Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Hussar]

Probably because no re-definition happened on our end of things. World has always meant more than just planet. You're the one misconstruing it to only mean planet.



They agree that it builds a world. That's not the same as planet. In the game I mentioned where the campaign was limited to one city, that city was the world.

Please show me where I said anything about planet. I think you have me confused with another poster.

 

[Hussar]

The perils of posting on a phone.

Heh. Been there.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, let's lob the ball back here.

Do you see a distinction between the activity being done in creating the setting of something like Keep on the Borderlands and the Village of Hommlet?

Now, if you do see a distinction, which obviously I do, how would you define the distinction? A little world building and a lot of world building? I dunno. I don't know how to define what I see as pretty clearly two very different approaches to adventure and game world design.

Isle of Dread, for example, strongly follows the Keep on the Borderlands model. You have a lost island, with natives that are barely defined, pirates that are given zero background, and a lost temple that has virtually no actual description of its history or its inhabitants.

So, fair enough, you don't want me to make a distinction between setting and world building, so, how would you define it and I'll use your definitions so I can get to the freaking point instead of wasting time on this semantic drivel.

 

[pemerton]

That’s fine....but my comment was made in the context f a GM establishing that level of detail prior to play. It’s not clear from the bit you quoted, but I think in the larger context kf my entire post, it’s clear.

In which case, I would expect that you would not like that level of detail under those circumstances.

Well that's true, but the GM could truncate it a whole lot and I still wouldn't be that keen!

I wasn't meaning to contradict you, but rather to use your post as a launching-pad: while some of the participants in this thread see the worldbuilding "problem" in terms of quantity, others (eg me, to an extent [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]) see it in terms of method/process.

B2 has been mentioned a bit. I've used B2 on multiple occasions in "story now"-type games, but normally just the Keep, plus bits of the cultist cave adapted to other fictional contexts. On both occasions the focus has (unsurprisingly, I think) ended up being on the chaotic priest in the Keep. A deceptive evil priest is a very useful element of framing for a wide variety of fantasy protagonists!

Do you see a distinction between the activity being done in creating the setting of something like Keep on the Borderlands and the Village of Hommlet?

The distinction I see is this: a town full of people is a setting. An evil priest pretending to be good, and trying to befriend the protagonists so he can betray, them, is a situation.

Settings are something of a dime-a-dozen, and I don't need much more than some genre and maybe a few names to get a game going; but I can always use a good situation! (Not that I'm entirely uncreative myself, but I'm not any sort of unsung story writer.)

 

[pemerton]

Deleted redundant post.

 

[Lanefan]

Isle of Dread, for example, strongly follows the Keep on the Borderlands model. You have a lost island, with natives that are barely defined, pirates that are given zero background, and a lost temple that has virtually no actual description of its history or its inhabitants.

Isle of Dread also has a large-scale hex map in the middle that can be (and IME has been) used as the base setting for an entire campaign; and in that part does more useful and useable worldbuilding than any other early-era module I can think of.

Lan-"the campaign (not mine) I speak of that's based on that map started in 1981 and - now in its third iteration - is still going today"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

The distinction I see is this: a town full of people is a setting. An evil priest pretending to be good, and trying to befriend the protagonists so he can betray, them, is a situation.

Ah, but to make that priest complete you'll need to know or determine which deity he's a cleric to; and whether said deity would be cool with him being so deceptive...and the setting/world-building process can spiral outwards from there.

Settings are something of a dime-a-dozen, and I don't need much more than some genre and maybe a few names to get a game going; but I can always use a good situation! (Not that I'm entirely uncreative myself, but I'm not any sort of unsung story writer.)

So in your view worldbuilding - as opposed to setting-building - only starts when you're trying to, say, determine the distance and terrain between the Keep and the Threshold region from B-10 or the Village of Hommlet from T-1? If so, that works too.

 

[eayres33]

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.)

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.

I may not find your play style, and since as per protocol your post reflect your preferred playstyle, your post something I agree with on the regular. I will agree with Casablanca being the best film from that era. Citizen Kane was good but at the same time it is now overrated.

Side note my copy of CK is still on VHS, I need to update that.

 

[eayres33]

Missed that. Have to go back and reread some posts I think.

/edit to add

Yup, just went back over the posts from today and yesterday. other than you specifically agreeing with [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] that world building is the same as setting creation, you actually say nothing about how he and you, have redefined the common definition of the word to suit your own argument.

Look, I posted three different sources that all agree on this. World building and setting creation are not the same thing. Not all setting creation is world building. World building is going above and beyond what is required by setting. I've been consistent with my use of the term, and have been consistent in my use going back ten years (since this is a ten year old thread.

It's those who want to redefine the term that are the issue here. If you redefine world building to encompass any and all setting construction, then, sure, obviously it's not a bad thing. It can be but it might not be. But, that's YOUR definition and not the commonly accepted one. Nor is that how it's used when used in academic circles to describe second world creation.

So would that be an appeal to authority? Should I trust those sources over Maxperson or Ovinomancer? Should we compare how long they have played the game, what they have written? or hand size? Or should we discuss the issue on its merits and not try to one up each other on who agrees with who? What type of discussion are we trying to have here an honest one or one a side can win?

 

[eayres33]

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?

I find this an odd take since your other thread on world building and how others play D&D seems to be focused on the exact verbiage that players and GM’s use. A lot of your post/threads seem to revolve around correct and proper language use so this seems off.

I am one not to care about verbiage, proper language and all that; if I get the general idea of what you are saying we can move on. (I know that works better in face to face conversations rather than over the internet, but this still feels different from your usual post.)