Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Hussar]

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.

WOW. I've been accused of strawman arguements, but, hey, guys, even mine are this bad. Just because I take a post structuralist view of literature, my world view is now skewed and I'm incapable of being imaginative? How's that for ad hominem attacks?

My point, in case you missed it the first time, is that when deconstructing a text, only the text itself really matters. What research the author did before or after the writing of the book is irrelevant when discussing the text. This is pretty basic English 20 stuff and should come as no surprise to anyone here.

That I happened to look at a map of Chicago while writing my story set in Chicago so that I placed an important landmark on the right street is not really pertinent to the text itself. All that matters, when discussing the text, is what's in the text itself. That Howard did extensive research into various subjects doesn't really matter since that research barely enters into the text. Hyboria is created mostly whole cloth with inspirations drawn from research. That's fine. But, I, as the reader, don't have to have any knowledge of his research in order to understand the text.

You've pretty much hit it on the head. In a story, the ONLY thing that matters is the text. In an RPG, the ONLY thing that matters are things that directly impact upon the players. When extraneous information is added, for no other reason than to show off how creative the writer is, that's a BAD THING. Countless very poor fantasy novels have used Tolkien as an excuse to bash readers over the head with masses of extraneous detail that could be excised from the text without losing a single beat.

 

[Greg K]

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.
))

As to whether you can world build in a setting using the real world, yes you can. However, as you were referring to Tolkein, I decided to focus on fantasy and science fiction/fantasy since part of this debate has referred to world building vs setting building in rpgs.

 

[Hussar]

But numerous RPG's are set in the "real world". WOD for one.

Personally, I really do think that bringing Tolkien into this is akin to Godwinning. No matter what criticism or interpretation is made, you will get those who have enshrined the Professor in his proper place in Valhalla and will brook no maligning of the great man.

We've talked about Star Wars and world building. For the moment, just stick with the original 3 movies. By the end of Return of the Jedi, what do we know about Chewbacca? Pretty much nothing. We don't know how he came to be with Han, we don't know anything about his world or his background. He's pretty much a complete cipher despite being in nearly every scene in the movie.

The same can actually be said for nearly every character. Han, Lando, the droids, we know next to nothing about them even after three movies. In a world building story, we would have detailed stories relating their history and the cultures from which they came. None of it would actually be needed for the plot as shown by three pretty good movies.

Oblique referrences to elements that don't factor into the story are not world building. They're just setting. Until you actually start detailing those referrences, you aren't really doing any world building, just making up words. Ewoks have been mentioned. What do we know about Ewoks and Endor by the end of Return of the Jedi?

They're short, furry, say "zub zub" and are pretty primitive. That's about it. That's all we need to know. We don't need a backstory, or a history lesson, or anything else. That's all superfluous to the plot. We have cute furries in need of help. Ok, next scene.

While I agree that the Buffyverse is well detailed, again, that's through accretion more than world building. 9 (10?) seasons of an hourly show means that you have hundreds of hours of details. Even if they only mention a couple of elements in each show, that will add up to quite a bit in the end. But, still, in each show, setting is not the focus of the episode. The setting, if it gets referred to at all, simply ties into how to kill the next demon/vampire/whatever. Heck, it's not until almost the very final episode that we learn how the Slayer came into existence. Several years of episodes and not once do they tell us how Slayers started. In a world building exercise, that would be the FIRST thing they would tell us.

 

[Reynard]

Personally, I really do think that bringing Tolkien into this is akin to Godwinning. No matter what criticism or interpretation is made, you will get those who have enshrined the Professor in his proper place in Valhalla and will brook no maligning of the great man.

At the very least, it is pretty much gauranteed to derail the discussion into talking about Tolkien at the expense of whatever the actual subject matter is. See my thread on Dragonlance for a great example of me making the horrible mistake of making Tolkien seem like an important part of the subject.

We've talked about Star Wars and world building. For the moment, just stick with the original 3 movies. By the end of Return of the Jedi, what do we know about Chewbacca? ... The same can actually be said for nearly every character.

True enough. I guess "world building" in the context that we're discussing it here, especially in fiction, *is* secondary to story. I don't necessarily agree in relationship to gaming, though.

Oblique referrences to elements that don't factor into the story are not world building. They're just setting.

Also true. However, using a pre-established setting -- whether it is one the GM made up or has used for years or decades of gaming, or a published one -- allows for those "oblique references" during play, and has the added benefit of making them consistent and interlinked. The "world building" work done outside of the game *can* be a drain on the GM's time to create adventures, and the opposite is true. I know, because I have suffered from both sides of the equation. I want to make up some world stuff, but I have got an adventure to prepare, so i don't make up the world stuff and then it becomes important because the players apparently hate me; I detail a bunch of world stuff because I think I know how the players are going to go about the adventure, and, bam, they still hate me and I am underprepared.

If only being a GM could be a full time job with full time pay and benefits.

 

[Celebrim]

How is that different from creating setting? All settings should be internally consistent.

Wait a minute. Would Mr. Harrison agree with that statement? My take on Mr. Harrison's rant is precisely that settings don't need to be internally consistant, and based on the reviews of his story cycles, he doesn't create settings that are internally consistant.

Now, for the irony.

How is that different from creating setting? All settings should be internally consistent...I take a post structuralist view of literature...

Maybe you should review your definition of post-structuralist.

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

No. The difference between setting and world-building is that setting is created exclusively through narrative devices, that is to say you create setting by writing a story. World building can employ narrative devices, but it differs in setting in that it is not limited to narrative devices and involves mental activities which are external to writing a story - say drawing a map - but which are designed to inform the authors choices within the context of the story.

In other words, world building is a negative term.

Well, at least I've got you to admit it.

I simply think that the term "world building" describes an act which is not necessarily a good thing for most stories.

Wait, 'not necessarily'? If it is not necessarily a good thing, then it is 'not necessarily' a bad thing either, in which case it cannot be a negative term by definition.

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.

- emphasis mine

Once again, notice how you have to include a negative descriptor in order to prove your negative definition? What if the notes I've made and the time I've spent imagining Elven Tea Ceremonies gets put into the story for reasons other than 'simply to showcase how creative the writer is'? Is now suddenly the very same mental act in the past, namely making notes about and imagining elven tea ceremonies, alchemically transformed into something other than worldbuilding by something that I've done in the future? Now, that is post-structuralist! And very very silly.

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.

But, isn't the point that Mr. Harrison disagrees.

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?

Because I'm making no value judgement about world building. I didn't say world building was necessary. I didn't say world building was bad or good. I merely indicated that if your goal was to create a detailed and consistant setting, that world building was a useful tool in that regard.

I disagree with the stance that world building is any element which adds to setting.

Actually, I do too. That could be part of your confusion, as RC and myself have different definitions.

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.

Your definition is so narrow that it defines an act that never takes place.

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?

Actually, yes I do. In particular, I think he wanted to expand more on the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen (a story modeled after his own romance with his wife), which is within the story covered by only a few short scenes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Even though Sam and Frodo succeed the ents, elves, and dwarves are still doomed. And the elves, ents, and dwarves knew this to be true before Frodo and Sam set out on their journey. To be sure they are not enslaved and tortured in Sauron's dungeons, but their world is ending, their time is past. That's why Sam's inability to mention the tree his cousin saw walking is a tragedy - yes they defeated the BBEG in the story, but the ents remain doomed by circumstance.

Well, I did neglect to mention that, but, really, I didn't care much about what happened to all those fantasy critters anyway. I didn't care about the world. I cared about the characters (and only some of them). Tolkien's worldbuilding was only good for those who got fascinated by the setting itself instead of/along with the story told within it. And I think Mr. Harrison is making the point, in part, that most people don't care about the setting itself, they just care about the stories told within it (but if your story is good, as Tolkein's was, you can get people excited about the setting, too).

I certainly buy that a lot of folks who play D&D are the kind of folks who get very excited about setting itself, though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, why would you want to? If you can remove an element completely from a story, that element shouldn't be there.

There isn't a single element from any story ever published in any form that cannot be removed. The criteria would have to be, if you can remove a story element and doing so makes the story stronger then the element shouldn't be there. And, frankly, I hope you wouldn't seriously claim that the PJ film was stronger than the written LotR.

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.

If that is your definition, then Tolkein isn't a worldbuilder. He made no attempt to create an "entire functioning world distinct and seperate from the plot". I would actually be surprised to see all that many examples of your definition of "worldbuilding" in print outside of gaming resources.

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

Out of curiosity, do you have to "go beyond what is required by the plot" (for example, reference a map of Chicago while using that city as a setting, or include a song sung in a bar), or do you have to "attempt to create an entire functioning world distinct and seperate from the plot"?

BTW, I hope that answers your question about inconsistency.

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.

How does it link into the plot? What relevance does mead have to the plot at all? Would the plot have been harmed if the guy hadn't been offered a drink of mead?

Again, I hope that answers your question about inconsistency.

 

[LostSoul]

How does it link into the plot? What relevance does mead have to the plot at all? Would the plot have been harmed if the guy hadn't been offered a drink of mead?

It's not about plot, but that scene is there to show how the outsider is starting to become one of the gang. Thematically it's important to the movie.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's not about plot, but that scene is there to show how the outsider is starting to become one of the gang. Thematically it's important to the movie.

I know that -- I am suggesting that Hussar's definition of "worldbuilding" changes based upon his subjective enjoyment of particular worldbuilding details. If I remember correctly, that scene was added to the film version, and doesn't appear in Eaters of the Dead, the book the film was based on.

 

[Graf]

I loved the original link. I've met a lot of DM who should follow the implicit advice (I.e. stop wasting your time and the players time making up random tedious stuff so you can boss people around by saying "no you cant do that because my world blah blah blah").

I find it amazing that people pull up Tolkien in this. As a weak writer in a nacient genre he's a classic example of where DMs can go wrong (LotR, the Silmarillion) and later develop their own storytelling style (the Hobbit).

I have seen one DM who couldn't seem to create much of a world at all and more than 10 who would over-create to compensate for psychological issues and try to ensure that they were in total command of the game and the players.
Telling a story is really hard. Saying "my world has no dragons"? Less so.