Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7401167" data-attributes="member: 6785785">This is the main problem. The complaint that is being made in the article and in this thread is, overall, not about worldbuilding so much as it is about the GM predetermining every detail of the game world before play even begins. That’s a very specific instance of worldbuilding that I don’t think is typical of what people think of when they hear the word. So what ends up happening is that you get one “side” made up if people defending their idea of what worldbuilding is, and the other “side” criticizizing the specific case of a GM predetermining everything about the setting ahead of time. And it just goes round and round because neither side is even in agreement on what is being discussed.To take [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] as an example...he has said that he does not decide every detail ahead of time. In the case of the linrary, he even said it would be best to have a site like that at the ready to drop in wherever it may be needed. So even the strongest proponent of worldbuilding in this thread does not condone the extreme version sited in the OP.At the other end of the spectrum you have [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] who admits to having some material ready ahead of time (some planets predetermined for his Traveller game, for example) so that he can drop them in as needed. This library and these planets sound awfully similar in use and implementation. The truth is thatthere is value in both approaches. Having prepared material helps a GM establish the setting and help create the story with the players’ input. Not committing so strongly to prepared material allows the GM to follow an unexpected path that may prove more interesting for the game.But instead of acknowledging that there are strengths and weaknesses to both methods, everyone digs their heels in and picks a “side” and then argue different points at each other.</blockquote>

Verification