Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Bedrockgames]

Not even meant as a breakdown or analysis, just acknowledging there's a range out there. That range does include depriving players of a great deal of 'agency,' not only in the context of worldbuilding, but certainly in that context if you prioritize it.

We had a whole discussion on agency. I think it is safe to assume half the room is on a separate page from the other half when it comes to determine what agency means and what styles impact it. My quibble was over how you seemed to be characterizing each style in the mix. But it is a quibble and largely off topic.

Heh, depending on their audience, writers may very well have to consider that (and get soundly mocked when they don't) - and depending on their players, DMs may not...

There are always edge cases. But the point is, a writer can easily sidestep areas of world building he or she doesn't want to engage. If thinking too deeply on where people get their grain from in this village, isn't important, the writer can just make sure that question never comes up. In most RPGs, a GM can't predict what the players will say or do. This difference is so obvious, it shouldn't even need to be argued. The characters in books and movies do what the writers want. The characters in RPGs do what they want, because they are controlled by players. That right there creates a massive difference in how important world building is. Sure, something might not come up because players don't think to ask. But it could. I know that I need to come up with at least some sort of answer for things like this prior to starting the campaign. If I were writing a movie script, I could just make sure that grain source, never becomes an issue in the story.

I got the impression Max was saying something close to that - if not a requirement than an inevitable product. Honestly don't care about 'vast majority' so much when talking something so theoretical as that. Not that I care a great deal about theorizing, or at least, not in a positive way, but appealing to (relative) popularity doesn't help.

Like I said, I wasn't embracing everything max was saying. But I also wasn't accepting the extremely narrow definition of world building being offered. Like I've said this whole time. If people are redefining world building to prove it is bad, or it is good, that isn't an argument. We need to deal with the term as it is used by most people in the hobby. We can talk about other definitions. But you can't use those narrow fringe definitions to then equivocate and prove all world building is bad.

They're both exercises in creating fiction, and they're both meant to entertain. The similarities are pretty important, too.

We are kind of going in circles here. But this is a major source of contention. Particularly when dealing with the way 'fiction' gets used in these threads by these posters. Not everyone agrees with this assumption at all. I am not saying there are not similarities. There are. But there are major differences in how RPGS function, that mean you can't just port in a rule or principle from fiction and expect it to work out all the time. But then, I'd even argue that fiction often needs good world building.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Honestly don't care about 'vast majority' so much when talking something so theoretical as that. Not that I care a great deal about theorizing, or at least, not in a positive way, but appealing to (relative) popularity doesn't help.
.

Worldbuilding and whether it is good or bad isn't a theoretical thing. It is something people do in very practical ways for RPGs. You can ignore the majority of play if you want. But in a thread where the central topic is, "is world building bad?", it would seem we are trying to arrive at an answer that applies to most tables, not a narrow sliver of the gaming community. If world building is bad for a small group that plays style X; no one here objects to that assertion. What people object to is the broad declaration that world building is bad because at our tables, world building is important and useful, and it adds to the fun of actual play. If your conclusion is "World building is bad for X play style" that is a very different statement from "World building is bad".

 

[Aldarc]

We need to deal with the term as it is used by most people in the hobby. We can talk about other definitions. But you can't use those narrow fringe definitions to then equivocate and prove all world building is bad.

You keep saying this with the implicit assumption that your definition is the norm when I don't think that is necessarily true, particularly when you don't substantiate it or even acknowledge that the contextual understanding of "used by most people" clearly varies in this thread.

 

[Hussar]

/snip Dune
/snip

It's interesting that you mention Dune. Because if you read the original novel - heck even the original Frank Herbert (not his son's stuff), there is surprisingly little world building. Virtually none. It's a very strongly plot based story that's heavy on character.

For example, what does a Guildsman look like? I know you're probably thinking of the movies here when you envision it, but, in the novels, they are never actually really described. We know nothing about where they come from or how they got that way other than "Spice did it". A major element of the story is completely absent of any world building.
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - please, can you answer the question? What part of an RPG is excluded from your definition of world building.

----

And, as far as bringing up Phantom, there's nothing stopping a campaign being one adventure long, for one. In which case, you certainly don't need world building. But, for another, there's nothing stopping you from running an episodic campaign where each adventure is self contained. Hell, that's the way I grew up playing D&D. Go from Keep on the Borderlands to the Isle of Dread to Against the Giants. Or Cult of the Reptile God to the Slave Lords series to a couple of home brew adventures to Tomb of Horrors for a campaign capper.

The notion that world building is required for play is pretty easily disproven.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's interesting that you mention Dune. Because if you read the original novel - heck even the original Frank Herbert (not his son's stuff), there is surprisingly little world building. Virtually none. It's a very strongly plot based story that's heavy on character.
.

I've read Dune plenty. It is one of my favorite science fiction series. This strikes me as a very unusual take on the amount of world building in the novels. Certainly isn't 'virtually none'. Absolutely this is a character heavy story, but culture, economy, politics, and ecology, not to mention technology, are all crucial features of the story and play into that characterization. Everything down to the stillsuits and Muad'Dib is important. Not to mention the exploration of the setting's language. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion on the story. It never struck me as light on world building, and I've honestly never heard anyone describe it as such either.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, coming back to Dune for a second, because it makes for a very good example. Take one of the most basic elements of the story - the Stillsuit. Now, we know that a stillsuit recycles your water and lets you survive in the desert. Very important for the plot of the story.

But, what does it look like? What color is it? Who makes it? What's it made out of?

These are all basic world building questions because none of them actually matter in the context of the story. And, none of them are actually answered because Herbert was a fantastic author that wrote incredibly tight stories that didn't wallow in tons of extraneous details.

To me, those four questions above, THAT'S world building. Having a still suit isn't world building because it's necessary to the plot. You have to have them in order to write the story. But, all that extra stuff? Not needed, so, it isn't included.

And the same works quite well for RPG's. You don't need to know the 500 year history of the city you are in. No one really cares. It's maybe fun to read, but, as far as actually running your game? Totally unnecessary.

 

[Bedrockgames]

For example, what does a Guildsman look like? I know you're probably thinking of the movies here when you envision it, but, in the novels, they are never actually really described. We know nothing about where they come from or how they got that way other than "Spice did it". A major element of the story is completely absent of any world building.
.

It has been about six years since I've read the books again, so I can't really comment specifically on this claim, except to say, I do remember finding concept of the guildsman being enormously evocative and a product of world building. World building doesn't mean you have to explain everything in excruciating detail. And if I recall, they are meant to be pretty mysterious. But they have an important presence in the story Herbert clearly gave a good deal of thought to. But again, I'd need to read the books again to go over the finer details like this. I am pretty sure they do get some description by the second or third book though. Either way, the spice, and space navigation are all dealt with in ways I would regard as world building. But Dune was just one example, so I wouldn't want to get hung up on it. To me it sounds like you have a never different notion of what constitutes world building than I do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Actually, coming back to Dune for a second, because it makes for a very good example. Take one of the most basic elements of the story - the Stillsuit. Now, we know that a stillsuit recycles your water and lets you survive in the desert. Very important for the plot of the story.

But, what does it look like? What color is it? Who makes it? What's it made out of?
.

You are hairsplitting. Again I'd have to read the books again to see if these are answered or not. The crucial world building feature is their function and what this tells you about the climate and culture. If you don't see that as world building, we are just simply on a different page and talking past each other.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's interesting that you mention Dune. Because if you read the original novel - heck even the original Frank Herbert (not his son's stuff), there is surprisingly little world building. Virtually none. It's a very strongly plot based story that's heavy on character.

For example, what does a Guildsman look like? I know you're probably thinking of the movies here when you envision it, but, in the novels, they are never actually really described. We know nothing about where they come from or how they got that way other than "Spice did it". A major element of the story is completely absent of any world building.

@Maxperson - please, can you answer the question? What part of an RPG is excluded from your definition of world building.

----

And, as far as bringing up Phantom, there's nothing stopping a campaign being one adventure long, for one. In which case, you certainly don't need world building. But, for another, there's nothing stopping you from running an episodic campaign where each adventure is self contained. Hell, that's the way I grew up playing D&D. Go from Keep on the Borderlands to the Isle of Dread to Against the Giants. Or Cult of the Reptile God to the Slave Lords series to a couple of home brew adventures to Tomb of Horrors for a campaign capper.

The notion that world building is required for play is pretty easily disproven.

In the case of Dune, I wouldn’t say it’s absent of worldbuilding. The guildsmen lack a specific description, sure, but they do possess many other qualities that establish their role in the world and their relation to others.

As for episodic campaigns, sure, I think a game can function without any consideration for how the episodes really fit together. There’s nothing stopping a game group from playing that way.

I don’t think that proves or disproves anything, really.

For the broad definition of worldbuilding, such an episodic game provides only the essential details. In this case, that the characters exist and are adventurers for hire, and they wander from place to place and get themselves into trouble. But those episodes still define a wolrd, however loosely.

For the more narrow definition of worldbuilding in the sense of information beyond what is necessary, excessive worldbuilding, then I’d agree with you that this episodic campaign doesn’t have that. But I don’t know if anyone has really said that excessive worldbuilding is necessary. Anyone saying worldbuilding is necessary is using the broader definition.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And the same works quite well for RPG's. You don't need to know the 500 year history of the city you are in. No one really cares. It's maybe fun to read, but, as far as actually running your game? Totally unnecessary.

Except when the players ask "who was the last king?" or "what was the city like 200 years ago". Again, I appreciate that in a novel, an overabundance of world building can be a negative (though it really does depend on the book). But in RPGs this stuff is helpful to have in play. I think utility is always helpful. So providing timelines and kings lists, or short entries, is great for play at the table. I don't mind though when there is longer form material that I can dive into between sessions.

I get that you don't care about these details. But plenty of people do. And I consider them useful. Obviously what you make is going to depend on the campaign and players. Not every campaign needs historical details like that. But most seem to. I think people will debate the best way to present world info. Ease of use and brevity are always helpful, for example. And a lot of people advocate for that. But I think most folks don't question world building itself for an RPG (especially when so many people campaigns that are about exploring a world).