Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Aldarc]

You mean in the sense that you either knew exactly what those words meant or you have to confess to using them in ignorance? Yes, it's loaded in exactly that way.

So you would agree that your was a question not asked in good faith?

I'm open to alternatives, though.

I hope that's true. I suppose we will see through your actions. But when you say that I am simply "arriving bad motives to those who disagree with [me]" - which is certainly a negative insinuation of my motives and character in its own right - and then I respond by saying that the reactions made by others are "sympathetically human" and that the argumentative apologies and fallacies do not necessarily require "malice or mischief," then I am not sure why you think that I am not approaching this conversation with an intent to achieve a consensus. Part of consensus requires understanding, sympathy, and an awareness of the position of others. This process also requires identifying the root issue that lies behind the emotive and argumentive reactions made. These to me are not "bad motives." They are human ones. But that does not mean that I am morally obligated to intentionally blind myself to fallacies of others when they transpire or mute my own frustrations with the discourse of the conversation. And I do think that the part of the root cause for the reaction against "worldbuilding critics" stems from confusing a criticism of the trees with a criticism of the forest.

Disclaimer: Analogies are inherently imperfect, and they often entail opening unwanted doors of discussion. So when I make a few analogies here, would you please be willing, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], to help our discussion through keeping the focus on Worldbuilding and not the subjects of comparison that I will point out in my analogies?

If this thread was entitled "Why Alcoholic Drinking is Bad," we would invariably find a similar set of reactions: less in terms of information content, but more in terms of emotional content. There would be those who would likely understand that the topic is meant to discuss the problem of excess drinking, alcoholism (addiction), or how alcohol has negative physical and/or social side-effects to a person and others. (There would also be a lot of anecdotal "This is not a problem for me..." and "I enjoy drinking.") But such a thread is not even necessarily saying §"Never drink alcohol" or even "You are a bad person for drinking." But these last two points (§) are invariably the emotional reactions that people voice based on the title or from the feeling that their personhood is somehow under attack. (I had thought about also raising the analogy with the issue of "Toxic Masculinity," but I think that would be too much of a can of worms to open in this thread.) And it seems fairly clear that there are similar reactions here such that the topic is being attacked on the basis of the emotional reactions §. There is less of an acknowledgment of the problems of excess or extraneous worldbuilding and more of an attempt to discredit the problem at hand. One way I have commonly seen the argument discredited amounts in paraphrase to "you can't criticize worldbuilding because everything is worldbuilding." Another has been on insisting that the vaguely general sense of the word's meaning is somehow the most "accepted" one over against its more particularized and connotative sense in common parlance.

So, if you want to use worldbuilding in a specific way, then you need to be very clear about your definition. If your definition differs fruition the generally accepted, you will get pushback because your introducing confusion by redefining a word. It's often helpful to establish a new term that clearly indicates your meaning.

But this runs both ways. There are others who are using it an incredibly general way and others still who are insisting that the conversation adhere to their definition, whether narrower or broader. But being a "generally vague" sense should not equate to the "commonly understood" way. And I think that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s sense of "worldbuilding" runs much closer to the common parole than the more generally broad way in which "worldbuilding" is everything created under the sun. Hussar's usage of the term is evident in sheer preponderance and character of written and video articles found throughout the Internet on worldbuilding tips, advice, guidance, etc. The character of this term's usage is more particularized to a set of activities that often transpire on a different level than a world that emerges through play. The most common sense of the term frames worldbuilding as an authorial pre-emergent fiction activity.

Insisting others accept your definition is fine in a paper or blog post, where you can define and expound, but in a multiuser discussion format you it's an impediment.

And yet there are others who are also insisting on their definition or understanding, so putting this burden on [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] or [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] seems shortsighted, as this demand does not seem placed on others but just them. If as you say, everyone is insisting on a different definition of "stupid," then it seems a bit odd that you are admonishing one group for "redefining" a term while not admonishing another for doing the same or insisting on upholding a broader, vaguer, more general sense.

Of course, you're free to do whatever you want -- I'm not the thread police. But, if you're going to complain because others don't like your redefining of words, I'm going to say I told you so.

Again, I don't think that he is "redefining" the term since his usage reflects common parlance of the term "worldbuilding" in praxis.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just as a quick aside, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]: We all make typos; it's inevitable. But may I humbly suggest that you slow down a little bit in your responses (the crafting of them, not the frequency!), for over the last few days I have had to reread many, many sentences of yours several times to figure out what word you really mean. Sometimes, as [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] jokes, the typing is so garbled it defies comprehension.

I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk here; but if the goal is, and you seem to advocate for this, clear communication, I, at least, would certainly find this helpful!

The perils of posting on a phone.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Just to clarify on some of the definitions that were posted earlier, here are links for a couple of the sites so people can read the entire entries. I've also quoted some bits that I think support a more broad definition of worldbuilding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldbuilding

Here's the opening quote, expanded a bit from what was posted earlier (bolded emphasis mine):

"Worldbuilding is the process of constructing an imaginary world, sometimes associated with a whole fictional universe.[1] The resulting world may be called a constructed world. 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.[2] Worldbuilding often involves the creation of maps, a backstory, and people for the world. Constructed worlds can enrich the backstory and history of fictional works, and it is not uncommon for authors to revise their constructed worlds while completing its associated work. Constructed worlds can be created for personal amusement and mental exercise, or for specific creative endeavors such as novels, video games, or role-playing games."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WorldBuilding

"Worldbuilding has two separate meanings:

1) The creation of a Fantasy World Map, history, geography, ecology, mythology, several different cultures in detail, and usually a set of "ground rules", metaphysical or otherwise. Sometimes, such worlds will have a Creation Myth that's either hinted at or told in more detailed fashion. This kind of worldbuilding can go to the extreme of working out entire constructed languages. Authors typically revise constructed worlds to complete a single work in a series.
2) The work that goes into deciding the details of a setting. It's very difficult to write a story that contains absolutely no imaginary elements beyond what's described to the reader, so nearly every author worldbuilds a little bit. Some, however, go above and beyond the call of duty in that regard, in which case the sheer amount of detail not immediately relevant to the story at hand often serves as a major distinguishing point of their work.

Extra worldbuilding that is only referred to obliquely is a Cryptic Background Reference. Over the course of a long running series or large persistent universe such as an MMORPG, these add up to form what is sometimes known as the "invisible book"- the portion of a story which becomes known over time without ever actually being directly described."

So I don't think the definition as put forth by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is as common as he wants it to be. I think the actual term is far broader.

Now, that doesn't mean that I don't understand the gripe that Hussar and the OP and others who agree have with excessive worldbuilding done by a GM prior to play. I can understand that criticism, and I can agree that the GM is likely better served by spending that time on more relevant aspects of their game.

But I think the real question is....where is that line? At what point is it too excessive? Sure, we can site The Silmarillion as being a bit much. The example of Village of Hommlett is a good one for the purposes of this discussion. But they also lean toward the extreme.

What would be a more subtle example? Where do people draw that line? Obviously, some don't draw it at all....but I think most of us do at some point. Where?

 

[Ovinomancer]

So you would agree that your was a question not asked in good faith?

I hope that's true. I suppose we will see through your actions. But when you say that I am simply "arriving bad motives to those who disagree with [me]" - which is certainly a negative insinuation of my motives and character in its own right - and then I respond by saying that the reactions made by others are "sympathetically human" and that the argumentative apologies and fallacies do not necessarily require "malice or mischief," then I am not sure why you think that I am not approaching this conversation with an intent to achieve a consensus. Part of consensus requires understanding, sympathy, and an awareness of the position of others. This process also requires identifying the root issue that lies behind the emotive and argumentive reactions made. These to me are not "bad motives." They are human ones. But that does not mean that I am morally obligated to intentionally blind myself to fallacies of others when they transpire or mute my own frustrations with the discourse of the conversation. And I do think that the part of the root cause for the reaction against "worldbuilding critics" stems from confusing a criticism of the trees with a criticism of the forest.

Disclaimer: Analogies are inherently imperfect, and they often entail opening unwanted doors of discussion. So when I make a few analogies here, would you please be willing, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], to help our discussion through keeping the focus on Worldbuilding and not the subjects of comparison that I will point out in my analogies?

If this thread was entitled "Why Alcoholic Drinking is Bad," we would invariably find a similar set of reactions: less in terms of information content, but more in terms of emotional content. There would be those who would likely understand that the topic is meant to discuss the problem of excess drinking, alcoholism (addiction), or how alcohol has negative physical and/or social side-effects to a person and others. (There would also be a lot of anecdotal "This is not a problem for me..." and "I enjoy drinking.") But such a thread is not even necessarily saying §"Never drink alcohol" or even "You are a bad person for drinking." But these last two points (§) are invariably the emotional reactions that people voice based on the title or from the feeling that their personhood is somehow under attack. (I had thought about also raising the analogy with the issue of "Toxic Masculinity," but I think that would be too much of a can of worms to open in this thread.) And it seems fairly clear that there are similar reactions here such that the topic is being attacked on the basis of the emotional reactions §. There is less of an acknowledgment of the problems of excess or extraneous worldbuilding and more of an attempt to discredit the problem at hand. One way I have commonly seen the argument discredited amounts in paraphrase to "you can't criticize worldbuilding because everything is worldbuilding." Another has been on insisting that the vaguely general sense of the word's meaning is somehow the most "accepted" one over against its more particularized and connotative sense in common parlance.

I have no issue with what you've written above. It was notably missing highly charged terms such as zealotry and religious defense, though. Using the charged terms you chose to use carries a distinct connotation alongside a definition that works against your more points above -- zealotry, for instance, is a fanatic devotion which isn't the same thing as emotionally fraught thinking. Your use of the terminology the first time prompted me to respond with a careful admonition that you were sliding into accusing others of bad motivations (zealotry isn't something that would garner the description of a good motivation, after all). Your response doubled-down on the charged terms, which shorted out any good points you were making.

If your contention is merely that people can and will respond emotionally, I think our recent exchange clearly shows that to be true. I feel, however, that this cuts even more towards my advice that people clearly define their term usages and even try to adopt non-conflicted terminology rather than continue to war over the ownership of a contested word.

A war which, largely, your response to my other post below continues.

But this runs both ways. There are others who are using it an incredibly general way and others still who are insisting that the conversation adhere to their definition, whether narrower or broader. But being a "generally vague" sense should not equate to the "commonly understood" way. And I think that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s sense of "worldbuilding" runs much closer to the common parole than the more generally broad way in which "worldbuilding" is everything created under the sun. Hussar's usage of the term is evident in sheer preponderance and character of written and video articles found throughout the Internet on worldbuilding tips, advice, guidance, etc. The character of this term's usage is more particularized to a set of activities that often transpire on a different level than a world that emerges through play. The most common sense of the term frames worldbuilding as an authorial pre-emergent fiction activity.

And yet there are others who are also insisting on their definition or understanding, so putting this burden on [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] or [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] seems shortsighted, as this demand does not seem placed on others but just them. If as you say, everyone is insisting on a different definition of "stupid," then it seems a bit odd that you are admonishing one group for "redefining" a term while not admonishing another for doing the same or insisting on upholding a broader, vaguer, more general sense.

Again, I don't think that he is "redefining" the term since his usage reflects common parlance of the term "worldbuilding" in praxis.

Of course it runs both ways, that's been my point all along -- the term is highly contested and therefore it's better to be extremely and repeatedly clear as to your definition of it (something [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] admirably did, but only after how many pages of confusion?) or, even better, adopt a non-contested word or phrase for your take on the matter.

An example of this is the other worldbuilding thread where I coined several new terms to coherently and clearly describe the styles as I was discussing them. Many of those terms are now in common use in that thread by other posters and are still true to the meaning I gave them. By moving away from 'worldbuilding' and the contest of definitons in that thread and supplying 'preparation' which more closely matched the OP's usage, there was no confusion on my points that revolved around the unique definitions each poster had of worldbuilding. I practice exactly what I preach.

Worldbuilding does mean excessive detail creation about a fictional setting, just as you claim (without evidence, mind) that the internet sources largely say (accepted arguendo). But those sources ALSO say it's any details about a fictional setting, and that there are many methods that generate different quantities of material with different focuses, so it's clearly not all set in stone. Even the full pages of the sources cited by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] introduce complication to the simple claim that worldbuilding follows his personal definition. It does, but it also means other things that aren't his definition. Yet, here we are, arguing over who gets ownership of "worldbuilding" when the answer is truly that we all do -- we're all supported by the various definitions of worldbuilding. And that's what makes it useless for discussion unless we all agree to the same definition. And, since that seems unlikely (and probably unpossible(sic)), a better method would be to be clear, every time, what you mean when you use worldbuilding, or, even better since it avoids all argument over the definition of worldbuilding, coin or adopt a new phrase or word that you can clearly claim with your definitions. "Setting-building" along with the clear definition of such, is a great usage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The perils of posting on a phone.

Exactly the point of my attempt at humor.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Exactly the point of my attempt at humor.

I got it. It was very droll.

 

[Lanefan]

Speaking only for myself, and in truth never really having given any clear thought to it before this month, I've always just taken "worldbuilding" to mean the design etc. of everything that's not included in the process of designing adventures. And there's a fuzzy area between the two: the Keep in B2 or the Village in T1 sit right in that fuzzy area between adventure design and worldbuilding; in that in both cases they're part of the greater game world yet are also intended to have more or less direct influence on the actual adventure as written.

In other (and simpler) words:

The Caves of Chaos or the Moathouse: adventure design
The Keep or the Village: fuzzy area between adventure design and worldbuilding
The road and terrain between these two sites: worldbuilding.

The one place "worldbuilding" doesn't work as a term for me is when designing something bigger than one planetary world...e.g. a cosmology, or how the various planes interact, or a space-based setting covering many planets and systems. These are more like "universe building".

Lan-"out of this world"-efan

 

[pemerton]

One way I have commonly seen the argument discredited amounts in paraphrase to "you can't criticize worldbuilding because everything is worldbuilding."

I agree (I think) that this is not a very good argument. You can't effectively defend a particular technique by denying the vocabulary to isolate and critically analyse it.

 

[pemerton]

At what point is it too excessive? Sure, we can site The Silmarillion as being a bit much. The example of Village of Hommlett is a good one for the purposes of this discussion. But they also lean toward the extreme.

If I played an RPG that had setting on the scale of the Silmarillion, I wouldn't think it was too much! It would be awesome!

Provided that the setting had been established in a particular sort of way.

That is, for my part, I'm not fussed about quantity. I'm fussed about process - how the game is played and the fiction established. (This is related to my sense, in the RPG context, that "worldbuilding" is generally understood to be something that the GM does as part of the preparation for play.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I got it. It was very droll.

I assume you really meant 'very troll', because that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], once you start cutting him up, he just keeps fighting!