Why Worldbuilding is Bad

Hussar · Apr 25, 2018

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 · Apr 25, 2018

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 · Apr 25, 2018

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 · Apr 25, 2018

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 · Apr 25, 2018

Have we reached that inevitable point where we're quoting dictionaries already?

Sadras · Apr 25, 2018

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 · Apr 25, 2018

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 · Apr 25, 2018

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 · Apr 25, 2018

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 · Apr 25, 2018

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]?

Why Worldbuilding is Bad

Hussar

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

Imaculata

Hero

Sadras

Legend

Aldarc

Legend

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

pemerton

Legend

Aldarc

Legend

Similar Threads