Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Celebrim]

Our efforts to create and effect things were always trumped, always falling apart at the seams, always crumpled. Meanwhile, if we ever wanted to do anything important, we pretty much had to piggyback on an NPC's plans. (Because, God knows, those NEVER failed.)

Once again, I don't understand how any of this necessarily says anything about world building in general. In this particular case, you were rail-roaded ostencibly because of a DM's worldbuilding, but you can't say anything universal about either railroading or worldbuilding based off this experience because they are completely separate concepts. You can have rail roading without world building and you can have world building without rail roading.

 

[molonel]

Once again, I don't understand how any of this necessarily says anything about world building in general.

Which would be why I said, "With all due respect, I've stopped short of saying that my example proves or disproves any particular design philosophy" (post #555, page 14).

I think some of you folks are trying a little too hard to make generalizations. Mine was a very particular example, and I've said so two or three times, now, so everyone beating the "That's just your experience!" drum can quiet down, now.

However, my example is a valid example that proves an otherwise pleasing gaming experience can be marred by an undue focus on worldbuilding, just as a game can suffer from an undue emphasis on any other necessary component of gaming: mechanics, combat, even unrelated chatter that supposedly passes for roleplaying.

In this particular case, you were rail-roaded ostencibly because of a DM's worldbuilding, but you can't say anything universal about either railroading or worldbuilding based off this experience because they are completely separate concepts.

What a delightfully vapid non-point. Is it something in the water, this morning? A bad batch of coffee, perhaps?

I share an experience where a campaign was heavily marred by a DM more concerned with his worldbuilding than the fun of the game or his players, and several folks feel almost compelled to remind me that my individual experience was just my own personal experience.

Well ... duh.

This is molonel posting on Enworld, not Jesus reciting the Sermon on the Mount.

You can have rail roading without world building and you can have world building without rail roading.

And you can also have railroading through worldbuilding. Yes. I know.

 

[Celebrim]

...What a delightfully vapid non-point...

Ok, well in that case, pot-kettle.

I thought you were trying to make some point with your story. Silly me.

Anyway, nice story. I remain completely unconvinced it had anything to do with world building - for example, all your examples seem have to do with story building not world building - but since you apparant aren't trying to make any sort of point, nice story, all the same.

 

[molonel]

Ok, well in that case, pot-kettle. I thought you were trying to make some point with your story. Silly me. Anyway, nice story. I remain completely unconvinced it had anything to do with world building - for example, all your examples seem have to do with story building not world building - but since you apparant aren't trying to make any sort of point, nice story, all the same.

You know what? I'm here to talk about gaming, today. This whole "Gosh, I thought you were smarter than you never seem to be" and slipping daggers under the table blinkfest is more interesting on a Friday than a Monday.

Have a good day. Since you derive nothing from my posts in this discussion, I suggest you just roll your eyes, and respond to someone with the substance you find lacking.

 

[Desdichado]

Ok, well in that case, pot-kettle.

I thought you were trying to make some point with your story. Silly me.

Anyway, nice story. I remain completely unconvinced it had anything to do with world building - for example, all your examples seem have to do with story building not world building - but since you apparant aren't trying to make any sort of point, nice story, all the same.

Yeah, we've already covered this ground. Molonel is apparently talking about something else than the rest of us, and by golly, he's standing up for his right to pop up in whatever thread he likes and talk about something other than the topic.

I've decided that he's best ignored in this instance. Maybe he'll find some relevence in some other discussion.

 

[molonel]

Yeah, we've already covered this ground. Molonel is apparently talking about something else than the rest of us, and by golly, he's standing up for his right to pop up in whatever thread he likes and talk about something other than the topic. I've decided that he's best ignored in this instance. Maybe he'll find some relevence in some other discussion.

Must still be a slow Monday. For someone who is quite bothered by my alleged divergence from the topic at hand, you've spent five posts talking it. The topic seems endlessly fascinating to you.

You're almost as bad as staying on subject as you are at ignoring me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Y'know, a lot of points had been made that world-building on the micro level that never gets seen at the table is basically a waste of time, but I think molonel's world-building at the other extreme (the macro level that winds up railroading a particular "feel" against the player's motives) can be just as damaging. It's less obvious in the initial instance, because it's very difficult to get this scenario in fiction -- the reader doesn't often rebel against the constraints of the story, if the story is decently written. But players are given a lot more free reign over their character's actions, and they can help influence and affect the campaign in a significant way.

Like the idea that LotR is about the setting, molonel's DM made the game about the setting, not about the characters in it. Ultimately, this springs from the same place: a love of the world so great that the game gets pushed aside. It's the same thing that made the pot-kettle comparison between Railroading and Worldbuilding above: both limit player choice, the things that a player can do to affect the world.

So that element has been in the concept for a while, even if we've been using the "fiddly bits" aspect of worldbuilding more.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Y'know, a lot of points had been made that world-building on the micro level that never gets seen at the table is basically a waste of time, but I think molonel's world-building at the other extreme (the macro level that winds up railroading a particular "feel" against the player's motives) can be just as damaging.

I can't see any way that micro level world-building that never gets to the table is a waste of time, unless the person doing it doesn't enjoy it.

I can easily see how forcing the PCs to go along with NPC plots if they want to succeed is damaging. In fact, it was posts like his that made me agree that the DMG should be written for the lowest common denominator....perhaps more so than it is now.

However, that seems more love of your plot than love of your world to me. If we were in a thread talking about why plotting is bad, or DM PCs are bad, it would seem more relevant. I can't see how the example actually qualifies as "worldbuilding" based on any of the various definitions that have been floated in this thread, but I can accept that it qualifies according to whatever definition Molonel is using. I suppose I'd have to see some definition in order to figure it out.

As far as non-linear maps go, that really is an attempt to understand the other side.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I can't see any way that micro level world-building that never gets to the table is a waste of time, unless the person doing it doesn't enjoy it.

You're right. "Can be a waste of time" would be a more accurate statement.

However, that seems more love of your plot than love of your world to me. If we were in a thread talking about why plotting is bad, or DM PCs are bad, it would seem more relevant. I can't see how the example actually qualifies as "worldbuilding" based on any of the various definitions that have been floated in this thread, but I can accept that it qualifies according to whatever definition Molonel is using. I suppose I'd have to see some definition in order to figure it out.

In this case, it doesn't seem like it was about plot, though. The DM seemed to be controlling the effect the characters had on the setting. Which is one way of saying "I build the world, you can't have any effect unless you have the effect *I* define for you." Which is about too much worldbuilding, treating the setting as more important than the story (or, in this case, the characters).

Harrison makes the point that worldbuilding doesn't allow the reader to fulfill his part of the bargain with their own imagination. This seems like that translated into D&D: The PC can't fulfill their part of the bargain of driving the world's events with their own imagination. molonel's party wasn't the star of the show: the DM's setting was.

So just working with the qualities of harmful worldbuilding Harrison outlined, this seems to fit the mold.

As far as non-linear maps go, that really is an attempt to understand the other side.

 

[molonel]

However, that seems more love of your plot than love of your world to me. If we were in a thread talking about why plotting is bad, or DM PCs are bad, it would seem more relevant. I can't see how the example actually qualifies as "worldbuilding" based on any of the various definitions that have been floated in this thread, but I can accept that it qualifies according to whatever definition Molonel is using. I suppose I'd have to see some definition in order to figure it out.

My DM wasn't building plot. He was building his world. It was the exact same sort of fiddly bit development that you guys were talking about, except that instead of merely mapping out all the rooms we never visited, he had cultures and countries and NPCs doing stuff, and we were like a monkey wrench thrown into the cogs. He was always doing damage control. Trying to salvage his world. We joked about it being his "museum" and we were the proverbial bulls in the china shop.

Trying to separate what he did and calling it "plot" or whatever is needless hairsplitting. Ultimately, the problem in his campaign was that he was more concerned for his precious world than he was for the adventure or the characters playing in his game for three years.

He was like a director who spent most of his time working on set design rather than the play itself, or the actors. He almost seemed annoyed by the actors, sometimes.

And that's EXACTLY what the author in the original post was talking about. That's EXACTLY what Tolkien can sometimes be criticized for. The world is not the point, whether it's fiction or D&D. The adventure is the point. The characters are the point. Background is supposed to be just that: background.

That's why what I'm saying - despite Hobo's curiously zealous efforts to claim otherwise - is quite relevant to this discussion. It's the same thing.