Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3559983" data-attributes="member: 18280">That's what I mean by &quot;depends on what you mean&quot;.&nbsp; Those are two seperate (and mutually exclusive) definitions.Under the &quot;worldbuilding is anything not used in the session&quot; definition you can certainly have great depth and verisimilitude....because you are not calling the worldbuilding used during that session &quot;worldbuilding&quot; but something else.Disagree.&nbsp; If the worldbuilding elements you add to your setting improve the setting (i.e., are &quot;good&quot; worldbuilding elements), then by necessity they improve the setting.&nbsp; It's a tautological argument. Any work of any type that you do which contributes to the game contributes to the game and therefore makes it better.This is similar to the problem, btw, with saying that you can have a game that is as deep and rich without developing consistent details.&nbsp; Most people I know define depth and richness of a game by its consistent details.Adventure building doesn't always contribute to a game.&nbsp; Adventure building can be pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game.&nbsp; An adventure built so that it couldn't accommodate fighting swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want to fight swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap).&nbsp; You shouldn't design an adventure with fiendish gnolls; you should just design adventures that the players want.&nbsp; If they want a specific magic item, put it in the room they ask to find it in.&nbsp; If they decide in the middle of a pirate adventure that they want to explore a remote asteroid space station, only adventure design that can accommodate this is &quot;good&quot; adventure design.FIFY.You know, the same point can be made without insulting people.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Let's see.&nbsp; You say that a lot of D&amp;D players really like ketchup, but we shouldn't presume that it is illogical to say that therefore, for the vast majority, a burger without ketchup is inferior to a burger with ketchup, even though you are unable to demonstrate a burger without ketchup that is equal to a burger with ketchup.And we are not to view your position as illogical.&nbsp;<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3559983, member: 18280"] That's what I mean by "depends on what you mean". Those are two seperate (and mutually exclusive) definitions. Under the "worldbuilding is anything not used in the session" definition you can certainly have great depth and verisimilitude....because you are not calling the worldbuilding used during that session "worldbuilding" but something else. Disagree. If the worldbuilding elements you add to your setting improve the setting (i.e., are "good" worldbuilding elements), then by necessity they improve the setting. It's a tautological argument. Any work of any type that you do which contributes to the game contributes to the game and therefore makes it better. This is similar to the problem, btw, with saying that you can have a game that is as deep and rich without developing consistent details. Most people I know [i]define[/i] depth and richness of a game by its consistent details. Adventure building doesn't always contribute to a game. Adventure building can be pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game. An adventure built so that it couldn't accommodate fighting swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want to fight swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap). You shouldn't design an adventure with fiendish gnolls; you should just design adventures that the players [i]want[/i]. If they want a specific magic item, put it in the room they ask to find it in. If they decide in the middle of a pirate adventure that they want to explore a remote asteroid space station, only adventure design that can accommodate this is "good" adventure design. FIFY. You know, the same point can be made without insulting people. ;) Let's see. You say that a lot of D&D players really like ketchup, but we shouldn't presume that it is illogical to say that therefore, for the vast majority, a burger without ketchup is inferior to a burger with ketchup, even though you are unable to demonstrate a burger without ketchup that is equal to a burger with ketchup. And we are not to view your position as illogical. :confused: [/QUOTE]

Verification