Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3528163" data-attributes="member: 22779">It's bugging me, so I'll add another thought.Take the hill with bunnies and the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing encounter.&nbsp; Placing rabbits on a hill is not world building.&nbsp; It's just setting.&nbsp; It's creates an atmosphere of idyllic peace.&nbsp; Detailing the life cycles of those rabbits would be world building.&nbsp; Putting a hill there isn't world building.&nbsp; Again, it's simply setting&nbsp; - a place for the action to happen.&nbsp; Talking about how ancient halflings used the hill in their moon worshipping ceremonies centuries ago would be world building.&nbsp; Putting the monster there isn't world building, it's the antagonist.&nbsp; It's not even setting.&nbsp; Detailing the history of the creature when that history isn't going to affect play would be world building.I hope that makes my point crystal clear.I really get the sense that people object the idea that setting creation =/= world building because it hits them in the ego.&nbsp; They aren't simply making a setting, they are creating a WORLD&nbsp; It's almost as if setting creation just isn't a grand enough term for the amount of work they think needs to go into a setting before the setting has &quot;depth&quot;.&nbsp; It almost seems that people need a grandiose title that sounds better than just plain old setting creation.&nbsp; Anyone can make a setting, only true artists can build a world (Cue fanfare).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3528163, member: 22779"] It's bugging me, so I'll add another thought. Take the hill with bunnies and the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing encounter. Placing rabbits on a hill is not world building. It's just setting. It's creates an atmosphere of idyllic peace. Detailing the life cycles of those rabbits would be world building. Putting a hill there isn't world building. Again, it's simply setting - a place for the action to happen. Talking about how ancient halflings used the hill in their moon worshipping ceremonies centuries ago would be world building. Putting the monster there isn't world building, it's the antagonist. It's not even setting. Detailing the history of the creature when that history isn't going to affect play would be world building. I hope that makes my point crystal clear. I really get the sense that people object the idea that setting creation =/= world building because it hits them in the ego. They aren't simply making a setting, they are [u][b]creating a WORLD[/b][/u] It's almost as if setting creation just isn't a grand enough term for the amount of work they think needs to go into a setting before the setting has "depth". It almost seems that people need a grandiose title that sounds better than just plain old setting creation. Anyone can make a setting, only true artists can [i]build a world[/i] (Cue fanfare). [/QUOTE]

Verification