Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 7409698" data-attributes="member: 85555">That isn't world building though. He's talking about Dragon magazine back issues which include all kinds of things. Let's not confuse world building with product lines that simply go back to the 70s. I don't know anyone who runs a setting or world based on obscure Dragon magazine articles. But I am not sure what the angst is in this discussion. Maybe I am missing something. World building is something you can engage as little or as much of as you like as a gm. In terms of product lines out there, there are a wide variety of games offering just about every imaginable approach (and a good many are d20 if your concern is applying them to D&D). There is also the HARN approach, which I find pretty useful because I can buy what I want and ignore what I don't want; and it works pretty well piecemeal. In terms of your own settings, if you hate world building, think only a small amount is called for, etc, you are perfectly free to make your setting as you see fit. If someone wants to go deeper, they can. The original article posted at the start of this is, I think useful to fiction writers. But even then it is the kind of advice (like 'never use the passive voice' or 'never use adverbs') that can be taken way too far or become dull if everyone abides by it. And even then, a story like Dune doesn't work without heavy world building. Or even a fairly simple story like the City and the Stars by Arthur C. Clarke, still demands good world building to be what it is. World Building is fine. The bigger problem I encounter in science fiction is when it becomes the point itself. I think in gaming, there is a lot more value to world building than in fiction because you often need those kinds of deep details when players do unexpected things or go to unexpected places. At the same time, you want information that is easy to deploy, so ideally the good world building can be organized in such a way that it isn't deeply confusing to navigate in play. But here, again, all kinds of approaches are available. In the OSR there is a large emphasis on world building, but also an emphasis on brevity of text so things are navigable during play. More and more that has been the approach that works for me. But it isn't the only approach I take. Sometimes I need more text for certain things in my campaigns. At the end of the day, for, I don't think any of us have to compromise. If you've found a way to approach this that works for you, then you don't need to change it for anyone (and hopefully you share it so others with similar aims can benefit). Again, though, maybe I am missing something here.</blockquote>

Verification