Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JustinA" data-source="post: 3543567" data-attributes="member: 51618">It makes about as much sense as claiming that a source says something when it doesn't actually say it.... which is what you've just admitted that you did.If you could quote even one person saying that, than that would be one more person than you've actually quoted saying that.Which gets us back to your definitions which require precognizance:Setting: Details of the world used in the session.Worldbuilding: Details of the world not used in the session.Since there is absolutely no way to predict exactly what information is going to be used in the session, there's no way to tell when you're "creating setting" or "world building" until after the fact. This is a ridiculous and useless definition, yet you insist on using it.Your distinction might have some sort of relevance in a novel or a short story, but even there it's difficult to determine what will or won't be relevant to the final version of the novel or story. Lots of authors leave plenty of material on the cutting room floor.But for a game session your definitions are utterly useless.I notice your examples keep getting more absurd, perhaps in the hope that no one will be able to come up with a hypothetical scenario where that information would be useful in a game session.But the pattern of terrain features has been important in running many chase sequences in my campaigns. And it's absolutely trivial to come up with scenarios where having that particular breed of tree (as opposed to another) would become important.And if there was only a single person buying Scarred Lands supplements that might actually be relevant.In reality, of course, this is not the case.The fact that you have crappy players is totally irrelevant to this discussion. But it does help to explain where you're coming from.</blockquote>

Verification