Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[moritheil]

Wow. If I actually cared what M. John Harrison thought about things... anything... this might have some effect on me.

Unfortunately, I don't. So it won't.

Moving on...

Rock on.

The thing is, when a writer posts advice, it tends to be valid for his own style of writing and his own creativity. For anything else, YMMV. I'm endlessly amused whenever some writer who makes big bucks comes out with some throw-away statement and people spend months neurotically obsessing over it.

 

[Imaro]

I personally think it's a different strokes for different folks type of thing. If setting is "wasted" on your players, why assume everyone else's players are the same? My players delve in politics, mysteries, exploration, etc. In order for me to have a world where their actions have "real" ramifications, consequences, effects, and fallout, a certain level of world detail is necessary. YMMV of course.

I feel as if the same argument for worldbuilding could be applied to adventure building as well. Use a random dungeon generator, and hook generator to make up an adventure. It cuts down on work. All you gotta do now is throw some monsters in their. Better yet make up a few tables(for monsters and treasures of each level) and randomly roll whenever PC's get to a room, even less work. If all your players care about is loot and xp points this works just fine.

In the end I GM to create, my adventures come from the flow of the PC's within the world I've created and it works good and feels natural for me. I don't want to run a string of dungeon crawls or plotted quests...is this badwrong fun in some way? In this instance how is world building a waste of time. It's a method you may disagree with(for you), but claiming it's a waste of time seems to imply that your way is a true-ism, and those just don't exist in games like D&D.

I don't think any one way to inspire creativity is going to be the same for every person, some people might get totally stuck with just a blank canvas and "make an adventure" for inspiration. That same person might find a ton of hooks and seeds, seemingly detailling themselves as he fleshes out his world. How then is it a waste for him to do this? In the end do what's best and most fun for you...isn't that the point of making the game your own?

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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.

...or you could just think that all of that background was a little unneccesary and boring. I mean that's valid too right? You can agree with that without insinuatuing that person is stupid for "not getting it" right?

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...

but it seems atithetical to the idea of the RPG to me.

Translation: My way is better.

Why would you play throwaway characters in a throwaway setting?

Because the people at that particular table might simply want to do that? Maybe a DM might figure that time and effort to build a campaign world isnt worth it for these particular players? Maybe he / she just DONT WANNA.

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?

You don't use tools just because they are there. You use them because you either need to, or want to. If a person is so inclined then great, if not it doesnt mean that they are soehow underutilizing the game resources.

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.

That's great for you and yours. I'm glad that works for you.

If the world in which the adventure occurs in which the characters exist doesn't matter, how can the adventure or the characters matter?

It matters that the players at the table are having fun. Whether it's a one shot or a series of games with the same players and characters in a barely fleshed out world. The insinuation that people are doing it wrong just becasue theyre not doing it youre way is just absurd and is pretty much the same kind of arrogance that the writer of that piece has toward people like you.

 

[Set]

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.

My thought would be that he thinks of a 'world-building' mentality as being something like those obsessive people who can recite baseball statistics going back 40 years, or, to use a more locally-relevant comparison, those of us who were infamous for being able to quote chapter and verse of monster statistics, to the great annoyance of our DMs... Hence his reference to 'clomping nerdishness' or whatever.

So really, if you have any interest in the setting of a story, say being one of those people who buys stuff like the Atlas of Pern, or enjoys the Forgotten Realms, or know far too much about the worlds of Star Wars or Star Trek, to the point of knowing what an 'Expanded Universe' is, or who Mara Jade is, or what the Prime Directive is all about, or, heaven forfend, watches the History Channel, then you are a 'clomping nerd' and deserving of the authors derision.

'Cause that's what we *really* need more of, as fans of science fiction, fantasy and the gaming genre, yet another artificial divide to pit us against each other, as if any one of us were any more or less a 'nerd' or 'nerd' where even a valid insult in this day and age, when the highest grossing movies are about a nerd who was bitten by a bug and got super-powers and some sashaying pirates fighting magical cursed people on the open seas.

Shyeah. Try harder, dude. Nerds are *in.* And even if we're not, you're totally preaching to the wrong target audience...

 

[Nifft]

Seems to me (based on experience and what folks have posted in this thread) that worldbuilding can inspire or distract.

From a purely gaming perspective, worldbuilding to a degree has often times been very beneficial. If the PCs express an interest in an area they've heard about, that leads to an adventure that they helped choose. If they don't express an interest, perhaps at that point it's counter-productive to flesh out the region, but plot hooks involving visitors and interests from that area may still come into play.

For example, I don't expect my PCs to spend much time in Hell, but infernal politics are affecting the Prime... so I have to detail that area.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Prophet2b]

Yeah... that was pretty bad... I suppose that if you want to churn out book after book after book in rapid succession to make a lot of money off of mediocre (or even poor) writing one should listen to his advice, but the truly magnificent stories... those are stories in a world.

Tolkien is only one example. Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is a great example of a story that takes place in a world - a world that he created, planned out, and is still planning out. Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series is another good example. For a Sci-Fi example, just look at Serenity (okay, so it's not a book, but it's still a story) - Joss Whedon put a ton of work into the world that was never seen on television, and may never have been seen. Or Star Wars for that matter... huge world (an entire galaxy) surrounding a "small" story, which is one reason fans have found it so easy to continue to the storyline - they have a context from which to draw upon (even if the subsequent books aren't all that great of literature - the world context is still there, and Star Wars would have sucked without it).

A world is important because it is from the world's context that society and cultures are molded and influenced by one another. If an author or GM wants a truly realistic story, they're going to need a truly realistic world.

Consider our world for a moment. There are phrases that we use, dialects we've formed, fashions we've adopted, and references we make every single day that we don't even think about, but without the context of the world around us and our past history, these things would never have come to be.

Without a world, all your story becomes is a claustrophobic, static environment with no realistic mood or theme.

This isn't to say that there haven't been "decent" stories produced by authors who don't create the worlds. It's only to say that if you want a truly great story, you're going to need a world. That is, after all, where stories take place. The world defines the story, not the other way around.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Y'know, I have a friend who said, of the original trilogy, that the thing that made the Star Wars universe work for him was that it felt "used". IOW, it had a history and a scope outside of the story at hand. Things happened before Luke Skywalker; things would happen after he was gone.

I like that, and think it (at least somewhat) true.

 

[Victim]

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?

A heavily defined setting has too many lines on the page for players to easily draw their own legends, imo.

 

[papastebu]

So, people are saying it doesn't apply in D&D. Why not? Does it not still literalize the need to invent? Does it not give unnecessary permission for the acts of game writing and game playing? Does it not numb the ability of the player to do their part of the bargain, because it believes it has to do everything around here if the job's to get done?

Is it technically necessary for D&D in a way it isn't for writing? Is it not the great clomping food of nerdism, trying to exhaustively define a place that isn't there? Why would a good DM so exhaustively define something that doesn't exist? Is it ever really possible? Do players interact with everything the DM designs? Doesn't the worldbuilder's "psychological type" still imply that their setting is a hallowed place of dedication and lifelong study?

[sblock]
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.
[/sblock]

Who's to say that this is not a good thing, having fun creating, that is? I live in an area where gamers are either way too young for me to hang out with, or are way too far away to make playing in or GMing their games practicable. If I wasn't so into world-building, for my fiction and the game(s), then I wouldn't really be able to stay connected to the hobby I've come to love over 29-30 years. Even if you have created, on paper or in your mind's-eye, every blade of grass in your world, there's no need to tell the reader/player about it all. I have often been amazed at how things in a novel come alive for me when the author has put a massive amount of time and energy into what's in there before I ever set foot in that world. I don't like exhaustive description when reading, because it slows down narrative considerably, but knowing that if I turned my head this direction, rather than being led the way I'm "supposed" to go, that I would see something there instead of nothing, helps me suspend my disbelief.
Take Jim Butcher's Dresden Files novels, for example. He has a pretty good picture of Chicago in his head, and it comes out in the descriptions of places in the books. He then takes the supernatural aspects and weaves them into the picture that already exists. To me this helps lend the books verisimilitude. If he didn't have that picture of Chicago--though it is either researched or he's lived there, rather than make everything from scratch--I wouldn't enjoy the stories as much as I do.

 

[Reynard]

...or you could just think that all of that background was a little unneccesary and boring. I mean that's valid too right?

Actually, it isn't valid. People think that whether they like something or not is the same thing as criticism. It's not. Criticism is something different entirely and it is not, as some would believe, entirely subjective. there are benchmarks by which we can measure the literary quality of the work, as well as the literary importance of elements of the work. Just because you think its a little unneccesary and boring doesn't make it so, and you can, in a very real way, be wrong in at least the first part of that statement (whether you find something boring is eithe rhear nor there and isn't a reflection of the quality of a piece, one way or the other.)

You can agree with that without insinuatuing that person is stupid for "not getting it" right?

Look, everybody is entitled to their opinion, but when you are talking about literary work, any literary work, opinions are invalid in the face of criticism.

Translation: My way is better.

Translation: From this point foward, i have chosen to feel offended and put upon by Reynard, who couldn't possibly be using hyperbole or exaggeration to make a point and must, absolutely, be making sweeping statements of fact. Moreover, it is absolutely assured that Reynard is engaging in one-true-wayism, and not in any way making use of standard forum techniques to express what he finds great and wonderfula nd worthwhile in an RPG. And, finally, I furthermore heretofore pledge to ignore any statement of Reynard's that can be construed as IMO, YMMV or similar unless it is strictly and exactly stated, because otherwise the default assumption must be that Reynard is demanding you think, eat, sleep and poop just like him.