Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 8330880" data-attributes="member: 6801252">I understand Worldbuilding as a process for creating fictive elements and themes the table gets to explore, this process is a tool and different tools produce different results. The fictive elements are those that pertain to setting and characters (mainly the NPCs, although if you can get your players to choose to engage with your setting materials it can inform their characterization.) Worldbuilding can be finely curated, cohesive and consistent, or it can be any combination of the above, or none of the above. It can be collaborative or not, and both produce valid play experiences that if done well, can't be replicated by the other.Different players react to worldbuilding in different ways, with 'explorer' or 'discovery' oriented players enjoying the feeling of learning about it and unraveling it like a puzzle, and others enjoying it or resenting it based on how it intersects with how they have fun in the game, and whether they view it as opportunity or obstacle to doing that. Some actors resent the world getting screen time or constraining their backstories, other love it for defining their role and providing a stage and themes for them to interact with, for instance.Personally, I do it well, so I tend to prefer games that don't view it as something to be discouraged and instead let me enjoy it-- part of the appeal of GMing for me is actually getting to be a designer, which includes the world in which the game takes place. Similarly I don't give much weight to feedback from players that would prefer a loosey goosey setting that can morph to become whatever is necessary in the moment, the consistency and thematic cohesion of my secondary creation (or someone else's) is part of the point for me, and I stop having fun when it isn't present.</blockquote>

Verification