Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3558946" data-attributes="member: 2067">Read specifically the parts where I say that people should do as much worldbuilding as is fun for them.There is no superior approach. Looking for one is looking for Witches in Salem. You'll only find what you want to be there.Ah, but you're don't hold that arrogant opinion, do you? So I guess that definition can't possibly be the one I'm using, can it? What definition, I wonder, could possibly include an idea that isn't inherently beneficial. Perhaps is is back in those posts of mine...perhaps...I'm sure you've got a pretty good idea of "campaign depth" in your head. Why not, in absence of encyclopedic definition, use your head? Rest assured, if it's off-base from my own, I will elaborate on my own so that you can see how a rational person can arrive at my conclusions. Leaving it and taking me at face value works for me, though.I can accept that, and, in that light, I can see how worldbuilding can be seen as essential, or at least an unavoidable consequence of an imaginative mind (which is pretty essential for a D&D game). I agree, if worldbuilding is defined as Hussar and the DMG define it, a world is built, one way or the other, in a similar way to doing math in your head or on paper -- the same conclusion is reached. You could also phrase this by saying: "Everyone's a nerd about something."But, Harrison in the OP is discussing people who are nerds about imaginary worlds, and uses "nerds" to describe them. If worldbuilding is interest in the minutiae of imaginary worlds, then any worldbuilding is being a nerd.So RC wasn't incorrect in removing "for us nerds" in my post, but neither was my post broken for containing it in the first place, so he was incorrect in thinking that it needed to be fixed.Largely agreed. Any disputes I have are minor enough to not bother wasting words on at the moment. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I direct you to the other posts in this thread relating about DMs who have chosen world over game first and foremost. To supplement that, I give examples like "a DM whose world forbids swashbuckling warforged ninjas when the group wants to play swashbuckling warforged ninjas." I do have my own anecdotes, but I don't really think they're necessary -- the point has been well illustrated. I don't believe I see anyone saying worldbuilding is a waste. I do believe I see people claiming it's not essential (which would only be true of a certain type of worldbuilding -- namely the extensively pre-prepared kind). I see people claiming that it's not always good. I see many claims that it isn't as important as many hold it up to be. There is truth in all of those statements. But a waste? Certainly nothing which adds to the fun of you and your group is a waste.You're right, yes, that people will find the particular condiments that they like. And some people like it without condiments, or perhaps would rather take a bite and then put on whatever tastes good and is in arm's reach at the moment. And finding the happy medium for the group is what makes the game good.</blockquote>

Verification