Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[rounser]

Even if I came up with the quotes, slathered them with butter, and served them on a silver tray, you wouldn't believe me.

Example me one thing I've twisted around to my liking, please. You do that, and I'll Search for the quotes. I'll even Take 20 on it.

I asked first for proof on your accusations, and it speaks volumes that you're hedging.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I asked first for proof on your accusations, and it speaks volumes that you're hedging.

Yes, it says that you are asking me to engage in labour when I very much doubt that there will be a return. Also, I would hesitate to say that claiming Hussar used a hill and a city as examples of worldbuilding is an accusation. I'm not, after all, saying that Hussar is deliberately twisting other's words, now, am I?

Nonetheless....

From post 612 (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3510101&postcount=612)

A very good example of world building as I define it - extraneous information that is separate from the plot - can be found in the Savage Tide AP. Of the 12 adventures, only the first two take place in the city of Sasserine. While the PC's are in Sasserine, they will advance from 1st to 4th or 5th level before leaving. It is assumed that they will not be returning.

In the players guide, Dragon Magazine and in Dungeon Magazine, Sasserine is very finely detailed. A large amount of space is given over to the ruling families of Sasserine. However, that information will never have any impact within the context of the adventures. The PC's are only 5th level at most while in Sasserine. They simply will have no contact with the ruling powers in the city and the ruling powers in the city will have no real interest in them.

That, to me, is an example of the kind of world building, the "six pages of Elven Tea ceremonies" that I was talking about before. This information is completely extraneous. It serves no real purpose within the adventure. Instead of detailing several power families in Sasserine, we could have had extra adventures, or longer encounter descriptions, or whatever. Instead, we have backgrounds and histories of people who will almost certainly not feature in the adventure and will never really have a chance to feature.

That is certainly smaller than a world, and is specifically a very small part of a world that appears in an adventure. So clearly, to Hussar, what appears in an adventure isn’t necessarily part of an adventure (see also the Five Shires reference to X1). Nor is worldbuilding something that occurs only on the scale of a world.

That would be the city I mentioned, and here’s the hill:

From post 882 (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3528163&postcount=882)

Take the hill with bunnies and the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing encounter. Placing rabbits on a hill is not world building. It's just setting. It's creates an atmosphere of idyllic peace. Detailing the life cycles of those rabbits would be world building. Putting a hill there isn't world building. Again, it's simply setting - a place for the action to happen. Talking about how ancient halflings used the hill in their moon worshipping ceremonies centuries ago would be world building. Putting the monster there isn't world building, it's the antagonist. It's not even setting. Detailing the history of the creature when that history isn't going to affect play would be world building.

Again, smaller than a world. It is a response to a post of mine that claims that, if you never mention bunnies, the minute you use a wolf-in-sheep’s clothing the players are going to notice that something is up. IOW, if the only details you mention are the significant ones, any detail mentioned must be significant. Do I need to pull that quote up as well? I can.

And one has to wonder why mentioning bunnies on a hill isn’t world-building, but mentioning the shape of windows is. Or how mentioning bunnies “creates an atmosphere of idyllic peace” but mentioning the ancient halfling moon worship doesn’t create an atmosphere of its own (eerie, magical, whathaveyou).


Now it's your turn, Rounser. Stop hedging!

 

[rounser]

Thank you RC, I rest my case that once Hussar's words are back in their proper context, your argument fails. Nowhere in those quotes has Hussar stated that city = the world, or that hill of rabbits = the world. Heck, it's not even implied!

Now it's your turn, Rounser. Stop hedging!

As far as my example, well, it's your post above! You've twisted his words around into a heavily filtered interpretation that suits your purposes in the posts earlier, but doesn't fit what he actually said, so I'm vindicated in asking for the direct quotes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thank you RC, I rest my case that once Hussar's words are back in their proper context, your argument makes no sense at all. Nowhere in those quotes has Hussar stated that city = world, or that hill of rabbits = world. And that's what you were trying to argue.

Quote me on that, pal. What I said was

Two "worldbuilding" examples Hussar used previously were a hill and a city.

This itself was support for my contention that

No, Hussar said "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" which doesn't make it any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.

His definitions are based on (1) scale and (2) utility, but IRL, it is very difficult to say that any DM actually meets his criteria on either point. When the (1) criteria is shown to be invalid, he admits it is so, and uses the (2) criteria. Hence "world doesn't necessarily mean planet". But when the (2) criteria is shown to be invalid, he uses the (1) criteria. Hence "It's CREATING A WORLD".

Note that "world here" doesn't mean "planet" but "world" in the term "worldbuilding".

If Hussar consistently required that something be related to scale, then his defintion of "worldbuilding" as being tied to scale would be consistent. It is not, and the above quotes demonstrate this, which was my intention.

If Hussar is going to make a claim that creating setting is not worldbuilding because of the differences in scale, then he has to either be consistent in that definition (in which case his examples Re: Isle of Dread, STAP, and the halfling moon worship are not worldbuilding) or he is going to encounter people who will call his position inconsistent.

Like I said earlier, even if I came up with the quotes, slathered them with butter, and served them on a silver tray, you wouldn't believe me. I have done so. You have demonstrated my expectations to be correct.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let me be even clearer:

IF "creating setting" is not "worldbuilding" because you are not "building a WORLD" THEN neither can creating the political structure of a city or the history of a hill or determining the shape of windows because doing so is not "building a WORLD".

THEREFORE, either

(A) The examples of creating the political structure of a city, the history of a hill, and determining the shape of windows ARE NOT WORLDBUILDING, or

(B) That you are not "building a WORLD" DOES NOT EVIDENCE that "creating setting" is not worldbuilding.

You cannot have it both ways, and be rationally consistent.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thank you RC, I rest my case that once Hussar's words are back in their proper context, your argument fails. Nowhere in those quotes has Hussar stated that city = the world, or that hill of rabbits = the world. Heck, it's not even implied!

As far as my example, well, it's your post above! You've twisted his words around into a heavily filtered interpretation that suits your purposes in the posts earlier, but doesn't fit what he actually said, so I'm vindicated in asking for the direct quotes.

Speaking of people twisting words, why would I say

So clearly, to Hussar, what appears in an adventure isn’t necessarily part of an adventure (see also the Five Shires reference to X1). Nor is worldbuilding something that occurs only on the scale of a world.

(emphasis mine)

if I was trying to demonstrate that "Hussar stated that city = the world, or that hill of rabbits = the world"?


RC

 

[rounser]

Two "worldbuilding" examples Hussar used previously were a hill and a city.

The conclusions you draw from that aren't true, because he doesn't imply that they're the limit of his world. The city isn't the entire world, and neither is the hill. The only place he said that is in your imagination.

It certainly doesn't imply this:

No, Hussar said "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" which doesn't make it any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.

That's where you make the city = the entire world by Hussar's definition claim. So yes, you are twisting his words. A lot. No disbelief needed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This isn't true, because he doesn't imply that they're the limit of his world. The city isn't the entire world, and neither is the hill. The only place he said that is in your imagination.

Crom on a stick, man read his quotes. He says that they are examples of worldbuilding. He uses that word. He says they are examples. They are certainly not the entire world, therefore it doesn't follow that you need to be building an entire world to be worldbuilding.

Hussar's statement that ""world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" is a hedge against his scale claim.

IOW, as I said previously,

His definitions are based on (1) scale and (2) utility, but IRL, it is very difficult to say that any DM actually meets his criteria on either point. When the (1) criteria is shown to be invalid, he admits it is so, and uses the (2) criteria. Hence "world doesn't necessarily mean planet". But when the (2) criteria is shown to be invalid, he uses the (1) criteria. Hence "It's CREATING A WORLD".

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, Hussar said "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" which doesn't make it any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.

That's where you make the city = the entire world by Hussar's definition claim. So yes, you are twisting his words. A lot. No disbelief needed.

Again, if worldbuilding requires that you are CREATING A WORLD, and "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending", then it is logically inconsistent to claim that creating the village/dungeon/wilderness combo is NOT worldbuilding because it isn't CREATING A WORLD. The term "world" loses its scale reference.

Or, another way to look at it: You brought up a demiplane as being smaller than a planet, and that is certainly possible. From this point of view, one could claim that the Top-Down method of worldbuilding was the Only True Worldbuilding, and everything else was creating setting or adventure. That would be consistent with claiming that worldbuilding is CREATING A WORLD.

However, creating the political structure of a city or the history of a hill IS NOT Top-Down worldbuilding. When Hussar makes the claim that these things are worldbuilding, he is violating the meaning he ascribes "world" in the context of "worldbuilding".

This is not saying that a "city = the entire world", but it IS saying that the meaning of the word "world" as used in the term "worldbuilding" doesn't necessarily refer to the entire world.

No twisting of anyone's words is required to draw the conclusion. You simply cannot have it both ways, and be rationally consistent.

 

[rounser]

Crom on a stick, man read his quotes.

I have, and by Thor's beard duuuuude, you're making things up!

He says that they are examples of worldbuilding. He uses that word. He says they are examples. They are certainly not the entire world, therefore it doesn't follow that you need to be building an entire world to be worldbuilding.

You have to make worlds in terms of component parts like cities and rabbit hills, but that doesn't make them the entire world, which is what he was referring to by "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet." Indeed not. To use D&D cosmology, it can encompass the entire Great Wheel to get larger, or a single Ravenloft demiplane to get smaller, for instance - it doesn't necessarily mean planet.

Hussar's statement that ""world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" is a hedge against his scale claim.

Whether or not that is true, you're still wrong in your claim that he said that the city or rabbit hill constituted an entire world, or by your putting-words-into-people's-mouths "creative interpretation" of his words, a village/dungeon/wilderness. And that's all I was looking for from you, confirming my suspicions that your reinterpretation doesn't match what he actually said, by the boots of Fharlangn.

This is not saying that a "city = the entire world", but it IS saying that the meaning of the word "world" as used in the term "worldbuilding" doesn't necessarily refer to the entire world.

No, it isn't. Stating that developing bunnies on a hill is worldbuilding doesn't imply that when Hussar says "the world" he means "that hill of bunnies" rather than "the entire planet or plane or cosmos". The argument you make is nonsense, probably because you've been caught out making things up.