Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Ovinomancer]

Huh. You used like "religious" and "zealot" and "apologists" and "false equivalency." Are you saying you're unaware of the definitions and connotations of these words and didn't use them intentionally?

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think that these are necessarily "bad motives," but I do think that they are sympathetically human ones. "False equivalence" and "zealotry" do not have to be done out of "malice or mischief" for them to transpire. People who enjoy the broader project of fictive world creation obviously don't enjoy being told that their "hobby project" may not be warranted, productive, or even healthy when it comes to storytelling, whether that comes in the form of written fiction or collaborative play. Nevertheless, the reaction is one of religious defense, and the apologists do engage in a lot of equivocation of what "worldbuilding" entails such that one cannot criticize "worldbuilding" without criticizing every aspect of the "expanding in-game fiction." But that is not the intent. Though "worldbuilding" does have a much broader sense, @Hussar also linked to a series of discussed definitions (i.e., Wikipedia, TV Tropes, Miriam Webster Dictionary) that suggest a more restricted connotative usage that does reflect the usage of the OP and critics of worldbuilding.

That's not happening, though. If @Hussar had simply said that he prefers to worldbuild on a small scale and that he feels that large scale worldbuilding is a waste of his time, people could be discussing the differences. Instead, he's trying to re-define what worldbuilding is in order to paint the whole of worldbuilding in a bad light. Now you're joining him by attacking the character of people who are simply saying, "Hey, stop with the attempt to re-define worldbuilding and just discuss what you like and don't like to do WHEN worldbuilding."

 

[Aldarc]

Huh. You used like "religious" and "zealot" and "apologists" and "false equivalency." Are you saying you're unaware of the definitions and connotations of these words and didn't use them intentionally?

That's a loaded question.

That's not happening, though. If @Hussar had simply said that he prefers to worldbuild on a small scale and that he feels that large scale worldbuilding is a waste of his time, people could be discussing the differences. Instead, he's trying to re-define what worldbuilding is in order to paint the whole of worldbuilding in a bad light. Now you're joining him by attacking the character of people who are simply saying, "Hey, stop with the attempt to re-define worldbuilding and just discuss what you like and don't like to do WHEN worldbuilding."

I don't think that is redefining the term "worldbuilding" at all, but, rather, that his use reflects an understanding of the most prevalent performative mode of activity that "worldbuilding" takes in common parlance.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think that is redefining the term "worldbuilding" at all, but, rather, that his use reflects an understanding of the most prevalent performative mode of activity that "worldbuilding" takes in common parlance.

Except that it doesn't. Worldbuilding is just building a world, which includes all acts that would be involved with that. There has never been a need to build a complete world. Let's look at all of the worlds that TSR and WotC have created. Athas was never built in its entirety. I don't think Krynn was built in its entirety. Oerth was not built in its entirety. Faerun was not built in its entirety. Worldbuilding in an RPG hasn't ever required building an entire planet like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is trying to claim. It can be as small as a city-state and as large as a planet.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's a loaded question.

You mean in the sense that you either knew exactly what those words meant or you have to confess to using them in ignorance? Yes, it's loaded in exactly that way.

I'm open to alternatives, though.

 

[pemerton]

If all of one's "worldbuidling" resembles KotB rather than Village of Hommlet, then [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has no objection to it. What does it matter than he doesn't call it worldbuilding, and confines that word to the stuff you don't do?

Conversely, if some of what you do is more like VoH than KotB, Hussar has said he doesn't like it. What does it matter to you that he doesn't use the term "worldbuilding" to describe the stuff he doesn't mind?

 

[Sadras]

If all of one's "worldbuidling" resembles KotB rather than Village of Hommlet, then @Hussar has no objection to it. What does it matter than he doesn't call it worldbuilding, and confines that word to the stuff you don't do?

Conversely, if some of what you do is more like VoH than KotB, Hussar has said he doesn't like it. What does it matter to you that he doesn't use the term "worldbuilding" to describe the stuff he doesn't mind?

This seems like a strange direction to take this discussion/debate.

Are you really advocating anyone use terms willy nilly to say things as they wish because it shouldn't matter to anyone else because presumably no-one else is at their table and therefore no objection is warranted? Is that really the type of discussion you're wanting to promote?

 

[Ovinomancer]

If all of one's "worldbuidling" resembles KotB rather than Village of Hommlet, then [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has no objection to it. What does it matter than he doesn't call it worldbuilding, and confines that word to the stuff you don't do?

Conversely, if some of what you do is more like VoH than KotB, Hussar has said he doesn't like it. What does it matter to you that he doesn't use the term "worldbuilding" to describe the stuff he doesn't mind?

Communication of ideas. If I define stupid you mean "those with an IQ of less than 135" and you defined out as "those with an IQ less than 85" and Bob defines it as "people who think differently from me" then we cannot habe a useful discussion about stupidity if we all keep using the same word for it. Outside of that discussion, however, your free to use it giver you want. If you purpose is actual discussion and understandibg, though, confusion of meaning because you all define a term differently is actively harmful to the goal.

So, if you want to use worldbuilding in a specific way, then you need to be very clear about your definition. If your definition differs fruition the generally accepted, you will get pushback because your introducing confusion by redefining a word. It's often helpful to establish a new term that clearly indicates your meaning.

Insisting others accept your definition is fine in a paper or blog post, where you can define and expound, but in a multiuser discussion format you it's an impediment.

Of course, you're free to do whatever you want -- I'm not the thread police. But, if you're going to complain because others don't like your redefining of words, I'm going to say I told you so.

To be 100% clear, the underlying preferences of pretty much everyone in the thread are totally valid here. I don't disagree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] on his preference; I'm running a game that fits his model to a T right now. I'm critical of his aggressive style and the need to define worldbuilding in a way that makes his argument correct when he already had a great point that didn't need to win the definition war. I think worldbuilding is a lousy term to try to coop into anything other than a nearly uselessly broad description of creation of fictional places. I think setting building, as defined by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], is a much better term for clarity and understanding. I dont understand the need to colonize worldbuilding and terraform (see what I did there?) its meaning so that it supports an independently valid argument.

 

[darkbard]

Just as a quick aside, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]: We all make typos; it's inevitable. But may I humbly suggest that you slow down a little bit in your responses (the crafting of them, not the frequency!), for over the last few days I have had to reread many, many sentences of yours several times to figure out what word you really mean. Sometimes, as [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] jokes, the typing is so garbled it defies comprehension.

I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk here; but if the goal is, and you seem to advocate for this, clear communication, I, at least, would certainly find this helpful!

 

[pemerton]

Are you really advocating anyone use terms willy nilly to say things as they wish because it shouldn't matter to anyone else because presumably no-one else is at their table and therefore no objection is warranted? Is that really the type of discussion you're wanting to promote?

What I'm asking is that if you are doing the stuff that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] doesn't call "worldbuilding", which is also the stuff he is quite happy with it (eg B2), why would you care that he doesn't use a particular label?

And conversely, if you're doing the stuff that he doesn't like, and which he does call "worldbuilding" (eg T1), why does it matter that he doesn't apply that same label to the stuff he does like? I mean, given that there's stuff he does like that he's trying to distinguish the stuff that a T1-er does, it's no surprise that he uses different terms for the two sorts of thing.

Following on from the previous paragraph: suppose that you persuade Hussar to call B2 as well as T1 worldbuilding. That's not going to make him like T1 any better! He's still going to be critical of it, and - by implication - of the work of those who do that sort of thing themselves. Isn't it those critical differences that are of interest here, rather than the particular terminology being used?