Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3461100" data-attributes="member: 18280"><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />  I was expecting that.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />  (Honestly, I'd be upset if no one called me on it.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> )No, popularity isn't a general indication of quality.  OTOH, it is a general indication that a whole lot of people don't find something a crashing bore. For example, I hate Armaggeddon.  To me, the movie sucked.  The pacing was bad, the acting was bad, the science was dreadful, and every scene was given the same emphasis so that, rather than seeming like a roller coaster ride, it seemed flat.  I can honestly say that all the film had going for it was some stunning eye candy.  While I found the movie a crashing bore, though, I would hesitate to say that the movie actually was a crashing bore.  Clearly many, many people found it entertaining.So, I can certainly claim that LotR cannot objectively be a crashing bore on the basis of its popularity, but I cannot claim that LotR is objectively good on that same basis.If you define world building as detailing things that are extraneous, of coure world building isn't necessary.  That's a self-defining argument.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> We know that there's a new model of landspeeder that just came out.  We know about banthas, and we know that Krayt Dragons (sp?) prowl the sands, although we've never seen one (we have, perhaps, seen one's skeletal remains, and we know what they sound like).  We know that Jawas and droids are both generally ill regarded.  We know that the locals "farm" moisture, and that they use evaporators to do so.  We know that they use droids to "talk" to the machinery, and we are given some insight into the fact that the 'vaporators sometimes need repair, and that there is a harvest.  We know that the local crime lord is named Jabba the Hutt, and that he is mad at Han for dropping a shipment, and that he employs bounty hunters.  We know that Luke has a flyer not unlike the A-Wing, which he's used to shoot womp rats in Beggar's Canyon.  We know that Mos Eisley is a space port, and that a large number of alien types can be found there.  We know that the Academy has been recruiting on Tatooine, and that Luke's friend has gone to join the Rebellion....Moreover, we later see him, and we know his name (Biggs) even though he isn't a main character.  Just as we know the names of characters like Jabba the Hutt, Greedo, etc., even though some of these don't even appear in the movie.  It's simply wrong to say that "We don't know the names or background of any character other than the main ones".That's about it.  There's no world building going on there.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> Of course, if you define world building as going on and on about the geneology of Jawas and how they live their day to day lives, then I would agree that world building was useless.  However, there is a real difference between what the creator(s) need to know and what is shown on screen.  Just as there is a real difference between what the DM knows, and how much of that knowledge is communicated to the players.  Simply because the players aren't told all of the history of the WLD, doesn't mean that the history doesn't inform play through the DM's treatment of the material.We differ in our definitions, then, and probably don't really disagree.  IMHO, having a rich, detailed setting is world building.  Detailing EVERYTHING is excessive world building.RC</blockquote>

Verification