Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 7402312" data-attributes="member: 16586">[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]The words we use matter. They shape the ways we think about things and the sort of techniques we use. By insisting that we use the orthodox framing of world building and referring to a game world rather than a setting or a shared fiction in order to participate in this discussion you are insisting that we take a number of assumptions for granted that I for one do not wish to take for granted. Mainly it suggests a permanence and independent existence of the setting and implies that it has intrinsic value outside of the context of the game. If it has an outside existence beyond this shared activity then it must exist somewhere - inside the head of the GM. So then he or she must own it - not a shared thing at all.It also removes meaningful distinctions between setting design, scenario design, and adventure design. In games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark I view it as the GM's duty to mostly focus on scenario design - creating a compelling situation that prompts players to make decisions for their characters and address it on their own terms. I contrast this with adventure design which is mostly focused on solving or beating the adventure laid out before them.There's a reason why I prefer to refer to a shared fiction over a game world. A shared fiction implies a play space that we give form to as we play in it and define as we need it. It has no independent existence. It only exists in the moments we are together. It serves play. Not the other way around. We follow it and play in it because it has value here and now.Here's the important bit though: I would never expect you to adopt my terminology just to engage with me. You can talk in terms of world building and game worlds. I will not. What matters is that we both understand what the other means.</blockquote>

Verification