Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3512670" data-attributes="member: 2067">Hussar, I love you as much as a man can love a digitized message board avatar of another man (so no butt stuff), but I'm going to have to disagree with your definition of worldbuilding.It seems to me that, as Harrison uses it, worldbuilding *is* the same thing as setting creation.Which is bad, because it can get in the way of telling a good story.But it is also good, because it can be used instead to aid the telling of a good story. So as long as storytelling triumphs over the "great clomping foot," worldbuilding is positive.IMHO, for D&D, it can be positive even when storytelling *doesn't* triumph, because sometimes us great clomping nerds just like those bits of fantastic trivia.And a more improvisational style of DMing doesn't allow worldbuilding to get in the way of the game at all, while using it lightly to aid in the telling of a story. So, again, you don't need to spend hours developing a setting (or building a world) to have a rollicking good campaign that has enough verisimilitude and richness to satisfy anyone......anyone who isn't a great, clomping nerd about it anyway.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>