Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Celebrim]

I'm going to make one last comment on this increasingly silly thread.

I've been in alot of different debates on the internet over the years, and so I often think that I've seen it all. I've seen enough that I should know better than to think that.

Let's just stop and consider a definition of world building here offered.

We are told that world building is not creating setting. No, never. World building and creating setting have nothing to do with each other, or so we are told. I mean, ignore all the common definitions of world building, they are just merely leading us astray. Here, I'm going to impart to you the special Gnostic knowledge on world building. Here is how the argument thus far runs.

You may be thinking that world building is creating details that aren't used. But, no that can't be the definition either, because we have to craft a straw man definition that isn't so obviously a straw man, if we are to come out of here with some shred of the Emperor's New Clothes covering our dignity. I mean, clearly, we want to have a detailed setting that allow options for the players, and well that involves the risk that they'll never actually choose those options. Obviously, having options and a detailed setting are good things, so that those things can't possibly be world building, because we know world building is bad. Hense, those things, being good, can't be world building. See how logical that is?

So what is world building, you ask? Well, it must be the creation of information that can never possibly be used! That's right, its only world building if the information could never actually be used in the course of play! Well, clearly thats a waste. Things that by definition never used and unusable are of course of no utility! Viola for the great definition of world building!

Now, of course, this requires us to introduce the Quantum Law of World Building. Any sort of mapping, history creation, cosmology, NPCs, culture, dungeons, nations, or anything that you create exists in this fuzzy quantum indeterminancy until such time it is actually used and then by alchemical force, 'Pop' it becomes good setting. And if it is not used, then its bad world building. Of course, merely not being used doesn't make it world building. No, it has to not be used in any alternate universe ever. Only the truly enlightened prophets of World Building can see into the murky future and bless something as setting. Those unblessed things, that's world building. Simple really. Just ask a prophet.

 

[LostSoul]

In actual play, I like what comes out of worldbuilding in a game like Burning Empires.

 

[Hussar]

We are told that world building is not creating setting. No, never. World building and creating setting have nothing to do with each other, or so we are told. I mean, ignore all the common definitions of world building, they are just merely leading us astray. Here, I'm going to impart to you the special Gnostic knowledge on world building. Here is how the argument thus far runs.

And you talk about me misquoting.

Where setting leaves off and world building starts is when you move from elements which are required by the plot and those that are extraneous. They are, of course, linked, but, saying that they are completely divorced is not what I've been saying.

Now, of course, this requires us to introduce the Quantum Law of World Building. Any sort of mapping, history creation, cosmology, NPCs, culture, dungeons, nations, or anything that you create exists in this fuzzy quantum indeterminancy until such time it is actually used and then by alchemical force, 'Pop' it becomes good setting. And if it is not used, then its bad world building. Of course, merely not being used doesn't make it world building. No, it has to not be used in any alternate universe ever. Only the truly enlightened prophets of World Building can see into the murky future and bless something as setting. Those unblessed things, that's world building. Simple really. Just ask a prophet.

No. Again, you are the one creating straw men.

If I build a setting element that has a reasonable chance of seeing use, that's creating setting. If I create a setting element that does not have a reasonable chance of seeing use, that's world building. That's been my point all the way along, although, to be fair, I've been sloppy in saying so.

So, detailing the thieves guild of Sasserine makes perfect sense since that's the starting point of the first of the adventures of the Savage Tide. Now, in the modules, it does mention that there were other thieves guilds, but, none of them are detailed. Why not?

Because the other thieves guilds are entirely superfluous. You don't need another thieves guild in Sasserine in order to run the adventure, despite the fact that it is highly likely that other thieves guilds exist (the fact that the module says that they do is a pretty big hint).

All stories need a setting. All stories will have a setting, even if it is only skeletal. However, not all stories have world building. No one, by any stretch, would say that Waiting for Godot has world building. Romeo and Juliet, despite being placed originally in Verona, can be and have been, set in just about any setting you choose without changing a single line of the play.

World building therefore is not the same as setting creation. All stories must create some setting. Not all stories must world build. So, where does setting creation stop and world building start? IMO, the cut off line is when you move from elements that are required by the plot to elements which are entirely extraneous.

Of course elements you create for gaming are not always going to be used. That's a given. The cut off in RPG's is a reasonable level of possibility that it could be used. There is absolutely no way that the Five Shires will have any impact on the Isle of Dread as written. You could cut out the first two or three pages of the Isle of Dread without changing the module at all.

That's the difference between setting building and world building. Setting building means that you will have a reasonable chance of using the material. Granted, it might be that using X precludes using Y, but, before the choice is made, you still have to create X and Y. That doesn't make one bad and the other good, just that the vagaries of gaming means that you will likely do more work than is absolutely required.

However, when you go beyond a reasonable chance of use into areas where you have to make dramatic changes to the adventure in order to use the information, then you enter into the realm of world building. As written, the leaders of Sasserine will not come into play in the adventures. You can change the modules so that they will come into play and that's fine, but, then, you are simply making extraneous information not extraneous.

I hope that makes it clear enough. Yes, I define world building as a bad thing. There are many words that are, by definition, bad things. Since we already have a perfectly good neutral world for creating where the action happens - setting - we don't need to define world building as a synonym for setting. In fact, we cannot since, despite the fact that all stories require setting, not all stories require world building.

 

[LostSoul]

But Hussar, if worldbuilding does not get in the way of anything, is it still a bad thing?

(For what it's worth, I see setting as important so far as it creates conflict for the characters.)

 

[rounser]

I don't see how designing adventures PC's will never experience is any less wasteful than worldbuilding which was a crux of numerous previous posts by you. Please explain this to me

Funny you should mention that, because I've been thinking a lot recently about scaling. Next campaign I want to try scaling with NPC Designer. e.g. The kobold caves the PCs ignored for 10 levels they now come to mop up have been taken over by one of the key villains in the meantime which the PCs have also not "kept down" enough, and they've now got an elite squad and drow slavemasters.

Or, that ancient wilderness shrine which the PCs didn't investigate first time around with a few traps at 2nd level has been invaded by cultists who have upgraded the traps and actually summoned the demon bound to it when they drop by later on.

See where this is going? It's potentially a way to have your status quo cake and eat it, but I haven't tested it out yet, so it's still theory. This is all adventure and campaign-arc focused stuff; worldbuilding need not apply.

But Hussar, if worldbuilding does not get in the way of anything, is it still a bad thing?

It's always going to get in the way of doing other more productive things with that time.

 

[Hussar]

But Hussar, if worldbuilding does not get in the way of anything, is it still a bad thing?

(For what it's worth, I see setting as important so far as it creates conflict for the characters.)

It's always going to get in the way of doing other more productive things with that time.
Today 04:34 PM

Wut he said.

If, instead of ten or fifteen pages of Sasserine background, we had another adventure, perhaps a nice introductory module that gets the party together, which would be a better value for you? I would MUCH prefer having a short module that gives the party a reason for existing than the life history of Lord Dractus whose chances of actually making any appearance in the adventures are vanishly small.

Honestly, really, there is no harm with world building. Lots of people enjoy it. But, really, let's call it what it is - indulgence. It's setting porn. It's the fifteen minutes of every CSI episode where they dial up the music and have the actors peer very carefully at walls and such. Sure, it's fun to watch, but, like all porn, it's not exactly getting anywhere.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

Open your eyes to the fact that worldbuilding encompasses adventure design in a more holistic fashion. I don't see how designing adventures PC's will never experience is any less wasteful than worldbuilding which was a crux of numerous previous posts by you. Please explain this to me, cause it's looking like in order to have a sandbox game, where players can explore what they want "wasted effort"(your words not mine) is necessary on either end of the spectrum. This in turn means you just prefer a certain way of "wasting your time" in comparison to others.

It's not a case of designing adventures that the PC's don't encounter. It's a case of designing adventures that the PC's have a vanishingly small chance of encountering. As I said in another post, if the adventure calls for choices X or Y, then you need to develop X and Y. However, if you start developing Z when it isn't even a valid choice, that's not terribly useful.

 

[LostSoul]

It's always going to get in the way of doing other more productive things with that time.

I'm not sure I buy that; it can be true, but then we have to assume that people who worldbuild focus on things that aren't productive (that is, whatever makes the session fun). Sure, I bet that's true sometimes, but not always.

If worldbuilding is fun in its own right, and doesn't detract from the fun had at the table, I don't see the harm.

 

[LostSoul]

If, instead of ten or fifteen pages of Sasserine background, we had another adventure, perhaps a nice introductory module that gets the party together, which would be a better value for you?

If we're talking about what I prefer, I would say:

Give me something like Beliefs or Aspects or a Kicker that tells the GM exactly what to prepare. Any setting that needs to exist to drive the conflict in those flags, work on it, but anything else I could care less about.

 

[Hussar]

If we're talking about what I prefer, I would say:

Give me something like Beliefs or Aspects or a Kicker that tells the GM exactly what to prepare. Any setting that needs to exist to drive the conflict in those flags, work on it, but anything else I could care less about.

And, really, I think we are actually closer in agreement than it might appear. I'm all for exactly what you are talking about. Put big red signs on the adventures that say, "This is important, if they miss this, then add in these things to help you along". Or something like that. Particularly in an urban environment where the players can get buried behind the large amount of choices that they have.

And, really, what someone does on their own time is their own business. You're right, if it's not distracting from the game at hand, who cares how much world building is going on. But, and I think I've been harping on this, the problem comes when DM's try to justify the amount of work that they've done by making it important in the game.

When I said that TheShaman was fine for giving his players the option of visiting 20 different systems,　I certainly meant it. However, and this is where worldbuilding triumphs over plot, if the DM decides that he's done all this work, so the players bloody well better care about it, then we have a problem.

Hey, honestly, I love world building. I wear my great clodding boots of nerdism with pride. But, that doesn't stop me from thinking that there are a huge number of fantasy trilogies out there that could be condensed into one or two volumes by stripping out all the extraneous crap that shows off how smart the author is. Someone mentioned Perdito Street Station and the Khepri. Very good example. Great book that could have been a much better read if the character whose history is built up over pages and pages doesn't vanish halfway through the novel only to reappear in the last chapter.

We could have done without a lot of the Khepri life cycle stuff. It was completely extraneous. It simply padded the pagecount.

There's a number of gaming supplements that suffer from the same thing. We don't need fifteen pages detailing a city when the players are only going to be there for a very, very small amount of time. Conversely, giving three pages of details of a town where the players will be stationed for almost half the campaign is probably just about right. Considering that the first module featuring Farshore actually FEATURES Farshore. Every one of the NPC's detailed has a reasonable chance of interacting with the PC's on some level. There's almost no extraneous information there. The terrain, the background, the people, are all necessary for the adventure and the ones following.

To me, that's a pretty decent example of what I'm talking about. The difference in the spectrum with The Lottery on one end and The Star Trek Enterprise Tech Manual on the other. There is no real line where setting becomes world building, just like there's no real line where art becomes porn. We can just point to certain things on the way and say that one is one or the other. A book which details every room on the Star Ship Enterprise is world building. It might even be interesting to some people. But, for me, I would much prefer stories in which the Enterprise is simply the place where the action happens.