Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Reynard]

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

Only if the setting details are immutable. If the players have the power, through their actions both IC and OOC, to change the world, a heavily defined setting is a beautiful tool with which to create. I mean, it is one thing to have a PC build a dominion, but to do it on the ruins another dominion he brought to knee... that's a beautiful thing.

 

[Imaro]

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

This is only true if the GM makes it that way. The same way an adventure can be too maped out and linear. This isn't an inherent weakness of a detailed setting.

 

[BryonD]

So, people are saying it doesn't apply in D&D. Why not?

Because fiction is developed for selling copies to many people. (or at least entertaining many people)
My D&D world building is for my personal enjoyment of the process.

If you find someone who wrotes fiction purely for their own pleasure of writing then I would state that this advice is not aimed at them and also does not apply to them either.

 

[Kestrel]

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.

Just because I don't care to build Middle-Earth doesn't mean that my game doesn't have details or is in the process of building something beyond the characters. For myself, it means that I prefer the gameworld and its details to be built within the confines of the sessions and discussion between players and GM. Instead of me reading to the players the hard cold facts of my creation, instead we are working together to build something ourselves, in game.

I want my players to be invested in the world, not simply reading the stuff i wrote in a vacuum.

I mean, wasn't this how the original Greyhawk created? From the exploits of Gary's players?

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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.)

I see what youre saying with this. However the average person who reads a book isnt really thinking that deeply about the criteria of literary criticism. They just want to read a good story. Now nowhere in my posts have I stated that LOTR was bad, but there were parts of it that were boring and unneccesary. I know that my opinion doesnt matter to you, but it does to me since I'm the one who is actually spending time (and more often money) reading the book.

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.

D00d, you are the least of the offensive people around here I hope that's not you feel that wasnt my intent. Trust me if I thought you were really being a jerk I'd let you know in a heartbeat. I dont feel put upon by you at all either. It's the INTERNERD, man. I'm gonna run and play my games the way I want to regardless of what a bunch of people on a D&D message board say.

Relax it's not that serious, man.

 

[Desdichado]

One of the skills of a "good" DM is improvisation, though. Certainly you don't expect everything your players do to be pre-planned, is there a reason we should have all parts of our world pre-planned?

Oh, certainly. Although my handful of username changes, as well as largely absent status for the last several months may have obscured it, I am a "famous" proponent of the Ray Winninger school of setting design: minimalist to an almost extreme degree.

That said, I still don't agree with the quote in the OP. Some worldbuilding needs to be done in order to write a sci-fi story of any note. A bit more needs to be done to run a sci-fi game of any note (and I'm using the broader definition of sci-fi that includes fantasy here). And worldbuilding is a fun hobby in it's own right.

He makes a good point; bad writers who fall in love with their setting and elucidate it at the expense of other aspects of the story are... well.. bad writers. But really; how often does that happen anyway among writers who manage to get published? The only notable example I can think of is China Mieville.

 

[Reynard]

D00d, you are the least of the offensive people around here I hope that's not you feel that wasnt my intent. Trust me if I thought you were really being a jerk I'd let you know in a heartbeat. I dont feel put upon by you at all either. It's the INTERNERD, man. I'm gonna run and play my games the way I want to regardless of what a bunch of people on a D&D message board say.

Relax it's not that serious, man.

All statement made of tasty, tasty truth. Obviously, the whole quitting smoking thing is starting to take its toll. My apologies.

 

[moritheil]

Ah, and now the flames.

 

[Desdichado]

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.*

Sorry, Set, but that just made me laugh out loud. Lovecraft was not a worldbuilder and rather infamously held out the opinion more than once that there was no cohesive strategy or philosophy behind his "Yog-Sothothery"--it was all just a bunch of plot devices made up on the spot for the needs of the story at hand. It later developed into a kind of in-joke where a small club of writers shared names of books, entities and personalities--but worldbuilding it most assuredly was not.

 

[WayneLigon]

Check out the Wikipedia page. He's not just some hack.

But this isn't about the messenger, it's about what he's saying. He's got at least enough cred to validly offer advise to other creators.

Eh, not really. I've heard of Viriconium, but I've never read any of his stuff or know anyone who has read any of his stuff (and I see no Hugo or Nebula or Locus nominations or awards there, if that means anything). From the quotes and a few blog posts I just finished, it sounds like he's more of a literary/poetry writer who happens to have chosen a fantasy/science fiction backdrop for dialog and character examination because of the freedom it affords him for imagery. So for him, worldbuilding isn't going to be a high priority.

I'm thinking most writers of his type are not going to be moved very much towards worldbuilding, but his relevance to the greater body of science fiction and fantasy is virtually nil.

Certainly we've seen clumsy writers more in love with the detail of their creations than was needed, or who seem to have stuck wide swaths of 'world building detail' into a novel because they think 'that it is the sort of thing one does ' rather than it being nessesary to their tale. But that's a flaw of the writer, not of the process of worldbuidling. A tool that is used for the wrong thing at the wrong time is not a bad tool.