Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7406097" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, as I recently replied to [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], I don't think of world building in terms of amount. I think of it in terms of method.The traditional, and in my view far-and-away most common, way of thinking about worldbuilding for RPGing is that the GM does it, often (even typically) in advance of play, and more-or-less independently of the players, and even moreso independently of any particular moment of play. (So maybe the players contribute in session zero, but not afterwards.)That method of worldbuilding not only establishes a setting - in virtue of doing that, it also establishes a function for that setting and a way that it will be used. (This has been discussed in detail in the other thread.)There are other ways of establishing setting than this sort of GM-worldbuilding. And of course presenting a situation also establishes some setting (eg that a deceptive evil priest exists). It's these different methods for establishing setting, which give it a different function in play, that I care about.I'm not that interested in who the cleric's god is unless that matters to the situation - I don't think, any time I've ever run the Keep, it's been more than colour. If one of the players wants to try and establish some sort of conflict between priest and god over the priest's lying ways then s/he could do so, but for me it's never come up in play.In other words, the &quot;spiralling&quot; that you describe has never happened to me. What has happened is attempts to identify who else he has corrupted, how to stop the cult, etc. But that doesn't need to be known in advance of play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7406097, member: 42582"] Well, as I recently replied to [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], I don't think of world building in terms of [I]amount[/I]. I think of it in terms of method. The traditional, and in my view far-and-away most common, way of thinking about worldbuilding [I]for RPGing[/I] is that the GM does it, often (even typically) in advance of play, and more-or-less independently of the players, and even moreso independently of any particular moment of play. (So maybe the players contribute in session zero, but not afterwards.) That method of worldbuilding not only establishes a setting - in virtue of doing that, it also establishes a function for that setting and a way that it will be used. (This has been discussed in detail in the other thread.) There are other ways of establishing setting than this sort of GM-worldbuilding. And of course presenting a situation also establishes some setting (eg [I]that a deceptive evil priest exists[/I]). It's these different methods for establishing setting, which give it a different function [I]in play[/I], that I care about. I'm not that interested in who the cleric's god is unless that matters to the situation - I don't think, any time I've ever run the Keep, it's been more than colour. If one of the players wants to try and establish some sort of conflict between priest and god over the priest's lying ways then s/he could do so, but for me it's never come up in play. In other words, the "spiralling" that you describe has never happened to me. What has happened is attempts to identify who else he has corrupted, how to stop the cult, etc. But that doesn't need to be known in advance of play. [/QUOTE]

Verification