Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Imaro]

. Having detail is great and if that's your thing then go for it, but really stop trying to discount the build as you go DM's it's not fair to those of us whose method actually works for our players.

How are the "super detailed" crowd exspressing the build as you go method is wrong. The title of the thread is "Why Worldbuilding is Bad" then numerous posters have chimed in commenting that it's a waste of time, serves no purpose, players aren't interested, etc. If anything the pro-worldbuilders are defending against these purely oppinion claims with eamples of why it isn't any of those things.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So now popularity = good? That's a bit of a turnaround for you RC. *Tweak*

I was expecting that.

(Honestly, I'd be upset if no one called me on it. )

No, popularity isn't a general indication of quality. OTOH, it is a general indication that a whole lot of people don't find something a crashing bore.

For example, I hate Armaggeddon. To me, the movie sucked. The pacing was bad, the acting was bad, the science was dreadful, and every scene was given the same emphasis so that, rather than seeming like a roller coaster ride, it seemed flat. I can honestly say that all the film had going for it was some stunning eye candy. While I found the movie a crashing bore, though, I would hesitate to say that the movie actually was a crashing bore. Clearly many, many people found it entertaining.

So, I can certainly claim that LotR cannot objectively be a crashing bore on the basis of its popularity, but I cannot claim that LotR is objectively good on that same basis.

I think people are conflating setting with world building. They are not the same thing. Every story requires setting. You have to have somewhere for the plot to happen, even if it's just a bench in a Beckett play. World Building is going beyond what you need for the plot of the story and detailing extraneous details.

If you define world building as detailing things that are extraneous, of coure world building isn't necessary. That's a self-defining argument.

Star Wars has been named a couple of times as a World Building story. That's not true. Or, rather, it wasn't true until a bunch of fans got together and started knocking together all sorts of stuff that wasn't in the original stories. Look at SW A New Hope. By the end of the movie, what do we know of Tatooine?

• It's a desert planet and fairly dangerous
• Sandpeople are bad and walk in single file.
• Jawas are scavengers that flog used droids and such
• a bunch of apparently bad people hang out at the same pub in Mos Eisely

We know that there's a new model of landspeeder that just came out. We know about banthas, and we know that Krayt Dragons (sp?) prowl the sands, although we've never seen one (we have, perhaps, seen one's skeletal remains, and we know what they sound like). We know that Jawas and droids are both generally ill regarded. We know that the locals "farm" moisture, and that they use evaporators to do so. We know that they use droids to "talk" to the machinery, and we are given some insight into the fact that the 'vaporators sometimes need repair, and that there is a harvest. We know that the local crime lord is named Jabba the Hutt, and that he is mad at Han for dropping a shipment, and that he employs bounty hunters. We know that Luke has a flyer not unlike the A-Wing, which he's used to shoot womp rats in Beggar's Canyon. We know that Mos Eisley is a space port, and that a large number of alien types can be found there. We know that the Academy has been recruiting on Tatooine, and that Luke's friend has gone to join the Rebellion....Moreover, we later see him, and we know his name (Biggs) even though he isn't a main character. Just as we know the names of characters like Jabba the Hutt, Greedo, etc., even though some of these don't even appear in the movie. It's simply wrong to say that "We don't know the names or background of any character other than the main ones".

That's about it. There's no world building going on there.

Of course, if you define world building as going on and on about the geneology of Jawas and how they live their day to day lives, then I would agree that world building was useless. However, there is a real difference between what the creator(s) need to know and what is shown on screen. Just as there is a real difference between what the DM knows, and how much of that knowledge is communicated to the players. Simply because the players aren't told all of the history of the WLD, doesn't mean that the history doesn't inform play through the DM's treatment of the material.

Having a rich setting is not necessarily world building. Having a detailed setting isn't really world building. World Building is when you start detailing EVERYTHING.

We differ in our definitions, then, and probably don't really disagree. IMHO, having a rich, detailed setting is world building. Detailing EVERYTHING is excessive world building.


RC

 

[Anand]

Sorry, but as a GM, part of the fun - for me - is world building, and watching the enjoyment the players show at my creation.

I agree here. You don't have to create a world, and definitively shouldn't push it to your players, but a lot of people (me included) like to create world just for the sake. It's fun, and it's my time. If I can use parts of it to be a better DM, even better.

 

[FireLance]

I'm going to stop using that loaded term "worldbuilding" and express what I think in simpler terms.

With respect to writing:

1. The writer invests a great deal of effort into the creation and detailing of a world: good, although not always necessary.

2. The writer is able to intersperse interesting details about his world into the narrative in a way that enriches the reader's experience: good.

3. The writer's descriptions of his world overpower the narrative so much so that it seems like he is writing an encyclopedia instead of a story: usually not a good idea.

With respect to gaming:

1. The DM invests a great deal of effort into the creation and detailing of a world: good, although not always necessary.

2. The DM is able to intersperse interesting details about his world into the game in a way that enriches the player's experience: good.

3. The DM's descriptions of his world overpower the game so much so that it seems like he is delivering a lecture instead of a running a game: usually not a good idea.

 

[Desdichado]

This all would have been a lot simpler if the advice had been written more along the lines of: "don't get carried away in dropping extraneous details into your writing that bring the plot to a screeching halt. It's just self-indulgent and a sign of bad writing."

For the most part, I think we could all agree to that, and honestly I think that's all he really meant.

 

[Reynard]

Never Mind.

 

[Hussar]

I think it's going into the realm of absurdity to think that a GM details everything when worldbuilding. Your taking an extreme viewpoint if you believe that's the meaning of world building and extremes rarely apply in day to day life. As an example of what I mean by worldbuilding is the following.

1.) A world map(or at least a map of what is generally known to exist) marked with major geographic features, kingdoms, major cities, major roads, prominent ruins/dungeons/places etc.

2.) a general culture/race sheet for PC races and the cultures that exist in my world. These generally contains beliefs, dress, art-forms, feelings towards other races/cultures, basic laws, building styles, technology level, available equipment, etc.

3.) General notes on how Prominent organizations,guilds, trade, economy, magic, etc. work within and between these kingdoms/race/cultures.

4.) Houserules(w/in game reason for establishing them if necessary)

5.) Theme and mood document. This is just a few paragraphs on what moods and themes I want this particlar campaign to convey with a brainstorming section where I list things, people, places, monsters, etc. that will convey these themes and moods.(This is ususally done with alot of player input.)

It can get more and more detailed dependant on time, especially the area where the campaign starts...but I have enough information already established to give my players answers to most of their character gen questions as well as to improvise with consistency.( I usually plan for my nextcampaign as the former is starting to wind down, so the time factor is rarely an issue).

But that's just setting. The OP isn't talking about that and neither is the article. It's pretty obvious that every story (or campaign) needs a setting. Of course it does. What it doesn't need is for the setting to be made more important than the plot.

and we know that Krayt Dragons (sp?) prowl the sands

Really? When is that word actually used in the movie. All we know is that Obi Wan made a loud noise and it scarred the Sand People away.

Read the original article again. He's not saying that you don't need a setting. That would be stupid. He's saying that you don't need any more setting than what the story calls for. Setting should take the back seat to plot.

Having a detailed setting is not world building IMO. A detailed setting is just that - lots of setting details. World Building is when you start trying to create an entirely functional world. Nothing in Star Wars really suggests how Tatooine works. We have no idea of how their economy functions or their govenernment or much of anything besides nice tidbits that give the appearance of a functioning setting.

The difference between a rich detailed setting and world building is the difference between The Lord of the Rings and the The Silmarillion. While you can make arguements for LOTR being a tad dry and boring in places, The Silmarillion reads like a geneology report.

 

[Hussar]

I'm going to stop using that loaded term "worldbuilding" and express what I think in simpler terms.

With respect to writing:

1. The writer invests a great deal of effort into the creation and detailing of a world: good, although not always necessary.

2. The writer is able to intersperse interesting details about his world into the narrative in a way that enriches the reader's experience: good.

3. The writer's descriptions of his world overpower the narrative so much so that it seems like he is writing an encyclopedia instead of a story: usually not a good idea.

With respect to gaming:

1. The DM invests a great deal of effort into the creation and detailing of a world: good, although not always necessary.

2. The DM is able to intersperse interesting details about his world into the game in a way that enriches the player's experience: good.

3. The DM's descriptions of his world overpower the game so much so that it seems like he is delivering a lecture instead of a running a game: usually not a good idea.

Wut he said.

 

[Storm Raven]

Had this advice come from a more respected author - Orson Scott Card, Terry Goodkind, Anne Bishop, Diane W Jones, to give a few examples - I probably would have given it far more consideration. As it is, it comes from a name I have never heard before, and I can only wonder whether this might be a reflection of his style in his works. Are his settings so bland, so outlandish in their composition, so lacking in coherence, that they have failed to gain recognition, failed to sell?

Actually, his works are probably best described as the opposite of this. He simply doesn't belabor the setting details over the story. And I would suggest that Harrison is a quite well-respected author, and deservedly so, given his dozen or so major award nominations (with a couple award wins thrown in ther) and a list of a couple dozen publishing credits over the course of a thirty year career. The fact that you are unfamiliar with him does nothing to diminish this, and given a couple of the names on the list of authors you have provided as "respected", well, I don't think your lack of familiarity with him is a strike against him.

Perhaps I am wrong in my wonderings upon his works, but I have to admit that I quite strongly disagree with his advice.

Granted, over-doing it can be a problem when worldbuilding for a written work, as it can drown the book in minute details, but so long as it is done in moderation - or, for some works, just a bit beyond necessary moderation - worldbuilding aids the author in visualizing and understanding the interrelations of their work.

I think you are misundertanding his advice. Insofar as you think you are disagreeing with Harrison, you are actually in total agreement with his statement. Note that he doesn't say "never do worldbuilding"; he says "story should always take precedence over worldbuilding". In other words, worldbuilding should be subordinated to the story - or, to use your words, used in moderation. But his point is that the story should be paramount.

To tell the truth, I can't think of a single story (or RPG campaign) for which this is not excellent advice. Sure, some stories revel in the detailed travelogue - Jordan has been used as an example already - but the stories suffer because of this. Sure, Jordan is popular, but how many people talk about his works and say something like "the plot is good, but I wish he wouldn't keep getting bogged down in all the side details and get on with the story"? The Wheel of Time would probably be improved with less worldbuilding, and more story.

I can think of very few books for which the opposite is true (actually, off the top of my head, zero; but there might be some book out there I haven't thought of).

Worldbuilding in fantasy is more or less the equivalent of the "info-dump" in science fiction. The author has done a lot of research into a subject (or in the case of worldbuilding, a lot of work putting the background together) and, when writing, doesn't want that to go to "waste". So he dumps it on the reader, even if that draws the story to a halt and ins't really needed (or is even somewhat counterproductive). The key is not to have the worldbuilding (or infor-dump), but to give out just enough to support the story, without getting in the way of the story.

 

[Odhanan]

This all would have been a lot simpler if the advice had been written more along the lines of: "don't get carried away in dropping extraneous details into your writing that bring the plot to a screeching halt. It's just self-indulgent and a sign of bad writing."

For the most part, I think we could all agree to that, and honestly I think that's all he really meant.

It seems very surprising, to say the least, that a writer by profession with such an enlightening opinion on the subject would word his opinion that poorly.

(feel the sarcasm here)

So, while I do agree that the comment would have been much better with the wording you propose (though I'd still disagree about the "self-indulgence" and "bad writing" diagnostics), I can only disagree, based on the assumption that he actually is a good writer, that it is not what he only meant. The terms and tone used are loaded, to me, and that's what I despise.