Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[eayres33]

Not worth it.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

That's what I'm talking about. He offered a concession. You didn't. You haven't. You continue to dig your heels deep into the underdark regarding your own definition and sense of worldbuilding.

 

[pemerton]

what if a DM selects such a monster for inclusion in their game world? Presumably when "stocking" a dungeon or similar. Isn't that DM deciding to include a world element?

I think so. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] doesn't count this as worldbuilding, though - I think because in and of itself it implicates nothing beyond the actual situation currently in play.

Taken as written, the inclusion of hobgoblins implies the inclusion of elves

I don't quite agree - I'll explain why below.

Ultimately, these bits of lore are the tools of worldbuilding

This seems pretty plausible. Eg if you read that hobgoblins hate orcs, you may well be prompted to make a hobgoblin/elf conflict part of your setting.

But you don't have to. You can use hobgoblins and just ignore the bits about elves. I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s concern (at least as I understand it) is that the more the account of what an X is presupposes Ys as well (kobolds as dragon-slaves is, again, an example of this) the harder it becomes to use the game element but ignore/strip away the lore. Expectations are also part of this: if you use hobgoblins then players expect them to be hostile to any elves that turn up; but maybe no elves do. The fact that hobgoblins are said to hate elves doesn't mean that the use of hobgoblins in play signals, in and of itself, the use of elves. Whereas if you use kobolds, players start wondering when the dragon is going to show up.

I think it is these different ways lore can be used, and these different ways it affects expectations, that tend to make it unhelpful just to group it all together as worldbuilding.

 

[pemerton]

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.

But if the Phantom of the Opera was a RPG, then we know what happened, and we know exactly how much setting was required - namely, the opera house and the subterranean lair beneath it.

That is - at least as I understand it - [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] (i) is pointing out that a story can proceed without worldbuilding beyond the immediate setting/situation in which the action unfolds, and (ii) is asserting that this is possible for RPGing.

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.

His point is that he does not author any more setting in advance than he anticipates will be needed for the situations that will be the focus of play. Now because even [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is only human, perhaps he sometimes misjudges - he authors something but it turns out it never gets used in play (eg the PCs never actually venture into the Phantom's lair); or he hasn't authored something but it turns out that he needs it (eg one of the PCs visits a theatrical agent, and so Hussar has to ad lib an account of the streets of Paris and the agent's wood-panelled office).

That doesn't change the fact that (i) he is not engaging in worldbuilding as he characterises it, namely, the authoring of fictional details with no intention that they be part of play and even knowledge that they won't be, and (ii) in virtue of (i), is proving by doing that worldbuilding as he characterises it is not, per se, needed for RPGing.

For what it's worth, I agree with him.

 

[Imaro]

I'm sorry but I'm still failing to see how worldbuilding = bad. I can understand one's preference for more or less worldbuilding (and thus picking a playstyle that speaks to that preference)... but so far, and maybe I've missed it in this enormous thread, what I haven't seen is a good argument for why it should be considered "bad" as a default. I mean it's a hobby, it's supposed to be fun and if for some people fleshing out their imaginary world or reading about the numerous details found in a published imaginary setting increases the enjoyment of participating in the hobby, I can't see how that could be considered a bad thing, especially when (in the case of a published world it can be ignored by those who don't want it) or in the case of a homebrew isn't impacting the game in a negative way for the players. Which brings me to another point...

How much worldbuilding should be considered excessive... well IMO, that's totally dependent on the players of the game. I know my players, I know what they're likely to seek information about, what they are likely to investigate in a given situation and even what they are likely to do in a general sense (and if I honestly have no clue I will ask them outside of playing time about their plans before our next gaming session)... so while the details I create may seem superfluous or excessive to someone not running for my group, they aren't for me because even though they may not be used in the game session they are providing a buffer that makes running a game a more comfortable experience for me with my particular group. I mean really that's the only measure that matters to me... whether the worldbuilding that has been undertaken (irregardless of actual direct usage in tonight's particular adventure) has enhanced the play experience in some way.

 

[Maxperson]

That's what I'm talking about. He offered a concession. You didn't. You haven't. You continue to dig your heels deep into the underdark regarding your own definition and sense of worldbuilding.

What should I concede exactly? If he were to claim that that an apple was an orange, and then later concede that it was in fact an apple, why would I be expected to concede that it's not an apple?

 

[Maxperson]

I don't quite agree - I'll explain why below.

This seems pretty plausible. Eg if you read that hobgoblins hate orcs, you may well be prompted to make a hobgoblin/elf conflict part of your setting.

But you don't have to. You can use hobgoblins and just ignore the bits about elves. I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s concern (at least as I understand it) is that the more the account of what an X is presupposes Ys as well (kobolds as dragon-slaves is, again, an example of this) the harder it becomes to use the game element but ignore/strip away the lore. Expectations are also part of this: if you use hobgoblins then players expect them to be hostile to any elves that turn up; but maybe no elves do. The fact that hobgoblins are said to hate elves doesn't mean that the use of hobgoblins in play signals, in and of itself, the use of elves. Whereas if you use kobolds, players start wondering when the dragon is going to show up.

I think it is these different ways lore can be used, and these different ways it affects expectations, that tend to make it unhelpful just to group it all together as worldbuilding.

I agree with you that you can ignore bits of what is written. However, ignoring bits of what is written and what [MENTION=61721]Hawke[/MENTION]yfan wrote "Taken as written, the inclusion of hobgoblins implies the inclusion of elves." are mutually exclusive positions. You cannot both "take what is written" and "ignore the bits about elves." One includes all of what is written and the other doesn't.

 

[Maxperson]

But if the Phantom of the Opera was a RPG, then we know what happened, and we know exactly how much setting was required - namely, the opera house and the subterranean lair beneath it.

That is - at least as I understand it - @Hussar (i) is pointing out that a story can proceed without worldbuilding beyond the immediate setting/situation in which the action unfolds, and (ii) is asserting that this is possible for RPGing.

Then it's not an RPG. In an RPG I can talk about things outside the opera house. What you are describing is just a bunch of people sitting around reading a script, not a game where people roleplay and can ask questions beyond a building that they are in.

His point is that he does not author any more setting in advance than he anticipates will be needed for the situations that will be the focus of play. Now because even @Hussar is only human, perhaps he sometimes misjudges - he authors something but it turns out it never gets used in play (eg the PCs never actually venture into the Phantom's lair); or he hasn't authored something but it turns out that he needs it (eg one of the PCs visits a theatrical agent, and so Hussar has to ad lib an account of the streets of Paris and the agent's wood-panelled office).

I hope never to play with a DM that considers one building as all that is needed for a setting or adventure. It bodes ill for his ability to foresee what might be used.

That doesn't change the fact that (i) he is not engaging in worldbuilding as he characterises it, namely, the authoring of fictional details with no intention that they be part of play and even knowledge that they won't be, and (ii) in virtue of (i), is proving by doing that worldbuilding as he characterises it is not, per se, needed for RPGing.

You and @Hussar have convinced me. The next time I get pulled over for speeding, I'm going to tell the cop that I don't define/characterize going above the speed limit as speeding or unsafe driving and let him know that I expect him to conform to my new definition. Then I'll point him to these threads so he can see the truth of my words.

 

[Sadras]

You and @Hussar have convinced me. The next time I get pulled over for speeding, I'm going to tell the cop that I don't define/characterize going above the speed limit as speeding or unsafe driving and let him know that I expect him to conform to my new definition. Then I'll point him to these threads so he can see the truth of my words.

To be clear this was funny.

EDIT: If the cop is a fellow roleplayer and agrees with your definition of worldbuilding, I'm sure he will let you off.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's what I'm talking about. He offered a concession. You didn't. You haven't. You continue to dig your heels deep into the underdark regarding your own definition and sense of worldbuilding.

This isn't a political negotiation. It is a discussion about world building. People are not going to concede basic facts about what they believe world building means, especially with some of the definitions being proposed. No one is digging in their heels. They just know what they like, what works, and what they consider world building to be when they prep their games. No amount of linguistic wrestling is going to change that sort of thing.