case in a TV series) or is mostly done as a block ahead of time (e.g. the recent Battlestar Galactica reboot) glaring inconsistencies are going to develop in both the backstory and the ongoing plot, and AFAIC this is unforgivable in what's supposed to be a professionally-written thing even though the end result can still sometimes be entertaining.

X-Files was awful for this - by about season 5 as soon as you saw the writers' credit for an episode you'd know whether that episode would at least try to adhere to established canon and lore or throw it out the window.  And don't get me started on Star Wars...



> I expect the same would be true for Stargate SG1, etc.



Can't speak to this specific series, as my sum total viewing of it might come to an episode and a half...maybe.



> The same pattern holds for other genre. In the D&D cartoon stuff is pretty much established as it happens. Mission Impossible simply created whatever organizations, locations, geopolitical situations, countries, etc. that were required for each week's episode.



Ignoring the bigger picture (overarching plot and-or internal consistency) in favour of the smaller (what's good for this episode), as it were.

I look at it the other way: if the bigger picture is solidly nailed down ahead of time then it'll be much easier for the smaller picture to take care of itself on the fly.



> Obviously in an RPG context it can easily work the same way. All that need be established at first is the bare minimum framework to allow for the basic episode structure to be established. The rest will take care of itself. In a Story Now kind of rendition the nature of the episodic format will be partly dictated by the player's stated goals and interests, or perhaps by an overall campaign theme that is agreed on by the participants before it starts. Genre conventions can take care of much of the details, and the rest will come out through play. Each episode would probably address a specific character's or several character's dramatic needs. Judging by the kinds of things seen in the TV shows I mentioned there would likely be existential threats, moral quandries, physical danger, possibly threats to the status quo of the 'team' itself, etc.



One difference between a TV show and a D&D session is that with a TV show it'll be edited down (or up) to fit an exact length of time.  In RPG play we don't have that certainty - we don't know how long each session might last and we also don't know how much will get done in any given amount of time within a session.

This difference is big enough to almost make the comparison - not quite meaningless, as there's still something of use in it, but certainly way far from perfect.  We can't really look at a session as an episode, for example, as there's no way of knowing whether the plot-of-the-week will be resolved within one evening's play...or, conversely, whether it'll be resolved within a hour leaving the rest of the evening hung out to dry.

One can, however, divorce episode and session.  From here, in traditional play one can then look at each adventure as an episode spanning two or ten or however-long-it-takes sessions of play; and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] suggests story-now can go the same way only substituting something else for "adventure".

That said, I still don't see any of this as an excuse for internal inconsistency and bad (or no) plot continuity.

Lan-"I wanna be in pictures"-efan


----------



## Bedrockgames

Most shows have setting/character bibles, and these are often well set. I am not 100% familiar with the process that they used to make the Original Series star trek. But pretty sure they had something like that by at least the 2nd season. But even if shows are making it up as they go, the point I was making is: they don't make it up as they are filming usually, there are writers who think and write about the stuff so it makes sense. If you look at OS, or Next Generation (or something like Babylon 5) There is clearly world building at work. A lot of the alien races you encounter each episode or as part of a story, are interesting because they are basically a thought experiment (i.e. what would happen if you had a culture that had X but not Y?). You can definitely introduce things as you go as well. No one is saying you have to limit yourself to stuff that is laid down in advance. I think what people are saying is world building can create a rich environment for adventure. It isn't just about looking at the sights through a window or going on the GMs plots (this last part of the argument is pretty confusing to me, since the driving force behind a lot of world building is an effort give the players an array of adventure options, rather than just presenting them with an adventure each week).

That said, I am not against people making stuff up as they go, having the PCs make stuff up, or discarding concerns about world building so they can focus on an adventure. My only point this entire time is none of those present a superior way of playing, or a more free way of playing. They are just different ways of playing. And there is value in world building if you explore it and use it well.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> The problem with this is unless all the writing is being done by the same person or very few people (almost never the case in a TV series) or is mostly done as a block ahead of time (e.g. the recent Battlestar Galactica reboot) glaring inconsistencies are going to develop in both the backstory and the ongoing plot, and AFAIC this is unforgivable in what's supposed to be a professionally-written thing even though the end result can still sometimes be entertaining.
> 
> X-Files was awful for this - by about season 5 as soon as you saw the writers' credit for an episode you'd know whether that episode would at least try to adhere to established canon and lore or throw it out the window.  And don't get me started on Star Wars...



Meh, I never personally understood the obsessive fan fascination with trivial details.... 

Anyway, in an RPG where the group running a game is unlikely to exceed 10 people, and is usually half that, this shouldn't be a problem. And the less lore there is, the less chance it will be contravened later by something else.



> Can't speak to this specific series, as my sum total viewing of it might come to an episode and a half...maybe.



I seem to remember it being fairly consistent, though I'm far from an obsessive fan about these things, as I said before. 



> Ignoring the bigger picture (overarching plot and-or internal consistency) in favour of the smaller (what's good for this episode), as it were.
> 
> I look at it the other way: if the bigger picture is solidly nailed down ahead of time then it'll be much easier for the smaller picture to take care of itself on the fly.



I don't find that to be the case. Speaking from experience I know that the mass of material that is attached to my original D&D campaign world (probably 10 or more campaigns over 40 years) is practically impossible to reconcile or establish some sort of consistency against. The more lore there is, the more it will contradict itself and become inconsistent. Its best to have less lore, not more.



> One difference between a TV show and a D&D session is that with a TV show it'll be edited down (or up) to fit an exact length of time.  In RPG play we don't have that certainty - we don't know how long each session might last and we also don't know how much will get done in any given amount of time within a session.
> 
> This difference is big enough to almost make the comparison - not quite meaningless, as there's still something of use in it, but certainly way far from perfect.  We can't really look at a session as an episode, for example, as there's no way of knowing whether the plot-of-the-week will be resolved within one evening's play...or, conversely, whether it'll be resolved within a hour leaving the rest of the evening hung out to dry.



Which is of course one advantage of Story Now, pacing is very flexible. You certainly cannot guarantee things will happen in an exact timeframe, but I am not really sure why that's critical.



> One can, however, divorce episode and session.  From here, in traditional play one can then look at each adventure as an episode spanning two or ten or however-long-it-takes sessions of play; and @_*AbdulAlhazred*_ suggests story-now can go the same way only substituting something else for "adventure".
> 
> That said, I still don't see any of this as an excuse for internal inconsistency and bad (or no) plot continuity.
> 
> Lan-"I wanna be in pictures"-efan




Exactly, you can simply have each episode play out at its own pace. 

I don't see why internal consistency or 'plot continuity' (by which in Story Now I would mean narrative consistency) would be any harder to achieve than in any other technique. I feel entirely confident in my ability to handle the internal consistency of a basic one-session-per-week RPG. I'm not super organized on the whole, but I can still note the main established facts and remember what the players seem to want to do.


----------



## Lord Irongron

There are plenty of RPer who are obsessively fascinating by the setting; those who aren't interested in DMing but nevertheless devour any and all source books. There are also those whose raison d'etre to the world RPGs comes due to a love of a particular world. I suspect over the years many of those who became fans of RPGs did so because they were attracted by the chance to play a game based upon their favourite TV Show/Game etc

Of course it wasn't always that way. Some old RPGs like Palladium or Rolemaster did not even include a world - these were systems one could use to play in a world of one's own choosing. In this cases world building was itself specifically implied.

For myself I'm attracted to some RPGs by the world (such as Warhammer, Paranoia) and others by the system (see Rolemaster above). For most players in games I've run the world itself is not so crucial; they're really in it for the adventure.

That being said I've spent a long time making worlds, but the ratio between how much time I spent on it and how many hours we actually gamed there leaves me inclined to say it's often not a great idea.

I guess there is one other thing I'd say about world building (specifically in regarding RPGs) and that is how much 'weight' it carries in the imagination of players. This isn't about the actual quality so much as how much of themselves they have invested in it beforehand, facing off against one of the Nazgul in Middle Earth is almost certainly going to feel more exciting that facing Malagod of the Bone Tower in a custom settling, even if the latter is 'better'.

So for a DM, by making one's own world you're also making a big ask of your players - not to just play the game, but also take the time to immerse themselves in your world. Many may not want to, and even whey do it will not translate to other games, films, books, as is the case in an established setting. For them it's 'dead' knowledge, heck its not even a conversation topic in future years as nobody else will have any clue what is being talked about.

This all leads me neatly on to the Forgotten Realms, which is where I work. By one standard it is one of the most lacklustre settings out there; being almost entirely derivative of other fiction and real world mythology. Yet by another it is perfect for tabletop RP. Whatever 'theme' of adventure you're aiming for, be it a Nordic Saga or being pitted against the minions an Arch Devil of the Nine Hells it has something for everyone. In short it is a setting that people are familar with, even if they have never encountered it.

So is world building bad? Well it sure is fun. I wouldn't recommend it is as a means to an end, but sure can be an enjoyable hobby.


----------



## Lanefan

Daniel Morris1 said:


> This all leads me neatly on to the Forgotten Realms, which is where I work. By one standard it is one of the most lacklustre settings out there; being almost entirely derivative of other fiction and real world mythology. Yet by another it is perfect for tabletop RP. Whatever 'theme' of adventure you're aiming for, be it a Nordic Saga or being pitted against the minions an Arch Devil of the Nine Hells it has something for everyone. In short it is a setting that people are familar with, even if they have never encountered it.



Players/DMs who have any significant experience in RPGs - D&D in particular - are quite likely to be at least vaguely familiar with FR, and Greyhawk, and maybe a few other settings.

But someone brand new to it?  Doesn't matter whether you put 'em in FR or your own homebrew setting, it'll all be new and - hopefully - fun and exciting.

And while I agree FR is a very flexible setting in terms of what you can do with (or to) it, a half-decent homebrew setting can be every bit as flexible; with the pleasant side benefit of never having to worry about the risks of using a canned setting: canon lawyers and-or unrealized expectations.



> So is world building bad? Well it sure is fun. I wouldn't recommend it is as a means to an end, but sure can be an enjoyable hobby.



A line from an old song of mine sums this up nicely:

"While producing these, my friend
The means justify the end"

Lanefan


----------



## Tony Vargas

Daniel Morris1 said:


> There are plenty of RPer who are obsessively fascinating by the setting; those who aren't interested in DMing but nevertheless devour any and all source books.



 I've certainly known plenty like that, though imho/x, it was more a thing in the 90s...



> . I suspect over the years many of those who became fans of RPGs did so because they were attracted by the chance to play a game based upon their favourite TV Show/Game etc



 Vanishingly rare, IMX - but there's tremendous crossover in RPG circles with more mainstream fandom  - so licenced games sell mainly to gamers who are also fans, and never have rivaled D&D as the gateway to the hobby.


----------



## Lord Irongron

Tony Vargas said:


> I've certainly known plenty like that, though imho/x, it was more a thing in the 90s...




Yes, I'm probably showing my age there!

There is one significant advantage of a home-brew setting that didn't occur to me last night, and that is the potential for the party to live through/take part in historic & world changing events.

I don't know about other DMs but when playing in an established setting I'm inclined never to make signficant changes as part of the narrative of the adventure. It would feel rather presumptuous to raze a well known city or kill a well known NPC. In a self-made world the party can play a direct role in its formation.


----------



## Maxperson

Lord Irongron said:


> There is one significant advantage of a home-brew setting that didn't occur to me last night, and that is the potential for the party to live through/take part in historic & world changing events.
> 
> I don't know about other DMs but when playing in an established setting I'm inclined never to make signficant changes as part of the narrative of the adventure. It would feel rather presumptuous to raze a well known city or kill a well known NPC. In a self-made world the party can play a direct role in its formation.




I've never even so much as paused before doing something like that to an established setting.  Once I pay for it, it belongs to me and if I or the players do something major, it happens.  I see no presumption in doing something like this.  To expect others who buy the setting to conform to my changes would be presumptuous, but short of that, no.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Lord Irongron said:


> when playing in an established setting I'm inclined never to make signficant changes as part of the narrative of the adventure. .



 Some published settings are just presented and that's it, they may develop regions in more detail, but they exist in the moment when campaigns set in them are expected to start. 

Others have an ongoing history, new supplements advance the timeline, as well as adding new details.

The latter sort can discourage going off the reservation.


----------



## Lord Irongron

Tony Vargas said:


> Some published settings are just presented and that's it, they may develop regions in more detail, but they exist in the moment when campaigns set in them are expected to start.
> 
> Others have an ongoing history, new supplements advance the timeline, as well as adding new details.
> 
> The latter sort can discourage going off the reservation.




Yes, and its also true that many players retain their characters between different DMS, and even different groups. Some will even return to their character in the advanced timeline.


----------

