Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3528578" data-attributes="member: 18280">Where in tarnation are you getting this stuff?If that was actually the position of anyone on this thread, then that person would be declaring from the top of his lungs that world building is not and could not be setting creation.Much like your previous statement I asked a link for, you are pulling this out of the same place that someone who hasn't done prep gets his ideas at the table.The &quot;world&quot; in a fictional story or rpg isn't necessarily a literal world.&nbsp; Sometimes, as in a sf game, it is more than a world.&nbsp; Sometimes it is less.&nbsp; Sometimes it includes lists of monsters that can be encountered, and their statistics.&nbsp; Sometimes it is a small town like Sunnydale and the larger &quot;world&quot; is merely implied.&quot;Worldbuilding&quot; relates to &quot;building the setting for a particular adventure&quot; in the same way that &quot;fish&quot; relates to &quot;trout&quot;......And also the way that &quot;fish&quot; relates to &quot;good eating&quot;.All trout are fish.&nbsp; That doesn't mean that all fish are trout.&nbsp; The category &quot;building the setting for a particular adventure&quot; is a subset of the category &quot;worldbuilding&quot;.&nbsp; Worldbuilding can encompase many different subsets, such as creating a web of NPCs designed to play foils to the stated goals of the PCs.&nbsp; When you are creating backdrop, you are building the &quot;world&quot; in which the action takes place.&nbsp; Note that this is an ongoing activity in almost every game, where the interaction between players and DM add to the world, and build upon what has gone before.&nbsp; Also, most DMs add to the world in terms of creating new adventure settings, while most players add to the world in terms of creating new character backgrounds.Not all fish are good eating.&nbsp; Likewise, not all parts of worldbuilding necessarily lead to an enhancement of the experience of reading or playing in a role-playing game.&nbsp; Some are downright vile (although it is still quite likely that someone, somewhere, likes that particular type of &quot;fish&quot;).&nbsp; Some types of fish are poisonous, and need very careful preparation if they are to be consumed to good effect.&nbsp; Some people are allergic to, or just do not like, fish no matter how appetizing they are to the population at large.I know that this is not how you use the term, but it is how the term is used in general whether you like it or not.&nbsp; That there are multiple words or phrases that can be used to refer to the same thing is not only common in English, but it is irrelevant.So, you can either accept that (1) given your definition of worldbuilding, no one disagrees with you, but that we don't accept that the definition is valid for general use, or (2) you can stop playing Alice in Wonderland's Humpty Dumpty for whom words mean whatever he wishes them to mean when he uses them, regardless of general usage. As to (1), myself and others have already agreed ad infinitum ad nauseum that if you define worldbuilding as &quot;building setting that is worthless and bad&quot; then the statement &quot;worldbuilding is bad&quot; is tautologically true.As to (2), general definitions are widely available on the Internet.&nbsp; If there is any authority you accept other than your own, please let me know and I'll try to gain the applicable quote.There is, of course, a third choice:&nbsp; Accept neither.&nbsp; OTOH, if that is your choice, I can and will continue to be amused by your unwillingness or inability to accept either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3528578, member: 18280"] Where in tarnation are you getting this stuff? If that was actually the position of anyone on this thread, then that person would be declaring from the top of his lungs that world building [i]is not and could not be[/i] setting creation. Much like your previous statement I asked a link for, you are pulling this out of the same place that someone who hasn't done prep gets his ideas at the table. The "world" in a fictional story or rpg isn't necessarily a literal world. Sometimes, as in a sf game, it is more than a world. Sometimes it is less. Sometimes it includes lists of monsters that can be encountered, and their statistics. Sometimes it is a small town like Sunnydale and the larger "world" is merely implied. "Worldbuilding" relates to "building the setting for a particular adventure" in the same way that "fish" relates to "trout"......And also the way that "fish" relates to "good eating". All trout are fish. That doesn't mean that all fish are trout. The category "building the setting for a particular adventure" is a subset of the category "worldbuilding". Worldbuilding can encompase many different subsets, such as creating a web of NPCs designed to play foils to the stated goals of the PCs. When you are creating backdrop, you are building the "world" in which the action takes place. Note that this is an ongoing activity in almost every game, where the interaction between players and DM add to the world, and build upon what has gone before. Also, most DMs add to the world in terms of creating new adventure settings, while most players add to the world in terms of creating new character backgrounds. Not all fish are good eating. Likewise, not all parts of worldbuilding necessarily lead to an enhancement of the experience of reading or playing in a role-playing game. Some are downright vile (although it is still quite likely that someone, somewhere, likes that particular type of "fish"). Some types of fish are poisonous, and need very careful preparation if they are to be consumed to good effect. Some people are allergic to, or just do not like, fish no matter how appetizing they are to the population at large. I know that this is not how [i]you[/i] use the term, but it is how the term is used [i]in general[/i] whether you like it or not. That there are multiple words or phrases that can be used to refer to the same thing is not only common in English, but it is irrelevant. So, you can either accept that (1) given your definition of worldbuilding, no one disagrees with you, but that we don't accept that the definition is valid for general use, or (2) you can stop playing Alice in Wonderland's Humpty Dumpty for whom words mean whatever he wishes them to mean when he uses them, regardless of general usage. As to (1), myself and others have already agreed ad infinitum ad nauseum that if you define worldbuilding as "building setting that is worthless and bad" then the statement "worldbuilding is bad" is tautologically true. As to (2), general definitions are widely available on the Internet. If there is any authority you accept other than your own, please let me know and I'll try to gain the applicable quote. There is, of course, a third choice: Accept neither. OTOH, if that is your choice, I can and will continue to be amused by your unwillingness or inability to accept either. [/QUOTE]

Verification