Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[molonel]

Perhaps I give the man too much credit, but I'm willing to believe that the story of LotR is about the Fellowship and, specifically, about how a pair of hobbits walked from the Shire to Mount Doom (encountering all sorts of fantastic places along the way) in order to save the world from an evil that would make its wielder all powerful. It's about humility over hubris, about the triumph of willpower over temptation, and about, ultimately, how all evil destroys itself, how greed is turned back on the greedy, and how a lust for something as empty and soulless as power ultimately robs all life from you, but a friendship, a fellowship, and a companionship, can give you the power to take on anything. That is, I think, why the story has endured and garnered such popularity, is the strength of that core story. It has persisted *despite* JRR's frequent skipping down obscure-self-referential-lore lane because there is only a small segment of the audience (the great clomping nerd segment. ) that is interested in that. It persists because he tells a very human story about the struggle of two friends in the face of overwhelming terror. Not because he chats about elf poetry.

That was extremely well-written, and very true. Part of the reason the Silmarillion isn't as interesting as the LotR trilogy is because it lacks the humanity and immediacy of the characters. It's all high seriousness and worldbuilding.

The characters in the Silmarillion are more like tiles in a mosaic. Distant, larger than life, mythological.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the story persists and succeeds in SPITE of Tolkien's worldbuilding, but the latter is simply a spice on the main dish. We care about the characters: Gimli's orc-killing contest with Legolas, Gandalf's love of fine pipe tobacco, Sam's cooking pots and spices, Merry and Pippin's foolishness.

But ronseur rather persuasively demonstrates that this passion for worldbuilding isn't always a good thing and, depending upon your group, could seriously bog down what is fun for them in what is only fun for the DM. So, despite the fact that the advice to have story triumph over world building isn't really relevant for you, it could certainly be good advice. It was given in writing, presumably, because in this professional's experience, like in ronseur's (and others who have posted in support of the idea), the general audience doesn't care about world details that aren't directly relevant to the action of the story.

This is simply an anecdote, but my first longterm campaign in 3.X D&D demonstrated to me once and for all the problem with too much worldbuilding. My DM was (and is) a good DM, but I always felt like he was trying to write a campaign world for publication somewhere, and our characters were always getting in his way. He especially didn't like the fact that our characters were anti-heroes, and our plots always failed and bumbled like the Keystone Cops tripping over their own oversized feet. The campaign could have been so much more than it was. It could have been legendary and epic, and instead, in the final equation, it was just ... okay.

There are people who love worldbuilding first and above-all, but I follow the advice of the screenwriter who, when pressed on the cruising speed of a ship in one of his shows by the sci-fi techno wonks, informed them the ship moved "at the speed of plot."

 

[Raven Crowking]

He especially didn't like the fact that our characters were anti-heroes, and our plots always failed and bumbled like the Keystone Cops tripping over their own oversized feet.

What does this have to do with worldbuilding? That the characters are anti-heroes is more character than setting, surely? That they always failed and bumbled was more plot than setting, surely?

Worldbuilding, regardless of which definition we use, relates to the creation of setting.

Character relates to the creation of both PCs and NPCs.

Plot relates to what the characters do within the setting.

Again, this is just another "example" that doesn't example what it purports to example.

RC

 

[Celebrim]

Last time I checked, the books keep getting diverted into songs and asides about the past out of the mouths of the characters, which occasionally add to atmosphere, but mostly at the expense of advancing the story (resulting in the drag referred to above). Tolkien may be a sacred cow, but he's quite self indulgent a world builder in this respect IMO...the cuts that Jackson made flattered his work, giving it the good editor it so desperately needed to keep the story from stalling on a regular basis.

Its not so much the cuts that Jackson made which are problimatic, but his many additions which slowed the story down (the interlude in PJ's TT were Aragorn falls off some high place and is lost, for example) and his persistant changing of key moments in the story/characterization so as to alter the meaning and intent of the original author (Faramir's kidnapping of the Hobbits is guilty on both counts). Cuts would be necessary to achieve the running time of a movie series, whether or not they actually flatter the work. In fact, most of the cuts don't actually flatter the work, they simply reduce its depth while vastly reducing the attention span required to follow the work. This is not the same as making the work better, unless your attention span is to short of follow a major work of fiction that doesn't have alot of naked bodies and violence in it - which would cover a good many people that don't read books for that reason. PJ's editorial work emphasises the violent conflict in the story, which pays dividends at the box office, but can't possibly be said to flatter the story. That is, unless you think something like 'Mission Impossible II' is an example of deep and compelling literature, and unless you think reducing the story to something along the lines of another action adventure movie is flattery.

Frankly, PJ's editorial decisions have nothing to do with world-building or not world building. If you wish to believe that you like PJ's movie better than the book because it had less world building in it, there is nothing I can do to prevent that. But that doesn't make it so.

I think it would be very easy to demonstrate that the movies do not do a better job of telling the story than the books do. I think it would be virtually impossible to be able to explain after watching the movies what the story was about. I think you could recount a number of events, but you'd have a hard time explaining what all these events and narration ammounted to collectively. Even in specific events, the movie is horribly unclear as to what is actually going on. For example, I've done casual polls of people who have only seen the movie and not read the book, and the majority of were of the impression that Frodo threw Gollum into the fire. So it is not at all clear to me that the movie does a better job of telling the story it is supposedly telling.

In my opinion, the only reason that PJ's movies were as successful as they were is the fantastic art direction provided by Alan Lee and John Howe, combined with a general couriousity by the general public to see a movie of this book they'd heard so much about. The movies are beautiful to look at and are filled with interesting things to look at. It's not at all clear to me that you can claim that the movies are more successful than the books because they are less reliant on Tolkien's world building. At best I think you can say that a picture is worth a thousand words, and most people tend to be visual rather than verbal and so prefer a picture to a thousand words.

 

[Celebrim]

RE: The Silmarillion

Regards the Silmarillion, it certainly is a dull novel with poor characterization, very little actual dialogue and seemingly endless time spend on geneologies, describing locations, and only a cursory outline of the actual events that take place - broken up by occassional short passages developed in a fuller way.

But this is hardly suprising, since it is little more than a published outline of the story based off Tolkien's world building notes. It can hardly be claimed to be a finished work or that the style it is written in largely reflects the style that the finished work would have been in - which probably would have been much more like the style of the LotR - particularly in the passages dealing with Aragorn which are written in an somewhat elevated style befitting his nobleness (incidently, these passages generally hold the attention better of younger readers than the less elevated ones dealing with the hobbits, because the passages about the hobbits are much less 'action adventure' stories).

And, one can certainly claim with good reason that the reason the Silmarillion was never finished and is only available in this state was that Tolkien became obssessed with particular aspects of world building which he never felt he got 'right'. However, these are not 'Hobbit toast buttering songs' or any other such details, but esoteric aspects of the cosmology which Tolkien was theologically unsatisfied with - such as the origin of Orcs. Interestingly, the whole matter of the origin of Orcs would never have played a huge role in the story - if Tolkien had have solved the problem to his satisfaction it probably would not have added greatly to the text. Even with the problem solved, there wouldn't have been in the text a large passage explaining the origin of orcs in great detail. It probably wouldn't have amounted to more than a paragraph. But it is typical of Tolkien's approach to the work that he would agonize and spend months or years thinking about and crafting individual pages and paragraphs. This can be said to be a great flaw in a writer - if your goal is to get something finished - but I don't see how it can be said to be a great flaw in the finished works.

 

[molonel]

What does this have to do with worldbuilding? That the characters are anti-heroes is more character than setting, surely? That they always failed and bumbled was more plot than setting, surely? Worldbuilding, regardless of which definition we use, relates to the creation of setting. Character relates to the creation of both PCs and NPCs. Plot relates to what the characters do within the setting. Again, this is just another "example" that doesn't example what it purports to example.

With all due respect, I've stopped short of saying that my example proves or disproves any particular design philosophy, but I _was_ there, and you weren't.

What did it have to do with worldbuilding?

Our DM's world was heroic in nature. Since our characters were anti-heroes, and eventually evil, we could NOT succeed in his world. The nature of the world was more important. In the showdown between characters and world, the world won. Always. I even expressed this frustration to the DM one time, and he said (with no attempt to conceal or hide his intentions), "Well, it's MY world."

He didn't hammer us with plot. The ways in which we were thwarted often defied logic, probability and common sense. But the underlying assumptions of the world - evil doesn't win - had to be fulfilled. Period.

Worldbuilding is like any other aspect of gaming - rules, emphasis on combat, whatever. You can have too much of a good thing. And when the world is the most important character, the game suffers.

I've watched it happen, and no, the DM was NOT a bad DM. My example proves exactly what I said it does: worldbuilding can unravel a game.

 

[Desdichado]

I've watched it happen, and no, the DM was NOT a bad DM. My example proves exactly what I said it does: worldbuilding can unravel a game.

No, that proves exactly nothing of the sort. Worldbuilding in this context has absolutely nothing to do with high concepts and everything to do with nitpicky details. The high concept of his world: one of heroic action, was incompatible with your characters.

Worldbuilding--as near as I can tell based on what you've said--hasn't even been brought up yet, and you certainly haven't demonstrated how it had any effect whatsoever on your game.

 

[molonel]

No, that proves exactly nothing of the sort. Worldbuilding in this context has absolutely nothing to do with high concepts and everything to do with nitpicky details. The high concept of his world: one of heroic action, was incompatible with your characters. Worldbuilding--as near as I can tell based on what you've said--hasn't even been brought up yet, and you certainly haven't demonstrated how it had any effect whatsoever on your game.

His world was a museum. Everything had to be just so. The lighting, the history, the interaction. You can call it "high concept" (whatever the heck THAT is), or try and make it sound like plot instead of world, or whatever. But it was a worldbuilding issue, and our characters were always the flies in the ointment. I sometimes wondered why he bothered running a game, and didn't just write a novel or a campaign setting for publication.

Worlds are not built with nitpicky details. Worldbuilding is just that: building a world. When you obsess about it too much, the nitpicky details become more important than the characters.

So yes, my examples proves exactly what I'm saying. Worldbuilding can unravel a game. All three of the players acknowledged it, and later, so did the DM. If you'd like to claim we didn't understand what was actually going on, and you need to explain it to me, well.

Good luck with that.

 

[Celebrim]

Frodo & Co is where the rubber of the narrative meets the road, and pretending otherwise is academically fashionable, but mostly useless.

I agree with that. As supporting evidence, I would offer that it is exactly what Tolkien said about the work. As far as JRRT was concerned, the book was about the Hobbits and the story of the Hobbits was about mercy.

Speaking of Tolkien, isn't the Silmarillion mostly an exercise in worldbuilding, and a book often "abandoned in disgust"?

Yes. Quite so. But it is mostly an exercise in worldbuilding. As others have pointed out, an excercise in worldbuilding does not a finished novel make, and the book as published in no way should be thought of as reflecting exactly what Tolkien wanted to do with the work. For example, the Silmarrilion story fleshed out and made into actual novels, easily encompasses three stories each comparable to the LotR in scale.

And didn't the movies suffer very little by jettisoning most of the worldbuilding stuff..

First of all, I don't agree that the movies jettisoned very much worldbuilding stuff at all. And second of all, whatever the movies did, I don't agree that it didn't suffer much by comparison. So, to begin with, I think all of your assumptions are flawed.

both narrated by characters and pursued in asides, and perhaps even improve on the book?

Improve on the book? You think the movies improved on the book? Well, I guess you are entitled to your opinion.

I thought so - The Twin Towers I found a dull book which dragged, whereas the movie propelled the plot forward by eschewing worldbuilding ephemera.

This however is the kind of thing which leads me to completely discount your opinion. If you had said, "'The Fellowship of the Ring' I found a dull book which dragged, where as the movie propelled the plot forward by eschewing so much exposition about the past.", I might have some sympathy for your position because at least it would have somewhat fit the facts. I fully agree that 'Fellowship' can be a very slow book, in which maybe as much as a third of the text consists of building up the backstory to the story through various devices - including a lot of songs, poems, and so forth. It is not a 'tightly' written book, and the author admits to various endulgances for his own amusement, for example the aforementioned Tom B.

But the thing is, by the time you get to 'The Two Towers' (not Twin, Two, since they are in no way twins), Tolkien has covered his bases and the story begins to move with great haste toward its conclusion. 'The Two Towers' is a lean, mean, book and the only reason it is so 'long' (though much shorter than Fellowship) is that the story Tolkien is now telling after all this set up is so complex. There is almost no exposition and world building in 'The Two Towers', very few songs break out, and when they do they aren't long elven lays. We get very brief descriptions of places in order to set the scene, but since there are only a dozen or so places and none of the descriptions amount to more than a page, the entire time spent 'world building' in Two Towers is a tiny fraction of the story by this point.

I tell you what a lot of readers in my experience that have no trouble with 'Fellowship' do get bored with though when they get to Two Towers. The story itself, and in particular the central story of the book regarding the three Hobbits - Frodo, Sam, and Smeagol/Gollum. The largest section of 'Two Towers' is an exploration of the relationship between those three characters, and not a lot of exciting battles, monsters, and so forth show up for a comparitively long stretch of chapters as Tolkien starts digging deeply into these characters. A lot of people that breeze through 'Fellowship' because for all its world building, its got exciting fights and chase scenes and lots of heroics going on, simply bog down in the second half of 'Two Towers'.

On the other hand, a lot of people that give up the story in disgust during 'Fellowship' because of all the exposition and backstory and discussion of whose ancestor did what and who all these seemingly endless characters Tolkien is adding to the story are, once they make it to 'Two Towers', once the whole cast is in place, and Tolkien finally begins advancing the plot apace are swept away by the story which formerly seemed so dull. My wife for example had this experience. To her, 'Fellowship' seemed to stretch on forever, and she was bored to tears through Moria (which many people who are bored by Two Towers adore), but once she plowed through that 'boring part' (in her opinion) and got to the meat of the story she hardly put the book down until it was finished.

And what's really interesting is that it is in Two Towers that PJ makes the editorial decision to add several (four or five actually) new events to the story all of which require extra time on screen to play out, and none of which advance the story in any way. PJ makes the story in 'Two Towers' less tight, in favor of adding alot of combat scenes and short duration tension to the story and at the expense of alot of character dialogue (about the characters, not setting narration, which as I said plays a small role only in TT).

 

[Celebrim]

His world was a museum. Everything had to be just so. The lighting, the history, the interaction. You can call it "high concept" (whatever the heck THAT is), or try and make it sound like plot instead of world, or whatever. But it was a worldbuilding issue, and our characters were always the flies in the ointment. I sometimes wondered why he bothered running a game, and didn't just write a novel or a campaign setting for publication.

I don't see how this is a world-building issue so much as an example of poor DMing. The problem here isn't that he has a richly detailed world. The problem is that the DM doesn't want to let the players influence that world, and apparently wants to play the player's characters for them rather than letting the player's play them.

This problem is certainly a problem, but the problem of DM's who want to play and control the PC's is one that can occur with our without alot of world-building. It's just so happened that this particular control freak was also a highly detailed world-builder, but he could have just as easily have been the sort that creates a highly detailed adventure path which he then intends to basically narrate to the players because he has all the events already scripted out and doesn't allow the players to actually influence these events. Whether it is the setting, or the plot, or the fact that the DM is a megalomaniac who wants his NPC's to be the protagonists rather than the PC's, its still a basic problem of rail-roading the players that is entirely independent of whether any world building goes on.

I can see why based on your experience you would confuse world-building with rail-roading the PC's, but I think what you are really upset about is rail-roading and not world-building. If you drop the assumption that world-building necessarily leads to rail-roading, your complaint goes away. And I think it should be easy for you to see that if the DM had been willing to allow the players to gain some control over the setting that you can drop that assumption.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In the showdown between characters and world, the world won. Always.

<snip>

He didn't hammer us with plot. The ways in which we were thwarted often defied logic, probability and common sense. But the underlying assumptions of the world - evil doesn't win - had to be fulfilled. Period.

The above and

the DM was NOT a bad DM.

seem incongruous to me. Why do you say that he was not a bad DM?

(Remember, that I agree that worldbuilding can be damaging to a game, depending upon how it is done. I am just questioning whether or not this is an example of the same.)


RC