Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 3462902" data-attributes="member: 463"><p>I think Trek is actually a good example of how accretive or bottom-up word building can go wrong, at least when you have multiple authors.&nbsp; Elements that made sense when introduced, like Worf's obsession with archaic Klingon blade weapons, rapidly ceased to make sense when universalised, with archaic blade weapons becoming the standard-issue weaponry of the klingon warrior (and apparently superior to phasers).&nbsp; Likewise the fake exploding consoles in the Kobayashi Maru simulation, used to simulate damage to the ship, becoming in STTNG+ actual ship consoles actually exploding and killing bridge officers.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is just the kind of thing that top-down world building can avoid.&nbsp; Compare Babylon-5, a heavily top-down setting; B5's setting problems are very different from ST's.&nbsp; I still think the bottom-up approach is superior for RPGs, giving a lot more freedom for improvisation, but Klingons are a counter example.&nbsp; This kind of thing happens in D&amp;D too, eg the development of the drow from hints in the 1e MM through Vault of the Drow, to Forgotten Realms over-exposure and (arguable) cheesiness.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 3462902, member: 463"] I think Trek is actually a good example of how accretive or bottom-up word building can go wrong, at least when you have multiple authors. Elements that made sense when introduced, like Worf's obsession with archaic Klingon blade weapons, rapidly ceased to make sense when universalised, with archaic blade weapons becoming the standard-issue weaponry of the klingon warrior (and apparently superior to phasers). Likewise the fake exploding consoles in the Kobayashi Maru simulation, used to simulate damage to the ship, becoming in STTNG+ actual ship consoles actually exploding and killing bridge officers. This is just the kind of thing that top-down world building can avoid. Compare Babylon-5, a heavily top-down setting; B5's setting problems are very different from ST's. I still think the bottom-up approach is superior for RPGs, giving a lot more freedom for improvisation, but Klingons are a counter example. This kind of thing happens in D&D too, eg the development of the drow from hints in the 1e MM through Vault of the Drow, to Forgotten Realms over-exposure and (arguable) cheesiness. [/QUOTE]

Verification