Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 3542525" data-attributes="member: 3424">Of course the worldbuilder perceives some expected use or reward for his worldbuilding. It might be something he enjoys. He might consider it an interesting thought experiment. He might simply do it so that he can admire his own cleverness. While I personally do not draw such a harsh distinction between setting and worldbuilding (to me, the former is a subset of the latter), I do think that there is a continuum of worldbuilding, from elements that the DM will definitely use in his games to elements that he should realize will almost never come up. (Does anyone want to try to convince me otherwise?)Surely it is reasonable to expect a DM to spend more time detailing elements that are likely to come up than elements that are unlikely to make an appearance. Surely it is reasonable to expect a DM to decide which elements are likely to come up on the basis of his player's interests, or at least, on the basis of what he thinks his players will find interesting, instead of on the basis of his personal interests. (Again, does anyone want to try to convince me otherwise?)I'm afraid that by now, I've lost the point of the thread. Is the &quot;pro-worldbuilding&quot; side trying to argue that worldbuilding is not always bad (I think most of us agree on that), that worldbuilding is always good (I think most of us require a lot more convincing), or that what you call &quot;worldbuilding&quot;, Hussar calls &quot;setting&quot; (why should it bother you what he calls it as long as both of you agree it's a good thing)?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 3542525, member: 3424"] Of course the worldbuilder perceives some expected use or reward for his worldbuilding. It might be something he enjoys. He might consider it an interesting thought experiment. He might simply do it so that he can admire his own cleverness. While I personally do not draw such a harsh distinction between setting and worldbuilding (to me, the former is a subset of the latter), I do think that there is a continuum of worldbuilding, from elements that the DM will definitely use in his games to elements that he [I]should[/I] realize will almost never come up. (Does anyone want to try to convince me otherwise?) Surely it is reasonable to expect a DM to spend more time detailing elements that are likely to come up than elements that are unlikely to make an appearance. Surely it is reasonable to expect a DM to decide which elements are likely to come up on the basis of his player's interests, or at least, on the basis of what he thinks his players will find interesting, instead of on the basis of his personal interests. (Again, does anyone want to try to convince me otherwise?) I'm afraid that by now, I've lost the point of the thread. Is the "pro-worldbuilding" side trying to argue that worldbuilding is not always bad (I think most of us agree on that), that worldbuilding is always good (I think most of us require a lot more convincing), or that what you call "worldbuilding", Hussar calls "setting" (why should it bother you what he calls it as long as both of you agree it's a good thing)? [/QUOTE]

Verification