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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3483508" data-attributes="member: 18280">Couldn't it also be that, in this setting, the crossbow was designed for another purpose?  For example, to penetrate the hides of some monsters?   It is only important in terms of determining how well thought out a position might be.  If I hold mutually exclusive opinions, it is relevant to the discussion that I do so.  Either I am misguided, or I am not honest with myself, or something else is going on.In fact, it is exactly this sort of thinking that led me to determine that KM was right that the DMG, at least, should be written for the lowest common denominator.  I was, in effect, arguing that the game should be written to a higher standard, while at the same time arguing that Rule 0 should be more explicit (read "lowest common denominator").  The expectations are mutually contradictory, and I had to choose between them if I was going to be able to contribute seriously to a discussion of either topic.Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you understood what you were saying, and that you were being accurate in what you said.  The examples you gave had to do with theme and, as I define it, world-building (though not world-building as you have defined it earlier).  However, surely you knew that whatever examples you provided would be examined to determine whether or not worldbuilding was actually the cause of the problem?The plate mail example is perfect.  It is either a DM problem, due to the DM's ideas blowing and putting her bible up on a pedastal, or it is a player problem, due to a player not being willing to grant the DM reasonable leeway to describe the world.The evidence we have been presented with is(1)  We have one player arguing about it, and attempting to get around it.(2)  That player, in the post where he reports the example, admits that he didn't handle it well.(3)  That player claims that he expects that anything in the Core Rules should be available to the PCs as the source of his complaint.(4)  That player claims elsewhere that it is all right for DMs to disallow things from the Core Rules.Any sort of standard of "reasonableness" is going to conclude that this is an example of a player problem.  This doesn't preclude DM problems existing -- I am sure that we all know that they do -- but the existence of DM problems doesn't make worldbuilding the cause of those problems, any more than the ruleset is the cause of player problems.I'm pretty sure that most people here accept that there can be worldbuilding that is handled badly, and that there can be worldbuilding that causes problems.  Some idiot even went so far as to call it "evil" and suggest getting the pitchforks.   Moreover, many people suggested that the setting should have grey areas, and that the DM should be open to change if appropriate, even on the pro-worldbuilding side.The thing is, though, that the DM does the majority of the work, and is not obligated to change that work.  Nor are you obligated to play.  That doesn't mean that some DMs don't blow.  Or that some players don't suck.  Nor does it mean that DMs who blow wouldn't be better DMs (and presumably happier) if they learned how not to blow.  I think that's something we can all agree on.Or they might desire accuracy.Your definition of worldbuilding, IMHO, precludes Tolkein, which makes it rather useless as a definition of worldbuilding, again IMHO.  That seems relevant to me.  Whether or not Tolkein's worldbuilding damaged the plot, given the nature of this discussion, is also relevant.If you wanted to discuss Tolkein's using themes and ideas from various sources, you would soon realize that I don't hold Tolkein as the second coming of literature.  That was Lord Dunsany.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> RC</blockquote>

Verification