Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Bedrockgames]

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.
.

Again, have to echo what others have said in response to this. I mean, this is a weird argument and it completely ignores the actual points we made.

Anyways a better analogy would be hosting a discussion panel entitled "Beer is Bad" at a conference for alcohol enthusiasts. People are not feeling judged, they just disagree with the statement in the context that it is expressed.

 

[Aldarc]

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?

One would certainly hope that you would know that before you chose to wade into it. There are multiple divergent conversations at play here though. On this point, however, I think that Hussar is clearly discussing his own preferences that he would like expressed in published materials. As to the rest of the conversations? That might be a bit much to summarize.

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.

I would say that the argument that [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] presented was insufficient for explaining the reactions, and I provided another explanation that I believe describes it or that would supplement Bedrock's.

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.

But the bold is where you are wrong, Imaro. Their responses and counterpoints have been addressed repeatedly by me and others, but addressing those points was not my intent here, Imaro, as the goal was explaining the source of the emotional backlash. You were talking about the emotional content of the word "bad" that you felt was laden in the title "Why Worldbuilding is Bad" and Bedrockgames why people were reacting so strongly to the central premise. And given how there is a lot of misinterpretation of perspectives regarding the whole issue of "worldbuilding is bad," it is incumbent to explain why that may be the case - because they are not entirely "fact-based" or rooted in a close-reading of the text - and I do think that the feeling of moral judgment regarding the enterprise of worldbuilding is a component of the visceral pushback against the premise. You are certainly welcome to dismiss my explanation with your own gaslighting, but you should at least be aware that the "emotional" component of the pushback was already raised/acknowledged by you and others.

Re: analogy: [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], when I initially raised this analogy many pages ago, I did indicate that no analogy was perfect and that I was open to alternatives. If you would like to discuss my "bad analogy" in further detail I am open to that, assuming that you are open to civil discussion here. I would welcome a more appropriate analogy to describe this particular phenomenon that so frequently transpires.

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) A) 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?

How about this instead... you are presuming (1) that those points have been soundly countered (presumably by yourself and others) and (2) that they have been done so with "fact." The continued disagreement on these points kinda throw both of your premises into contention. "Fact" amounts to more than a repetition of assertions of opinions, and the use of logic means little when based on fawlty premises. This is not to say that the premises of the "other side" - a term I loathe to use given how there are posters in this thread with far more welcomed nuanced perspectives - are rooted in fawtly logic, only that the presence of logic is not necessarily the presence of truth or validity.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, I am. It's not the players' job to record your world for you.

And if it's important enough but not written down, three people will each remember it differently and the DM might not remember it at all; and that never ends well.

Lanefan

But going off my original statement, we're talking about a detail that I didn't think was relevant enough to warrant knowing ahead of time. So if one of my players asks who was the king before the current king, I can make it up on the spot and achieve the same effect as I would have by writing up a grand history of the throne....because all they asked for was a name.

I think that summarizes the point of the article in the OP pretty nicely. If all that's needed is a name, then there's no need for much more info than that.

Now, if the PCs show an incredible interest in examining the prior king's downfall and I decide to make it part of the story, then I trust myself and my players to remember the guy's name. And if we don't, then I can just make it up again, and it's not a problem.

As for different people remembering different things....I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It happens in the real world all the time. If that happens, then it's just a case of the characters remembering things differently the way people do all the time. We can take one of the versions and then treat it like the "real" one.

Yeah my experiences with this type of situation have been more in line with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. IME.. all it does is look bad when something like this is only vaguely remembered by the PC's or remembered differently by various players and they look to the DM to settle the matter and realize he/she cant because it was made up on the fly and not written down.

But the original comment was about a detail that was not immediately relevant. If that's the case, I can't see how it's an issue. If it's a case of a detail that starts off as irrelevant, and then becomes relevant, then I'm confident that I'll remember it. I do have some notes written down, so I might add a detail like that when it becomes important. But if it's just "hey, who used to be the king here?" then I'll come up with the name on the fly, and take things from there.

It works fine for me, and is not an issue at our table.

 

[Imaro]

Want to address this and get some clarity first but I'll get to your other points later...

One would certainly hope that you would know that before you chose to wade into it. There are multiple divergent conversations at play here though. On this point, however, I think that Hussar is clearly discussing his own preferences that he would like expressed in published materials. As to the rest of the conversations? That might be a bit much to summarize.

So just to be clear, when [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] posts...

Ok, perhaps a point form list of how I think that world building is bad might be a good idea.

I. How Worldbuilding is Bad for the DM/Table

• Worldbuilding takes away from time that could be spent writing the actual adventure. The more time the DM spends detailing Elven Tea Ceremonies, the less time he or she has to write an actual adventure.
• Some DM's become very, very attached to their creations. To the point where any attempt by the players to change that creation will be met with very stiff resistance.
• The possibility of the "Tour Des Realms" campaign where the PC's are basically just tourists in the game and are expected to make the appropriate oohing and ahhhing noises at the DM's wonderful creation.
• The narrowing of possibilities in the game. The DM is a heavy world builder but the player doesn't want to play one of the pre-approved races. She wants to play something else. The DM nixes the idea, not because the idea is necessarily bad or powergaming or anything like that, but, because it doesn't fit with the DM's preconceptions of the campaign. This could also apply to any number of player concepts.

You believe he's stating personal preference and applying these reasons to... himself only as opposed to making a general statement about why he believes world building is bad in general? If so that seems like an interesting way of interpreting his statement, and certainly not how I read it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ok, perhaps a point form list of how I think that world building is bad might be a good idea.

I. How Worldbuilding is Bad for the DM/Table

• Worldbuilding takes away from time that could be spent writing the actual adventure. The more time the DM spends detailing Elven Tea Ceremonies, the less time he or she has to write an actual adventure.
• Some DM's become very, very attached to their creations. To the point where any attempt by the players to change that creation will be met with very stiff resistance.
• The possibility of the "Tour Des Realms" campaign where the PC's are basically just tourists in the game and are expected to make the appropriate oohing and ahhhing noises at the DM's wonderful creation.
• The narrowing of possibilities in the game. The DM is a heavy world builder but the player doesn't want to play one of the pre-approved races. She wants to play something else. The DM nixes the idea, not because the idea is necessarily bad or powergaming or anything like that, but, because it doesn't fit with the DM's preconceptions of the campaign. This could also apply to any number of player concepts.

I'll start this off by saying that I personally try to keep my worldbuilding not necessarily to a minimum, but at least focused on what I think is relevant. And I do tend to agree that I think most GMs probably could do less worldbuilding than they think they need to do. I wouldn't go so far as to label it as inherently bad, though....mostly because all of the concerns you mention, and all those brought up in this thread are only possibilities, not certainties.

* It doesn't necessarily do that.
* This is possible, yes, but seems to be more of a DM problem.
* Again, possible but more of a DM issue.
* I agree with this. I tend to think of restrictions on such options as being a last resort. I would need a very, very strong reason to ban a race or something else from the game. Most reasons that are typically sited when this topic comes up fall far short in my opinion.

II How Worldbuilding is Bad in Published Works

• It's needless padding. Instead of getting material that can be directly used in the game, game books become things to be read.
• It's intrusive. As more and more world building accumulates, any attempt to use the material other than specifically as written becomes more and more difficult. DM's have to spend more and more time slicing away the stuff they don't want to use in order to get that that nugget that is actually useful at the table.
• Dogamtism. As world building material accretes, those that dive deep into that material become more and more resentful of any attempt to change that material to the point where changes become virtually impossible to implement, regardless of the actual value of the new idea.

Now these bits about published work I find to be even more subjective because when one uses a published work, very often they actually want many details to be decided for them. So it seems a bit odd to go to a published work and then expect for things to not be created with a setting in mind. Sure, things can be kept general enough so that they're usable by anyone...and I do think that WotC's recent offerings have been exactly that....but I think you have to expect at least some specificity of setting in a published book.

* This varies by product. Some will be almost entirely flavor material. Others will be far more utilitarian. I mentioned "Vornheim, The Complete City Guide" a few posts ago. It's a 64 page book that is designed to help create city details on the fly. It's incredibly utilitarian, designed to be used at the table during a game. I think it's great, and I would agree that we can use more products like that. But I also like products that are more flavor based. I very much design adventures or come up with story ideas based on these. So I think there's very clearly a place for both kinds of products, and everything in between.
* I disagree. It's incredibly easy to only use what I'd like for a particular game element. Sometimes the abundance of material about a given topic can be a bit of an obstacle to finding the things you may like, I agree with you on that, but chances are you aren't going to wade through all that info when a summary is likely available, or unless you're not willing to dive into the lore and check things out, and then decide what you like.
* This seems more a player issue. If you have a player who loves Greyhawk, and you plan on setting your game there, but with keeping it lore-light and making up your own stuff as needed, then you just need to work that out ahead of time. If you don't, and it comes up in play, then you work it out then.

I don't blame you for your preferences, and I'm sure they've formed as a result of your actual experiences, but I don't think they are universal enough to consider worldbuilding as bad. I just don't think it's all that different from any other tool the DM can use....they can be used effectively, or they can be abused.

 

[Imaro]

But the original comment was about a detail that was not immediately relevant. If that's the case, I can't see how it's an issue. If it's a case of a detail that starts off as irrelevant, and then becomes relevant, then I'm confident that I'll remember it. I do have some notes written down, so I might add a detail like that when it becomes important. But if it's just "hey, who used to be the king here?" then I'll come up with the name on the fly, and take things from there.

It works fine for me, and is not an issue at our table.

Ok, I guess if it's a known irrelevant that makes sense but it's hard (at least for me it is) to know what is irrelevant to your players in the moment... I've had players pick up on something that was a minor detail and run with it for some purpose I wouldn't have fathomed and honestly if it's something I improv'd I just come clean and tell them I don't remember it... but I hate doing that and it tends to make my players feel as if I'm just pulling things out of thin air in the moment (which of course I am) and that's not a playstyle they tend to enjoy, especially once it's revealed to them.

All that said you could just be a better improviser than many, one of the things that gets looked over in these types of discussion around playstyle is that different GM's have different strengths and weaknesses. For some improvising the world may be a strong skill they wield and track with ease but for others it may be a weakness. For me personally coming up with stuff on the fly isn't an issue but tracking it all is a headache for me so I tend to rely on a moderately fleshed out world with smaller doses of improvisation at the adventure level.

OAN: I will readily admit that the difficulty with tracking improv'd things may also arise from the fact that I and my group tend to enjoy a little scotch and often our fair share of beer when gaming...

 

[Aldarc]

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.

However, we are not discussing whether an orange is an apple or an apple is an orange. 'Apples' and 'oranges' are physical objects that have physical properties that we can ascertain. We are discussing what constitutes the definition for an abstract concept that pertains to fiction-making: e.g., "Mary Sue," "Anti-hero," "Second World," etc.

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"

Yes, and you and you alone misread what he quoted to mean "the entire world" and then proceded to gloat in song and dance that you got [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] to "refute" a point that he never made. "LOL," indeed.

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.

Simply pulling monsters from a monster manual, however, would likely not fall within the conventional usage or sense of "worldbuilding." Again, to echo Bedrockgames, I think that this is you splitting hairs.

"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).

Did you have a reason for intentionally leaving out the following sentence? "However, J. R. R. Tolkien described the goal of worldbuilding as creating immersion, or "enchantment" as he put it, and descriptions of the world can be wholly disconnected from the story and narrative." This implies that worldbuilding can be done without regard for story or plot, simply as an exercise or process in itself. That in itself implies a distinction between "story" and "worldbuilding" in which "story" is not inherently a sub-section of "worldbuilding." And just because that is the ideal "goal" of worldbuilding that does mean that is the result.

So I stand by my assertion that he is selectively re-defining worldbuilding.

I don't think that he is intentionally or even "selectively" leaving these out to "redefine" the term, Max. That seems either disingenuous or a misreading, whether intentional or not, of his argument. In terms of cognitive linguistics, it's about determining what definition(s) and meaning(s) are more central and integral to the term and its most common sense of usage. This is not to discount other meanings, but, rather, the goal is determining the core and most frequent sense of meaning of the term. I.e., What central ideas are most likely to be "tapped" in the usage of the term? Again, this is by no means about re-defining the term: it's about the core (and contextualized) sense and not the exhaustive sense. This is why I frequently find your meaning less conventional than Hussar's. If we were hypothetically to provide a survey of the meaning of "worldbuilding" in its use and implied use - particularly in articles, threads, and books about "worldbuilding" tips - we would likely find some meanings or senses of the word more frequently understood than others. We can even limit that contextualized usage to RPGs, and there would likely be a similarly restricted range of meaning(s) in terms of conventional usage. In my estimation - and likely that of Hussar, Pemerton, and others - the most frequent set of recurring tips would likely pertain to the more limited scope(s) that we seem to be collectively operating under to varying degrees.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Just a point about X1 Isle of Dread.

One of the major elements of X1 is actually traveling to the island. That's a big part of the adventure. So, of course, you're going to need to detail out getting to the island, which means you need some sort of map (whether it's an actual map or just a timeline of events) in order to get from A to B. That's just basic setting building.

But, in Tomb of Horrors, for example, the adventure STARTS at the three caves. There's no details about the surrounding area because that's not part of the adventure. Why am I pissing about with getting there? That's precisely my point about world building being unnecessary. The adventure isn't getting to the Tomb of Horrors, it's going INTO the Tomb of Horrors. So, all the stuff outside the Tomb is largely irrelevant and unnecessary.

It's "Tour Des Realms" gaming. We're showing off the wonderful scenery of the game world because... well... why? The Tomb is where the adventure is. Spending time designing the area around the tomb and then spending time traveling to the Tomb is just a waste of everyone's time. HERE is the adventure. That stuff over there is pretty much unimportant at least in the context of the adventure.

Why are you wasting your and your player's time poncing about getting to the Tomb? Get INTO the adventure. Why wait? What's gained by having a couple of random encounters and a description of mountains? Skip the boring stuff and get on with the show.

Well, I would imagine most of us are used to a campaign style game, where we move from adventure to adventure. Some people might be fine with the PCs simply showing up at a location to start a new adventure without worrying about the travel from the last adventure location. I have no problem with that. I tend to move things to what I consider the interesting parts, too.

But there's also no reason that the journey to the Isle of Dread can't be an adventure unto itself. It can be just as interesting as the Isle itself, depending on what's done with it. There's no reason it needs to be simply narrating a daily log of what the PCs see mixed with random encounter rolls on the ocean chart.

Since most of us are going to play adventure after adventure after adventure....why not connect them a bit more? Sure, maybe you don't prefer that, and want a more episodic feel. But that doesn't have to be the case.

 

[Aldarc]

So just to be clear, when [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] posts...

You believe he's stating personal preference and applying these reasons to... himself only as opposed to making a general statement about why he believes world building is bad in general? If so that seems like an interesting way of interpreting his statement, and certainly not how I read it.

In general, yes, I believe that he is expressing his own preferences here, but that these preferences also stem from his observations about the problems with how worldbuilding is frequently expressed in the hobby. Here, I read "how I think that world building is bad" along the lines of "why/how I think that worldbuilding can be problematic." His list entails pitfalls, red flags, and a hierarchy of gameplay values in regards to worldbuilding. The content of his clarifies how I read this statement "how I think that world building is bad".

As an aside, I don't think, however, that one should dismiss some of these as "bad GM" problems, as I think that there are sometimes "good GMs" who engage in these practices. Dismissing these as "bad GMs" seems like an easy out that makes the problems the result of "those people" rather than addressing why these tendencies perpetuate themselves in the context of worldbuilding and how to address them.

 

[Imaro]

In general, yes, I believe that he is expressing his own preferences here, but that these preferences also stem from his observations about the problems with how worldbuilding is frequently expressed in the hobby. Here, I read "how I think that world building is bad" along the lines of "why/how I think that worldbuilding can be problematic." His list entails pitfalls, red flags, and a hierarchy of gameplay values in regards to worldbuilding. The content of his clarifies how I read this statement "how I think that world building is bad".

As an aside, I don't think, however, that one should dismiss some of these as "bad GM" problems, as I think that there are sometimes "good GMs" who engage in these practices. Dismissing these as "bad GMs" seems like an easy out that makes the problems the result of "those people" rather than addressing why these tendencies perpetuate themselves in the context of worldbuilding and how to address them.

This seems like a roundabout way of saying he's making general statements about worldbuilding based on his experiences which isn't the same as just expressing your preferences