Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

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).

The effect that the characters have on the setting is determined by plot, of by what they are or are not allowed to do within the plot, though, right? I understand the idea that the DM proscribed the plot on the basis of being in love with the setting status quo; but it is still a matter of plot being proscribed as I understand it.

Or, I guess another way of saying it is that love of the setting is the motive, but restriction of the plot seems to be the means by which the motive was achieved.

Harrison makes the point that worldbuilding doesn't allow the reader to fulfill his part of the bargain with their own imagination.

I am assuming that Harrison is talking about the inclusion of details that prevent the reader from "discovering" truths for himself, which would not translate the way that you want it to. If you've heard the maxim "Show, don't tell", that's the same thing. No matter how "built" the world is, the narrator doesn't say "Elves are second-hand citizens"; instead he includes details that allow the reader to realize that elves are second-class citizens. IOW, the use of details rather than dialectic allows the experience of the reader to interact with the prose. The reader should be enticed to put forth effort for writing to succeed.

(There was actually an article in Writer's Digest on this a few issues back.)

So, I don't think that this is specifically what Harrison is talking about, although I can see the relationship the problem has with world-building. How the DM in question, running the game in question, cannot be a "bad DM" at that time, though, I'm not sure. Not allowing the PCs to affect the world is a cardinal sin in my book.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

OK, but using the normal literary terms, what the NPCs are doing isn't worldbuilding; it is plot. The problem you had, as I understand it, is that your DM, having decided what everything would be, refused to allow you to make changes during play. Once the stage was set, you had every reason to assume that you could make changes to that setting within whatever means are available to your PCs.

The easiest analogy I can think of is that of a DM who makes a "perfect dungeon" then refuses to allow the PCs to beat the creatures or take the treasures because it destroys his perfect setup. Were I to claim that this is a problem with dungeon building, rather than with the DM, you would rightly call me on it (I hope).

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.

Well, Tolkien can be criticized for fixing the Superbowl, too. That doesn't make it true. Where would you say Tolkien seems annoyed by his "actors"?

 

[molonel]

The effect that the characters have on the setting is determined by plot, of by what they are or are not allowed to do within the plot, though, right? I understand the idea that the DM proscribed the plot on the basis of being in love with the setting status quo; but it is still a matter of plot being proscribed as I understand it. Or, I guess another way of saying it is that love of the setting is the motive, but restriction of the plot seems to be the means by which the motive was achieved.

The inability to change the world manifested itself in the plot, but the plot wasn't the reason. It was simply the vehicle of frustration. It wasn't railroading, either, because we could go in any direction we wanted.

So, I don't think that this is specifically what Harrison is talking about, although I can see the relationship the problem has with world-building. How the DM in question, running the game in question, cannot be a "bad DM" at that time, though, I'm not sure. Not allowing the PCs to affect the world is a cardinal sin in my book.

It is a cardinal sin. But all DMs have flaws - I know I do - and this one was his. He taught me a lot about encounter design. He's still the best number cruncher and monster builder I know. He's an extraordinary editor, and he's done work on a PDF, and is currently writing his own. His world was certainly not dull. But, in the end, I kept coming back because it was a way to spend time with my friends, and merely accepted the fact that I could no more change the world itself than I could change the tiles on a board game merely by thinking about it.

 

[molonel]

OK, but using the normal literary terms, what the NPCs are doing isn't worldbuilding; it is plot. The problem you had, as I understand it, is that your DM, having decided what everything would be, refused to allow you to make changes during play. Once the stage was set, you had every reason to assume that you could make changes to that setting within whatever means are available to your PCs.

You keep talking about plot as if it were some separate beast from worldbuilding. It's not. What we call "plot" is simply "what's happening in the world." It is an element of worldbuilding.

The easiest analogy I can think of is that of a DM who makes a "perfect dungeon" then refuses to allow the PCs to beat the creatures or take the treasures because it destroys his perfect setup. Were I to claim that this is a problem with dungeon building, rather than with the DM, you would rightly call me on it (I hope).

Any problem involves an individual, and can rightly be ascribed to that individual. What you just described is an example of bad dungeonbuilding, and not merely a problem DM. Or, more expansively, it's bad worldbuilding design and bad game design.

Well, Tolkien can be criticized for fixing the Superbowl, too.

Damn him! I knew it! That rat bastard cost me $50!

Where would you say Tolkien seems annoyed by his "actors"?

In the Two Towers, it's generally acknowledged that Tolkien could have been a bit less in love with the world he was describing to us, and picked up the pace rather substantially. There are passages throughout the books where Tolkien does more worldbuilding than character development. Worldbuilding was one of Tolkien's many strengths, but it occasionally got the best of him.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You keep talking about plot as if it were some separate beast from worldbuilding. It's not. What we call "plot" is simply "what's happening in the world." It is an element of worldbuilding.

So, is creating the adventure a different beast from worldbuilding, or is creating the adventure an element of worldbuilding?

Any problem involves an individual, and can rightly be ascribed to that individual. What you just described is an example of bad dungeonbuilding, and not merely a problem DM. Or, more expansively, it's bad worldbuilding design and bad game design.

I would say that the dungeon may be extremely well built, it is what happens after it is built that is at fault. IOW, if the dungeon was copied by me and run by me, the same problem would not occur. The problem is not intrinsic to the work, but to the people using the work.

Damn him! I knew it! That rat bastard cost me $50!

From the grave, too.

Beware the Lich Tolkein, whose sports fixing knows no bounds! Mwah! ha! ha! ha!

In the Two Towers, it's generally acknowledged that Tolkien could have been a bit less in love with the world he was describing to us, and picked up the pace rather substantially.

By whom?

Can you give me an example from The Two Towers?


RC

 

[molonel]

So, is creating the adventure a different beast from worldbuilding, or is creating the adventure an element of worldbuilding?

I don't think it's an either/or proposition. You can create a dungeon for a dungeoncrawl that has no connection with anything else, and is it's own little microcosm. Arguably, it is then a sort of "world" but, in my opinion, not really.

But when overarching assumptions and design elements about your world flow into what happens in the dungeon, and the dungeon is part of a larger world, and these elements exist separately and apart from any particular adventure or locale, then it's worldbuilding.

I would say that the dungeon may be extremely well built, it is what happens after it is built that is at fault. IOW, if the dungeon was copied by me and run by me, the same problem would not occur. The problem is not intrinsic to the work, but to the people using the work.

You would run it differently because you wouldn't obey the design principles that dictate a certain result. Worldbuilding isn't just codification. It's the overarching world at large.

For example, I freely admit that there are levels of evil too low for me to address in my adventures. I've encountered those freak gamers who want to do really heinous @#$@# with their characters. I have a female friend who has played with a DM with an actual rape fetish. (I really wish I was kidding.)

I don't allow that. As part of an overarching sense of reality, I will acknowledge that terrible things happen during wars. A medieval adventure fantasy doesn't deny that. But I take a Greek/classical view. Terrible things happen, but they happen offstage, and the players may encounter the results of some of those evils, but I'm not going to go into detail or belabor it.

That's part of my worldbuilding philosophy: where some evils are concerned, don't go there. Because I'm not going to delight in actual descriptions of torture, or sordid sexual occurrences. Someone else might allow those things, but they are running a different world from mine.

From the grave, too. Beware the Lich Tolkein, whose sports fixing knows no bounds! Mwah! ha! ha! ha!

He realized that you don't control mankind by forging a ring. He realized you control us by controlling our entertainment! That fiendish villain!

By whom? Can you give me an example from The Two Towers?

Am I really the only person who found himself occasionally flipping pages in the Two Towers?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Am I really the only person who found himself occasionally flipping pages in the Two Towers?

No....The first couple of times I assaulted the Trilogy, I got no farther than the Fellowship. It was only later that I developed the fortitude to finish the book. However, it wasn't due to worldbuilding.....which there is far more of in Fellowship than in Two Towers or Return.

 

[molonel]

No....The first couple of times I assaulted the Trilogy, I got no farther than the Fellowship. It was only later that I developed the fortitude to finish the book. However, it wasn't due to worldbuilding.....which there is far more of in Fellowship than in Two Towers or Return.

I found myself flipping because the story diverged too much into description rather than pushing the story forward. Long passages of blah blah blah the trees blah blah blah the mountains blah blah and I was finally like "Grrr! What the @#$@ is happening to the characters?"

 

[Raven Crowking]

I found myself flipping because the story diverged too much into description rather than pushing the story forward. Long passages of blah blah blah the trees blah blah blah the mountains blah blah and I was finally like "Grrr! What the @#$@ is happening to the characters?"

Well, LotR isn't for everyone.

OTOH, once I got past that first real reading, my appreciation of the work has increased with each subsequent reading. If you "get" what Tolkein is saying, there isn't much else out there that delivers quite so well.


RC

 

[molonel]

Well, LotR isn't for everyone.

My appreciation of Tolkien doesn't require that I believe he did everything equally well. I like the Chronicles of Narnia, too, but I realize that Lewis poured on the evangelism and Christian symbolism a little thick, sometimes.

OTOH, once I got past that first real reading, my appreciation of the work has increased with each subsequent reading. If you "get" what Tolkein is saying, there isn't much else out there that delivers quite so well.

I don't think it's a matter of "getting" it so much as developing a tolerance for it.

Just because you enjoy reading the Bible doesn't mean you can't quietly admit that reading the book of Leviticus is comparable to chewing bubble gum studded with broken glass.