Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[edgewaters]

I'm going to duck the slings and arrows of new school outrage here and say that the original article is indeed quite correct and ad hoc worldbuilding is superior.

Starting a fresh campaign I have never done more than the most brief sketch of the wider world. It is allowed to emerge from play, it is not forced on play. It is incorrect to think fitting square pegs into round holes is in any way superior. I would rather spend the time detailing an immediate, microcosmic locale in which the players will be spending their time, than attempting to prefigure the most trivial details of a faraway land they may never visit.

Also a completely prefigured campaign rules out any player participation in determining facets of the campaign world, something I have always encouraged.

 

[Desdichado]

I do, very much. I remember my character's first visit to the Welcome Wench and seeing Velunan fireamber wine and Keoish ale on the bill of fare, and thinking to myself, "Hmmm, I wonder where those places are, and what's there?" I have much more confidence in a referee who actually knows the answer than one who either makes something up on the spot, or says, "Well, why don't you tell me what you think should be there?"

Arguably, a good GM is one that makes something like that up on the spot, but you never know it.

I make up quite a bit on the spot, but I present it as confidently as if I knew it all beforehand. Then I make notes while gaming so I don't later contradict myself.

 

[phindar]

I've screwed it up both ways. I've made worlds so rigidly detailed that the pcs were justs ghosts floating through them, unable to affect anything of import, leaving no footsteps or fingerprints. And I've made worlds so vague that if the pcs wander off track they see the 2x4's holding up the shop fronts.

The trick, I suspect, isn't that one method is superior to the other. The trick, I suspect, is finding the right balance for the GM and the group.

 

[billd91]

I'm going to go out and say that I think the Harrison is more correct than not. Here's the point:

Every moment of a science fiction story must represent the triumph of writing over worldbuilding.

He's not saying that an author should do no world-building behind the scenes, but that extensive world-building in the narrative of the story is bad and should be subordinate to the narrative.
I don't think this means that the story shouldn't offer glimpses of the world around the narrative or construct the world's reality as it relates to the ongoing story or even provide the necessary context to the story. Those are elements of the world that directly support the narrative, rather than existing to build the world in the eyes of the reader.

 

[Mallus]

Arguably, a good GM is one that makes something like that up on the spot, but you never know it.

I do it all the time. Of course, the end-result is CITY, so I'm not sure what I'm demonstrating. BTW, if any of you read the Story Hour, there's a new post up.

Damn, I have to run the game tonight and I here I am posting instead of printing out The Adventure. First honest-to-God dungeon I've used in 10 levels of play...

I've got more to say about Gatsby vs. LotR (wow, I feel like I'm in high school again), and some general remarks toward what different readerships want out of their books, but it'll have to wait.

 

[papastebu]

I never thought that quote made him sound like that. It merely highlights the fact that his goals and the goals of the novel writing and appreciating literature status quo were wholly incompatible and he had no problem with that.

I'm also surprised that my sly tweaking of China Mieville's nose as a prime example of a bad writer who let setting description get carried away way out of hand hasn't prompted up a storm of angry defensive retorts yet.

It was only "sly" because nobody commented on it.

 

[Mallus]

I don't think this means that the story shouldn't offer glimpses of the world around the narrative or construct the world's reality as it relates to the ongoing story or even provide the necessary context to the story. Those are elements of the world that directly support the narrative, rather than existing to build the world in the eyes of the reader.

Yes. You win the thread.

Worldbuilding in service of the narrative, not as some kind of parallel structure that offers its own separate pleasure.

Of course, that doesn't always apply, as is so throughly demonstrated by LotR ...

 

[The Shaman]

Arguably, a good GM is one that makes something like that up on the spot, but you never know it.

I would say those GMs are improbably rare, in my experience.

Referees who aren't interested in world-building may toss off a name like that here or there, but in my experience most simply don't bother, and thus every tavern offers the same bland flagon of ale or goblet of wine. The Inn of the Welcome Wench offers a selection of nine different imported libations, and I know that each one is tied to an actual place in the game-world that my character could go explore if I was so inclined. I've yet to meet the improv ref would could pull that off that kind of detail as convincingly and consistently as one who invests the time and effort at world-building.

 

[The Shaman]

I've screwed it up both ways. I've made worlds so rigidly detailed that the pcs were justs ghosts floating through them, unable to affect anything of import, leaving no footsteps or fingerprints. And I've made worlds so vague that if the pcs wander off track they see the 2x4's holding up the shop fronts.

The trick, I suspect, isn't that one method is superior to the other. The trick, I suspect, is finding the right balance for the GM and the group.

That's the money quote right there.

 

[Reynard]

Also a completely prefigured campaign rules out any player participation in determining facets of the campaign world, something I have always encouraged.

Well, when you are speaking in absolutes, of course everything sucks. Maybe, though, there's a level of moderation and flexibility even in a world where "everything" has been prefigured. I mean, it is pretty much impossible to write an ecyclopediac, comprehensive study of an imaginary place. At some point, a player is going to ask a question or suggest something and it is going to fit, or something is going to have to be made up.

But, carry on assuming that everyone doing macroscopic design is hitting his players with the NO! hammer every time they sit down.