Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[BryonD]

If everything in the world is predetermined before the characters are even created, then the likelihood of them affecting the world is next to none. There is no sense of wonder in exploring or discovering whats over the next hill when its already written down for you to read.

Look at Forgotten Realms today, where the main complaint Ive heard about the setting is that the PCs don't matter in a world where superpowered npcs exist. That every area of Faerun is so intricately detailed that a player only has to read a sourcebook to know everything about a society. There's nothing for a gm to describe and if he changes it from what is written, a player can accuse him of getting it wrong.

No wonder, no excitement, just reams and reams of boxed text. No attachment for the players, because they never had a chance to have any effect on it. They are just going through the amusement park, looking at the pretty set pieces, but never actually getting to create anything.

Usual disclaimers of course.

Of course if you are world building then none of this applies because your own product isn't out there for the players to sit down and read.

 

[Imaro]

If everything in the world is predetermined before the characters are even created, then the likelihood of them affecting the world is next to none. There is no sense of wonder in exploring or discovering whats over the next hill when its already written down for you to read.

Look at Forgotten Realms today, where the main complaint Ive heard about the setting is that the PCs don't matter in a world where superpowered npcs exist. That every area of Faerun is so intricately detailed that a player only has to read a sourcebook to know everything about a society. There's nothing for a gm to describe and if he changes it from what is written, a player can accuse him of getting it wrong.

No wonder, no excitement, just reams and reams of boxed text. No attachment for the players, because they never had a chance to have any effect on it. They are just going through the amusement park, looking at the pretty set pieces, but never actually getting to create anything.

Usual disclaimers of course.

Again I think this is a problem of certain GM's who don't want their world to be changed, not an inherent flaw of actual world building. Hopefully, when you build a world your building it for the purpose of facilitating your PC's adventures while giving them grounding and set pieces to enact their desires, will, or ambitions upon. Their wonder and excitement come from affecting changes, dealing with consequences and creating things. If the GM stops them from doing this in his world that's a GM problem not a world building problem.

 

[Desdichado]

If everything in the world is predetermined before the characters are even created, then the likelihood of them affecting the world is next to none. There is no sense of wonder in exploring or discovering whats over the next hill when its already written down for you to read.

Look at Forgotten Realms today, where the main complaint Ive heard about the setting is that the PCs don't matter in a world where superpowered npcs exist. That every area of Faerun is so intricately detailed that a player only has to read a sourcebook to know everything about a society. There's nothing for a gm to describe and if he changes it from what is written, a player can accuse him of getting it wrong.

No wonder, no excitement, just reams and reams of boxed text. No attachment for the players, because they never had a chance to have any effect on it. They are just going through the amusement park, looking at the pretty set pieces, but never actually getting to create anything.

Usual disclaimers of course.

Y'know, I do sometimes wonder if Forgotten Realms is--if anything--even more popular as a setting to read about than as a setting to play in.

 

[Kestrel]

Again I think this is a problem of certain GM's who don't want their world to be changed, not an inherent flaw of actual world building. Hopefully, when you build a world your building it for the purpose of facilitating your PC's adventures while giving them grounding and set pieces to enact their desires, will, or ambitions upon. Their wonder and excitement come from affecting changes, dealing with consequences and creating things. If the GM stops them from doing this in his world that's a GM problem not a world building problem.

This is true, it is a GM problem. My guess though is that if a GM creates something, they are going to want to show it off, which could lead to the world they created overshadowing the game at the table.

This is sorta what I think Harrison might be talking about. If you spend all this time creating a world to write about, then the actual writing becomes about the world, not the story, which the reader, unless he's really into the world, doesn't care about because it makes for dry reading. Setting should serve as the framework, not as the work itself. There's a balance though. Details can add to the story, giving it a richness that it needs, but you have to know when to draw the line.

 

[buzz]

Y'know, I do sometimes wonder if Forgotten Realms is--if anything--even more popular as a setting to read about than as a setting to play in.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[GVDammerung]

Somebody probably said this better than I can, but this thread is too long for me to read all the posts now.

Originally Posted by M John Harrison
Every moment of a science fiction story must represent the triumph of writing over worldbuilding.

I snipped this because the point that first caught my attention is this: We're on a gaming forum. He's talking about fiction writing. Worldbuilding for fiction is not the same as worldbuilding for a roleplaying game.

Agreed. The strongest point of commonality, IMO, is that of the frame or context. The action occupies (most often) the foreground in that it is the engine the moves the plot or game. However, the action takes place within a frame or context that is worldbuilding. This worldbuilding can be very detailed or very sparse, its utility (most often) being how it serves the action in the foreground of the story or game that is moving the plot or game.

Tastes will vary. I think that a story or game is a richer, more fulfilling and a more emersive expereince if the frame or context, the worldbuilding, is given at least as much attention as the main, motive actions. Where the background or worldbuilding is sparse, the experince, book or game, to me comes across as by various degrees shallow or hollow, certainly only rarely memorable.

In the science fiction realm of which Harrison speaks, Larry Niven's Ringworld is a personal favorite that showcases worldbuilding. Ringworld itself is one gigantic exercise in worldbuilding without which the story would otherwise be nothing. Ringworld had to have its physics, cultures etc. set out in detail for the basic story of Louis Wu etc. to work.

The Dune books are another great example. The history of the Dune universe from CHOAM to the Spacing Guild to the Landsrat to the Freememn to the Beni-Gesertae (sp) to the Mentats etc. are all essential acts of comprehensive world building without which Paul Atredies etc. story would mean little.

There are many more.

Harrison's opinion comes acropper almost immeditately after he annunciates it. A short list of sciencefiction that has stood some test of time proves Harrison wrong, at least in the strict, aggressively declarative manner in which he phrases his opinion.

Made into a teleplay, much the same is true. Like it or disllike it, the Star Trek universe is replete with worldbuilding, from the trials of Star Fleet Academy to the ship design facility on Sirius Planitia (sp), to the Mars defensive perimeter, to the Jovan run, to the United Federation of Planets and its internal politics and its relationship with Star Fleet Command to the intricacies of the starships and their various subsystems to the various aliens, most notably the Klingons, to the Gamma Quadrant etc. Like it or dislike it, the Star Trek francise is replete with worldbuilding and is vastly popular and successful, transcending its medium to become part of popular culture, in a way even the immensely popular Star Wars has failed to equal.

Babylon 5 is even more world building centric, with the focus on Babylon 5 as a living place -virtually a character (at least in Seasons 1-3, less so in Seasons 4 and 5). Much the same is true of Deep Space Nine, the Star Trek doppleganger.

Moving to gaming, Traveller (Classic Version) could not exist without substantial, sustained and constant worldbuilding. The PCs are usually travelling from one world to another and if each is not to be a gray, lighter or darker, version of every other, each must be built - the more so if the adventure goes much beyond the local starport. Recognizing this, the line of classic traveller products includes any number of worldbuilding, literally, accessories, as do subsequent incarnations of the game.

Cyberpunk (R. Talsorian) is even more dependent on worldbuilding to drive adventures, despite being derivative of cyberpunk fiction. Each Megacorp needs to be detailed if it is not to be just another faceless business. The Corporate Reports look to provide precise detail for the most prominent Megacorps in the game (Arasaka, Militech etc.) So too, the cultural peculiarities of the setting must be explored in more than casual fashion - Nomads, Solos, Medias etc. Then, there is the Net, memorably described by Rache Bartmoss. And of course Nightcity, the main stage for play, to say nothing of the Chrome, which is more than just equipment lists as the equipment detail reinforces the themes of the game as cyberpunk.

Moving just a bit further afield, I think much the same is true. As much as I dislike the specifics of the detail in the Forgotten Realms, I believe the setting would not be as successful and as long lived as it has been without all of the detail - the worldbuilding. Greyhawk has correspondingly suffered, IMO, for want of more worldbuilding - finding its details scattered or just almost nonexistant and certainly constrained and confined to the Flanaess for the most part.

Gaming much more than in fiction, I believe, requires worldbuilding because the DM and players are not simply passively reading, they are actively interacting with the fictional environment. Unless the game is beer and pretzels, worldbuilding IMO distinguishes the good games from the merely adequite or worse.

YMMV

 

[Storm Raven]

In the science fiction realm of which Harrison speaks, Larry Niven's Ringworld is a personal favorite that showcases worldbuilding. Ringworld itself is one gigantic exercise in worldbuilding without which the story would otherwise be nothing. Ringworld had to have its physics, cultures etc. set out in detail for the basic story of Louis Wu etc. to work.

I think I disagree here. Ringworld is a case with very limited worldbuilding. The main alien races are describable (and are described) in one or two sentence statements. The Ringworld itself is only loosely described (and in the original book, was thought out porrly enough that it wouldn't work without the additions made in Ringworld Engineers, as the structure would have been unstable). The cultures of the Ringworld inhabitants are described in very limited ways, and only sufficiently to drive the narrative. In Ringworld, the story triumphs over worldbuilding.

The Dune books are another great example. The history of the Dune universe from CHOAM to the Spacing Guild to the Landsrat to the Freememn to the Beni-Gesertae (sp) to the Mentats etc. are all essential acts of comprehensive world building without which Paul Atredies etc. story would mean little.

Yes, they are a great example, but not of what you say they are. CHOAM is described in a couple sentences, all of the politics of Landsraad are reduced to a small discussion. The Bene-Gesserit are described to the extent that they have great martial arts and manipulative skills and they are trying to breed a Kwisatz-Haderach, and little more. Mentats are given a paragraph or two of description. The world building, compared to the story, is slight.

Your other examples are, to a great extent, similar. Note that Harrison didn't say "no worldbuilding". He said "story should trump worldbuilding". Star Trek, in the main, does this. Star Trek, when it comes in the form of technical manuals, does not. Imagine if the material in the "technical manual" was crammed into an episode of one of the shows. How crappy would that be? Lots of science fiction and fantasy writers fall into the trap of doing almost exactly that, and it makes their writing suffer. And that's exactly what Harrison appears to be talking about.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Once more, world-building doesn't mean "intrusion of reams of information in the narrative" -- it means the necessary work to establish the setting that the narrative requires.


RC

 

[Infernal Teddy]

Once more, world-building doesn't mean "intrusion of reams of information in the narrative" -- it means the necessary work to establish the setting that the narrative requires.


RC

QFT

 

[Odhanan]

Once more, world-building doesn't mean "intrusion of reams of information in the narrative" -- it means the necessary work to establish the setting that the narrative requires.


RC

QFT indeed.