Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7403776" data-attributes="member: 5142">This thread demonstrates that the term &quot;worldbuilding&quot; is seemingly too broad for useful jargon when debating its merits and flaws. Because a number of people, yourself included, seem to have a different sense for the term &quot;worldbuilding&quot; that lies outside of its contextual sense in the OP. For some in this thread the term is more analogous to &quot;any and everything that the GM does to establish the in-game fiction,&quot; such that the &quot;general use&quot; of the term &quot;Worldbuilding&quot; is of no practical use at all. But this false equivocation of meaning seems to stem from a desire from worldbuilding enthusiasts to religiously defend the culture of &quot;worldbuilding&quot; (and its excesses) by making it indistinguishable from the activities of setting building or GMing. I don't think that the people in general agreement with the sentiment in the OP are desiring to &quot;[redefine] worldbuilding to meant the more specific setting building,&quot; but, rather, that they are &quot;[distinguishing] worldbuilding from the more specific setting building&quot; precisely because there are elements in cultural practice of &quot;worldbuilding&quot; that they find a hinderance to &quot;setting building.&quot; Forgetting their sense of the term is fine. When that happens, they may remind you or you may ask. Here, however, you are berating them about using terminology that they are defining and rationalizing. The preference you describe is what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] did. And when [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] came up with his &quot;specific and hopefully distinctive phrase or word&quot; to discuss the more specific concept of &quot;setting building,&quot; you set about to equate this as being identical with &quot;worldbuilding.&quot; So what then does the creation, clarity, and repetition of terms help if there is no intent to honor them?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7403776, member: 5142"] This thread demonstrates that the term "worldbuilding" is seemingly too broad for useful jargon when debating its merits and flaws. Because a number of people, yourself included, seem to have a different sense for the term "worldbuilding" that lies outside of its [I]contextual sense[/I] in the OP. For some in this thread the term is more analogous to "[I]any and everything[/I] that the GM does to establish the in-game fiction," such that the "general use" of the term "Worldbuilding" is of no practical use at all. But this false equivocation of meaning seems to stem from a desire from worldbuilding enthusiasts to religiously defend the culture of "worldbuilding" (and its excesses) by making it indistinguishable from the activities of setting building or GMing. I don't think that the people in general agreement with the sentiment in the OP are desiring to "[redefine] worldbuilding to meant the more specific setting building," but, rather, that they are "[distinguishing] worldbuilding from the more specific setting building" precisely because there are elements in cultural practice of "worldbuilding" that they find a hinderance to "setting building." Forgetting their sense of the term is fine. When that happens, they may remind you or you may ask. Here, however, you are berating them about using terminology that they are defining and rationalizing. The preference you describe is what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] did. And when [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] came up with his "specific and hopefully distinctive phrase or word" to discuss the more specific concept of "setting building," you set about to equate this as being identical with "worldbuilding." So what then does the creation, clarity, and repetition of terms help if there is no intent to honor them? [/QUOTE]

Verification