Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[hawkeyefan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

/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.

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.

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]

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.