Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Tony Vargas]

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?

I've sat through Citizen Kane. It wouldn't hurt. ;P

Seriously, though, it means they shouldn't be held up as typical or standard fare.

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.

Sure, they're wrong about a lot of things, that way. But it won't help them to understand things by making allusions to more obscure games, rather than spelling things out in terms that might risk making sense to them.

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.

See, "Alternative Narrativist Model." That'd be more intuitive.

 

[pemerton]

Quick addendum: the "What is *worldbuilidng* for?" thread is actually an offshoot of extensive but tangential discussion in another thread ("What is an xp worth?" I think, but I don't have the time or patience to go back and look). It's quite likely that some further qualification of worldbuilding occurred in that thread, preceding the initial post of the former thread, setting up the ensuing conversation.

It also sprang out of this Classic Traveller thread, which I started (i) for fun, and (ii) to get some ideas for what should happen next in my Traveller game, but which turned into a debate about who gets to establish the fiction (players or GM) and hence how important it is for the players to "gather information".

 

[pemerton]

I've sat through Citizen Kane. It wouldn't hurt.

I have a copy of Citizen Kane on my DVD shelf. It remains one of the greatest of all films. (My favourite film from that era, possibly my favourite film per se, is Casablanca, but that's because I'm sentimental.)

it won't help them to understand things by making allusions to more obscure games, rather than spelling things out in terms that might risk making sense to them.

<snip>

See, "Alternative Narrativist Model." That'd be more intuitive.

The standard in "standard narrativistic model" isn't describing the model as standard for RPGing. It's standard for narrativistic RPGing. Contrast, say, setting-heavy HeroWars/Quest play, which would be an Alternative Narrativistic Model (see Ron Edwards's discussion here).

As far as spelling things out, there's a 2000-post thread that most of the posters in this thread have participated in for 100s of posts. I don't think I've been remiss in spelling things out.

 

[Hussar]

Wonder if Ovinomancer will be as qick to take Maxperson to task for creativity during definitions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have a copy of Citizen Kane on my DVD shelf. It remains one of the greatest of all films. (My favourite film from that era, possibly my favourite film per se, is Casablanca, but that's because I'm sentimental.)

I've had mixed reactions to cinema film schools tell us is great, I understand Citizen Kane brought together some techniques and was innovative for it's day, and that it was thinly veiled biography with a message.
It was also reasonably boring.

I get the impression a lot of indie games are aspiring to be Citizen Kane while D&D's Fast&FuriousFive kills em at the box office...

The standard in "standard narrativistic model" isn't describing the model as standard for RPGing. It's standard for narrativistic RPGing.

Nope, doesn't work. Neither does 'Story Now,' really, though it's not as bad.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wonder if Ovinomancer will be as qick to take Maxperson to task for creativity during definitions.

I have, as recently as yesterday. Just so we can get past this part quickly, are there any more flaws of character you'd like to insinuate?

 

[Maxperson]

Couldn't agree with this more. Granted, this conversation spans many threads, but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], for example, clearly defines his terms in the OP of (and many, many times throughout) the "what is *worldbuilding* for?" thread, yet what you describe is characteristic of how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] seem to "choos[e] to misunderstand him for the sake of perpetuating the confusion or sidestepping his argument without good faith." Particularly, when you combine this with what Maxperson says upthread* about delibertately misrepresenting arguments!

*I think it's in this thread, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to keep track of who posted what where....

Eh, no. We're not misunderstanding him at all. We are rejecting his bad faith attempts to re-define terms that already have a lot of meaning in these discussions in order to suit his personal arguments. Those terms are going to come up in these discussions as they are really meant to be defined. Especially since he likes to re-define terms in order to use those new definitions to portray playstyles other than his own in a negative light. He needs to come up with different terms, or else just type out what he means in long form.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

It doesn't mater if he's consistent or not. It's bad faith to try and re-define terms to suit your personal needs in a discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

Wonder if Ovinomancer will be as qick to take Maxperson to task for creativity during definitions.

I'm using actual definitions.

 

[Hussar]

I'm using actual definitions.

No, you're not actually. The commonly accepted use of world building is distinct from setting. I posted three different sources and they all agree that world building =/= setting creation. it's going above and beyond what is needed for the setting. Granted, my own take is much more negative, and that's fair enough. I see world building as self indulgent and largely a waste of time. You are trying to redefine world building to mean any and all setting elements.

It's like trying to say that forest=1 tree. Now, where a group of trees becomes a forest is vague and undefined. We can't actually say how many trees it takes to make a forest. But, that doesn't make 1 tree plus 1 tree suddenly a forest.