Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3542045" data-attributes="member: 22779">Oh come on RC.  That's pedantic and you know it.  Again, we go back to the whole idea of spectrum.  I am certainly not shifting definitions.  I'm actually pretty much using the dictionary definition of world building - an attempt to create a complete world in as much detail as possibleOnce you stop misquoting my points, they start to make a lot more sense.I've repeatedly stated what I think world building means.  I've quoted the Wiki definition of what world building means.  Both those definitions do not agree with you RC.  You seem to feel that the second we have more setting than a blank plain, we are world building.That's not the definition of world building though.  World building is a specific process that contains a whole lot of work.  If I place a tree at this point in World of Warcraft, I'm not world building since I actually need a forest at this point.  If I didn't have a forest, then I wouldn't be able to have all those lovely forest creatures.Put it another way.  In a story about hunting deer, you are, in all likelyhood, going to have a forest.  You are also likely going to talk about the weather, since that will affect the plot.  You will probably have seasons, since deer hunting at different points of the year is different.  All of that is contained under setting.  I don't have to world build to do that.  World building is when you go beyond the needs of the plot.Now, I agree that in an RPG, the needs are greater than in a novel since you don't control your protagonists.  However, detailing 23 kinds of grass or the shape of windows is going far beyond setting and into the extreme of world building.I also agree that there is going to be all sorts of grey in the middle where it might be world building or it might be setting.  Just like any spectrum, no one can really agree on the middle parts.  After all, try to define where fantasy stops and science fiction starts and you get all sorts of arguements.  And that's been my point all the way along.  Yes, you need setting.  However, IMO, going beyond that, into the realm of detailing extraneous elements is a waste of time.But, it's a waste of time that has been drilled into the hearts and minds of gamers for years.  Heck, look at the 3e DMG.  Chapter 4, Adventures, is about 50 pages long.  And a lot of that is taken up with crunchy bits like explaining different conditions and assigning xp.  Actual advice on adventure design is about 25 pages at best.  Chapter 6 World Building (wow, it's right there) is 18 pages long.  Almost as much time is spent on telling DM's how to build a world as how to craft an adventure.  That's how ingrained the idea is in the hobby.And, look at the advice given for world building:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Creation Methodology</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Geography</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Demographics</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Economics</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Politics</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Culture</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Religion</li> </ul>Just to name a few.  They go on a bit more about building non-standard D&D worlds as well.  Look at the advice given for creating adventures:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Site Based</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Event Based</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Motivation</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Structure</li> </ul>A whole four pages before they get into designing encounters.  The rest of Chapter 4 is stuff like dungeon rooms, random encounter tables and the like.</blockquote>

Verification