Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3466540" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, look at the article again.  He's talking about worldbuilding in the text.Since he's included the reader in his little tirade, then it follows that he is only talking about the finished work.  Since the reader never reads anything that isn't in the text, anything that's not in the text is irrelavent to the reader.  If the writer spends many sleepless nights detailing the growth cycle of elven tea, yet never includes that in the text, even tangentially, then it follows that it isn't what is being talked about here.Celebrim has accused me and a few others here of playing fast and loose with the definition of world building.  If my definition is unnecessarily narrow, I would argue that his is too broad.  If any act of creating setting is world building, then, well, world building is a completely unnecessary term.  We can just say setting and be done with it.  But, that's not the problem.  World building isn't simply creating setting elements of fictional settings.  World building is creating a setting for itself.  World building is when you attempt to create a setting which is wholely or in part divorced from the plot.It's when you spend several hundred pages detailing the geneology of characters that don't even appear in the text.  RC, you've now included simple research into the act of world building.  If I look at a map of Chicago for my Vampire game, does that mean I'm now engaged in world building?  Since when did the creation of every piece of setting become world building?  Does setting=world building only become true because it serves Celebrim's arguement?</blockquote>

Verification