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:

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]

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]

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.