Why Worldbuilding is Bad

And the funny thing is that M. John Harrison, the source of this whole affair, is very good at worldbuilding. He simply doesn't include a map.

In Pastel City, the first book of Viriconium, his science fantasy cycle, we have a short introductory backstory, a very interesting city, an enemy in the north, an ancient evil which they awakened, an adventuring party (a fighter, barbarian, rogue, artificier in an exoskeleton, and wizard), interesting quest given by the queen, some plot twists, interesting artifacts (crystal anigrav air-ships, power swords, metal birds) etc.

The second book includes invasion by giant insects from another reality, and things begin be get rather strange. Other parts of the cycle take place in an alternative Virconiums (even the name of the city changes - eg Uricon etc). All characters are present, but usually as alternative personalities, sometimes very different.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

molonel said:
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.
Almost 600 posts and counting of trying to define worldbuilding in the context of the quote in question would disagree with you.

If you're talking about worldbuilding in some other sense, your post is a complete non sequiter that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
molonel said:
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.
I need do nothing of the sort. You described your problem. You labelled it as a problem related to worldbuilding. The problem you described has nothing to do with worldbuilding, despite the label you've given it. Go on believing what you will about it, and I'll do the same unless you give a radically different description of the issue than you have so far.
 
Last edited:

molonel said:
Our DM's world was heroic in nature. Since our characters were anti-heroes, and eventually evil, we could NOT succeed in his world.
Tangent - did the DM tell you his campaign was heroic in nature and you for whatever reason decided to be antiheroes anyway, or did you build a standard party for your group and then slowly realize such characters were screwed? (And why did you turn 'eventually evil' if the campaign/setting/plot/world did not accomadate that playstyle?)
 

Hobo said:
Almost 600 posts and counting of trying to define worldbuilding in the context of the quote in question would disagree with you.

If you're talking about worldbuilding in some other sense, your post is a complete non sequiter that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
Admittedly, there have been competing definitions throughout, but I'd define what Molonel is discussing more as campaign than world. Its certainly possible to have a world which by its very nature punishes anti-heroic behavior - we see plenty of the opposite lauded as Grin N Gritty - but since he said the obstacles "often defied logic, probability and common sense" then they clearly weren't built into the world, merely the campaign. A world with those restrictions would be perfectly logical and probable, within its own context.

For example, "Furies drive you mad for killing your father" is world. "A bumbling investigator somehow figures out that you killed your father so that it isn't rewarded in the game" is Campaign. IMO.
 

Hobo said:
Almost 600 posts and counting of trying to define worldbuilding in the context of the quote in question would disagree with you. If you're talking about worldbuilding in some other sense, your post is a complete non sequiter that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. I need do nothing of the sort. You described your problem. You labelled it as a problem related to worldbuilding. The problem you described has nothing to do with worldbuilding, despite the label you've given it. Go on believing what you will about it, and I'll do the same unless you give a radically different description of the issue than you have so far.

Oh my gosh, you're right! I just looked up "D&D worldbuilding" in the OED, and there is only ONE definition, and it's not mine! Bitterness, weeping and gnashing of teeth followed in the wake of this terrible truth I've been denying.

You, my friend, are in dire need of an atomic wedgie.

Worldbuilding, in the context of this thread, means many different things to many different people. You disagree with me. Great. What else is new? But you are not the thread, and you should speak for yourself, because that's really all you're qualified to do. Thanks for trying to shunt me out of the conversation, but I'll stay. And I have a valid point, despite your inability to recognize it as such. It was a worldbuilding problem. You are free to label it anything you like.
 

Kahuna Burger said:
Admittedly, there have been competing definitions throughout, but I'd define what Molonel is discussing more as campaign than world. Its certainly possible to have a world which by its very nature punishes anti-heroic behavior - we see plenty of the opposite lauded as Grin N Gritty - but since he said the obstacles "often defied logic, probability and common sense" then they clearly weren't built into the world, merely the campaign. A world with those restrictions would be perfectly logical and probable, within its own context. For example, "Furies drive you mad for killing your father" is world. "A bumbling investigator somehow figures out that you killed your father so that it isn't rewarded in the game" is Campaign. IMO.

Campaign and world are not mutually exclusive terms, and I think you're sharpening your razor to so fine an edge in that particular distinction that you're microshaving the terms to an absurd degree. The obstacles were always there, sensible or not, and what drove them was a world concept that rejected us. The campaign was simply the playing out of his worldbuilding design philosophy.
 

molonel said:
Campaign and world are not mutually exclusive terms, and I think you're sharpening your razor to so fine an edge in that particular distinction that you're microshaving the terms to an absurd degree. The obstacles were always there, sensible or not, and what drove them was a world concept that rejected us. The campaign was simply the playing out of his worldbuilding design philosophy.


Any chance that this DM is on EN World, so that we could gain his perspective?
 

Raven Crowking said:
Any chance that this DM is on EN World, so that we could gain his perspective?

He shares this perspective, now, and has changed his gaming style accordingly. I know people who are in his campaign right now, and he's made an effort to adapt more of a balance between world-building and character-building.

He's told me so, himself.

It was an acknowledged mistake.
 


Hobo said:
Y'know, when a thread goes on for almost 600 posts and you come in and start talking about something that's only marginally related to the 600 posts that have preceded it and the general consensus that seems to have been built up over those 600 posts about terminology, you really don't gain a whole lot by trying to use the word in question in a different way than anyone else so far has done and stick to your guns when I tell you that no, we're actually talking about something different here. I mean, your non sequiter interruption isn't much different than someone with Touret's syndrome showing up and shouting something random.

My friend, if you don't like what I'm writing, and you feel it's so entirely unrelated to your point or anyone else's, then please: stop reading my posts.

Because chanting "non sequitur" like some obsessed medieval monk, and what's more, MISSPELLING IT over and over again, is neither sexy nor smart. You're like some hot-tempered bombast lecturing at the podium with one of those butt covers from the bathroom stall hanging out the back of your pants.

Hobo said:
Oh, sure, you have a valid point in some other conversation on some other topic about how to run a good game. I'm not arguing with that. Or at least you would if you weren't so self-contradictory--"he's a good DM, but he really runs a crappy game." I mean, seriously--WTF?

It's not a contradiction at all, and I never said his game sucked. But it had some deep and serious flaws, especially as a longterm game, that we all learned something from. Including me. Including the DM.

Hobo said:
But I can't see how you have any point at all--valid or otherwise--in regards to the topic of this thread. Did you even read the first post, or just respond to the thread title?

Speaking of unrelated content, do you really have nothing better to do than to make sure I don't participate in this conversation?

I mean, truly, is it really this slow of a Monday for you?
 

Remove ads

Top