Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Kestrel]

So, people are saying it doesn't apply in D&D. Why not? Does it not still literalize the need to invent? Does it not give unnecessary permission for the acts of game writing and game playing? Does it not numb the ability of the player to do their part of the bargain, because it believes it has to do everything around here if the job's to get done?

Is it technically necessary for D&D in a way it isn't for writing? Is it not the great clomping food of nerdism, trying to exhaustively define a place that isn't there? Why would a good DM so exhaustively define something that doesn't exist? Is it ever really possible? Do players interact with everything the DM designs? Doesn't the worldbuilder's "psychological type" still imply that their setting is a hallowed place of dedication and lifelong study?

[sblock]
My own view is that it's more necessary in D&D, because you don't lead players by the nose in the same way you lead readers by the nose as an author, so you do need to create more than what's right in front of them. Specifically, you need to create what's all around them, so that they can go back or to the side and there's still something there. Though I do think the idea of exhaustively cataloging a place that doesn't exist leads to immense volumes of effort that is largely wasted in the game, and is more about the DM having fun creating than about the needs of the campaign.
[/sblock]

Hey, follow your bliss. If that's detailing the eating habits of the Sewer denizens of the City State of Gobblegook, then go for it.

Will the majority of it get used in a game and will the players care beyond the loot of the dead guy on thier sword? That's pretty unlikely. Players only care about the stuff that involves thier character directly, the fluff about the King of Gobblegook? They could care less unless it gives them loot or xp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Tolkien is praised for a lot of things, but never his efficiency.

He is by me. There is not a single word wasted in LotR, and the degrees by which PJ had to alter the later narrative to cover changes made in previous installments is evidence of this. The ending of LotR is one of (IMHO), the most triumphant and heartbreaking endings ever written. The movie, not so much.

YMMV.

RC

 

[Umbran]

One of the skills of a "good" DM is improvisation, though. Certainly you don't expect everything your players do to be pre-planned, is there a reason we should have all parts of our world pre-planned?

Well, let's be clear here - the author seems to have stated that worldbuilding, in general, is bad. And you also seem to jump to the extreme. But, since when does worldbuilding, in general, imply that "all parts of the world are pre-planned"? I don't think the extreme is a good argument that it should be avoided entirely, as the piece suggests.

It isn't as if the real case is digital - all preplaned or all improvised. There is a balance to all things - a certain amount of worldbuilding is called for, and a certain amount of improvisation.

 

[Ulric]

Remember, this is coming from a professional novelist. Here are a few things to keep in mind.

1) If a professional writer spends too much time on "world building", he produces and publishes a book every ten years instead of every year. Unless that ten year book is fabulous, he doesn't have enough money to pay the rent.

2) If a professional novelist spends too much time on "world building", he may be lacking in his or her ability to plot and/or characterize. Without good characters and a good plot, no novel will work. But without a good, complex world, the novel might still work. EXAMPLES: 1) the movie The Breakfast Club. Not much "world building" there. The world? A few rooms in a highschool. 2) Any "psychological thriller" type book where the point is the mental happenings in the characters minds, regardless of where they might be from moment to moment. Etc...etc....

3) Being a wantta-be novelist myself, I've been to plenty of writing conventions and talked to plenty of writers who never finish anything because of "world building". Most of these writers will probably never finish a book, ever. World Building is just one excuse. Writers have hundreds more that all equal "I'm not really serious about actually producing anything" but I'm not honest enough with myself to admit it.

Now, all this being said, I think that, in general, "world building is bad" isn't very good advice. As long as world building doesn't become an excuse to avoid characterization or plot or the completion of a work, then there is nothing wrong with it--and if it's done right, and is related to the type of book or setting you're creating, then it will make everything else stronger and better. So I say, World Build Away! And I probably wouldn't look to M. John Harrison's books if I was thrilled by a complexity of setting.

NOTE: "Spending time at Enworld is bad". Why? Because this is time I should be spending writing. But this is so much easier and fun. HA HA. Spending time at Enworld is bad. Maybe I'll write an article about it and see if Neil Gaiman will post it in his blog.

 

[Hand of Evil]

World building is only needed for the part you are going to use in your story. You don't need to create the whole world if no one is ever going to set foot in it or come into contact with it.

 

[Ghendar]

Utter crap.


RC

Encapsulates pretty damn well my opinion on the subject.

His thoughts carry no more and no less weight than any one elses. Utter crap is right on.

This is very relevant advice for a sci-fi writer.

This is terrible advice for most DMs.

I was thinking the exact same thing. What works for writing doesn't necessarily work well for RPG world design.

 

[Pbartender]

Well, let's be clear here - the author seems to have stated that worldbuilding, in general, is bad.

Really? I thought he was proposing that extraneous world building is bad.

In other words: Don't worldbuild more than what your novel (or adventure campaign) needs, it can too easily get pedantic and distracting.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

It isn't as if the real case is digital - all preplaned or all improvised. There is a balance to all things - a certain amount of worldbuilding is called for, and a certain amount of improvisation.

The most sensible thing said in this thread yet.

And done with tact and without attacking anyone at that!
Inconceivable!

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, since when does worldbuilding, in general, imply that "all parts of the world are pre-planned"

The implication in world-building is that you are building an entire world, the setting (for the adventure or the story). The criticism is, as far as I can see, that building the world is pointless. You need to build the story (the triumph of storytelling over worldbuilding), or, in D&D's case, the adventure.

 

[el-remmen]

Though I do think the idea of exhaustively cataloging a place that doesn't exist leads to immense volumes of effort that is largely wasted in the game, and is more about the DM having fun creating than about the needs of the campaign.

Can't it be both?

I mean, I have a hell of a whole lot of fun developing and detailing Aquerra, and would probably continue to do it (or some other world) even if I stopped playing D&D.

However, as part of that process I am developing the immediate area around the PCs and getting inspired for further detail and variation depending on what the PCs do and the ideas the player's bring to the table.