Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2430636" data-attributes="member: 7240">Whoa! False dichotemy. My world building style has little in common with either approach. Moving around my worlds is like moving around the Mandelbrot Set; when you move off the detailed area, the central world "equation" calculates the pixels in the place to which you have just moved. You are assuming world creation is like photorealist painting; my world creation is more like the process of programming a fractal generator.For another math/computer metaphor, my worlds are moer like .jpg files than .bmp files. Local detail is the entailment of a larger pattern; it does not have to be sketched out pixel by pixel.But the nature of the world itself could predict a bunch of things about this culture.What you and danny are doing here is coming up with a set of ways that a world can be predictable and ordered and a set of ways it cannot be predictable and ordered. Once you change which things are in which sets, world building can take on a very different shape. I guess this goes back to my problem with the presence of oxygen in so many D&D worlds; we make all kinds of irrational assumptions about what ways a fantasy world must be similar to our own contemporary worldview. As someone who uses these games to try and find the borderlands around that, I find that these sorts of assumptions get in the way.If there are any universals in RPG play, this is probably one. But if you generate worlds the way I do, the important things in them are going to be meaningfully signifying things to the PCs about the nature of the world itself.</blockquote>

Verification