Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

I admire your ability to tough out this thread in the face of such bizarre logic that it makes my head spin - I was mostly kidding about your harshness. I don't even know what common English words like "setting" mean anymore. And the irony is that I really like adventures far more than campaign setting material as a consumer, but the arguments on that side are so exaggerated and patronizing that I can't support them respectfully. I wish I could have turned these guys loose on TSR in the 2E days when setting material of dubious quality seemed much more prevalent. Oh well, I bow to your superior Fortitude save. Good luck.

Thanks.

But my Will save apparently sucks ass, or I would have bowed out long ago.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If my 0 + 4 = 4, and a prep-heavy 256 page setting bible's 4 + 0 = 4, the equation remains balanced: both of us are having fun gaming our way and both of our games add up to fulfilling, enriched, action-packed, flexible campaigns.

Honestly, I don't believe that the "prep only" guy runs a fun game either.

But I still take issue with the subtle arrogance of those who love their setting porn claiming that it makes their games better in a way that those who do not love their setting porn can never match.

I know that this is supposed to balance out the subtle insult to your players (or the subtle stretch to pat your own back, if you prefer), but I'd be hard pressed to find anything subtle about my position.

My statement is pretty clear (and pretty clearly defined, often, over the course of the thread): Worldbuilding is creating setting, specifically moving setting from the generic to the specific. Doing so is necessary to create an rpg game (although sometimes some of the work has been done for you, like WotC telling you what elves and dwarves are, what classes can do, and what spells do). Some worldbuilding is indulgent, yes. Some worldbuilding methods lead to potential problems in the game, yes. But not all, or even most.


RC

 

[rounser]

And howandwhy99, your analysis rocked.

Only someone who can't differentiate between worldbuilding and designing a campaign arc would say that. But you're seemingly so invested in worldbuilding, it's no wonder you can't see the difference.

 

[Hussar]

Is creating campaign setting world-building

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
Sci-fi writer M John Harrison tells you why you don't need to spend hours crafting your campaign setting:



Apparently so.

FIFY

I know this may appear redundant, but you guys are on page 23. My understanding still is: Hussar and Rounser are playing stories while everyone else is playing games. Stories have plots. Games don't. Plots are predetermined by definition. Games aren't (or Vegas owes me big).

There you go RC. Pretty much word for word what I've been saying. Those that figure that you need setting bibles figure that placing adventure first=railroading.

Since people apparently can't follow links, I'll post it here:

Worldbuilding Steps

Worldbuilding is a complex process, but it can be broken down into smaller categories.

[edit] Maps

It is vital to have clear and concise maps that display the locations of key points in the story - both so the author can be sure to be consistent and so the readers can get a clearer picture of the world being described. Two examples of famous maps in both literature and modern media are Middle-earth and the world of Azeroth.

[edit] Imaginary Ecosystem

Many authors create their own fauna and flora to enrich their world. Imaginary herbs are a large part of many fantasy novels, Kingsfoil in The Lord of the Rings being one such example.

[edit] Cultures

The different cultures that inhabit the world are another important aspect of worldbuilding. These are often based on real cultures, such as Vikings, the Middle Ages, ancient China, or Bedouins.

[edit] Written History

Creating a history for an imaginary world adds a depth and flavour to it that can help to draw readers into it. Created history can be based on anything, but many science fiction and fantasy authors base their novels in worlds where a major war has occurred in the past, is occurring, or will occur in the near future. Examples of such writing include The Lord of the Rings, the Shannara series, and the Belgarath series.

Physics and Magic

Another major aspect in worldbuilding is creating a world based either on A)Physics or B)Magic. The former is favoured by Science Fiction authors, who use technology in accordance with theories of the universe to create "magic-like" circumstances. Hyperdrive or faster than light travel is a common factor in most science fiction, and is an example of Physics. The latter is favoured by fantasy authors, who will give some (or all) characters magical talent. Authors such as David Eddings and Holly Lisle use Limited Magic, whereas authors such as J. R. R. Tolkien and Fiona McIntosh prefer Limitless magic.

Now, where in there does it not say that world building is far more than simply setting construction? World building is a very specific process. It's CREATING A WORLD. Geez, I know that taking the literal definition of a phrase is a really whacked out concept, but, come on.

World - a big place where everything is.

Building - to make something.

World building - to make a really big place where everything is.

In a D&D game, we don't need to know where everything is. We only need to know where the things necessary for the adventure are. If, instead of banging out setting book after setting book we instead focused on adventures and then let setting arise from that, we'd be much further ahead.

People have brought up Diskworld. Diskworld has lots of setting depth because there are twenty-three (or more) novels set in it. Nothing like ten or fifteen thousand pages of text to give some depth to a setting. But, I would never try to claim that The Color of Magic is a triumph of world building.

Really guys, try some yoga. Body building is great if all you want is big muscles, but, y'know, flexibility is nice too.

 

[Hussar]

Look at it this way:

When someone starts a new campaign, almost always it will be approached in one of two ways - bottom up or top down. Either way, you are constructing a complete setting.

My point is that maybe, just maybe, this approach is wrong.

Instead of starting out with the question of "where is the action going to happen?" why not start out with the question, "What is going to happen?" I want to run a naval based campaign for instance. So, I want to run adventures based around the sea. At low levels, maybe we'll do a couple of portside adventures with the players foiling smugglers and gaining a boat. Then, we'll do a few adventures where the players get used to being sailors. Then we'll bring in a nice arc about hunting a big white whale. Following that... You get the idea.

Then, as you make those adventures, and probably a few more as well for side treks, you create setting as needed. Need an island here? Poof it's there. Need a sandbar there? Magic.

Does that make sense?

Repeately people have claimed that setting inspires adventures. I'll buy that. I'm a big proponent of using whatever inspires you. My point is, there are many, many things out there that can inspire you without you having to do hours and hours of work that ultimately won't see the light of day. The point of inspiration is to craft the adventure. That means that adventures are the important thing. Why not skip the middle man and go straight to the adventures?

 

[JustinA]

Now, where in there does it not say that world building is far more than simply setting construction? World building is a very specific process. It's CREATING A WORLD. Geez, I know that taking the literal definition of a phrase is a really whacked out concept, but, come on.

And now we switch to a definition of world-building from which one can only conclude that no one has ever done world-building.

Why?

Because you are insisting that it's only world-building if some creates an entire world. This is impossible. No meaningful world can ever be described to its last detail. So, clearly, a line must be drawn at some point.

You are, in fact, choosing to draw that line at an arbitrary point of "more detail than is needed for the present adventure", and then tautologically assuming your conclusion from that.

But, of course, I have already destroyed this line of your argument. And it is notable that you failed to respond to that.

Repeately people have claimed that setting inspires adventures. I'll buy that. I'm a big proponent of using whatever inspires you. My point is, there are many, many things out there that can inspire you without you having to do hours and hours of work that ultimately won't see the light of day. The point of inspiration is to craft the adventure. That means that adventures are the important thing. Why not skip the middle man and go straight to the adventures?

This line of argument is more compelling, but you're assuming that "what type of adventures do I want to run" isn't taken into consideration when you're world-building. You're the only one drawing an artificial boundary between the two activities, after all.

And, ultimately, this still just comes back to the after-the-fact nature of the distinction you're trying to draw: The color of a rooftop is "good setting" if it comes up during the course of an adventure; it's "bad setting" if it doesn't.

Barring a precognizant DM, I'm not sure what the usefulness of this distinction is supposed to be.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[LostSoul]

Worldbuilding is creating setting, specifically moving setting from the generic to the specific. Doing so is necessary to create an rpg game (although sometimes some of the work has been done for you, like WotC telling you what elves and dwarves are, what classes can do, and what spells do).

I'm not sure I follow.

In a recent campaign, the first session consisted of our group sitting down and coming up with a world. Everything was vague and generic. (As in, "This world is ruled by a merchant council." "Yeah, it's like a corporation, and the council members are guys who have huge numbers of shares.")

During the game, if we needed something (or someone!) more detailed, we created it on the fly.

What would you say we were doing 1) during the first session, and 2) while we were playing out individual scenes?

I would say 1) was worldbuilding, and 2) was creating setting. I guess I would say that worldbuilding is creating the generic, and setting is moving to the specific.

 

[khyron1144]

World - a big place where everything is.

Building - to make something.

World building - to make a really big place where everything is.

In a D&D game, we don't need to know where everything is. We only need to know where the things necessary for the adventure are. If, instead of banging out setting book after setting book we instead focused on adventures and then let setting arise from that, we'd be much further ahead.

People have brought up Diskworld. Diskworld has lots of setting depth because there are twenty-three (or more) novels set in it. Nothing like ten or fifteen thousand pages of text to give some depth to a setting. But, I would never try to claim that The Color of Magic is a triumph of world building.

Really guys, try some yoga. Body building is great if all you want is big muscles, but, y'know, flexibility is nice too.

I will agree with your definition, but I will disagree with your conclusion.

Like I said before: I've been working with the same homebrew world, since seventh grade. I think that might be equivalent to a few thousand pages of text. I have retconned out much of the stuff from the earliest days, so I guess it was not initially a triumph of world-builidng.




By the by, you're the Hussar from the Shadow of the Dragon forums too, right? Cool to run across you again on this board, if so.

 

[Hussar]

And now we switch to a definition of world-building from which one can only conclude that no one has ever done world-building.

Why?

Because you are insisting that it's only world-building if some creates an entire world. This is impossible. No meaningful world can ever be described to its last detail. So, clearly, a line must be drawn at some point.

Only if you assume that you only world build if you have a complete product. If the process of world building is creating an entire world (note, world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending) with as much detail and history as possible - following the six steps outlined above - then you would be wrong.

You are, in fact, choosing to draw that line at an arbitrary point of "more detail than is needed for the present adventure", and then tautologically assuming your conclusion from that.

But, of course, I have already destroyed this line of your argument. And it is notable that you failed to respond to that.

There's been a lot of posts in here. If I missed something mea culpa.

However, you are also guilty of tautology. Setting is good because you need setting. World building=setting construction. Therefore world building is good. Just like exercise is good. Exercise builds muscles. Body building builds muscles. Therefore all exercise is body building.

World building is a specific process that is not necessarily the same as setting construction. All stories, and rpg's, need a setting. They don't need world building.

This line of argument is more compelling, but you're assuming that "what type of adventures do I want to run" isn't taken into consideration when you're world-building. You're the only one drawing an artificial boundary between the two activities, after all.

And, ultimately, this still just comes back to the after-the-fact nature of the distinction you're trying to draw: The color of a rooftop is "good setting" if it comes up during the course of an adventure; it's "bad setting" if it doesn't.

Barring a precognizant DM, I'm not sure what the usefulness of this distinction is supposed to be.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

So, what kind of adventures are being taken into account in twenty some thousand pages of Forgotten Realms material? When I pick up the Ghelspad Gazetteer, I get 300 (ish) pages that paints the nations and city states of Scarn with a very broad brush. What kind of adventures are being taken into account there?

Y'know what? I'm fairly willing to think that the entirety of The Border Kindoms articles are pretty much indulgence. Note, please note, that I'm NOT saying that it's bad. I'm saying that you could spend time in better ways, but, I'm not saying that it is bad. We've been over this before. Dessert isn't bad. But, you don't really need it. A little once in a while is probably a good thing. But, ignoring the main course to always go for the dessert is probably not the way to go.

/edit - found it. How about four separate articles detailing architecture in the rural areas of FR? Can we not at least agree that here, in this one case, we have found something that is pretty much pure indulgence?

It's not about being precient. But, come on. Let's be honest here. Do you REALLY think that 32 and counting articles are really necessary? I agree that setting is necessary. I fully support the idea that setting is necessary. But this is pure indulgence. It's big, creamy, boston cream donuts. It's a big slice of cherry cheesecake with graham crust.

Oh man, now I've got the munchies.

LostSoul - you are doing pretty much what I'm advocating. Your world building is confined to a paragraph, but your setting building is focused on what you need for the adventure. Cudos.

 

[Baron Opal]

If he's saying that he can consistently stay ahead of the players, then he's not just saying that he's mentally adroit; he's saying that he is more mentally adroit than those players.

No, he's saying that he can make up fun stuff to do faster than the players can do it. There is no insult here, real or implied, merely the claim of honed skill.

Which, if you've been making stuff up for a long time, I imagine you would become quite good at tale telling after a while.