60 - What is Worldbuilding?

B01_11 - What is Worldbuilding? === Seth and I have got this tradition. Every year of the podcast, we've stopped. What we're doing to ask one critical question. It's what this podcast is about. And the answer is always evolving and growing as our ideas change and we encounter more creators. What is worldbuilding? Welcome to the WorldCraft Club, a podcast for writers, dungeon, masters, and anyone else who wants to create immersive settings that will draw their visitant back time and time again. I'm your host, James and I'm joined by Seth, today so here we are again. The, what is worldbuilding episode of the WorldCraft Club? The one where Seth and I drop everything for a second and put our fingers on the pulse. This episode is a bit of a useful exercise for us, because as I said, our views on this have changed over time and continue to do so. You see Seth and I spend an inordinate amount of time talking about theory. We like to break apart ideas and put them back together again. When it comes to worldbuilding, our questions usually revolve around. How do we get better at this? So to answer that we frequently have to circle back to what this good worldbuilding even look like. What follows is a conversation, a little like that. Whereas Seth and I are just shooting the breeze, talking about something we love. You'll notice that this episode is not quite as tightly edited as others. The goal here is to let you look behind the curtain and see how we get our ideas developed over time. James: I think, um, where we started. With WA is, worldbuilding was very much, um, a, a position that was probably well supported by the Wikipedia definition, where it was like, Hey, here's a bunch of stuff you make, you have it in the background and it's there. And then like the, the very presence of just all of this content will help you to make a better world. Right. And we sort of then had a, a discussion, like basically a year long discussion where we sort of fell in love with pulp. And, um, you know, I think, I think you've always loved pulp, but like, it was something where I, I sort of started to change my perspective and I think we got a lot more avant guard about worldbuilding and, uh, a lot more like it. We, we kind of took a bit of a different position on it and it started to get more, Seth: we sort of swung to James: more sloppy. think we've now I hit more of a cultivation kind of perspective on worldbuilding, which is really neither, neither one nor the other, and kind of has, has the. Ability to sort of really include either perspective in it to some extent, you know? Um, though though I think we've, uh, found different priorities for it. So over time we kind of came to this definition of worldbuilding that says, um, worldbuilding is the suite of tools and techniques used to facilitate immersion, wonder and participation in your visitant. And so that's kind where we went. Seth: and I don't think that I would change that at James: wouldn't either. Seth: I think that that is actually still the most accurate definition of worldbuilding that we have. However, I do think it's worth pointing out that James: say might Seth: when we say worldbuilding, actually be talking about multiple things. We might be talking about two different things. and I don't know quite how to, how to identify that in our language, James: yeah Seth: but worldbuilding is simultaneously the tools and techniques that the, that the creator uses and something that the visitant experiences. Right? there's this, There's this, interesting interplay between these two things and these two perspectives, I'm not, sure that we have yet James: Yeah. And I, I, I think it's one of those things that we're always sort of, sort of breaking down and, um, And kind of trying to, trying to analyze. Um, and, and I think that's really where a lot of the podcast kind of comes from, is I, I think we are inclined towards helping people get better at worldbuilding, but a lot of our podcast is really devoted to analysis. And, uh, and critique and sort of stopping and looking at things and going, okay, how does this work? Why does this work? And I think that's really what led us down the road to pulp it to begin with, is that we stopped and just went like, okay, worlds are built by this massing of detail. And then we were like, well, how then do you explain the success of X or Y or like, and, and we, and we started to just like break it down and go, well, none of these have very consistent worlds. And we're like, How, how does that work? And so we kind of like, yeah, as as you said, kind of swung maybe a little far in Seth: Well, and then we realized, and then we realized that while on the surface they are not consistent, they're actually hyper consistent inside their core concept and set of boundaries. And so in some regard seems to be the key, but not, not necessarily James: the way it's Seth: consistency. In the way it is planned? Well, no consistency in the way it is planned is very important, but I think the more important consistency, which we've, which we've already identified, is in the experience of the James: experience of, of a visitant, somebody who can be there and, uh, and not sense that they're getting yanked out of the world. So like a good example of this, somebody challenged me at one point, they said, what's an example of, uh, you know, the bad worldbuilding by your definition then? And my example is actually The Hobbit. Um, you, you know, it, it could not decide what was trying to be like. Was it a, a, uh, a serious Lord of the Rings, like prequel, or was it a children's book? And like it's, Tolkien wrote it as a children's book. So that was their core material they had to work with. So you have the um, the river chase scene where they are all in a bunch of barrels and they're rolling down the river and at one point Bomber falls out of the river and rolls down the side of the, down the banks knocking over. Orcs as he goes. And then at one point he stops his little feet come out the bottom of it and his hands burst out either side wielding axes and he kills a bunch of them, and then he jumps back into the river and then later. Thorin has a fight with Azgog in a frozen river, in which Azgog, you know, puts an ax through the river and uh, throw through the frozen river pierces, Thor, Thorin's foot. And we are like, we're supposed to then take that seriously, that these indestructible dwarves that are. Leaping out of rivers and like laying waste to dozens of orcs at a time and apparently just have zero fear for their lives during this entire time. Just having a fun time on a water ride are suddenly an actual mortal danger. And Thorin may not be the best example. Cause I know that was a climactic battle and that's gonna have a little bit of a different flavor to it. But there were lots of other times where you're getting these conflicts and fights that were, we're supposed to take seriously. And, um, we, how can we, after you've set the, the rules this way, So that's a lack of consistency in worldbuilding because they couldn't decide what story they wanted to tell. And so we couldn't tell how mortal the characters were supposed to be, which is, you know, in part a worldbuilding artifact. And, um, that's, that's like an example of, you know, when the consistency gets thrown off, how it yanks you out of the story because you're like, well, can they be killed Like, I don't know. Is that how Seth: right. am I watching a fun childlike adventure, or is this a serious drama? Is this an adult James: Yeah. And it's, I'm, I'm game for others too. I, well, here's, here's the thing though. I've, I've, this is a tweet that, you know, we passed around the server a little while ago from Stephen King. Um, and I, I think this may be worth a little bit of discussion here. So, worldbuilding is a phrase I really wish would be retired. Not only is it sloppy and lazy, it has. Trite, right. So, um, my response to this was, I, I put on Twitter, uh, cuz a, a few tweet, not a few tweets earlier, Stephen King was complaining that the, uh, that the forests in the Last of Us TV series were clearly Northwestern and not Northeastern. And so, um, my, my, my rebuttal. Was, Seth: That's James: what was it? Stephen King complains about the lack of, verisimilitude Stephen King Worldbuilding Tweet Discussion --- James: to experience of the Last of Us also Stephen King. worldbuilding is a phrase, and like I, I kind of look at that stuff and, and I, I, I think they, they are really separate things. Like I get where Stephen King is actually coming from, and I kind of have a little bit of, I have mercy for his perspective. Like, I don't really wanna pile on him because, um, I see it and I think he is, he. An extremely process driven, um, author, and he writes a lot of stuff and he actually writes in pretty big settings that he creates in Maine. But no, it's like, you know, there's other, you know, he writes bigger, broader things as well. And, um, I look at it and think like, no, he's, he's probably as far as we would understand, worldbuilding a really competent worldbuilder. You know what I mean? Um, but. When I look, when I look at it, what I kind of think is, I, I, I think that he is getting frustrated with the, um, the, uh, what's it procrastinate action. Of folks who do not write their books, but instead say I'm doing the worldbuilding, you know, it's like I'm writing down the elven language and like I'm, you know, I'm, I'm establishing their customs and I'm writing a really robust Wikipedia page about, you know, the dwarves in my setting and like, instead of doing it, and I think he's, cuz he's so process driven, he's pissed off about that. Seth: You know, I think he's also highlighting though a, a current discussion that's of happening under the surface among authors, and that is what is more important, worldbuilding or. James: this discussion is happening is Seth: And the reason this discussion is happening is because we've seen this massive push from huge companies who are buying these, these ips that what they're interested in is not necessarily better story. It is bigger worlds James: worldbuilding Seth: with tighter worldbuilding where they can sell products out of the. James: uh, Seth: right? Whether it's TV shows, books, uh, action figures, whatever, like Game of Thrones merchandise, the thing that they're trying to do James: great Seth: is get ips that have great worlds, but they seem to not care so much about the story set inside of them. And so there's this sort of discussion going around about what's more valuable, the story that's. James: Yeah. Seth: or the world that it's set in. Don't think that there's necessarily even an answer to that question because different people enjoy different things. Some people like getting lost in a world. Some people really want the tight story. James: worldbuilder. Seth: Stephen King is a competent worldbuilder and he sort of does it naturally, but his focus is on story. His focus is on crafting good tales. Right? But then on the, on the other side of that, you have the popularization of Brandon Sanderson's. Cosmere, right. And when you compare the. Overall world of Stephen King, cuz a lot of his books are set in the same world. James: the macro. Yeah. Seth: Right? When you compare that to how people engage with Brandon Sanderson's, Cosme, it's very different, Because one of them focuses on the story. and it's sort of incidental that the world is the world. He just operates under the same laws for all of his stories, and so that just sort of naturally formed. On the other hand, it's clear that Sanderson understands and has intentionally built his world, his the cosme to James: specification Seth: so that he can write different stories in it. James: story. Seth: And so it's just a bit of a different approach and I think that this is in the zeitgeist for authors, right? This is a, James: it's floating Seth: as it is floating around. It's an idea that we're all wrestling with as we approach our own stories. Do I focus on my world or do I James: it, it, Roleplaying Parallels --- James: it's interesting because this interaction also then takes place with, with, um, dms and GMs and like, I, I, I think an interesting thing that has it it appears to have not arrived in DM circles yet, right? This is it, this is kind of an interesting thing. Dms are viewed as these. Sort of, um, bookish, uh, knows the rules, has a great sense of it. And so like the type of Worldbuilder's that are attracted to DMing and DMing are the type that are like layout all the content and then bring everybody in and then they experience the content. Whereas I've always looked at GM and going, this is 90% improv theater, and like 10% like, and I look at it and just go, A lot of GM. Would do better if they put down their books and took an improv theater class than they would ever do just hammering the books more and more. Cuz most GMs, their answer to the problems they're experiencing is, I need to do more worldbuilding and book reading. And like, I get that when really, Seth: I need to have an answer. James: they really actually need to have what they need our. Um, to, to bring to the table. And like, it's interesting then, because a lot of GMs like respond to the, to respond to the Stephen King's thing as well. Like, I love worldbuilding. And it's just like, well, of course you do. It's, it's, it's like, it's, it's what you're betting on when you play your game. Uh, but it's not your primary. Skillset. If, if, if I'm honest, like I think, I think there's too much focus on that, especially when you've got four other people at the table who are trying to help you decide what your world is as well. Because they also get a say and you, you just saying, here is the completed world. It's all in my brain. Um, is just not, not doable. So it's like, it, it's an interesting thing. Um, well, it, I don't know. It is doable. There are some, there are some people who just have that head for it, but Matt Mercer did not. Famous. I don't think necessarily for his worldbuilding, he got famous for his performance at the table and the fact that all of his characters are voice actors. Like, no, it, it's people don't look at that and go like, oh, that's why. It's like, no, he built this great world. It's like, yeah, he did Also , he's a really competent improv actor and like is able to get like the crew together like. Seth: But, but he didn't build the world without input from other James: It's true. Yeah. Seth: you know? And that, that sort of leads into one of the other things that we've discovered about worldbuilding through this whole process that your visitant. Build your world in a lot of ways. And as an author, my readers contribute to my world in a surprising way. And part of that is because they vote with their dollars, what succeeds and what James: fails. Yeah. Seth: Right? And so it's natural as an author for me to head in a direction that succeed. as opposed to continuing to go in a direction that fails. And so when, when they, like, when I read comments, um, because, or like reviews, it does impact how I write going forward. And I don't, there's sort of a, James: you know, Seth: know, there's a period of time when a book first comes out that I check the. James: Yeah. Seth: And mostly it's because I'm looking for that feedback of like, okay, what do people like and what do they not like? James: what's, Because Seth: then I know how to like fix it for the next, um, and most authors I know do this. We're told, we're told, like never read the comments. That's just, you know, that doesn't happen. But we take our feedback, whether it's from beta readers or ARC readers, or. The, you know, nasty comments under our, our nasty reviews on Amazon. We take that feedback and we adjust our world. We adjust our stories, we make our changes for going forward. And really, G Ming is just a smaller version of that cycle, James: Yeah. Seth: right? Because you're sitting at the table, you're getting feedback When somebody at a, at your table pulls out their. James: you Seth: immediately know you have a problem. James: When somebody Seth: somebody at your table leans in and starts looking at the other players, James: Yeah. Seth: know that you've succeeded in some regard, right? And so you, you have these natural, um, feedback loops as a gm, James: but Seth: you can only really leverage them if you aren. sticking to your world Bible like perfectly, right? You can only leverage them if you have some of that flexibility, some of that improv in what you're James: doing. Yeah, it's, it, some of the best experiences I've had with GMs is I got to, um, I, I I, I was in a game, uh, where, uh, Doc, Doc, the Fighter of Dump Stat fame was, um, leading the, uh, you know, was leading the session as the gm. And, uh, he just basically let me play scat jazz with his lore. Like there were just times where occasionally I would just throw something in, partly because I knew he could absorb. And so like I would do things like that and I was always ready to just, you know, back off like if it was something that was important or as like, you know, something he'd gotten tied into his main story plot was like, oh, you know, but that I don't think actually ever happened. He would just let me make stuff up. Cause I had a God who was a god of truth and lore and basically loosely based on stoicism and he was a cleric, uh, my character. And so I was a lore cleric. And so sometimes I would just make stuff. Uh, cuz he would ask me for my opinion on something and I'd say, this is what's happening. And he'd. That's a really good idea. And then he'd like write that down and then later on that would factor in. And then he also laid hands on my character's background lore. And at the end of it, my, my character's, God played a role in what was happening and like from how we had developed him. And like he changed some stuff and I was like, oh, that's neat. You know what I mean? Like, it was like, it was a cool, it was a cool way to shake things out and, um, Primarily, again, those improv skills, the ability to be flexible, that humility to let go of it, and those, those are definitely common to authors as well. You know, there's a, there's a need to, to hold some of these things in an open hand to, you know, um, kill your darlings. You know, Seth: Yeah, you, you just brought up something really fascinating. The idea of humility in worldbuilding is James: probably Seth: probably something that we just. is necessary, but haven't actually explicitly talked about, James: but there Seth: are very few things that will serve you better in your worldbuilding than humility, and James: whether Seth: you're writing, whether you're putting together a TTRPG, James: the. the Seth: ability to accept other people's feedback without taking offense, without bristling, without getting defensive, and James: take Seth: better ideas than you have from other people and incorporate them into what you're doing is huge. It's vital. I mean, humility is is incredibly useful in all walks of life. James: Right. Seth: it serves you well, to be humble, but specifically in worldbuilding. I think that sometimes we get stuck on ideas, thinking that they're great, thinking that they're the best James: when Seth: other people can make connections that we can't necessarily make and see things that we can't necessarily see and adding. Their ideas and opinions and, and thoughts to our world does not actually diminish our world. It doesn't make it less good. James: It Seth: typically just fills it out better. James: Yeah. Seth: And because they're in that world, making those connections often, those are the pieces, the little tiny pieces that actually make our worlds more coherent, more co. James: consistent. Seth: because in that moment when somebody gives you an idea for what's going on in your world, they are playing in it, James: Yeah. Seth: right? That is the act of participation that we talk about. This is someone who is now playing a mental game in James: world. Seth: world and is making a connection, uh, a natural connection between what you've already. Participation in Worldbuilding --- James: said. Seth: and what their brain thinks is gonna happen. James: so e essentially like, and, and that that's ideal. and that really does finish off the participation element for me in worldbuilding because essentially we, we've established worldbuilding as a bit of a pyramid, right at the very bottom you have immersion, and this is mostly. This is dependent on, um, factual consistency, yes, but mostly thematic consistency. Does your story connect well together? Like that example from The Hobbit where it's like, it doesn't really connect cuz they can't decide if they're telling a children's story or a grownup adult, like we're supposed to take this seriously kind of thing. And then you kind of go from there to, to wonder. Now, like we've alluded a little bit to wonder, but in, in immersion one of the things we talked about is how. We complete the world. Basically it's like a, a western town. You go into the western town, they've only got facades up, but in your mind they are full buildings and you don't need to see behind them, right? You don't have to, as an author, even create more than scaffolding behind those buildings cuz the reader will go and establish the rest of it. So if you can take that as a bit of a metaphor going forward, wonder is almost operates in tension with that. Wonder is about deliberately leaving areas blank for your audience to kind of look at and go, Hmm. So like the watcher in the water to kind of continue with all the Lord of the Ring stuff. That is where somebody will take a look at the Watcher in the Water and go, where's that come from? So that's the weird squid sphincter thing that bursts out in the water, uh, when they're going into Moria and like, we're never told anything about that in the books anywhere. It's just, there's no detail. It's just one of the dark things that was gnawing at the roots of the mountain when the Balrog awakened it in, the power of the one ring sort of summoned it and like you get nothing. Was this a primordial creature from before creation? We don't know. Um, and so that leads us to wonder and we go like, , where does that come from? And the author gives us nothing, right? So wonder is what you don't tell your audience. And the last thing is, participation is what you co-create with your audience, right? So this is, this is with, right? So, um, and, and this is where you start working with your audience to let them help you develop the coherency in the setting. So a really good example of this, and, and it's interesting cuz if you have good immersion and you have a good sense of wonder, participation sort of naturally follows. Uh, my example here is, We just had the and or round table coming soon, um, to a, to a podcast, uh, near you. And, and that was, um, that was effectively we, we talked about. uh, some elements of and or where our immersion was, was sort of broken in places where we didn't like the worldbuilding. And one, one thing somebody said was, Hey, how come there weren't as many aliens in this one? And we were talking about how like on the prison, there was a prison episode, uh, series of episodes set in a prison. And they were like, well, why were there only humans on that? And then, uh, and then Steph comes in and says, You know, there, there were very specific security protocols of that prison. Basically they had an electrified floor and everybody had bare feet. So they were just like, what they probably were doing is, um, you know, they had specific races cuz you don't want to bring a race in there who like, gets really strong when they get electrified suddenly or, or something, you know what I mean? And it's kind of like, so they probably did that. And so what I realized is like, here's the deal. The showrunners may or may not have thought of that detail. Right. They may or may not have it's Schrodinger's Schrodinger's plot hole or whatever, right? And and like, but the reality is, is we like the show so dang much. We're just gonna go ahead and make up why. And it'll probably turn up something like that in a comic book or a novelization later where they're like, oh, this is why we did that. You'll be like, that makes sense. You know what I mean? because it does Seth: because it does make sense and because the showrunners will probably be on the internet and we'll see people arguing about it and will be like, yeah, that's totally what, what, we James: were doing. And, and that's fine. That's fine. And you know what, like the thing is, is like, I feel like the ultimate maturity as a worldbuilder is getting to a point where you have the humility to just. Not care whether or not that was the case. And it's kind of like, I know that like someday, you know, I'm gonna watch this, like with my son when he's 13, he'll be like, well, well, did they mean to do it that way? Was it just an accident? And I'm gonna be like, the point is we don't care. It's a good story. And like we're enjoying it and like we're, we're participating in it. And so like, I, I think like really this is a missing piece of the puzzle for me on where participation comes in. Because essentially I'd always written. Participation on, uh, on the idea of people engaging with tropes and ideas. And I think that is one way to hook participation is to bring in those, those, those old stories essentially. I, I get sad because trope is often used as a bit of a pejorative, but really a trope is just an old story that we tell again and again and we under, and we know it. We know where it's going. We know it's coming Seth: it's a familiar James: yeah, it's not a bad thing. And then I'd kind of, you know, built it off. This idea that, you know, it's really fan fic and all this kind of stuff is like a lot of, a lot of participation and cosplaying, but like this idea of actually like the audience participating in the active construction and maintenance of the setting, and this is where you sort of lose your ownership a little bit. And like that's, I think, a little bit scary. Star Wars is going through this a lot. 40 years of Star Wars. We've had generations who have all encountered it at different areas and are, and have different ideas. They're contributing to it. Seth: what's fascinating about participation is that it, it starts happening as soon as somebody likes your stuff, enough to create their own head canon. James: Yeah. Yeah. Seth: And then what's even more fascinating is when enough people have constructed head canon that they get together to hash it out and create a standardized head. canon James: they start making Wikipedia pages, Seth: right? So this is just a good point. You don't have to make a Wikipedia page for you. As long as your worldbuilding is good enough, somebody else will James: it. for you. That's, that's a hundred percent true. Unresolved Conflict is Worldbuilding --- James: Yeah, and it's it's, it's interesting actually. I, I really, really like this. This is neat. and it's, I I, I have no way to segue into this, but I do, I I wanna discuss it. Cause I think it was, it was, it was kind of cool cuz like, I, I think that discussion on participation is, is, is really solid. But, um, one, one of the things that me and you had kind of gone back and forth a little bit on Polo about a little while ago, was this idea that. worldbuilding is really, um, unresolved conflicts. It's like a bundle of interlocking, unresolved conflicts in your setting. And, um, I think originally you would kind of push back and be like, no, no, no. That's story. You're talking about story, you know, story has conflicts, worldbuilding doesn't need to have it. And then we kind of like went back and forth a little bit and you kind of came around to this idea that, you know, actually that that is, that is kind of what's happening. You're. Leaving stories unfinished essentially, and just like dumping them in your setting. And so people then imagine where that's going. I'd love to like hear your thoughts on that and um, talk through. Seth: Oh man. I feel like this actually needs its own episode, if I'm honest. Let me, yeah, let me give a, the brief rundown though, because I think it's an idea worth thinking about, and I'd love to do a full James: on this, Yeah. I'm still exploring it, Seth: right, this idea that that Life itself James: is Seth: A million unfinished stories James: Mm. Seth: and that nothing James: truly Seth: ever resolves. And so a great example of that, if I have an argument with my James: life Yeah. Seth: and that that argument finishes whether it finishes positively or negatively, we are going to carry the scar however big or small it is. Of that argument forward in our life James: life. Yeah. Seth: and everything we do James: do Seth: continues to build who we are. And so with worldbuilding, it's fascinating because, and again, this is an idea that I rejected in in our first, in my first engagement James: it. Yeah. Yeah. I see where you're coming from with it, but Yeah, but Seth: I'm, I'm coming around to it and I'm thinking in the, these terms, even like more and more and more James: words. Seth: we set up a world, what we are doing is writing a snap. We're, we're creating a snapshot of a million unfinished stories, James: Yeah. Seth: and then when we tell a story in that setting, we are simply choosing one of the stories to walk through. James: Yeah. Seth: right. I've long thought that there are no stories that are finished because anytime you get to the end of a story, something else happens in the world. James: Yeah. Seth: Whether your story ends with your character dying or not, it doesn't matter because life continues. James: continues and it. That's really a lot of the core of immersion as well is this idea that the story continues out of your eyeline is like is like when things, when you're not looking, the rest of the world Seth: And That's why I came around That's why I came around to it, because instead of just saying like, here's my snapshot, it is now a static thing. James: Yeah. Seth: I've come to discover that worldbuilding is about creating a world that, Yes. It's a. snapshot. , but it continues to move and build and live and breathe. And when somebody steps into the world, they are naturally going to continue those stories in their head. Ending Spot --- James: Thanks for tracking with us so far. I'm going to wrap this one up with uncharacteristic alacrity, and just lay out the key takeaways that you can take advantage of as a worldbuilder. One, there's an ongoing discussion in the creative spaces about the value of worldbuilding. And there are markets emerging where having an exciting world is a big part of the value of the property. This is where the rub is with traditional published authors, like Stephen King and something we do well to think about in our own creative endeavors. Two. Participation is about your visitant creating their own head Canon for the setting. It requires humility as a worldbuilder to let control of your creation. Go at least a little bit in order to see it flourish in the hands of another. This is how you know, you've completed your path as a worldbuilder and with the right mindset can be thrilling to watch. Three. Your role is ultimately a collection of unfinished unresolved stories. Leaving these elements open-ended is not only realistic as life seldom resolves, but is incredibly enticing. I wonder what happened to that guy? Did those two nations ever find peace? So that about wraps it up. Join us on the discord to carry on this conversation. Our best ideas are cooked up there and we'd love to see you join the party. There's a link in the show notes, and if you liked what you heard here, please review us and give us a five-star rating on your favorite podcasting app. But if you didn't love us, go ahead and give us a piece of your mind at the email address provided in the link tree in the show notes. This has been the WorldCraft Club podcast for seth i'm james and we'll catch you next time