Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[I'm A Banana]

Oh, please. I am not attacking anyone. Point me to one -- just one -- personal blog that is expected to be treated like a professional space. harrison had a thought and shared it on his blog in a very short, not particularly well written little rant. Had the guy bothered to do it as a 5000 word article on a literary/spec-fic site, I would have read it happily and, even if I didn't agree with it, taken it for what it was -- a well thought out thesis on the nature of literature. As it is, I take it for what it is -- a not very well thought out, not very well written rant about a subject close to the writer's heart. So he doesn't like nerds. Yippee.

Let's try this again:

ADDRESS THE MESSAGE, NOT THE SPEAKER

This is a thread discussing worldbuilding in D&D as seen through the critical lens of a professional builder of imaginary worlds. He's got at least enough cred to spark that discussion. If you don't accept that premise, don't post in the thread, please.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*
Paizo's adventure paths serve as a final nail in the coffin of the argument that "the world matters", because they're so easily ported from FR to Eberron to GH. That should tell you something very important about how redundant most worldbuilding is, and about the amount of effort required to write just the adventure components of a fully fleshed out campaign.

Ooo, that stings.

I think I can see where the breakdown in communication is coming from though and it's in the basic definitions we're working from. Celebrim and I believe RC are working from the position that world building is any setting element which is created that doesn't directly impact the plot. Again, I'm sorry if that's wrong and please correct me if I am. That's the position that I think they are taking.

For me, and I believe a few others, world building is just that - building a world. It's not a throwaway line buried in the middle of dialogue. It's the attempt to create an entire working world complete with history, society and whatnot.

Talking about Andorian Brandy in Star Trek is not world building. The only things we really know are that it's strongly alchoholic, it's made by blue guys with funny antennae and it's difficult to get. At no time are we told anything about what is actually in it, how it's made, how it's distributed, or anything else about it. From a story perspective, the only function it serves is to tell us that in the future, you have to go to space to get a good drink.

If we were to use world building with Andorian Brandy, we'd know all the extra details about it. History, what it tastes like, how it's made, what it's made of, etc. Just like in a Tom Clancy novel we are told the exact methods for creating a bomb in a spectacular show of technoporn. CSI works much the same way. There is very little plot or story in any given CSI episode. Most of the show is technoporn. Granted, it's very popular, but, certainly lacking in any sort of character development or, I don't know, actual story. I mean, the last one I watched had them figure out how one guy used his Battle Bot to whack his competitor. That's scraping the bottom of the barrel.

CSI is popular, but, would anyone here say that it's popular because of the riveting story? Porn is popular too, but that doesn't make it good. Setting development in service to the plot is good, IMO. Setting development for the sake of developing a setting is bad. It's stageporn.

 

[rounser]

For me, and I believe a few others, world building is just that - building a world. It's not a throwaway line buried in the middle of dialogue. It's the attempt to create an entire working world complete with history, society and whatnot.

Which is, as many have noted in this thread, a massive waste of time for purposes of actually running a D&D game or writing a novel. That's what this thread is about. In the words of Wolfgang Baur:

Most DMs and designers hate to hear it, but much of the time lavished on history and background is wasted energy. Players never find out who dug the tomb, how the wizard was betrayed by her apprentice, or why the assassin guild changed sides and disappeared. Working on backstory doesn't improve the gameplay experience for anyone but the bards and scholars obsessed with legends or lore. Unless it connects directly to action in the current timeframe (and the PCs have a way of learning it), skip the involved history. Save that for sourcebooks.

This is not to say cut it all. Details of which faction can be turned against another, which guard might take a bribe, or what the villain ultimately plans to do if the party doesn't stop him are all appropriate. Make sure your backstory is recent and relevant; avoid anything that starts "Thousands of years ago..."

Dungeoncraft and the author quoted by the OP fill in further blanks that amount to "don't even bother with the sourcebooks". I'm inclined to agree, don't prepare more macro-level setting material than you have to when there's far better ways to spend finite time, effort and focus (like on adventures, or encounter level "bottom-up" setting development), and worldbuilding is a massive violation of these very sensible principles. Worldbuilding as an end in it's own right is fine and fun, but I don't think it should be given the title of game prep except in a wishful thinking sense.

 

[FireLance]

Not unlike the vehement, almost fanatical, responses of some when J. Swift suggested Scottish landlords eat their tenant's babies? Did that mean that he was onto something?

Or, if I say "3.5 Sucks" and I receive vehement, almost fanatical, responses, does that mean 3.5 actually sucks? Or does it mean that I am wrong, and a lot of people want to tell me so?

I think the latter is more likely than the former, don't you?

Your first example doesn't really help, because the implication is that he is on to something when he says that worldbuilding is bad.

As for your second example, it just means that a lot of people think you are wrong. However, if they start attacking you instead of your opinion, a third party may wonder why they are being so defensive. After all, no religious figures were mocked, and no illegal acts were alleged.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Celebrim and I believe RC are working from the position that world building is any setting element which is created that doesn't directly impact the plot.

I think that's far too broad of a definition, and certainly doesn't seem to be what Harrison is talking about. Worldbuilding insofar as Harrison is using the word seems to mean "developing setting elements for the purposes of developing setting elements." There's reasons for those elements to exist other than plot (character development, verisimilitude, what have you), but they all have to do ultimately with telling the story. They're not just developed for the sake of building the world. When they loose that purpose, they become "worldbuilding," that the goal is to catalogue a fictional imaginary place and not to play a game or tell a story.

CSI is popular, but, would anyone here say that it's popular because of the riveting story? Porn is popular too, but that doesn't make it good. Setting development in service to the plot is good, IMO. Setting development for the sake of developing a setting is bad. It's stageporn.

Not bad. And like I posted above, if all you're trying to do is entertain great clomping nerds, I'm not sure the advise is that relevant, since nerds do love that stuff. And, unlike writing, D&D is not trying to attain some creative pinnacle of art, it's just trying to have some friends have fun.

To extend the analogy, porn works for what it does, and that's all it really sets out to do. It's good at it's purpose, but it's purpose isn't to create high art, it's to titillate the viewers. Similarly, I don't think D&D's purpose is to manifest the next great work of literature, it's to amuse some friends on a Saturday night.

I think that's really where Harrison's criticism reaches it's breaking point for relevance to D&D. And it perhaps goes a certain extent to showing why D&D novels so often are literary stinkbombs.

 

[Reynard]

Which is, as many have noted in this thread, a massive waste of time for purposes of actually running a D&D game or writing a novel. That's what this thread is about.

I shudder to imagine what sort of novels you think are "good".

 

[rounser]

I shudder to imagine what sort of novels you think are "good".

As indeed you should. Shudder in your boots...in your boots I say! (Bwahahahaha)

 

[Darth Shoju]

And the thing that "Mr. H" seems to be pointing out is that those who prefer all this detail are great clomping nerds. Which is fine if that's the only audience you're interested in appealing to. And if your players are all happy being great clomping nerds who are in love with your imagination, I'm not sure that the advice to cut down on worldbuilding is really all that relevant.

Let's try this again:

ADDRESS THE MESSAGE, NOT THE SPEAKER

This is a thread discussing worldbuilding in D&D as seen through the critical lens of a professional builder of imaginary worlds. He's got at least enough cred to spark that discussion. If you don't accept that premise, don't post in the thread, please.

It's tough not to go after "Mr. H" when people keep bringing up the "great clomping nerds" bit. I've got news for him: the majority of the world likely thinks him a great clomping nerd regardless of what he thinks of "world building". And those same people would likely read the first few posts of this thread (if they could be convinced to come here in the first place) and then roll their eyes and call us all losers. I'm not saying they would be right, but let's keep this in perspective and cut all the nerd-on-nerd hate, ok?

 

[Darth Shoju]

I cannot possibly be the only reader of Tolkien who skips large numbers of paragraphs to avoid going to sleep. I couldn't possibly care less about the culinary habits of hobbits. I love LOTR and The Hobbit because they are really damn good stories. Or, to put it another way, I love them despite the world building elements in them. And I don't think I'm alone in this.

Probably not, but I don't see how that proves your point.

Fantasy lit is littered with ubiquitous trilogies that could be chopped down to a single book if authors would stop filling them with superflous setting elements in an attempt to show the world how incredibly clever they are. I adore Tad Williams, I really do. But, as I've gotten older, I realize how incredibly boring the Dragonbone Chair series is. It's filled with filler. Read Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard and tell me that world building is a good thing.

So because Hubbard can't write decent setting detail it makes it a bad thing?

Contrast Tad Williams with Steven Erikson. Both write very long winded series of books. But, where Tad Williams devotes paragraph after paragraph detailing setting elements, Erikson's books read like Robert Howard - full of action with sparse, but meaningful detail.

Meaningful to you perhaps. Frankly The Dragonbone Chair trilogy is one of my favourite fantasy series of all time. I enjoy the setting development and can guarantee it wouldn't have had the same impact on me without it (although I will concede that it is too slow at the beginning).

I have so little interest in seeing how smart some writer thinks he is anymore. Exploring yet another setting with unpronounceable names and half arsed history does not appeal to me anymore.

Honestly I pretty much agree with the idea that when designing an adventure/writing a story you need to prioritize the adventure/story itself over the world building. I get that. But saying it the way you did above devalues your opinion to me and makes it really hard for me to agree with you.

I guess I just don't understand what the debate is here. If someone enjoys fleshing out their setting in their own time, why is that a bad thing? As long as they design an enjoyable adventure and know how to get down to business when doing so what bloody difference does it make? I'll have to admit to skipping large chunks of this thread, but is anyone really advocating the reverse?

 

[Psion]

Another angle on this:

As a GM, world building is crucial to me. Not just because it supports play, but because it's the ground in which I stake my emotional investment in the setting.

The less time I invest in the setting, the less I care about it, the less of that comes through when running the game, the less fun the game is.


Back to the context of speculative fiction:

Tolkien's getting waved around a lot, but let me pull up another example. Peter Hamilton is a current SF author who has a penchant for lavish, detailed worlds. I find the depth with which he relays his setting as a pure pleasure. If feel more involved with the setting, and knowing the setting better frames the action in my mind.