Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Mallus]

Who? M. John Harrison? Who are we talking about here? What has he written? Why haven't I heard of anything this guy has done?

If you're in the US, you probably haven't heard of him because his books weren't readily available here until quite recently (he's British). The only works of his that I've read are the novel Light and a collection of his Viriconium stories.

Light is one of the best SF books I've read in years, if not in, well, ever. It also gives you a some perspective about where he's coming from. The Viriconium stories are also good, but they're more akin to Calvino than mainstream fantasy.

For the record, I (kinda) agree with what Harrison is saying at the same time I think he's dead wrong. He's making the fairly common mistake of starting from the position that all fiction has the same goals. Or that the same criteria apply universally.

 

[Reynard]

Invoking Tolkien isn't the way to prove the point that D&D needs extensive worldbuilding, and that the advise to not bother with much worldbuilding still stands because a lot of Tolkien's worldbuilding *was* wasted effort as far as LotR was concerned.

Um... No.

Just, no. That you would even suggest such a thing is, to me, astounding. Dizzying, even. let's see if I can explain it in a way that makes sense in the context of running a D&D campaign.

Everything that occurred within the pages of the Lord of the Rings was informed by the world building that Tolkien did, because the story itself grew out of the worldbuilding -- not the other way around. To suggest that Tolkien's worldbuilding was "wasted effort" for the LotR displays either a great disdain for the work and the man, or an absolute lack of understanding of the work or the man.

As it relates to D&D: worldbuilding creates camapigns. What's where, what happened when and to whom, who's who -- these all inform the adventures and the characters and their particular "story". Even if the PCs never encounter an element doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on them. I have never been to Washington DC, nor have I ever met George W. Bush, but I am pretty sure he has an impact on my "day to day" adventures - -and would have a whole lot more if I was still in the US Army.

Part of the problem, I think, is people who see world building as wasted effort don't care about versimilitude, they don't care about details, and they aren't interested in building something that exists beyond the character they are currently playing. This is a perfectly viable way to play, but it seems atithetical to the idea of the RPG to me. Why would you play throwaway characters in a throwaway setting? You have these tools at your disposal to create a whole world -- not just as the Dm, but as a player, too. Don't people play subsequent campaigns in the same worlds anymore? Don't people play their characters' children and children's children? Is it just me? Is the idea of making legends and legacies that live on a dead one?

I engage in worldbuilding because the results, at the table, are far superior to the alternative, and the stories we tell of those results, we tell for decades after they happen. Because there is context, for everyone. If the world in which the adventure occurs in which the characters exist doesn't matter, how can the adventure or the characters matter?

 

[Set]

So this author lacks interest in reading anything that's detailed? Cool. People with short-attention spans need books too, I guess.

I'll sit back here and read books from authors like Tolkein or Lovecraft, who are willing to craft a detailed setting *as part and parcel of establishing mood and theme.*

Sure, there are cases gone horribly, horribly wrong, like the Wheel of Time story, where the author seems unable, or unwilling, to break off the travelogue and get down to advancing the plot, but in most instances, I prefer a well-detailed world than one that flies by and has no significance or coherent structure to it.

Details make a setting memorable. If this dude wrote the Realms, I suppose this would be the entirety of the Waterdeep Boxed Set;

"Waterdeep is some big city on the Sword Coast. A bunch of people live there, but the PCs won't talk to most of them, and if you were any good as a GM, you could just improvise all that boring stuff on your own. There's a big mountain, and a dungeon under it, for your adventuring needs. Fill in as needed by using the random dungeon generator in the back of the 1st Ed DM's Guide, and choose encounters by flipping to random pages in the Monster Manual. Attempting to 'make sense' of trivia such as architecture or ecosystems or 'why' some encounter would be where it is would just be a humongous waste of time, you incredibly boring geek."

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

My own view is that it's more necessary in D&D, because you don't lead players by the nose in the same way you lead readers by the nose as an author, so you do need to create more than what's right in front of them. Specifically, you need to create what's all around them, so that they can go back or to the side and there's still something there. Though I do think the idea of exhaustively cataloging a place that doesn't exist leads to immense volumes of effort that is largely wasted in the game, and is more about the DM having fun creating than about the needs of the campaign.

But do a DM's worldbuilding efforts and the needs of the campaign have to be counter to each other?

If the DMs world is rigid so that the players have no ability to change anything, that is probably not good.

If the DM railroads the players just to show off his amazing creativity; again not good.

If the DM has fun building the world, and by having his fun creates an immersive world that his players can interact with and enjoy, what is the problem?

 

[Reynard]

World building is only needed for the part you are going to use in your story. You don't need to create the whole world if no one is ever going to set foot in it or come into contact with it.

Wrong. A world is more than the sum of its parts. A place can reach beyond its own borders and history can reach through time. And do, in almost all cases.

Playing a light hearted, temporary game with no sense of setting is fine as a diversion, I guess, but it is throwing away most of the potential unique to RPGs, for both players and GMs.

 

[Mallus]

So this author lacks interest in reading anything that's detailed?

Maybe. But I'm pretty sure he likes depth.

Really, if you like SF, at all, try his novel Light. I rank it up there with Lord of Light, Neuromancer, and The Forever War, which is the highest praise I can toss around.

 

[Delta]

This is very relevant advice for a sci-fi writer.

This is terrible advice for most DMs.

I would have posted, but here RY stole all my thunder.

Writing a story and making a game are opposite tasks. Here's Greg Costikyan, one of the best thinkers on the subject: http://www.costik.com/gamnstry.html

Side question: Can the game designers of World of Warcraft do without worldbuilding? Is their job closer to DM'ing than novel-writing? Discuss.

 

[Ulric]

Above all, worldbuilding is not technically neccessary. It is the great clomping foot of nerdism. It is the attempt to exhaustively survey a place that isn’t there. A good writer would never try to do that, even with a place that is there. It isn’t possible, & if it was the results wouldn’t be readable: they would constitute not a book but the biggest library ever built, a hallowed place of dedication & lifelong study. This gives us a clue to the psychological type of the worldbuilder & the worldbuilder’s victim, & makes us very afraid.

In his mind, "world building" means you actually have to come up with all the details of a world? Apparently so, as it would constitute the "biggest library ever built".

And I don't even understand the next part: "This gives us a clue to the psychological type of the worldbuilder...and makes us very afraid."

I have no idea what he means by this...and I have a psychology degree! I just can't seem to generate any fear when thinking about world building, or world building nerds. I wish he would have explained this more.

 

[Sejs]

Dune.

 

[Mallus]

There is not a single word wasted in LotR...

It's also true that LotR has a whole mess of words put in service of goals that certain people don't find worthwhile. I imagine that a lot of people around here would feel the same way about Proust's In Search of Lost Time.

Hell, there are probably even a few odd birds on ENWorld that love 'em both...