Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Celebrim]

However, there are some characters in LOTR that could be cut out without a single hiccup in the story. **cough Tom Bombadil cough**

Once more, I'm going to pass on your definition of world building and your inconsistant application of it so as to suit the point you are trying to prove, whatever it is.

I am however something of an expert in Tolkien lore, and its interesting that Tolkien basically agrees with you. He put Tom Bombadil in for his own amusement (and his children's), and not because he's necessary to the story. When it came time for JRRT to write a screen play of his work, he cut Tom and almost everything that didn't have to do with hobbits - including all of the Helm's Deep story arc.

But that doesn't mean that Tom Bombadil isn't good for the story simply because he isn't essential to it. Stories don't have to be written like or judged like computer code, where everything is as stripped down and utilitarian as possible. And the absence of the Old Forest story arc does create some problems, chief of which is that Frodo has less time to spend as a traditional hero before being overly burdened by the ring. Frodo only get a few moments of traditional glory where we can see his quality, and one of those is the challenge of the Barrow Wight. One of the many flaws in the movie adaptation of the story is that Frodo spends far too much time cringing in fear and pain, and not nearly enough time showing his courage. We don't get to see Frodo stand up to the Barrow Wight, or the Pale King, or the Nine at the ford, and so forth as he did in the book. Facing the Barrow Wight may not be essential to the story, but it is important to knowing Frodo for who he is before he is thrust into an entirely impossible situation. It is important to developing respect and empathy for Frodo. And Frodo's interaction with Tom in general is yet another case of a really mighty being treating Frodo as a peer or near peer, which is also important to knowing Frodo.

Likewise, losing the Tom Bombadil story arc effects the larger story in other subtle ways. The importance of Merry's sword on the Pelannor Fields is lost to us if we have not had it introduced to us. As a personification of the fading untainted natural world, many important themes of the story would be diminished without him - for example its subtheme of environmentalism. A Tom serves an important narrative role in the story, in that he is one of the chief vehicles for exposition about one of the stories main villains - the Witch King of Angmar. Because of this, without Tom, Eowyn is diminished, because we would care less about her mighty act of valor if we knew less about the Witch King.

In short, we certainly can do without Tom Bombadil, who is probably the most extraneous secondary character in the story. But we would find it almost impossible to do a 'clean lift' of the character, and even if we could the story would not necessarily be improved thereby.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ok, once more I shall define worldbuilding in this thread.

Worldbuilding: I define worldbuilding as an endevour to create an entire world, separate and distinct from the needs of plot or, in the case of gaming, adventure.

Thus, by my definition, Tolkien would most certainly be guilty of worldbuilding. The fact that you can excise large swaths from the text (as evinced by the movies) and still have a damn good story shows that. Howard doesn't do a whole lot of world building since much of what he writes about directly affects the text. Shadizar, while never exactly detailed, is used as an example of the lack of morals in Hyboria, just as an example.

The films, however, tell a story that differs in many cases from the story that Tolkein told. I can tell a good story using only part of any given movie, film, or book -- that doesn't mean that the parts I do not use to tell my story are not necessary to tell the story of the original creator.

In other words, no matter what I say, I lose. You keep moving the goalposts. Yes, it could have been. But it wasn't. There are a lot of things that could have been true, but weren't. The DM in question was so enamoured by her campaign setting and had decided that plate mail was not going to be in that setting, that she was incapbable of changing. To me, that is a failure in world building.

How is this different than saying that a campaign setting doesn't have wood or metal, therefore there can be no warforged? IOW, it isn't me whose moving the goalposts. It's me pointing out the inconsistency in how those goalposts are used.

Here's an example of bad worldbuilding that is a DM problem: The DM creates a world in which only one adventure is possible; if the players decide not to follow that adventure, there is nothing for them to do. Here is another example: The DM creates a 60-page document of information on the world and tells the players to read it because it is important to the setting; little if anything in the document ever sees play. Third example: The world doesn't make enough sense for the PCs to navigate with any confidence, as when a paladin has his paladinhood revoked for not murdering goblin children, and the DM has never before mentioned this take on "Lawful Good". Final example: The DM tells the players that they are going to play in a Conaneque game; when the players show up characters in hand, the DM tells them there are no humans in the setting, and they should have made wizards.

You cannot possibly envisage a scenario where the Warforged Ninja fits in a 7th Sea campaign, despite all evidence to the contrary. To you, the setting of 7th Sea triumphs over all considerations. No matter what I say, you will simply continue to move the goalposts.

Sure I can. I even said I could. Most easily, I could see this as a unique antagonist because the reactions of the PCs would be appropriate reactions for the campaign setting. I might also consider, if it was a new world, that warforged and ninjas become regular character options, available to all PCs. Or I might devise a feat, Unique Character, that allows this sort of thing.....I think you might recall from a previous thread that in my home game I did exactly that.

So, because the DM has spent hours on creating crap, my only options are to either put up with crap or walk?

Of course not. You could try to change the DM's mind (but the DM isn't obligated to have you as a player, either). You have to decide where the balance is. You could also offer to run your own game.

But

(1) "There is no plate mail in this world" isn't crap, and arguing with the DM in this case is juvenile, and

(2) If your DM's ideas are crap, his inclusion of your brilliant (or equally crappy) ideas isn't going to save the game.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

In other news...

It looks like the folks at WOTC may have been eavesdropping on this thread. Check out the latest Save my game

Well, I suppose we wouldn't expect WotC to say

"Of course you're right. Life's too short to play games you're not enjoying. One wonders why they'd make a new group, instead of just starting a new game within the old group though. Were they willing to let you play in their dragon game? Are you sure these people are your friends? You could probably find new players in your area, or on various Internet sites. Good luck!"

 

[LostSoul]

I find myself shocked - shocked! - that I've come around from agreeing with the quote and now I'm on RC's side. This has been an interesting thread that has challenged some of my assumptions about how I personally like to play. Nice.

I'm not sure how worldbuilding applies to games where players can create setting content on the fly (using mechanics like Circles in Burning Wheel). That might be for another thread.

 

[Hussar]

The films, however, tell a story that differs in many cases from the story that Tolkein told. I can tell a good story using only part of any given movie, film, or book -- that doesn't mean that the parts I do not use to tell my story are not necessary to tell the story of the original creator.

But, why would you want to? If you can remove an element completely from a story, that element shouldn't be there. I know that Celebrim disagrees with me on this, but, from a story writing POV, that's pretty much true.

Celebrim insists on bringing up Tolkien's intentions time and again. Author intentions don't matter. They never do. It doesn't matter what the author intends, it only matters how the text is interpreted. If you can use the text to back up a given interpretation, then that interpretation is equally as valid as the author's. If, as my second year poetry prof did, you interpret The Red Wheelbarrow as a poem about sex and can tie that into the text, it's every bit as valid as any other interpretation.

Granted, you can disagree with the interpretation. But that doesn't make it invalid.

I have repeatedly stated that I consider world building to be an attempt to create an entire functioning world distinct and separate from the plot. I don't see how I have really been inconsistent in that.

I find Celebrim's and RC's interpretation far too broad to be useful. All stories require a setting. That's a given. Many stories will have a rich setting that draws the reader into the story. None of that is world building. World building is when you go beyond what is required by the plot and begin detailing extraneous elements like Hobbit Toast songs.

I mentioned looking at a map of Chicago to fact check the story I'm writing that's set in Chicago and was told that that is world building. I disagree. Adding in factual information to the story is not world building. It's no different than heading to a museum to find the actual weights of swords and including that information in the story, when it actually adds to the plot. In Rob Roy, there was a great line about how one sword was so much better than another due to weight. Is that world building? IMO, no. That's simply getting things right.

It would be world building to spend significant time discussing the various weights of swords that don't actually appear in the story.

In The Thirteenth Warrior, when one of the Viking's offers the main character a drink of mead, the main guy (I'm so good with names) says that he can't drink the product of grapes. The viking replies that it's made with honey. Is that detail world building? No, it directly links to plot and character. If the viking character had gone into detail about the process of how mead is made, THAT would be world building.

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim insists on bringing up Tolkien's intentions time and again. Author intentions don't matter. They never do. It doesn't matter what the author intends, it only matters how the text is interpreted.

How the text is interpreted is irrelevant. Because we are not digital computers, the words are not completely inflexible, but niether are thier meanings completely fluid. The text means something, and what you wish to have it mean doesn't really matter.

If you can use the text to back up a given interpretation, then that interpretation is equally as valid as the author's.

No, it isn't. And the obvious counterexample to that is that for this text here that you and I are writing, the author's intentions are far more important than the readers interpretations if what we want to do is understand what is written. If we just want to run off on our own thing without listening, then sure, any interpretation is valid. But then, in forgoing in belief in communication, we have also foregone any real ability to communicate.

Granted, you can disagree with the interpretation. But that doesn't make it invalid.

My belief in something will never make it valid or invalid. Nor does my agreement or disagreement make something invalid. It is either invalid or valid distinct from what you or I think of it. Everyone may be entitled to thier own opinion, but there opinion can still be completely wrong.

I have repeatedly stated that I consider world building to be an attempt to create an entire functioning world distinct and separate from the plot. I don't see how I have really been inconsistent in that.

In two ways. First, in your insistance on the word 'entire', which is a useless straw man modifier since no writer, not even Tolkien, has ever created an entire world, much less a functioning one. All world builders have boundaries to thier creation, and you are willing to recognize this except when it doesn't suit your need to make a straw man argument. And secondly, in your insistance that what makes it world building is it being separate and distinct from the plot, which is another straw man since no one that is writing fiction actually does world building which is wholly distinct and separate from the plot. The inconsistancy in the application of this will be apparant latter when you discuss using maps, but it also humorously comes up again in again with your creation of straw men about things appearing in the text that aren't actually in the text.

Try this definition: "World building is an attempt to create an internally consistant fictional world." See how much less easy it is to knock down the argument when you don't set up a strawman?

I find Celebrim's and RC's interpretation far too broad to be useful.

You've repeatedly shown no sign of having read or understood my definition. I'd encourage you to go back and read it again.

All stories require a setting. That's a given. Many stories will have a rich setting that draws the reader into the story. None of that is world building.

Agreed.

World building is when you go beyond what is required by the plot and begin detailing extraneous elements like Hobbit Toast songs.

How does that follow? Don't you see how big of a leap you've taken? How easy it must be to prove something is a negative when you make it a negative by definition!

I mentioned looking at a map of Chicago to fact check the story I'm writing that's set in Chicago and was told that that is world building. I disagree. Adding in factual information to the story is not world building...

That depends on how that information was arrived at. As I said before, a map of Chicago is not at all necessary to creating a narrative set in Chicago. Constructing your narrative while consulting a map is very much the same act as world building; the only difference is that your fictional city of Chicago which you are constructing through the narrative devices you will employ is based off - to some extent or another - the real city of Chicago, so you don't have to take that first step of create the maps or the history of Chicago. (You do however have to take other similar steps, since no snapshot of anywhere is complete.) You then have to consult and use and interpret these external to the story devices to decide which aspect of that map or history you wish to include in your narrative and, applying your judgement as a story teller, how.

But don't decieve yourself into thinking that you need the map to tell the story, or even that you need to add factual information about Chicago to the story, or that in collecting and consulting maps you are doing something fundamentally different from the author of speculative fiction that draws thier own. Slightly different, sure, but not fundamentally different because to be fundamentally different, it would have to be the real city of Chicago which is on the page and that's impossible because the real city is 3D and the medium of literature is merely words on paper.

...Is that world building? IMO, no. That's simply getting things right.

Which is precisely what world building is about. World building is about getting things right. If you don't care about getting things right, and if you are happy to have internal (or external) inconsistancies in your narrative, then by all means avoid wasting time with world building. But if you do want to get things write, you will have to spend some time imagining in your head in great detail what life is like in the place of your setting - whether it be 1950's Los Angeles or an entirely invented place of your own devicing. If it is an entirely invented place, then you can take that first step of making the maps and writing the histories so that you can get things right. And in my opinion, this mental excercise is one that rewards the author with a richer and more interesting story, even if the details of the world building excercise are opaque to the eventual reader.

It would be world building to spend significant time discussing the various weights of swords that don't actually appear in the story.

LOL. You seem immune to your own irony. Is the sword in the story or not?

Better yet, is the world building something that takes place in the story or outside of it? For example, the vast majority of Tolkien's world building never shows up anywhere in the novel 'Lord of the Rings' or even in the appendixes that were added later. So, is it only world building if it shows up in the story, and if it is, what do you call that stuff that happened outside of the story?

 

[was]

I disrespectfully disagree with this author's opinion.

 

[Greg K]

I find Celebrim's and RC's interpretation far too broad to be useful. All stories require a setting. That's a given. Many stories will have a rich setting that draws the reader into the story. None of that is world building. World building is when you go beyond what is required by the plot and begin detailing extraneous elements like Hobbit Toast songs.

I'm going to disagree. In my opinion, if you create a fictional world/setting like Middle Earth, The Star Wars Galaxy, a cyberpunk environment, or even Buffy's Sunnyvale, you are world building as soon as you present the environment(s) and other elements (creatures, technology, etc.). It doesn't matter whether the setting is large scale (e.g. the Galaxy ) or a smaller scale (e.g., Dresden's Chicago (?) or Buffy's Sunnyvale). The Shire and hobbits do not exist in our world. Neither do Tattoine, Wookies, Sand people, Ewoks or Jedi. The same goes for the supernatural elements of Buffy or Dreseden . Those elements do exist in their respective settings and therefore tell us something the world in which they exist whether entirely created out of the author's head or based on our own world with the addition of the supernatural.

 

[Hussar]

Try this definition: "World building is an attempt to create an internally consistant fictional world." See how much less easy it is to knock down the argument when you don't set up a strawman?

How is that different from creating setting? All settings should be internally consistent. If I turned left to go to the throne room in Chapter 2, I should turn left to go to the throne room in Chapter 5, unless, of course, there is a good reason why that isn't true.

Consistency in setting is not world building. It's simply developing setting. We both agree that every story requires a setting. That setting will be detailed, to a greater or lesser degree in every story.

To me, where setting leaves off and world building begins is when you begin detailing setting elements that are not linked to the plot.

In other words, world building is a negative term. That's been my point all the way along. It's not about straw man arguements. I simply think that the term "world building" describes an act which is not necessarily a good thing for most stories.

Better yet, is the world building something that takes place in the story or outside of it? For example, the vast majority of Tolkien's world building never shows up anywhere in the novel 'Lord of the Rings' or even in the appendixes that were added later. So, is it only world building if it shows up in the story, and if it is, what do you call that stuff that happened outside of the story

In the story. I've always maintained that. I couldn't care less what happens outside of the text. It's completely irrelavent and totally irrelavent to what Harrison is talking about as well. If you want to write treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies in your own time, knock yourself out. However, when that gets whacked into the story, for no reason other than to simply showcase how creative the writer is, that's a bad thing.

I'm going to disagree. In my opinion, if you create a fictional world/setting like Middle Earth, The Star Wars Galaxy, a cyberpunk environment, or even Buffy's Sunnyvale, you are world building as soon as you present the environment(s) and other elements (creatures, technology, etc.).

So, you can only world build in fictional settings? It is not possible to engage in world building in real world settings? I would point to a rather large swath of romantic literature that would disagree. As well as Tom Clancy. Dan Brown. Umberto Eco. Just to name a few.

Plus, I disagree with the idea that any attempt to create setting becomes world building. RC defines world building as taking the setting from generic to specific. But, all setting details do that. If I set my story in Chicago vs A City, I've gone from generic to specific, but, I wouldn't say that I've done any world building.

To sum up:

I disagree with the stance that world building is simply an attempt to create an internally consistent setting. That's not world building, that's just good writing. If I'm being accused of making the word sound bad by definition, how is this not doing the same thing from the other side?

I disagree with the stance that world building is any element which adds to setting. That's not world building. That's just setting. We don't need a specific term for that, we already have one - setting.

World building, in my mind at least, is a very specific act. It is where you attempt (for all the truth that you can never really succeed) to create an entire setting. All of it. As much detail as you can possibly add. Tolkien himself complained that he needed more space in The Lord of the Rings. Do you really think he was going to add more plot?

((And, yes, I see the irony in that last statement. ))

 

[Aaron L]

How is that different from creating setting? All settings should be internally consistent. If I turned left to go to the throne room in Chapter 2, I should turn left to go to the throne room in Chapter 5, unless, of course, there is a good reason why that isn't true.

Consistency in setting is not world building. It's simply developing setting. We both agree that every story requires a setting. That setting will be detailed, to a greater or lesser degree in every story.

To me, where setting leaves off and world building begins is when you begin detailing setting elements that are not linked to the plot.

In other words, world building is a negative term. That's been my point all the way along. It's not about straw man arguements. I simply think that the term "world building" describes an act which is not necessarily a good thing for most stories.



In the story. I've always maintained that. I couldn't care less what happens outside of the text. It's completely irrelavent and totally irrelavent to what Harrison is talking about as well. If you want to write treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies in your own time, knock yourself out. However, when that gets whacked into the story, for no reason other than to simply showcase how creative the writer is, that's a bad thing.



So, you can only world build in fictional settings? It is not possible to engage in world building in real world settings? I would point to a rather large swath of romantic literature that would disagree. As well as Tom Clancy. Dan Brown. Umberto Eco. Just to name a few.

Plus, I disagree with the idea that any attempt to create setting becomes world building. RC defines world building as taking the setting from generic to specific. But, all setting details do that. If I set my story in Chicago vs A City, I've gone from generic to specific, but, I wouldn't say that I've done any world building.

To sum up:

I disagree with the stance that world building is simply an attempt to create an internally consistent setting. That's not world building, that's just good writing. If I'm being accused of making the word sound bad by definition, how is this not doing the same thing from the other side?

I disagree with the stance that world building is any element which adds to setting. That's not world building. That's just setting. We don't need a specific term for that, we already have one - setting.

World building, in my mind at least, is a very specific act. It is where you attempt (for all the truth that you can never really succeed) to create an entire setting. All of it. As much detail as you can possibly add. Tolkien himself complained that he needed more space in The Lord of the Rings. Do you really think he was going to add more plot?

((And, yes, I see the irony in that last statement. ))

How limited our world must be, if all that matters to you is what you can immediately see, hear or touch, and that the only thing that matters in a story is what happens on stage at any given moment.