Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Steel_Wind]

This is very relevant advice for a sci-fi writer.

This is terrible advice for most DMs.

This is somewhat appropriate advice for a small number of DMs with a very particular kind of style.

No. It's terrible advice for both the DM and Sci Fi writer. It's okay advice for the fantasy author - but only to a point.

The problem is that SF, in order to work, operates under our laws of reality and physics. You can bend them (a la Star Trek) but you must do so coherently and in a rational and ordered manner. That is the defining characteristic of speculative fiction.

Because it is THAT rationality which distinguishes SF from Fantasy. The rules of a fantasy world are not our own. There, a writer is given license to rewrite those rules. But in a SF world they do not have that license. The rules must work and be plausible and consistent - or the reader loses his suspension of disbelief and turns away from the SF tale in disgust.

It is that very element which is the heart and soul of the distinction between SF and Fantasy,

And it is also why the quote mentioned in the OP's post is 100% dead frickkin wrong.

 

[edgewaters]

I personally find this untrue. True, perhaps, if the worldbuilding is done in 'rambling essays,' but this is the digital age; a reasonably competent computer literate person (say, good enough to consistently get to and post on a message board ) can do worldbuilding in MS Word or Wordperfect and generate an index for it that will allow him easy reference; with a smidgeon more expertise or a copy of any commercial HTML editor, he can hypertext up his world document and make it even easier to reference.

Sure but is he to cross reference everything he's written for any possible conflict, before making any statement? Seems that his imagination would quickly be hog-tied and trussed up as well as Gulliver in Lilliput in short order!

The more you paint, the more you are likely to paint yourself in a corner.

 

[ThirdWizard]

No. It's terrible advice for both the DM and Sci Fi writer. It's okay advice for the fantasy author - but only to a point.

The problem is that SF, in order to work, operates under our laws of reality and physics. You can bend them (a la Star Trek) but you must do so coherently and in a rational and ordered manner. That is the defining characteristic of speculative fiction.

What if the protagonist (or wherever the POV is taken from) has no understanding of science? Does it really matter if tech just works? I don't see how scifi itself has any more reason than fantasy to world build.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Verisimilitude Über Alles!

Utter crap.

Agreed; simulationism (incl. world-building) is not necessarily a psychotic endeavor. Oh, and one more thing:



Thanks for the MTG quiz link, guys!

-Samir Asad

​

 

[Michael Silverbane]

What if the protagonist (or wherever the POV is taken from) has no understanding of science? Does it really matter if tech just works? I don't see how scifi itself has any more reason than fantasy to world build.

That is basically the difference between what is called hard science fiction and science fantasy... They are subgenres...

Later
silver

 

[ThirdWizard]

That is basically the difference between what is called hard science fiction and science fantasy... They are subgenres...

Later
silver

Yes, I know. Lets add space opera to the list as well, since its even further from hard science fiction (ala Star Wars), cyberpunk, etc. So if it isn't hard science fiction, its not science fiction?

EDIT: Or should we simply say that hard science fiction has more necessity to world build instead of saying science fiction in general? That sounds fine to me.

 

[Nyeshet]

Had this advice come from a more respected author - Orson Scott Card, Terry Goodkind, Anne Bishop, Diane W Jones, to give a few examples - I probably would have given it far more consideration. As it is, it comes from a name I have never heard before, and I can only wonder whether this might be a reflection of his style in his works. Are his settings so bland, so outlandish in their composition, so lacking in coherence, that they have failed to gain recognition, failed to sell?

Perhaps I am wrong in my wonderings upon his works, but I have to admit that I quite strongly disagree with his advice.

Granted, over-doing it can be a problem when worldbuilding for a written work, as it can drown the book in minute details, but so long as it is done in moderation - or, for some works, just a bit beyond necessary moderation - worldbuilding aids the author in visualizing and understanding the interrelations of their work. Some stories, due to their particular style, can do away with most world building and still work out quite well. But anything that is likely to become a series will need at least a little or it will suffer from what I term the 'quilted patch' effect: several parts that have no real coherence or interrelation with each other despite having supposedly been interacting together for generations if not longer.

In a game, I have found that at least the bare bones of the setting must be worked out for the sake of coherence. If a continent beyond the horizon has not had contact with the one on which the PCs stand for more than a thousand years, then there is no need to determine much of anything about it other than its existence and perhaps any interesting detail that might be affecting the PC's continent. On the other hand, it is best that the DM has worked out what kingdoms border the one the PCs are in and whether they are friends, foes, etc and what major interactions they have (if any) with said PC inhabited kingdom. And if the PCs are in a town with three roads leading from it, the DM certainly needs to know what is next upon each road, as who knows which direction the PCs will be taking. You can make it up, but what if that very act invalidates something along another road later. Making things up over and over again leads to a quilted patch effect faster than any other method.

For a one shot campaign and even for some one shot novels leaving most if not nearly all world building by the side of the road is not a problem, but for anything expected to last more than one story, more than one session, worldbuilding is necessary, useful, and even expected (in my experience, anyway).

 

[Set]

Breaking in to say *Peter Jackson!* PETER JACKSON! ARGH!

Peter Jackson = adapting Tolkein's works to the big screen.

Not 'Steve Jackson.' Steven Jackson = GURPS, Car Wars, and other game stuff.

As for the author's opinions, they work for some, other methods work for others. Dogmatically saying, 'only my way works, and your an enormous nerd if you do it the other way' isn't terribly accurate. Nor does it lend itself to having your opinions taken seriously.

And hey, the argument that a reader should be really interested in a setting that the author himself doesn't care about seems a little thin anyway...

 

[Mallus]

The problem is that SF, in order to work, operates under our laws of reality and physics.

Except that in a great deal of great SF, it doesn't. But what does that have to do with Harrison's admonition against making an exhaustive survey of you imaginary world?

You can bend them (a la Star Trek) but you must do so coherently and in a rational and ordered manner.

Trek makes hash out of science. Whole new species of particle physics were invented haphazardly whenever the writers felt the need the turn the crew into babies or sex maniacs (I exaggerate, barely).

For the record, I do think Star Trek is rightly considered science fiction, because it addresses most of the major themes associated with the genre, in a serious fashion --usually. But claiming its approach to scientific speculation is ordered and rational is crazy talk.

That is the defining characteristic of speculative fiction.

The defining characteristics of SF are a whole other can of worms. At the very least its not merely a matter of scientific accuracy, or an honest attempt at it. Even hard SF stalwarts like Stephen Baxter sometimes write about things that are wholly outside what can meaningfully be called science; like car-sized FTL spaceships, star-killing handguns, and dark matter birds that flock malevolently in suns.

Because it is THAT rationality which distinguishes SF from Fantasy.

Or a pretense to that rationality.

Godzilla (or better, the original Gojira) isn't particularly rational, but it sure looks like science fiction, being a work that directly addresses the anxiety over rapid technological change, say, like the Bomb.

But in a SF world they do not have that license. The rules must work and be plausible and consistent - or the reader loses his suspension of disbelief and turns away from the SF tale in disgust.

SF writers have the license to engage in their own kinds of fantasy; force fields, instantaneous communication, FTL, magic gussied up as psionics, the utter inanity of most depictions of space warfare.

It is that very element which is the heart and soul of the distinction between SF and Fantasy

I think important differences between "SF" and "F" are thematic. That conceptualization at least results in a more stable definition of the genres.

And it is also why the quote mentioned in the OP's post is 100% dead frickkin wrong.

But the quote concerns worldbuilding when it occludes the main point of the work, not all attempts at creating a coherent counter-factual world.

 

[apoptosis]

Strangely this topic is somewhat related to a New Campaign I am running (using TSOY, I wanted to use C&C but my friend really wants to play TSOY).

The idea behind this campaign is that at the start of every 'story' it takes place in a tavern, with the characters (totally metagame) recounting their adventures. This is just a metagame way for a player (each player will take a turn) to determine the setting/campaign of the next story for the characters (though all players get to throw in ideas for potential NPCs, relationship maps, conflicts etc.), which I then will run the 'adventure/story' for.

Using this idea I have only a rough map with only a few defined areas (ones i wanted to create) and the rest is blank and will be filled in as the campaign continues mostly by the players ideas.

This was totally tangental to the discussion, but thought I would throw it in (and wanted to see if anyone else thought it is an interesting way to do a campaign, i hope it is fun but am a little worried it might suck bad and be totally incoherent)

Apop