Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Bedrockgames]

Unless it's tied to the actual adventure that's going on, why would they ever ask this? You actually have players who ask these kinds of questions out of the blue with no connection to the ongoing adventure/campaign?

I have players who ask questions about the places, people, etc when they are interacting with the setting. Players ask all kinds of questions when they are concocting plans, trying to figure out a place, or whatever. They rarely come up entirely out of the blue, there is usually a context, but the questions are often ones I wouldn't have predicted. I don't have to have an answer for everything. But if the players want to know something relevant about a local organization, an important person in the area, etc, I like to have that kind of information developed before hand. Keep in mind, I tend to run open style campaigns. There isn't necessarily a planned adventure. I tend to be more reactive to what the players try to do, and having setting details really helps me in that respect.

So, the players abandon your campaign in order to go somewhere else? I think I'd have a much larger issue at my table if that were to happen on a regular enough basis that I need to detail entirely random locations unrelated to the campaign.

Can you stop being so snarky Hussar? And can you please stop constructing straw men and putting words into peoples' mouths? Is it really that difficult for you to imagine people play the game differently from you?

I run open style campaigns. I don't always run campaigns this way, but I often do. In a sandbox like this, players are not obligated to 'complete' adventures if they don't want to. There are lots of good reasons in game to stop what you are doing now, and go do something else. Again, if you don't like this style of play, I am not asking you to run games this way. But lots of players really enjoy this style. And one of the key features is letting them find their own way in the setting. That doesn't mean what they did in the south is inconsequential. Ninety percent of the time, the party probably sees through whatever they've started. But they do have the option of walking away from a situation, a dungeon, etc, if it is reasonable for them to do so. But again, this was just a random example. The party could just as easily have completed the mystery, then decided to go to Dee. It is ultimately up to them where they go in the setting.

 

[Maxperson]

No, as soon as I gave an inch, you took a mile. You have now defined all activities occurring in playing an RPG as under the rubric of world building.

That's false. I never said or implied that.

You've done nothing, that I've seen, to back away from that position.

I can't back away from a place I never went.

Granted, it's a fairly fast moving thread, so I might have missed it.

How do you miss a post where I quoted you? You get notified.

So, again, because I certainly missed it if you said otherwise, and others have apparently missed it as well, what ISN'T world building?

The vast majority of game play does not involve worldbuilding, and the game play is the vast majority of the game.

 

[Hussar]

But, then [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], why not actually make that clear?

Something like, "If you run open ended, sandbox style campaigns, then world building becomes more necessary"? Instead of, "Well, world building is good" which is what I generally get replied to me over and over again.

And, as far as the generally agreed upon definition goes, I suggest Wikipedia, or TV Tropes. Both have excellent definitions that I've been following all the way along. "All setting is world building" is a definition of world building that is largely distinct to the folks in this thread. No one else uses that definition. Which is why we talk about world building in something like Lord of the Rings or SoFA but not works like Phantom of the Opera.

Take Star Wars. If you only watched Ep's IV through VI, there's extremely little world building going on there. Take Chewbacca. All you would know about Chewie is that he is a Wookie. That's about it. You wouldn't know the name of his planet, how old he is, or anything else.

Now, as soon as you open up the extended universe and let the world builders run wild, you get the Wookipedia, and EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in A New Hope gets its own novel. THAT'S world building. You certainly don't need to know anything about Chewbacca to play in a Star Wars game. You don't need to know anything about Chewbacca to enjoy the movies.

But, the world builders, with their great clomping nerd boots, insist that we include all this extra material and scream bloody murder when all that stuff gets swept under the rug by JJ Abrams.

So, no, world building is most certainly a more limited term than what you folks want it to be.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
How do you miss a post where I quoted you? You get notified.

Turned that off years ago. Sorry.

The vast majority of game play does not involve worldbuilding, and the game play is the vast majority of the game.

Can you please be more specific? If the party goes on an adventure to save the princess, and does so, is that world building or not?

And, as far as defining world building as stuff I like vs stuff I don't like, no, that's never been my definition.

My definition of world building is any material that is not needed by the plot. Anything that goes above and beyond the needs of the story is world building. Whether I happen to like it or not is irrelevant. We don't need to know what color a still suit is or what planet Chewbacca comes from. It isn't necessary.

Where the needs of the story end is where world building starts. If you're running a very open ended campaign, then fair enough, you're likely going to need more setting. Ok, I get that. But, that's the result of a specific kind of campaign, not the needs of the game itself. In an episodic game, there is virtually no need for world building.

So, statements that world building is needed for roleplaying games are heavily dependent on the kind of game you are running.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, the world builders, with their great clomping nerd boots, insist that we include all this extra material and scream bloody murder when all that stuff gets swept under the rug by JJ Abrams.
.

You're bringing in stuff that has nothing to do with world building in an RPG. I don't care for canon lawyering either. But as a player, I respect a GM who puts in the effort to world build. And in the context of an RPG, world building is going to include the elements that help you establish a setting. I don't see how you can talk about world building in a gaming context, if you remove groups, npcs, cultures, etc. But even with your narrow definition, the other stuff is still important for reasons that have been explained (and even the wikipedia definition you reference includes designing cultures as a feature of world building---and that naturally would extend to things like institutions in the world). I get, you may not need them in your style of play. But just because one style doesn't rely heavily on it, that doesn't make world building bad (and no, world building does not equal excessive content like you have in expanded universe). And that is the premise of the thread: world building is bad. I reject the premise. It is a tool. Whether it is useful depends on what you want to achieve.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Something like, "If you run open ended, sandbox style campaigns, then world building becomes more necessary"? Instead of, "Well, world building is good" which is what I generally get replied to me over and over again.
.

Mostly I have been arguing world building isn't bad, and that it can be a useful tool. I'd say it is useful for more than just an open sandbox style. I think it is valuable tool for lots of different styles. If you have no use for world building that is fine. I don't particularly care. But as a general principle of design and GMing? I don't think 'world building is bad' is sound advice at all.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well the Great Wheel cosmology predates Planescape, so I don’t know if its conception is relevant to my point. Planescape took that concept and made it accessible. With a major emphasis being accessibility from the very start, with Level 1 PCs. Prior to that, the planes seemed intended to be stomping grounds for high level characters. Planescape did away with that...how does this not fit with what you’re saying?

I wouldn’t say every product with the Planescape logo is of equal quality, but the original boxed swt and many of the supplements are great. They do exactly what you’re describing with 4E’s World Axis cosmology. I didn’t mind 4E’s approach, really, and I don’t even see them being all that different. The only difference when you boil it down is the “geography” of the planes. Which doesn’t really matter all that much in how you use these locations in a game.

Yeah, I just never really liked the Great Wheel at all. For a long time I just didn't know WHY, but eventually I realized it just didn't have a point. Planescape might have made it more useful, to an extent. I think WA did that even better. Just being unshackled from the basically arbitrary nature of the formulation of the Great Wheel did a lot for it.

I don't honestly have a beef with Planescape per-se either. In fact I basically ignored all that late 2e stuff. By that point we had tired completely of AD&D and moved on forever.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My definition of world building is any material that is not needed by the plot. Anything that goes above and beyond the needs of the story is world building. Whether I happen to like it or not is irrelevant. We don't need to know what color a still suit is or what planet Chewbacca comes from. It isn't necessary.
.

This is a very weird definition of world building. I am happy to talk about world building just in terms of the obvious stuff: history, culture, cosmology, etc. But 'anything that is not needed for the plot' makes no sense to me as a working definition. It often can be stuff that isn't needed for the plot, but that definition also is going to include stuff that has nothing to do with world building. Either way, details that are not strictly necessary for the plot, but add to a sense of a larger world existing, I am fine with. I don't need pages of explanation anytime something like a stillsuit comes up, but if the color and texture are described, that kind of thing can definitely help pull me into the setting.

Good world building can be very enjoyable. A lot of movies and books that I enjoy, I like because they create a world and I feel like I am in the world.

That said, a lot of world building I don't need to see directly as a reader, but it can improve a story greatly if there is a real foundation lying underneath it that helps create a sense of a real world. World building can produce consistency. I don't think it is necessary, but I am certainly glad we have room for people who employ lots of world building and people who don't. I certainly wouldn't want the situation to be one where everyone aspires to avoiding unnecessary detail. That seems fanatically minimalist to me.

 

[Garthanos]

With the thread this long... I am sure someone has mentioned the thought I have done world building to give players a contextual starting point for character building as inspiration and guidance, and their motivations are strongly plot drivers.

 

[Maxperson]

Can you please be more specific? If the party goes on an adventure to save the princess, and does so, is that world building or not?

No, why would it be?

My definition of world building is any material that is not needed by the plot. Anything that goes above and beyond the needs of the story is world building. Whether I happen to like it or not is irrelevant. We don't need to know what color a still suit is or what planet Chewbacca comes from. It isn't necessary.

You realize that C3-PO and Chewbacca(forget his planet) aren't necessary to that plot, right? The Cantina is right out. No need for Greedo at all. Luke and Ben could have gone straight to the spaceport and hired Solo. R2-D2 could have made it to the pod and down to the planet by himself. There didn't need to be a dinner scene at Luke's home. The trash compactor scene could be removed. And so on. If you're going to take out everything that isn't NEEDED for the plot, you aren't going to have a movie(or play or T.V. show) worth watching any longer.

Where the needs of the story end is where world building starts. If you're running a very open ended campaign, then fair enough, you're likely going to need more setting. Ok, I get that. But, that's the result of a specific kind of campaign, not the needs of the game itself. In an episodic game, there is virtually no need for world building.

Like Star Wars above, I'm willing to bet that your game has quite a bit going on that isn't strictly NEEDED for the plot.