Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Ovinomancer]

Okay, fair enough: I went back and looked at the initial post, and, it's true, that the latter, stronger definition (GM preauthoring used to curtail PC action) doesn't appear there.

But your larger point (at least I think it's been your argument at times; as I say above, it becomes increasingly more difficult to keep track), I think, is that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been inconsistent in his use of the term.

And that's where I disagree: I see no inconsistency. What I do perceive is a further refinement and clarification of what he means across many, many posts. And, after all, isn't that a point of analysis, to not only represent our views but, in attempting to codify them, hold them up to our own scrutiny (as well as that of others) so we have a better understanding of what our views actually are, and why we hold them?

No, my point was that he was unclear in his use of the term. He's been largely consistent with it to the point that I can't think of a case where he wasn't consistent with his usage.

But others have accysed hom of inconsistency, for sure, and loudly. This highlights my point that in long threads with many people it's very easy to misattribute things entirely innocently. You've missattrubuted bad behavior to me, for instance. How hard is it, then, to misattribute a unique definition?

 

[Ovinomancer]

"Everyone is involved in establishing the game world" is the description you think is best? How is that not worldbuilding?




I think the criticism is for a specific type of worldbuilding, with the GM as the sole or heavily primary authority on the world details to be used in the game. I realize that my use of the term is far more broad. However, I think that broader definition is far more suitable overall, and I do think it aligns with a less RPG specific version of the term.

I think that many settings are put forth as neutral, that's true. But I don't think that must limit player agency. It depends on expectations. I share your preference of having characters that are heavily invested in what is happening in the game, and tied to the events that are going to come up. But some players don't want or need that.

So in this sense, the expectation of agency is the deciding factor. You expect more agency for the players, so if a game does not have that, then you will likely not be satisfied with it. I can understand that. I don't know if I would therefore draw the same conclusions about the game system or style of play that you draw, but I can understand your preference. If you think that worldbuilding tends to limit agency, then I can understand your concern. I don't think it is nearly as ubiquitous as you put forth, but I can understand the concern.

But if you did not expect much agency....if it was a casual game that you joined on a whim, where everyone was playing a premade module or what have you, and gave little thought beyond their character other than class and race....you'd likely be fine with whatever agency you had. (I realize that you would likely not join such a game, but let's consider this a general "you")

The expectation on the part of the player is aligned with what the game offers, in which case, nothing is being denied.

If I have two kids, and one wants 4 scoops of ice cream, and the other only wants 2, I am not denying the second kid anything when I only give him 2 scoops.





Sure, there are some differences that are striking. I don't know if they need to be as great as you may think. There is nothing that prevents the GM from introducing secret backstory. The book uses an example that continues throughout the rules and it's very clear that the GM is expected to do exactly that. Yes, the material the GM introduces is expected to connect to the themes and ideas established in the Exposition Session, but it still allows for it. But I don't think that this fact will wind up limiting player agency.

But what about my comment where I said this is exactly how I've been running D&D for many years? You clipped that off when you quoted me, but I'm genuinely curious for your take on that.

Why can't D&D be played with an initial session where everyone contributes characters with goals and then world details that fit nicely with those goals and the themes that seem to be generated as a result? 5E's game mechanics are not strongly designed with this in mind, but the Bonds, Flaws, and Traits can really contribute a lot in this way. And then there is no real limit to what you can do as a group independent of the mechanics.

The agency discussion is fraught, and it's helpful to know that pemerton uses a specific definition of agency that aligns with his playstyle. I'm on record in the other thread to say that total agency -- the ability for players to have their decisions matter -- is more complex than the narrow application pemerton uses.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The agency discussion is fraught, and it's helpful to know that pemerton uses a specific definition of agency that aligns with his playstyle. I'm on record in the other thread to say that total agency -- the ability for players to have their decisions matter -- is more complex than the narrow application pemerton uses.

Oh, absolutely, I realize that. And I think I'm blending threads together with my comments, but seems to make sense.

Really I think it's as simple as someone saying "I prefer games that are designed to deliver the experience I'm looking for". So in pemerton's case, "I prefer Burning Wheel to most forms of D&D". Pretty simple.

To tie it into this thread, his stance and that expressed in the OP seem pretty close in meaning, and seem to be summarized by "heavy worldbuilding on the part of the GM prior to play tends to lead to a playstyle I don't prefer, so I tend to avoid games where such wolrdbuilding is assumed".

I think a lot of the confusion comes over the use of terms and examples of play that are perhaps not as clear as expected.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I saw first hand how much new ideas could get past the gate keepers with 4e, thanks.

Some new ideas from 4e hung around for 5e, because they were generally seen as good ideas. Many new ideas from 4e did not hang around for 5e, because they were generally seen as bad ideas.

The "gatekeepers" you refer to are filtering by quality and general usefulness, not by recency.

Yuppers, that last one is pretty much my exact take. World building is when you go beyond the needs of the story. And very, very much of it is for its own sake.

Problem is, when designing a world ahead of time - as in, before the start of play - one has no real way of knowing* what will fall within the story and what will be beyond it until the campaign is over, however long later that may be. I don't necessarily know where the campaign is eventually going to take us before it starts, but I want things to be at least vaguely prepped (even just some scratch notes and a map!) so that no matter where things go I've got something to stand on.

This makes RPG worldbuilding vastly different to worldbuilding for a novel, in that with a novel the author is extremely likely to know what parts of the world need to be built to suit the story and thus only needs to build that much; where in an RPG where the PCs are free to wander you end up doing a lot of "just in case they go there" building that may well end up being superfluous in hindsight.

* - unless one's campaign consists only of a published hard AP without deviation; not much worldbuilding needed there that the modules won't already give you.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - I'd point out that the definition of world building that I'm using, which is setting building above and beyond the needs of story - is the accepted definition of the term. Those insisting that world building=anything to do with setting are the ones that are needlessly broadening the term.

You cannot complain about me using an idiosyncratic definition of the word when I'm actually using the generally accepted definition.

IOW, why aren't you complaining about everyone else who is using the term wrong.
[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - sure, I accept that. Totally understand. But, again, there's a significant difference between some notes and a sketch and a three thousand word write up on the shape of windows in the Forgotten Realms. By and large home brewers aren't really going to go too nuts on world building, mostly because we're too lazy.

But, when it comes to published stuff? Hoo boy, the typewriters come out and the books get padded. Because that sort of stuff is easy. Bang out a few paragraphs on this or that and you're good to go. No need for play testing, no need for any cartography or game balance. Poof, instant material. Since 99% of it will never actually see the light of day at a table, who cares?

 

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - I'd point out that the definition of world building that I'm using, which is setting building above and beyond the needs of story - is the accepted definition of the term. Those insisting that world building=anything to do with setting are the ones that are needlessly broadening the term.

You cannot complain about me using an idiosyncratic definition of the word when I'm actually using the generally accepted definition.

IOW, why aren't you complaining about everyone else who is using the term wrong.

Yes, I saw that you read those definitions and interpreted them in... interesting ways, but that doesn't mean that your reading is the accepted definition. In fact, if you actually read the rest of that wikipedia article rather than the limit bit you quoted, it covers quite a large swath of what's been talked about in this thread. Apparently, worldbuilding is a rather broad term.

By-the-by the Merriam Webster quote is from a entry in their words to watch blog, where they discuss words that are not currently in their dictionary. So, that source isn't exactly a good one for the definition of worldbuilding, as it's literally (heh) talking about a word they haven't yet defined.

 

[pemerton]

A lot of gamers don't know that DitV exists, or, if they do, know little more about it - that it'd represent a 'standard' is pretty unintuitive.

A lot of contemporary filmgoers probably don't know that Breathless, or Citizen Kane, exist - does that mean that discussions of cinema should ignore them?

Discussion of RPGing techniques that confines itself to 2nd ed AD&D, 3E/PF/d20, and 5e, is going to be pretty attenuated.

There are probably some D&D players who think that (say) the Ideals/Bonds/Flaws mechanic in 5e has no origin in, or connection to, earlier RPG design. But they'd be wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], are you sure about your definition? Wikipedia gives this one:

Mirriam Webster:

TV Tropes has the definition I tend to work from:

Yuppers, that last one is pretty much my exact take. World building is when you go beyond the needs of the story. And very, very much of it is for its own sake.

Yep! Positive. This is what you are missing.

world
wərld/Submit
noun
noun: world; noun: the world
1. the earth, together with all of its countries, peoples, and natural features.

a) all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth.

b) denoting one of the most important or influential people or things of its class.

c) another planet like the earth.

d) the material universe or all that exists; everything.

2. a part or aspect of human life or of the natural features of the earth, in particular.

a) a region or group of countries.

b) a period of history.

c) a group of living things.

d) the people, places, and activities to do with a particular thing.

e) human and social interaction.

f) average, respectable, or fashionable people or their customs or opinions.

g) a person's life and activities.

h) everything that exists outside oneself.

i) secular interests and affairs.

You're making the mistake of equating world with planet. Planet is one meaning of world, but world also includes subparts such as the Village of Homlet if that's the only region to play in.

 

[pemerton]

The Standard Narrativist Model basically lays down the framework for what most people in the indie scene at the time saw as The Alternative to orthodox 1990's style design. Apocalypse World uses a fundamentally different set of techniques and principles of play. Unlike the clear protagonists with clearly defined dramatic needs that thrown into conflict Apocalypse World places the player characters into a pressure cooker situation where we find out who they are and uses a more naturalistic pace that is centered more on character exploration than conflict resolution. It does so in part by embracing a combination of principles and techniques that are reflective of Story Now games in some places, but in other places are more reminiscent of the play principles and techniques of Moldvay B/X that Vincent Baker cut his teeth on. It also leans on techniques more familiar to the free form community in other places.

I hadn't seen this post when I posted yesterday.

These are exactly the points that you've made before that have shaped the way I think about PbtA games.

 

[pemerton]

The last quoted sentence seems as good as any to describe what is going on. I think the current usage of "worldbuilding" in discussions of RPGing brings with it an assumption of GM authority over that process. I think this is very evident not just in many of the posts in the current threads, but other threads one reads on ENworld, blogs one reads, presentation in D&D rulebooks, etc.

It's also very often taken for granted, in RPGing, that a "gameworld" is more-or-less independent of any particular group of players or characters - which relates to the idea of "neutrality" that has been put forward by more than one poster in these threads. The process you describe for City of Mists does not produce a "neutral" setting.

People shouldn't assume. Worldbuilding is the building of the world/setting, regardless of whether the DM does it alone, or in conjunction with his players. I think you assume DM authority over the process, because most people play the game in the traditional manner still, so most worldbuilding is done by DMs.

In my opinion, you should assume less, attempt to redefine terms so that you can apply them negatively to playstyles not your own less, and simply talk about the differences in playstyles more. You'd get far more accomplished that way.

I didn't say anything about assumptions I make. I talked about assumptions, and "takings for granted", that are widespread.