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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3462654" data-attributes="member: 22779">It's interesting that people have brought up Star Trek as an example of World Building done right.  And specifically Klingon's were brought out.  For a lot of people, Klingon's have become a complete caricature of the original concept.  As time went on, they become more and more bestial looking, the whole animalistic thing going, plus, the concept of honor was pretty much chucked out the window by every Klingon character.I would point to the development of the Klingon as a perfect example of World Building gone wrong.  Detailing the society to the point where it became completely meaningless, choked under masses of often contradictory elements.As far as defining world building, then, I agree with Celebrim, that if you define world building as any creative act which adds detail to a setting, then sure, it's not a bad thing.  I disagree that that is what the article is talking about, but, yes, if we accept the idea that any setting creation is world building then of course it isn't bad.However, again, I'll repeat what I said, I think that the difference between settign and world building is one of scale.  Granted, there's no cut off line where one becomes the other, but, at the far end of creating a setting, you have world building.  Like I said before, it's the difference between the Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion.And, from a DM's perspective, I can see the difference as well.  It's all well and good to create a setting for your campaign.  It's another thing entirely to expect other people to care about the entire thing.  If you bludgeon your players over the head with the setting points you've created simply to justify the effort you've put into creating them, that's a bad thing.</blockquote>

Verification