Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Maxperson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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.

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.