Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2109941" data-attributes="member: 7240">Doug and Fanboy, I think what's underlying a lot of this apparent disagreement is that we have significantly different playing styles. My problem with the fluff/crunch terminology is that it assumes your playing style. In my view, we should strive for terminology that is compatible with as many playing styles as possible. The relationship between setting and mechanics in worlds I design is, I would guess, quite different from the relationship between setting and mechanics is worlds you design.My problem is that the terminology assumes the relationship that exists in your games and essentially invalidates the relationship that exists in mine. I would like if we could move to terminology sufficiently universal to describe the relationship between mechanical and non-mechanical information about a world regardless of the DM's world building style.If people who design worlds the way you do want to talk about these things, I'm sure that the current terminology is sufficient. But for the apparent majority of people who have posted to this thread, it's not.What I don't hear from you guys is why terminology that is descriptive of some approaches to world building and not others should be applied across the board.</blockquote>