Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Aldarc]

This seems like a roundabout way of saying he's making general statements about worldbuilding based on his experiences which isn't the same as just expressing your preferences

Your reading of his statement does not exclude the fact that he has done both in the thread.

 

[Imaro]

Your reading of his statement does not exclude the fact that he has done both in the thread.

But I was asking about that specific passage... Him having done both in the thread means he has made general statements about worldbuilding while you claimed he was only stating preference.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Aldarc, I share a lot of Imaro's sentiments here. I think you and Hussar are trying to have it both ways, on the one hand saying "this is just my opinion and if you object you are reacting because you feel morally judged", on the other hand saying "but this is a real problem the hobby needs to address".

I don't know. In terms of published content, people are addressing all kinds of concerns and approaches to world building. There are plenty of people out there offering very lean content with random methods for generating things like names in play (and I make pretty good use of that stuff myself), there are also people putting out more in depth material. It is a spectrum. I think the ideal scenario is one where a number of approaches are available. Seems to be close to what we have now. Especially with so much compatible material out there under the OGL and similar arrangements.

In terms of personal games and campaigns, you keep saying it is just his preference, but then you say things like that the issues he presents are pitfalls even good GMs succumb to. You say these are problems. And problems presumably need addressing. So we looked at his list and responses. Again, we take issues with those individual points, because we don't find them to be problematic in our own games, and we think his solutions, would make our games worse. I don't know how you want us to respond to his statements. If he is free to say he thinks this or that aspect of world building is a problem, we're free to point out where we think his solutions and criticisms are a problem. You keep saying you don't respond to our points because they've either been responded to, they are unconvincing, or you believe deep down we feel morally shamed and are projecting...leaving aside the bizarre quality of the last point, I think it is fair for us to point out, we don't find his points convincing. We can do this dance all day, if this is just a contest of wills. If it is a conversation, people need to respond to at least some of the points being made.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ok, I guess if it's a known irrelevant that makes sense but it's hard (at least for me it is) to know what is irrelevant to your players in the moment... I've had players pick up on something that was a minor detail and run with it for some purpose I wouldn't have fathomed and honestly if it's something I improv'd I just come clean and tell them I don't remember it... but I hate doing that and it tends to make my players feel as if I'm just pulling things out of thin air in the moment (which of course I am) and that's not a playstyle they tend to enjoy, especially once it's revealed to them.

Oh I've had my players take a throwaway comment and decide to make the entire session about that thing. It happens. In a case like that, the improvised detail becomes a more relevant detail. In a case like that, I tend to remember what it was that I said. Or if I don't, the players have since they are the ones who latched onto it.

I'm also open about forgetting details like that....I'll lean on my players to remind me of things, and they have no problem like that. I think it's a case of making up details on the fly more than making up everything on the fly. They're fine with the first, but can sometimes be a bit wary of the second.

All that said you could just be a better improviser than many, one of the things that gets looked over in these types of discussion around playstyle is that different GM's have different strengths and weaknesses. For some improvising the world may be a strong skill they wield and track with ease but for others it may be a weakness. For me personally coming up with stuff on the fly isn't an issue but tracking it all is a headache for me so I tend to rely on a moderately fleshed out world with smaller doses of improvisation at the adventure level.

I tend to outline ahead of time, but I keep it very loose. I have story ideas, and I have some campaign notes written down, but it's not a lot. My notes that I tend to use for any given session usually consist of a list of bullet points of things I expect to happen, or that are likely given my players and their characters. I try to predict and account for the most obvious courses of action, but there's never any way to fully predict what these maniacs may do, so I do wind up having to improvise a bit.

However, I find my loose outline to actually be a better tool to help improvise than a ton of specific details. I think it's good to have information to lean on when the players go off in a direction you did not expect, but I think having that info be broadly defined allows you to adapt things easily. So the thieves guild members stats that I came up with can instead become orc raiders when the PCs abandon investigating the thieves and go off in the hills to chase orcs. That kind of thing.

OAN: I will readily admit that the difficulty with tracking improv'd things may also arise from the fact that I and my group tend to enjoy a little scotch and often our fair share of beer when gaming...

If I did that, then the entire game would be improvised, and quite sloppily!

 

[Aldarc]

But I was asking about that specific passage... Him having done both in the thread means he has made general statements about worldbuilding while you claimed he was only stating preference.

Let's retrace our steps a bit for contextualization because this entire line of thinking is becoming absurd, and I have little desire to perpetuate that absurdity. I disagreed with [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]'s assertion and kinda spiteful characterization that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was expressing his opinion "as an absolute" and that "Hussar has the answer for everyone." This runs counter, IME, to how I see Hussar expressing his viewpoints in the context of the wider conversation. You asked what then we were discussing. And in the context of this entire conversation, one portion of that is Hussar's preferences rooted in and based on his general observations about worldbuilding as an enterprise of RPGs. I am talking about the wider context of his conversation in this thread. You then asked for my reading on a specific passage. My reading of this passage is again tied to my understanding of Hussar's argument in this entire thread, and I do think that his post in question that you quoted is led by those preferences.

Aldarc, I share a lot of Imaro's sentiments here. I think you and Hussar are trying to have it both ways, on the one hand saying "this is just my opinion and if you object you are reacting because you feel morally judged", on the other hand saying "but this is a real problem the hobby needs to address".

(1) I would decouple these two clauses, if not remove the second entirely. (2) It seems absurd to think that one is forbidden in rational discourse to identify a perceived problem rooted in engendered from experiences and then desire to want this rectified. Who other but [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is held to this absurd standard on this thread?

In terms of personal games and campaigns, you keep saying it is just his preference, but then you say things like that the issues he presents are pitfalls even good GMs succumb to. You say these are problems. And problems presumably need addressing.

Again, this strikes me as a false dichotomy. These are his preferences, but he also sees the core issues being discussed as perceived problems.

So we looked at his list and responses. Again, we take issues with those individual points, because we don't find them to be problematic in our own games, and we think his solutions, would make our games worse.

And this is part of the problem. You don't see it as a problem in your games does not mean that the problem does not exist in many other games as experienced by Hussar and others.

You keep saying you don't respond to our points because they've either been responded to, they are unconvincing, or you believe deep down we feel morally shamed and are projecting...leaving aside the bizarre quality of the last point,

/sigh. Please have some basic human decency and read what I wrote if you are going to bother summarizing them respectfully, because your persisting misreadings or mis-characterizations are grating my nerves. I have not "[kept] saying don't respond to [your] points because they've either been responded to, they are unconvincing, or believe deep down [you] feel morally shamed and are projecting." I am not even sure where to begin refuting this because of how utterly bizarre your reading of the situation is. I have not "kept saying" anything of that sort, Bedrock. But if I was not clear, then my apologies and I will do my best now to clarify.

At the initial point where this increasingly absurd line of conversation began, you and Imaro both raised the issue of emotional content in both (1) the pushback and (2) the word "bad" attached to 'worldbuilding,' as in the OP. I do not think that you or Imaro are necessarily "morally shamed." I am not talking specific people here, but the general trend of counter-responses in the thread to the OP. I have provided my analogy only twice. So the idea that I "keep saying" that you somehow feel morally shamed is not only untrue but also a gross exaggeration. And I do think that some, albeit not all, can be explained by the hypothesis that I put forth. In this matter, I am only speaking of the tone of those responses and not the content. Elsewhere I have responded to particular points raised by you and others. But I also do not feel morally obligated to respond to every single new point raised, particularly when I am not necessarily the person in question to whom you are responding. I hope that clarifies things somewhat. Please feel free to ask for further clarification if you are afraid of misstating the views that I have expressed.

I think it is fair for us to point out, we don't find his points convincing.

Do you really think so poorly of me that you honestly think that I believe or have said otherwise? I certainly hope not. But I would certainly hope that you would address his points fairly rather than attack Hussar or assign him malicious motive or purpose. I think that Hussar is giving you greater benefit of the doubt than you are with him, and that does give me cause for concern regardless of whether I agree or disagree with those points he raised.

If it is a conversation, people need to respond to at least some of the points being made.

Holy Gaslighting, Batman!

 

[Imaro]

Let's retrace our steps a bit for contextualization because this entire line of thinking is becoming absurd, and I have little desire to perpetuate that absurdity. I disagreed with [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]'s assertion and kinda spiteful characterization that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was expressing his opinion "as an absolute" and that "Hussar has the answer for everyone." This runs counter, IME, to how I see Hussar expressing his viewpoints in the context of the wider conversation. You asked what then we were discussing. And in the context of this entire conversation, one portion of that is Hussar's preferences rooted in and based on his general observations about worldbuilding as an enterprise of RPGs. I am talking about the wider context of his conversation in this thread. You then asked for my reading on a specific passage. My reading of this passage is again tied to my understanding of Hussar's argument in this entire thread, and I do think that his post in question that you quoted is led by those preferences.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] restated his points in the post I quoted, I chose it because it's a clarification of his position in this thread... and it calls into question problems around worldbuilding as a whole not as they pertain to his preferences...

 

[TheSword]

There is so much straw in this thread now I’m concerned about fire safety. We’re now down to quite long arguments about what is being argued about.

The debate probably should have been framed better in the first few posts - instead we’ve got the apples lot saying the oranges aren’t crunchy enough.

 

[Aldarc]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] restated his points in the post I quoted, I chose it because it's a clarification of his position in this thread... and it calls into question problems around worldbuilding as a whole not as they pertain to his preferences...

Then I will leave that to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] to clarify, as I can only speak for my own reading of the situation in the context of the thread. But I do hope that you better understand the contextualization of my own response to you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Aldarc, I read your whole response twice, and again, it just seems like you want it both ways to me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

/sigh. Please have some basic human decency and read what I wrote if you are going to bother summarizing them respectfully, because your persisting misreadings or mis-characterizations are grating my nerves. I have not "[kept] saying don't respond to [your] points because they've either been responded to, they are unconvincing, or believe deep down [you] feel morally shamed and are projecting." I am not even sure where to begin refuting this because of how utterly bizarre your reading of the situation is. I have not "kept saying" anything of that sort, Bedrock. But if I was not clear, then my apologies and I will do my best now to clarify.
n!

I have read your posts. I make a point of reading them slowly and even more than once, because you've expressed this criticism multiple times. I am taking the time to read what you say. It is possible I am misunderstanding you, but I am reading what you write.