Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

Out of curiosity, does anyone think that this sort of worldbuilding is bad:

In the first Pathfinder blog post I mentioned how we needed to build a new region to set Rise of the Runelords in. In fact, it's more complicated than that. We actually had to create TWO regions. The first of these is Varisia, the realm in which the new Adventure Path takes place. The other is Thassilon, the ancient empire that once sprawled across much of this corner of the world. An empire that was, at its height, ruled by seven powerful wizards known as Runelords.

Thassilon was a sprawling empire that covered an area about as large as the western half of the United States. The Runelords were maniacal arcanists who used magic to fuel their own decadent vices. They forged alliances with dragons and enslaved giants by using secrets of rune and glyph magic stolen from the aboleths. With their enslaved giant armies, the wizards of Thassilon built massive tombs, enormous magical constructs, and staggering monuments that survive today, mute testimonies of a mysterious age long past. Yet as all evil empires must, Thassilon fell. The reason for this fall remains a mystery, but as the end drew near, the seven Runelords retreated into the depths of their greatest monuments, entombing themselves with orders for their minions to release them later to reclaim their empire. Alas, Thassilon's minions were enslaved or slaughtered. No one was left to waken them, and so the wizard kings of Thassilon slumbered for countless ages. Virtues of Rule, Sins of Magic

At Thassilon's dawn, the Runelords held that wealth, fertility, honest pride, abundance, eager striving, righteous anger, and well-deserved rest were the seven virtues of rule—rewards that one could enjoy for being in a position of power. But the Runelords soon abandoned the positive aspects of these traits, instead embracing greed, lust, boastful pride, gluttony, envy, wrath, and sloth as the rewards of rule. Today, long after the fall of Thassilon, the original seven virtues are held as the great mortal sins, although only a few scholars who have studied ancient Thassilon know of their true sources.

The Runelords' magic was closely tied to these seven categories, to such an extent that they developed their own schools of magic. All of the Runelords were specialist wizards. They recognized seven schools of magic (lumping divination magic into the universal school), and each school was associated with one of the seven sins. A Thassilonian wizard selected one sin when he became a specialist, and that determined his prohibited schools, as detailed below.

Note also

Cities and Regions: One of the strongest selling points of Pathfinder, in my mind, is that it gives you literally EVERYTHING you need to run a campaign. While we of course encourage people to adapt the Adventure Path to their own homebrew campaign worlds—some of us at the office are doing the same thing—we also think it's important to make the setting itself as compelling as the plot. In Rise of the Runelords alone, we have three extensive city write-ups detailing cities that the PCs will visit in the course of their travels—Sandpoint, Magnimar, and Xin-Shalast. These aren't just town stat blocks—these are massive affairs filled with locations, NPCs, backstory, encounters, and maps of surpassing intricacy and beauty. (You'd think I was exaggerating, but when Wes Schneider brought in the map he'd drawn of the city of Magnimar, site of the second adventure, I would have sworn he'd traced it off of Google Maps... there was simply too much detail. When asked how he managed it, he shrugged and replied, "latent obsessive-compulsive tendencies, I suppose.") In addition, we'll also have a large-scale map of the entire region of Varisia, in which Rise of the Runelords takes place, with write-ups for dozens of locations that simultaneously help flesh out the world and give you instant story starters for additional adventures. (I don't know about you, but I'm always a huge fan of provocative regional maps that give you just enough flavor to get your mind going, then turn you loose.)

Ecological Write-ups: Designing a new setting and working under the OGL means that we have the opportunity to introduce new monsters and re-imagine classic ones. (If you want a taste of where we're headed, scroll down to the last blog post on the goblins in our world.) In Rise of the Runelords, we plan to reveal our vision for stone giants and dragons in depth, taking things beyond a mere MM entry and showing you their society, their beliefs, their insides... in short, everything that makes them tick. Because while a good illustration can make a monster intriguing, it's how they think (and how you play them) that makes them great adversaries.

Gods and Demons: Similar to my feelings on monsters, I think that gods and demons (somewhat interchangeable terms in our world) are the most fun when they have engaging stories. Several times in each Adventure Path, we'll pick one of the gods or demons from our campaign setting and give you an in-depth look at everything about them, from their story and stats to their worshippers and heralds. For the first path, that'll be Desna, Song of the Spheres and patron of gypsies, and Lamashtu, the Goddess of Monstrous Birth.

and

History: I'm sure that by now you're probably getting the general gist of the Pathfinder ideology, but the history of a game world is just as important—and potentially inspiring—as it's geography. A chance for us (not to mention some of the biggest names in the RPG business) to shade in the historical background of our world? Yes, please!

Anything but bland, and I will note that thus far EN Worlders seem fairly intrigued and/or excited by the material thus far. For those who point to the Adventure Paths as the anathema of worldbuilding, may I introduce you to the work of those same people when the shackles are off.

For more, see http://paizo.com/pathfinder/blog

Is this "wrongbadfun" world-building?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is this "wrongbadfun" world-building?

In that some of it only appeals to great, clomping nerds? Not much. It seems like every bit of history there is designed to influence the play at the table, so it will affect all players. It's Harrison's "Triumph of writing over worldbuilding."

You've got the setting information: "an old evil empire based its magic on seven deadly sins and virtues." One assumes that the PC's will be exploring this old evil empire and the reasons for its fall, so this isn't information for the sake of information. The cities and towns come with "provocative regional maps that give you just enough flavor to get your mind going, then turn you loose," so that's directly relevant in play.

The monster ecologies help play the role better: "Because while a good illustration can make a monster intriguing, it's how they think (and how you play them) that makes them great adversaries."

The gods might tread the territory a bit, but even that has a focus on "their story and stats to their worshippers and heralds," meaning that you're going to be able to do things like describe the dress a bit better.

It all seems like it serves a direct purpose at the table.

It all started with Erik Mona building up an enormous T-shaped map over the course of several sheets of graph paper. What he ended up with was several continents; way too much room for a single campaign. So I chose one relatively small (small as in "about the size of California") section of his map and started filling in the blanks. At the same time, the rest of the Pathfinder team—F. Wesley Schneider and James Sutter—and I began to work out the plotline for the inaugural Adventure Path: Rise of the Runelords. To a certain extent, the shape of this new region was dictated by the plot we came up with: we needed a mountain range to rival the Himalayas, a vast cliff face stretching hundreds of miles, and remnants from an ancient empire.

The worldbuilding that Harrison is talking about would have filled in the detail on all the continents. The plot would have been dictated by the setting, rather than the plot dictating the setting.

*That* is wasted effort and irrelevant at the table and entirely obsessive cataloging.

If you see it's effects in play, it seems to fit the mold of the triumph of game over worldbuilding.

 

[Hussar]

Um....Actually, King Kull and the Atlantis mythos appeared in Howard's writing before Conan did, and would have been familiar to his readers at the time the stories were published. Indeed, we have a good deal more than "a few paragraphs detailing the history of the rise and eventual fall of Atlantis". We know about Conan's ancestors and how they relate to Atlantis. And his descendents. If this is your line of reasoning, I hope you will therefore acknowledge Howard among the ranks of worldbuilders.

You are now presuming that all readers of Conan will have read Kull? That elements introduced IN ANOTHER STORY count as world building within the current one? Just because they happen to be by the same author? Sorry, doesn't work that way.

No, I don't want it both ways. Elements of setting which are throwaway lines without any further explanation are not world building. They are simply a setting device to make the setting "not here". You do realize that there are more than one device allowed by writers? That it is possible to use more than a single device within a text?

You want to add research done that doesn't even appear in the text as world building. So, if I have Wheaties this morning instead of Frosted Flakes, does that become world building?

 

[Raven Crowking]

You are now presuming that all readers of Conan will have read Kull?

Hardly.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Not all worldbuilding makes it into the work, although the work itself is informed by the worldbuilding. You said Howard didn't say word one about Atlantis, or Conan's ancestry; I demonstrated that he had done the work even if it never appeared in Conan.

This is similar, in fact, to Tolkein developing a history of his "world" even if it never appeared in LotR (later published in The Silmarilion) still counts as worldbuilding re: Middle Earth.

Again, you seem to view worldbuilding as only that which appears in the text, but that doesn't have anything to do with the text. That is, quite simply, not the standard definition. In fact, by your definition, (EDIT: And, apparently, KM's, as the work moved from plot to setting rather than the other way around) Tolkein wasn't a worldbuilder....a proposition that most people would, I think, find absurd.

My definition of worldbuilding is "Creation of setting details that move the setting from the generic to the specific".

If you are arguing that "bad worldbuilding is bad" than that is tautologically true. If you are arguing that "paragraphs of text that have nothing to do with the story at hand are bad" then I would again agree, with the caveat that we came to some agreement as to what "nothing to do with the story at hand" means.

Easy to agree with, but (or therefore) neither very interesting, nor very controvertial.

Apparently, while you don't accept my definition, you don't find "Creation of setting details that move the setting from the generic to the specific" bad, either. So, again, no controversy, and easy to agree with.

IOW, this argument is at least 90% terminology (what does "worldbuilding" mean?), perhaps 4% disagreement, and 6% people just liking to argue.

Those interested in what worldbuilding means might enjoy this: http://www.wisetome.com/node/3

World Building is an art where a World Builder designs more than one element that exists only within the world that is being built. The extent of how consistent it is depends on the Builder in the same way as any artist chooses to put effort into his work of art. An artist may choose to draw only the outlines and not the rest features, and only exaggerate the anomalies in the face of a person – then it becomes a caricature. Or the artist may choose to put in the perspective and the details of the light and shadow, like Michael Angelo’s works. Similarly, a World Builder may choose to detail only that much into the World, as much as is required out of it.

Those interested in worldbuilding can find some links here: http://users.tkk.fi/~vesanto/world.build.html

 

[The Shaman]

The plot would have been dictated by the setting, rather than the plot dictating the setting.

Could you cite an actual published example, not a hypothetical, of a setting that dictates plot?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Robert E. Howard's Hyboria

I know it's a wiki, and therefore suspect, but this might be of some interest in terms of whether or not Howard constructed his world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyborian_Age

Again, the recent re-release of Howard's works contains notes & essays by Howard, and are worth tracking down (IMHO, at least).

RC

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

IOW, this argument is at least 90% terminology (what does "worldbuilding" mean?), perhaps 4% disagreement, and 6% people just liking to argue.

Those interested in what worldbuilding means might enjoy this: http://www.wisetome.com/node/3



Those interested in worldbuilding can find some links here: http://users.tkk.fi/~vesanto/world.build.html

Dammit, stop being so reasonable.

Semantics are so much fun though.

 

[howandwhy99]

Constrained setting vs. railroading adventures

I have to agree with Rounser and Harrison. If you are telling a story, then the most important part of that story is the plot. However, if you are playing a game, pretty much any RPG, than plotlines have no place at all. No one can plot out a game of poker, chess, basketball, or D&D. That's railroading and is antithetical to the actual definition of a game. IMO, this seems to be the disconnect as Rounser and Harrison are telling stories, while everyone else is running games.

I disagree with the idea that constrained settings are good for creating adventures. A well-defined locale gives a GM fodder to play it as the Players explore, but completely defined worlds must necessarily restrict options. To create something means to not create something else. Most GMs I know leave spaces open in the world where other elements can be added. You only need the world to exist to the edge of the PC's perceivable horizon. The blank space beyond that could conceivably be anything the DM desires or the Players suggest (a few days before the session preferably). A world like Forgotten Realms is nearly complete. There is no room north of Cormyr for an ancient desert empire. Sure you can put one in, but than you are playing a homebrew world and not a world known to the players.

The difference between Known and Unknown worlds should probably be explained. Here's my idea. Known worlds are known to both the players and their characters. The players pretending they don't know the world gets dull really fast. The entire reason the players are playing in that world is because it is known to them and they want to use that knowledge to play within it. Known worlds are published settings. They can come from any medium and often show up as licensed settings. Players want to play in Forgotten Realms, Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, LotR, and Hyboria because they know them. That's the point.

As an aside, this is why playing in known worlds has always been a game and not a story. No one I know who plays RPGs bought a licensed setting so they could "play the story". Yes, it happens in the DL adventures, but few and far between are the games were the original story characters are played through the original plotline. RPGs are bought to play in the world, not follow the story. Presumably books or movies are whatnot already exist for this.

Unknown worlds are worlds that are unknown to both the players and their characters. The point here is exploration of the setting. Parts become known as they explore, but no canon is ever involved - only consistency. Unknown worlds do not need to be complete and attempting to do so beforehand is probably too much of a hassle. Why detail countries weeks away when the PCs may never go there? By not being overbuilt, unknown setting continually allow for whatever expansion can be dreamed up. There are no constraints except the creator's imagination.

Both types of gameworlds are fun to play in, if for different reasons, and each has their strengths and weaknesses. Unknown worlds allow that pervasive "sense of wonder" and extension, while known worlds are generally complete and include player buy-in beforehand. Unknown worlds must typically be medieval or low-tech, while known worlds are the only ones possible for knowledge-collecting, communications-spanning, modern settings. Neither is "bad", however, as being in the setting is the point of playing the game.

 

[howandwhy99]

Could you cite an actual published example, not a hypothetical, of a setting that dictates plot?

Most hard sci-fi especially early stuff was simply a plot about "what ifs". H. G. Wells' stuff were good stories, but they could never be what they were without time machines and invisibility potions. That may be too situational in truth, but situation is dictated by environment IMO.

Horror stories are also like this. The original Alien movie. Aliens hibernate on an alien planet. Human explorers discover them. The rest is survival of the fittest.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Another note for those who would claim that creating setting and worldbuilding are not the same thing, here's how this thread starts:

Sci-fi writer M John Harrison tells you why you don't need to spend hours crafting your campaign setting:

Obviously, when the implications become clear, some would like to divorce setting from worldbuilding, but this clearly wasn't the case when this thread began.