Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Maxperson]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.