Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

Let's make it simple for you:
Yes, worldbuilding is creating a world, but you probably won't complete the task. Therefore, there's nothing contradictory about what Hussar's said, despite your wishes otherwise.

No, Hussar said "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" which doesn't make it any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.

His definitions are based on (1) scale and (2) utility, but IRL, it is very difficult to say that any DM actually meets his criteria on either point. When the (1) criteria is shown to be invalid, he admits it is so, and uses the (2) criteria. Hence "world doesn't necessarily mean planet". But when the (2) criteria is shown to be invalid, he uses the (1) criteria. Hence "It's CREATING A WORLD".

Apart from that, there is actually a lot that is easy to agree with. Bad worldbuilding is bad. We might argue about whether or not example A, B, or C falls under the qualifier "bad" or not, but that deeper, more meaningful level of the discussion is constantly derailed by "That's not worldbuilding; that's setting."




RC

 

[rounser]

No, Hussar said "world here doesn't necessarily mean planet, it could be larger or smaller depending" which doesn't make it any different from, say, the village/dungeon/wilderness combo the PCs are currently wandering around in.

You're grasping at straws. A demiplane smaller than a planet can be considered a "world" for D&D purposes, and I feel safe in assuming that's the sort of thing Hussar meant (especially given that such a demiplanar microcosm is my "world" of choice). A village or dungeon cannot fit that definition, because almost invariably it has a planetary or planar context (i.e. a larger world out there which contains it). Nice try though.

 

[Hussar]

So, does worldbuilding require you to create a world or not? It's these shifting definitions that make this discussion difficult.

Oh come on RC. That's pedantic and you know it. Again, we go back to the whole idea of spectrum. I am certainly not shifting definitions. I'm actually pretty much using the dictionary definition of world building - an attempt to create a complete world in as much detail as possible

Once you stop misquoting my points, they start to make a lot more sense.

I've repeatedly stated what I think world building means. I've quoted the Wiki definition of what world building means. Both those definitions do not agree with you RC. You seem to feel that the second we have more setting than a blank plain, we are world building.

That's not the definition of world building though. World building is a specific process that contains a whole lot of work. If I place a tree at this point in World of Warcraft, I'm not world building since I actually need a forest at this point. If I didn't have a forest, then I wouldn't be able to have all those lovely forest creatures.

Put it another way. In a story about hunting deer, you are, in all likelyhood, going to have a forest. You are also likely going to talk about the weather, since that will affect the plot. You will probably have seasons, since deer hunting at different points of the year is different.

All of that is contained under setting. I don't have to world build to do that. World building is when you go beyond the needs of the plot.

Now, I agree that in an RPG, the needs are greater than in a novel since you don't control your protagonists. However, detailing 23 kinds of grass or the shape of windows is going far beyond setting and into the extreme of world building.

I also agree that there is going to be all sorts of grey in the middle where it might be world building or it might be setting. Just like any spectrum, no one can really agree on the middle parts. After all, try to define where fantasy stops and science fiction starts and you get all sorts of arguements. And that's been my point all the way along. Yes, you need setting. However, IMO, going beyond that, into the realm of detailing extraneous elements is a waste of time.

But, it's a waste of time that has been drilled into the hearts and minds of gamers for years. Heck, look at the 3e DMG. Chapter 4, Adventures, is about 50 pages long. And a lot of that is taken up with crunchy bits like explaining different conditions and assigning xp. Actual advice on adventure design is about 25 pages at best. Chapter 6 World Building (wow, it's right there) is 18 pages long. Almost as much time is spent on telling DM's how to build a world as how to craft an adventure. That's how ingrained the idea is in the hobby.

And, look at the advice given for world building:

• Creation Methodology
• Geography
• Demographics
• Economics
• Politics
• Culture
• Religion

Just to name a few. They go on a bit more about building non-standard D&D worlds as well. Look at the advice given for creating adventures:

• Site Based
• Event Based
• Motivation
• Structure

A whole four pages before they get into designing encounters. The rest of Chapter 4 is stuff like dungeon rooms, random encounter tables and the like.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're grasping at straws. A demiplane smaller than a planet can be considered a "world" for D&D purposes, and I feel safe in assuming that's the sort of thing Hussar meant (especially given that such a demiplanar microcosm is my "world" of choice). A village or dungeon cannot fit that definition, because almost invariably it has a planetary or planar context (i.e. a larger world out there which contains it). Nice try though.

Two "worldbuilding" examples Hussar used previously were a hill and a city.

That is much smaller than a demiplane.

 

[gizmo33]

Oh come on RC. That's pedantic and you know it.

You guys are always having opinions about what people are thinking that they're not saying. I think that's a waste of time. I can see how it's easy to be pedantic in a situation where someone is splitting hairs so fine over distinctions between world and setting.

When I read your definitions literally, I find the distinctions between world-building and setting creation to be insignificant. When I try to interpret the spirit of what you intend based on your examples, I find your defintions to be misleading at best.

Again, we go back to the whole idea of spectrum. I am certainly not shifting definitions. I'm actually pretty much using the dictionary definition of world building - an attempt to create a complete world in as much detail as possible

So if I write a 600 page setting bible, and I say that I'm actually capable of 1200 pages of detail, then obviously I'm not creating the world in as much detail as possible and so by your definition I'm not world building. Yet you don't really reference that situation in your examples, instead concluding, based on the 600 page document alone that it's world-building. IMO if one were to take your definitions seriously, then the document in itself is not enough information to define what's going on.

Your definition is extremely unintuitive, I'm not sure how you painted yourself into this corner. When I'm "fixing my car", am I trying to make my car run as well as possible, or just fixing some problems so it will run? Who knows, and who cares? Why does your definition rely on someone's motive, and yet the words used imply nothing other than action. "World building" intuitively would mean "building a world" - adding all this other stuff about motive you would think would require more precise language.

Once you stop misquoting my points, they start to make a lot more sense.

Do they? You guys are barely paying attention to what we're saying it seems.

Put it another way. In a story about hunting deer, you are, in all likelyhood, going to have a forest. You are also likely going to talk about the weather, since that will affect the plot.

You're not really capable of knowing what the "plot" is in a cooperative game like DnD unless you're going to railroad players into YOUR particular plot as a DM. That's why the issue of railroading keeps coming up. It's a logical (your protests of being misquoted aside) result of saying that anything that you don't use for the adventure is superfluous - and worse even.

A previous poster has already made the case for why you, as a DM, don't really know what elements are going to be used for an adventure. Therefore you don't really know how to define what you've created, whether it's extraneous or not. At best there's a "% likelihood" guestimate that you could make. But if that's the case it hardly seems rational to level accusations of "ego" at people that try to prepare material in order to give their players more choice.

Now, I agree that in an RPG, the needs are greater than in a novel since you don't control your protagonists.

Calling the needs "greater" IMO doesn't do justice to the fundemental differences between novels and DnD. Then again, one example of a DM that doesn't really see much difference is a railroad DM, which I suppose is the reason that it keeps coming back to that.

However, detailing 23 kinds of grass or the shape of windows is going far beyond setting and into the extreme of world building.

All world building, by your definition, is unecessary and extreme, so highlighting an "extreme" within an extreme seems AFAICT to be unecessary and I think it reinforces the confusion with your definition.

However, IMO, going beyond that, into the realm of detailing extraneous elements is a waste of time.

You're not in a position to label any element as extraneous for someone else's campaign with such confidence and prejudice. And in "extreme" situations like the shape of windows, why bother? I don't think such things are representative of most campaign setting supplements.

But, it's a waste of time that has been drilled into the hearts and minds of gamers for years. Heck, look at the 3e DMG. Chapter 4, Adventures, is about 50 pages long. And a lot of that is taken up with crunchy bits like explaining different conditions and assigning xp. Actual advice on adventure design is about 25 pages at best.

I would say most of the rulebooks are devoted to adventure design, or at least the process of resolving conflict, which takes place within the adventure. The other things I think you could mean by "adventure design" don't belong in a rulebook IMO.

Plus, it's hard to say something universal about adventures. You got traps, monsters, walls, features, hardnesses of objects, etc. They can't very well put them together for you - and while I think a sample adventure is cool (and I think there is one of those too!), I don't think it should be the primary content of the core rulebooks.

On the other hand it's fairly simple to say something universal about world-building/setting design, as you did so fairly effortlessly, with an implicit assumption that I would agree, regarding the hunting of deer.

The section on "economics" that you reference, for instance, has many bits of information that seem to fit the "usefulness" criteria by your definition. What can you buy, which NPCs are likely to be found in a given settlement, how much money do they have, what's the base standard of living (helps guage an NPCs reaction to being offered a silver piece) etc. What kind of game are you running where your players don't buy stuff during some adventures?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Damn you, Gizmo33, you beat me to it.

Hussar, the wiki also says

The second method is the bottom-up (or micro-to-macro) approach where the designer begins with a focus on one small part of the world, possibly with a few elements, not necessarily consistent, needed for fictional purposes.

Note that it says "needed for fictional purposes" and "one small part of the world". This is not an attempt to create a whole world, but it is worldbuilding. It is not an attempt to create things that are not needed, but it is worldbuilding.

That paragraph goes on to say

This location is given considerable detail, adding in important facts about the local geography, culture, social structure, government, politics, commerce, and history. Many of the prominent locals are described, and their interrelationships determined.

Note again, that the wiki doesn't say "trivial" facts or "useless" facts; clearly the designer is focusing on what is determined to be important.

The surrounding areas are then described in a lower level of detail, with the information growing more general and less detailed with increasing distance from the focus location.

In other words, no attempt is made to create as much detail as possible.

Later when the designer needs to use other parts of the world, the descriptions of these other locations are then enhanced.

But the designer adds based upon need.

I asked you for a source that you would consider authoratative. If you are going to argue on the basis of the wiki, I hope you will agree that the wiki flatly contradicts your contentions.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The alternative third method is the top-down-bottom-up (or macro-and-micro) approach, where the designer uses a combination of the first two methods by beginning with a loose overview of the world as in the top-bottom (macro-to-micro), determining basic characteristics of geography and climate, but is not very detailed. Next the designer switches to the bottom-up (micro-to-macro) approach, filling and adjusting details as required.

Worlds constructed in this method have the benefit of being able to be immediately applicable to the setting as well as having consistent global scale details. The drawback is there is more work required in creating the world to keep the marriage of Macro-world and Micro-World consistent.

Again, something described which is very similar to my own worldbuilding method. Note that the designer provides a loose overview that is not very detailed. Note that details are filled and adjusted as required.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I, for one, think that it is obvious that worldbuilding, like every other human activity is performed not based upon the limits of the possible, but on the basis of perceived reward based upon the work done.

Any definition that somehow requires human beings to perform work on the basis of no perceived or expected use or reward for that work is automatically nonsensical. And, Hussar, if you could see that, you'd see why your definition makes no sense.

 

[FireLance]

I, for one, think that it is obvious that worldbuilding, like every other human activity is performed not based upon the limits of the possible, but on the basis of perceived reward based upon the work done.

Any definition that somehow requires human beings to perform work on the basis of no perceived or expected use or reward for that work is automatically nonsensical. And, Hussar, if you could see that, you'd see why your definition makes no sense.

Of course the worldbuilder perceives some expected use or reward for his worldbuilding. It might be something he enjoys. He might consider it an interesting thought experiment. He might simply do it so that he can admire his own cleverness.

While I personally do not draw such a harsh distinction between setting and worldbuilding (to me, the former is a subset of the latter), I do think that there is a continuum of worldbuilding, from elements that the DM will definitely use in his games to elements that he should realize will almost never come up. (Does anyone want to try to convince me otherwise?)

Surely it is reasonable to expect a DM to spend more time detailing elements that are likely to come up than elements that are unlikely to make an appearance. Surely it is reasonable to expect a DM to decide which elements are likely to come up on the basis of his player's interests, or at least, on the basis of what he thinks his players will find interesting, instead of on the basis of his personal interests. (Again, does anyone want to try to convince me otherwise?)

I'm afraid that by now, I've lost the point of the thread. Is the "pro-worldbuilding" side trying to argue that worldbuilding is not always bad (I think most of us agree on that), that worldbuilding is always good (I think most of us require a lot more convincing), or that what you call "worldbuilding", Hussar calls "setting" (why should it bother you what he calls it as long as both of you agree it's a good thing)?

 

[Raven Crowking]

While I personally do not draw such a harsh distinction between setting and worldbuilding (to me, the former is a subset of the latter), I do think that there is a continuum of worldbuilding, from elements that the DM will definitely use in his games to elements that he should realize will almost never come up. (Does anyone want to try to convince me otherwise?)

I can't attempt to convince you otherwise, because I happen to agree.

I would also say (again) that one problem that can arise from worldbuilding is when the worldbuilder doesn't differentiate between these elements in actual game play/writing. There's nothing wrong with someone spending years writing accounts of various types of coinage, but if it never comes up it shouldn't be thrust upon players (or readers), and if it does come up, only the important bits should be mentioned. There is actually a post from someone upthread that described exactly how they would go about using this example (coin types).

(Of course, people vary as to what they believe the important bits to be)


RC