Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7416499" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, then [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], why not actually make that clear?Something like, &quot;If you run open ended, sandbox style campaigns, then world building becomes more necessary&quot;?&nbsp; Instead of, &quot;Well, world building is good&quot; which is what I generally get replied to me over and over again.&nbsp; And, as far as the generally agreed upon definition goes, I suggest Wikipedia, or TV Tropes.&nbsp; Both have excellent definitions that I've been following all the way along.&nbsp; &quot;All setting is world building&quot; is a definition of world building that is largely distinct to the folks in this thread.&nbsp; No one else uses that definition.&nbsp; Which is why we talk about world building in something like Lord of the Rings or SoFA but not works like Phantom of the Opera.Take Star Wars.&nbsp; If you only watched Ep's IV through VI, there's extremely little world building going on there.&nbsp; Take Chewbacca.&nbsp; All you would know about Chewie is that he is a Wookie.&nbsp; That's about it.&nbsp; You wouldn't know the name of his planet, how old he is, or anything else.&nbsp; Now, as soon as you open up the extended universe and let the world builders run wild, you get the Wookipedia, and EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in A New Hope gets its own novel.&nbsp; THAT'S world building.&nbsp; You certainly don't need to know anything about Chewbacca to play in a Star Wars game.&nbsp; You don't need to know anything about Chewbacca to enjoy the movies.&nbsp; But, the world builders, with their great clomping nerd boots, insist that we include all this extra material and scream bloody murder when all that stuff gets swept under the rug by JJ Abrams.&nbsp; So, no, world building is most certainly a more limited term than what you folks want it to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7416499, member: 22779"] But, then [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], why not actually make that clear? Something like, "If you run open ended, sandbox style campaigns, then world building becomes more necessary"? Instead of, "Well, world building is good" which is what I generally get replied to me over and over again. And, as far as the generally agreed upon definition goes, I suggest Wikipedia, or TV Tropes. Both have excellent definitions that I've been following all the way along. "All setting is world building" is a definition of world building that is largely distinct to the folks in this thread. No one else uses that definition. Which is why we talk about world building in something like Lord of the Rings or SoFA but not works like Phantom of the Opera. Take Star Wars. If you only watched Ep's IV through VI, there's extremely little world building going on there. Take Chewbacca. All you would know about Chewie is that he is a Wookie. That's about it. You wouldn't know the name of his planet, how old he is, or anything else. Now, as soon as you open up the extended universe and let the world builders run wild, you get the Wookipedia, and EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in A New Hope gets its own novel. THAT'S world building. You certainly don't need to know anything about Chewbacca to play in a Star Wars game. You don't need to know anything about Chewbacca to enjoy the movies. But, the world builders, with their great clomping nerd boots, insist that we include all this extra material and scream bloody murder when all that stuff gets swept under the rug by JJ Abrams. So, no, world building is most certainly a more limited term than what you folks want it to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification