Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

Color me not surprised.

I am so pleased to have introduced a phrase to our common lexicon.

 

[gizmo33]

This gives us a clue to the psychological type of the worldbuilder & the worldbuilder’s victim, & makes us very afraid.

Since Mr. Harrison's writing is obviously motivated by his weird obsessions, why would he begrudge others theirs? So what if someone (like Tolkien) has a hobby of world-building, and it inspires him to write? Or someone else sketches out a campaign world and it gives him a good idea for an adventure, or inspires him to want to allow his friends to play some game based on it?

Since we're all going to have opinions about what each other should be doing with their time, here's mine: Mr. Harrison should go to whatever place he finds his muse (screaming at traffic from his porch, maybe) and write a best-selling novel.

What is the "pscychological type" of the person who uses the word "us" when they mean "me"?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I really don't buy that a particular race is necessarily breaking of an entire genre. Elves have been fleet-footed nomads, undead-worshiping near-necromancers, and immortal Fair Folk, depending on the context of the world. Whereas TMNT and Greyhawk are obviously trying for different ends, "elf" doesn't imply any particular world context.

Are you saying that you cannot conceive of a world where elves wouldn't be a good fit? What happened to all that awesomeness in your brain? And, frankly, your claim about railroading would be apply as much if the DM said "elves are undead-worshiping near-necromancers" as it would be in the case of "elves are non-existent". The problem is that any expansion upon the root premise, at all, demonstrates its falsehood.

Railroading is a specific type of limitation; it is not any limitation whatsoever.

RC

 

[Greg K]

Railroading is a specific type of limitation; it is not any limitation whatsoever.

Once more, I am in complete agreement. I don't see the railroading. There are still many possible choices of character and there is nothing inherently limiting the direction that the players take in there adventures.. And, even if the racial choice was limited to human and there were no spellcasters, I still wouldn't consider it railroading.

 

[LostSoul]

Let's say that you are playing D&D because you want to create a cool story with your pals.

If your worldbuilding notes get in the way of a really cool, dramatic event or action, then worldbuilding is not serving your needs.

 

[Set]

And that's fine. You are creating for an audience of one. Do whatever makes you happy.

Save for the bit about mentioning specifically that it also is enjoyed by other people, I have been told, by those who've read what I've published. So yeah, other than you being wrong, again, sure.

If I create a three page backstory for my Vampire character, *then* I'm writing for an audience of one. No one who has GMd for me has ever read my character's backstories, nor do I even hand them over, although I do usually note that I've worked up a background and stuff and it's not just a collection of min-maxed stats and a half-finished equipment list that will miraculously develop during play to include anything we suddenly need...

It's on me to bring up if some background thing may be relevant. "Ooh, my character grew up on a farm, can I make a Knowledge (nature) check to try and figure out if the cows are just sick, or being 'poisoned by gremlins' like the farmers claim?"

It's *my* job to bring my character to life with that evil 'role-playing' thing that is so roundly derided by some. It's the GM's job to bring the setting to life.

You're conflating the two, and bringing in needy attention-hog drama-queen players who want you to read their sixteen page bio and integrate all of their background stuff into the campaign with the rest of us marginally sane people. If I'm willing to concede Robert Jordans as an example of Harrison being right (world-building detracting from storytelling), it would only be courteous for you to not drag crazy people into it as proof of concept.

 

[Ourph]

Let's say that you are playing D&D because you want to create a cool story with your pals.

If your worldbuilding notes get in the way of a really cool, dramatic event or action, then worldbuilding is not serving your needs.

If this were what the blog entry cited in the original post were actually saying, this thread would be less than a page long.

 

[LostSoul]

If this were what the blog entry cited in the original post were actually saying, this thread would be less than a page long.

Yeah, we could keep discussing that, or we could use the blog post as a springboard to talk about the role of worldbuilding in D&D. I think that's more interesting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let's say that you are playing D&D because you want to create a cool story with your pals.

If your worldbuilding notes get in the way of a really cool, dramatic event or action, then worldbuilding is not serving your needs.

Agreed.

But it is conversely true that if your worldbuilding notes help to devise a really cool, dramatic event or action, or to build up player expectations when they get to a place they have long heard of, or to build up player excitement when they defeat the BBEG who they have been hearing about since day one, then worldbuilding is serving your needs.

Worldbuilding that serves your needs = good.
Worldbuilding that neither serves nor hampers your needs = neutral
Worldbuilding that hampers your need = evil. Get your pitchforks.

 

[LostSoul]

Yeah, good point!

My only question is, how do you make sure you get the good stuff and keep away from the bad?