Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Hussar]

I was merely pointing out the difference in your and Rounser's positions.

To Rounser, if it is part of the module, it is part of the adventure, and this is obvious (and should be obvious to all). To you, this is neither obvious nor true.

And, I would say that it is neither obvious nor true. There are numerous modules with DM only background information in them that have no real way of being imparted to the players. Actually, I believe Rounser mentioned this as well. It's pretty standard to get that one page background at the front of every module. Yet, most of that background has zero impact on the adventure itself.

 

[Hussar]

OK, let's say that you actually believe this (as opposed to merely having stated it repeatedly).

It then follows, if there is no cutoff, either that art is a form of porn, or porn a form of art, or both. They are part and parcel of the same thing, right?

Following that logic, it would then follow, if there is no cutoff, that either worldbuilding is a form of setting design, or setting design is a form of worldbuilding, or both. They are part and parcel of the same thing, right?

So either there is a cutoff point (and they are distinct) or there is no cutoff point (and they are not distinct). What you cannot have (rationally, anyway) is a situation where creating setting is not worldbuilding, but where there is no cutoff between worldbuilding and creating setting.


RC

You aren't honestly going to try to tell me that you can definitively point to the exact place where art becomes pornography. I know that's not what you mean to say when no one else in the entire world has been able to do so. I know that I'm misreading the above quote somehow and you're not honestly trying to say that you can.

Ok, maybe you're just not understanding my point.

If I take a blank canvas and put a splash of blue on it, is it a painting? How about two splashes? Is it when all the paint has been applied and the finished product is dry? Perhaps the second last dab in the upper left corner? No? Then, I can pretty much say that there is no point at which a blank canvas becomes a painting. I can point to a blank canvas and say, "That's NOT a painting" and I can point to the Mona Lisa and say that it is. However, there's a whole process in the middle where it's neither one nor the other completely.

Thus, the definition of the word spectrum.

It would be a very, very large stretch to say that Waiting for Godot has world building. It would also be a pretty large stretch to say that a Star Trek Tech Manual isn't pure world building divorced entirely from anything else. Yet, between those two extremes, we have a whole host of other works.

 

[Imaro]

In other words, taking a minor element, such as Dragotha and spinning it into an entire adventure? That's fine, so long as the adventure is about Dragotha. However, detailing Dragotha in White Plume Mountain would make zero sense since WPM isn't about Dragotha.

See the problem I have is this idea that the DM can make any element relavent. There's a very, very short step between making any element relavent and ramming his six page elven tea ceremonies down my throat.

Or, to put it another way, how exactly would you make the Five Shires relavent to the Isle of Dread within the context of that adventure? After all, the Five Shires is (briefly) detailed in the module. So, a good DM should be able to make it relavent.

Don't have the modules...but I'll give it a try


How about a halfling from the shires who was captured by brigrands and sold into slavery a few years ago. He eventually ended up on the Isle of Dread after he was procured by pirates. After escaping he ends up...actually anywhere you want to put him and if he encounters the PC's begs them to return him to his home. Of course they have the option to do this or not, but the Shires just became relevant.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wow, ad hominem attacks just leaping out of the woodwork.

No...That's reducto ad absurdium.

Ad hominem seeks to disprove the point by attacking the person making the point. This is a fallicious argument.

Reducto ad absurdium seeks to disprove the point by showing how absurd the logical extension of that point is. This is not a fallicious argument.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's what I thought.

Do I detect a hint of smugness?

I guess I just don't see it as my responsibility to force you to change your mind when, clearly, your requirements for such are above and beyond what I can reasonably accomplish with simple discussions. You don't see me as a credible witness of my own games.

Sure. What you are not (and cannot be) is an authority on how your games measure up in comparison to the average game, or the games of anyone you haven't played with. It's all well and fine to say "I can make as rich and detailed a world off the top of my head as you can with prep work" but you don't know how rich and detailed a world the other guy's is, and therefore it means nothing.

X + Y = 4. X + Y can be almost anything. All the players see is the number 4. Good prepwork or good improv, it's invisible to the group, who is much too busy having fun to worry about how the DM lead them to have this fun.

Unless the players are keen-eyed critics eager to find a chink in the DMs armor, or great clomping nerds who are only satisfied by setting porn, in which case they're as bad as rules lawyers: "You're playing this game wrong."

As a result, I'll go with my experience over your say-so, just as you'll presumably go with your experience over mine.

I've welcomed the idea that massive setting bibles can lead to a fun game based on hearsay. On discussions with people I assume to be rational and intelligent and reliable witnesses of their own gaming table.

If your level of keen-eyed suspicion is too great to allow me that same freedom, that same benefit of doubt, then you've quite expertly entrenched yourself in a position that no one else can move you from, because the evidence will never be enough without direct personal experience for you.

You've defied the scientific process because you reject the experimental evidence based simply on your own lack of it.

Have fun with that.

 

[Imaro]

.
Unless the players are keen-eyed critics eager to find a chink in the DMs armor, or great clomping nerds who are only satisfied by setting porn, in which case they're as bad as rules lawyers: "You're playing this game wrong."

I'm sorry but it doesn't take a keen eyed critic to notice flaws in logic, especially when they have effects on the character he/she is playing. You're really over generalizing here.
If what your "improv'ing" results in bad results for my character and I see a chink, I'm gonna call you on it. Why shouldn't I?

I've welcomed the idea that massive setting bibles can lead to a fun game based on hearsay. On discussions with people I assume to be rational and intelligent and reliable witnesses of their own gaming table.

So you started this thread because...?

 

[Raven Crowking]

You aren't honestly going to try to tell me that you can definitively point to the exact place where art becomes pornography.

Nope. But then, I believe that pornography is a subset of art.

If I take a blank canvas and put a splash of blue on it, is it a painting? How about two splashes? Is it when all the paint has been applied and the finished product is dry? Perhaps the second last dab in the upper left corner? No?

The answer to all of the questions is yes. It might be a crappy painting, or an incomplete painting, but it is a painting. Hence, I can pretty much say that there is a point at which a blank canvas becomes a painting.

It would be a very, very large stretch to say that Waiting for Godot has world building. It would also be a pretty large stretch to say that a Star Trek Tech Manual isn't pure world building divorced entirely from anything else. Yet, between those two extremes, we have a whole host of other works.

Waiting for Godot has very little worldbuilding, as, except for the names of the characters, there is almost nothing that moves it from the general to the specific. A Star Trek Tech Manual is pure worldbuilding (creation and exploration of setting) because it has no plot, character, or theme elements. It also moves from the general to the specific.

Logical consistency of an argument. Gotta love it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You don't see me as a credible witness of my own games.

Of course I do. I merely don't see you as a credible witness of how your games relate to the games of others. Or, more accurately, I don't see you as a more credible witness as to how various styles of games relate than myself, which is what I would have to do to accept that your statements trump my experience.

 

[Raven Crowking]

X + Y = 4. X + Y can be almost anything. All the players see is the number 4.

OK...Here's the thing. X and Y cannot be almost anything. They have to be two things which, together, equal the number 4.

Another way to look at this:

Imagine that you're learning to drive a car.

Your mother tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
Your father tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
Your sister tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
Your brother tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
Your driving instructor tells you to use your right foot for both pedals.
Some guy you don't actually know tells you to use your right foot the break and your left for the gas.

Who do you listen to?

In 28 years of gaming in two countries and several states (Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, California, Lousiana, Virginia) with hundreds of different players, I have seen many, many DMs who made the same claim as you are making. And they believed it, for the most part. And, in each and every case, their actual games fell far short of their claims.

I am not talking about people, like Odhanan, who say that they can devise enough background to be able to wing individual sessions. I know they exist; I can do that myself. I am talking about people who believe that they can forgo prep work and change things on the fly and that no one will notice.

If that animal exists, like sasquatch, it keeps well out of sight.


RC

 

[Hussar]

The answer to all of the questions is yes. It might be a crappy painting, or an incomplete painting, but it is a painting. Hence, I can pretty much say that there is a point at which a blank canvas becomes a painting.

How about when life begins? (ok, strike that, that's against forum rules)

My point, and I think you actually agree, is there is a range from one end to the other.

However, I would hardly say that a blank canvas=a finished painting despite the fact that they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Or, simply look at color spectrum. At what point does red become orange?

We can look at something and say it's red. We can look at something else and say it's orange. But, there is simply no point where you can definitively say that red becomes orange.

Just like there is no definitive point where you can say setting construction becomes world building. Or art becomes pornographic. Or any other process of becoming.