Why is this board dominated with "In your setting...?" threads...

>creating new settings is autistic because other settings already exist
wow, you sound like a really fun guy to play with

Tabletop mechanics and tabletop combat is incredibly boring and only exists to help the GM and the players make decisions about the story and to keep it from devolving into "teleports behind you" bullshit.

The only reason to play tabletop games is for the story, and an interesting setting can help make an interesting setting.

Additionally, tabletop gaming is also about the GM's enjoyment, a GM is not the player's encounter-providing bitch, he also gets something out of this.

There are plenty more reasons that could be provided, but it feels like a waste to type them out in this thread.

>Just be a good goy and ignore things you don't like

Disgusting, a true man stands up against evil, even on a Tibetan tick-tack talkshow.

>"This thing that's related to the board is not relevant to my interests, so don't post about it"
Yeah, no. You take the good and the bad, friend.
is probably the best answer here, though I do like coming up with ways to keep mechanics interesting and re-enforce setting tone, lore, et al. with mechanics. Besides, there are a couple of home-grown games here, some less sucky than others, and homebrewing is pretty common.
Ultimately, mechanics are the backbone of the tabletop game like code is the backbone of a video game: Sure, if you're a coding enthusiast you can enjoy it and work on projects, but at the end of the day, you're writing the code to play the game, not the other way around.
Also, how the fuck did you come to the conclusion that talking about game mechanics is LESS autistic than discussing tabletop plots?

>Also, how the fuck did you come to the conclusion that talking about game mechanics is LESS autistic than discussing tabletop plots?

I didn't. Futa elves are not a plot. Discussing plot lines would be very interesting and helpful as an important element of the TTRPG experience for everyone involved.

>Additionally, tabletop gaming is also about the GM's enjoyment, a GM is not the player's encounter-providing bitch, he also gets something out of this.

I never claimed this. I mean to say that their enjoyment is equally important and in many cases is dependent on what you do.

The problem with houserules and homebrews is that they could mean nothing to most people depending on system. Me telling you my clever rules for a magic system or for how we do first aid in a D&D dungeon crawler won't mean dick for the rest of this board who are busy playing WoD games, or Dogs in the Vineyard or whatever the fuck.

Fantasy settings are pretty universal but are a staple of the board because anyone can absorb and think on the creative ideas regardless of your game or setting. Just a thought.

Bait thread, but I think a lot of GM are a kind of wannabe writer and can't shut up about settings, worldbuilding, and plot, even if they're bad at it, and are completely afraid of being unoriginal because they're bad at execution.

Why is this board dominated with "How does your character...?" threads? I understand the appeal to a degree of trying to mantle Tolkien and create and incredibly diverse and interesting cast of characters, but to me it seems like unnecessary work when you can just use pregens.

I find this true of most all TTRPG players, not just GMs.

With the amount of players who can't make more than a paragraph of background and never have a familiy, I disagree. Or at least they want to but they're aware that they're not good, meanwhile the GM may convince himself that his worldbuilding is oh so awesome

Nah, they may not write any backstory, but when the game actually gets started they full of "cool" things for their character to do and how their character is the most awesome and/or dramatic.

>World Building is part of any sort of fiction writing that isn't modern day or historical.
Even those require significant world building on the part of the author. If anything, it's actually one of the main points of historical fiction, to help people understand the historical context of the events you're portraying. It would be commercial failure of a genre if you had to already be an expert on whatever era each book was set in in order to read and understand it.

That's not being a wannabe writer, that's having a powerfantasy.
But yeah, that's common in players and GM

I'll admit to this. I once put an NPC into my game specifically to mock my own overemphasis on story. He was the equivalent of an ancient yellow journalist or shock story writer, and thought he and his (exaggerated) stories were the hottest shit.

>I never claimed this. I mean to say that their enjoyment is equally important and in many cases is dependent on what you do.

And as a GM, my enjoyment comes in a big part from crafting an interesting, plausible setting.

I agree on "elf slave wat do" threads and similar uninspired discussions that exist solely to posting badly cropped porn (looking at you, koboldfags). But they exist, there isn't much chance they'll be getting deleted and they keep at least some shitposters from interesting threads, so they serve their purpose.

World-building is pure escapism and never before in human history has its leading society (in this case, American society) been so coddled, weak, and unable to face life - - exactly the type of people who crave pure escapism so much.

It is no wonder why world-building has seen a massive spike in popularity.

Honestly I don't play TRPGs or even traditional games at all.
I'm just here because I find worldbuilding fun as a hobby and it's the appropriate board to do it rather than Veeky Forums for example.
I don't pretend to be a wannabe writer, original or even good though nor do I like magical realm.

Question for you OP: Are you a GM?

If so, are you a *new* GM? (New being, for this purpose, defined by yourself but I'm thinking something like "less than two completed campaigns")

If you are either a player or a new GM, I think I might have your answer.

>understand the appeal to a degree of trying to mantle Tolkien and create an incredibly intricate and detailed fantasy world, but to me it seems like unnecessary work when you can use existing settings as a basis for your campaigns.
Fascinating. I never thought I'd see someone articulate the precise opposite of my view of roleplaying. For me, the story's the good bit and the mehanics constitute the tedious-but-necessary bookkeeping needed to support it. I don't think I've ever contemplated using an "existing setting" as such; simply taking something off the shelf and running it would be boring. It also seems strange to me that you'd describe the creation of roleplaying settings as "trying to mantle Tolkien," as lots of people enjoy thinking up settings (fantasy or otherwise!) without feeling particularly competitive about it.

As it stands, though, we have neither lots of threads about worldbuilding nor lots of threads about game mechanics. We have "stat me" threads, filename threads, thinly-disguised /pol/ bait, edition wars, That Guy threads, generals, and other fairly dull stuff.

>completely afraid of being unoriginal because they're bad at execution.
What IS execution?

I mean, we have a reasonably clear idea of what originality is, although some people are very, very restrictive regarding their use of the term, while others are convinced that the concept is purely theoretical and nothing can ever be called original. But I greatly doubt you can provide any succinct definition of "execution": it nearly always boils down to "the parts of this thing I liked which aren't directly related to its degree of originality." As such, I've always felt that statements like "execution is more important than originality" mean little more than "it's possible for a work to be good without being notably original," but people who lean on "execution" give this sentiment far more weight than it deserves, as if the objects of their criticism were committing a risibly idiotic blunder.

(Discussion question: Can you think of a work of art for which you hold the opinion "It was well-executed, but total shit"?)

>(Discussion question: Can you think of a work of art for which you hold the opinion "It was well-executed, but total shit"?)

Actually, no.

There is some stuff that's well-executed, and i would admit it, that i don't like because i'm not interested in general idea, but that's it.

Because you'll never get responses otherwise, you ninny.

Nobody is going to reply to a thread that says "Hey check out this worldbuilding bit of lore I made" or "Hey check out my gay little hombrew rules"

But if you ask "lol how much do lolicatgirl prostitutes charge for sex in your setting xd' then retards will bump your thread for days.

>It was well-executed, but total shit
But this isn't how the question should be phrased, is it? Seeing how "shit" is the opposite of "well executed."

You can have an original work that's well executed, and you can have a derivative work that's well executed and you can have a derivative work that's total shit and you can have an original that's total shit, and any combination in between those.

Point is, originality is something that has very little bearing on how good something is. In fact, this notion that originality is at all important is a fairly recent invention.

The original point presented by is that people are incapable of making something good so they try covering it up by making something originality as if originality was a quality of its own.

>all worldbuilding is magical realm
Is that OP samefagging or there is really a circlejerk about how all worldbuilding MUST be magical realm?

>Why is this board dominated with "In your setting...?" threads?

Because world-building is possibly the best prep you can do, measured by effort:outcome.

There are exactly three kinds of people who pick up a game of Pathfinder/D&D and decide to worldbuild a setting:

The first is the kind of smug, self-satisfied, pretentious person who has active disdain for a number of foundational fantasy conventions and thinks that "subverting the tropes" constitutes quality writing. This is where you get all the the eye-rollingly "wacky" settings that people propose instead of the dreaded "Generic European Fantasy:"
>What if we ran a D&D game with gunpowder weapons in a post-apocalyptic wild west?
>What we ran a D&D game set in a magiteck age of sail where the whole world is covered in water and boats can fly to city states floating on sky islands?
>What if the only playable races were gnomes and bugmen, and everyone lives underground, and magic comes from eating mushrooms that grow on the backs of wild elves?

How twee. How wacky. How inteszzzzzzzz....

The second is the kind of person who's too lazy to run someone else's world consistently. They can't put in the effort to memorize the base details of Dragonlance or Ravenloft or even Forgotten Realms, so they create their own Forgotten Realms with the serial numbers filed off and the geography mixed up a little bit. They throw another bog-standard fantasy setting on the pile: another laundry list of proper nouns that the players have to re-remember even though they mean the same thing as any other D&D setting.

The third is the failed fantasy writer; the wannabe Tolkien who is actively more invested in showing you their fantasy realm than running your campaign. They're no less self-congratulating than the first, no more creative than the second, but has become so enraptured with their own escapist flights of fantasy that they'll stew in disdain for their players not caring as much as themselves on the obligatory globe-trotting slog.

In all cases it's not a good sign for the quality of your GM, both in the sense of the quality of their game and the quality of their character.

I thought it would be fun to make my own setting for my friends and I to play in, so I did. It was fun to make and it's been fun to play in.

You are all a bunch of stuck up faggots, holy shit. Did I click on some link to r*ddit by accident?

Homebrew is the mark of a shitty player.

I wonder if the irony of this poster describing someone else as "smug, self-satisfied, pretentious" was accidental or just a very good troll.

I'll give you a *tip* of the old trilby and mention that not only was "worldbuilding" just as prevalent back than as it was now, but many cultures were so ignorant about how the real world works that they made their fantasies their reality. Just look at the fucking Greeks, their whole pantheon of gods and mythical creatures, and how they genuinely believed such impossible stories could really happen.

You're not as smart as you think you are for thinking worldbuilding is some childish hobby, it just makes you look like a jaded fuck.

Here's your (You)

>posts an image from a built world

Really made me think

>rarely are GM tips, house ruling, and homebrewing discussed compared to worldbuilding

I blame the memeification of the concept of "talent." Lots of stories have lazy writers nowadays who just want people who are naturally gifted, including people with hidden talents that they never knew. So instead of working their way up to being "I wanna make a world" they just want to jump to the end.

see

I don't worldbuild to try to mantle Tolkien, I worldbuild to try to dismantle Tolkien.

...

Smug pretentious person here (I'm not self satisfied, because I know I can't write for shit). You know my problem, with 'foundational fantasy conventions'? They are boring as shit. I've read them in books, I've seen them in films and by now I am thoroughly tired of them. I mean if you want to play in the same worlds over and over looking at the same themes ad infinitum, you can, but know that I consider you the most boring person imaginable and think that you should stay away from any type of creative hobby, especially RPGs.
By the way, the last two of your setting ideas are actually good. The first might be worth taking a look as well, but I have no interest in the wild west.
I know it is bait, but I couldn't help myself. 8/10 I suppose.

Many shows and other media have considerable technical merit, but the actual content is poor.

I would consider execution to be equal parts style and technical skill. Unfortunately, I can't think of many specific examples at the moment, but there are plenty of things which have technical merit and polish which are nevertheless shit.

I suppose the main issue is that "well-executed" could have many potential meanings.

Originality is the seed of invention. Consider that those tried and true fantasy foundations didn't exist until somebody made something original.

Originality for the sake of being different is pointless, but that doesn't make originality a sin itself.

Plus, something unconsidered in your post is that of GM agency. If I wanted to use a preexisting setting, I'm constrained to the details of the setting, some of which I may be unaware. If it would make an interesting and engaging game for the party to be sky pirates because that's what they're into, I could either make an original setting, or I could be tasked with finding a setting that has the qualities I am looking for but none that would go against what I'm trying to do.

It's similar to the difference between buying a Specialty pizza or making one custom.

An original setting has what you and the party are looking for.

I know your post was probably intended to provoke people into arguing, but if you could dispense with smug greentext or other such nonsense, I would enjoy a discussion on this topic.

>the Greeks practiced world-building, so that somehow makes it less of an escapist passtime

really activated my almonds there pal

nice arguments, really proved him wrong

Most settings are built on the fly. Trying to come up with an 'intricate setting' ahead of time is always very silly - it's much better to just do it ad-hoc with your players.

"Hey GM do elves live in trees around here?"
"Well, your character would know, they live in the game world. DO elves live in trees around here? You tell me."

Designing mechanics requires math, and extracting patterns from existing mechanics.

Nobody gives enough fucks to do it properly.

The few of us who do are shouted down and it's made clear we're unwelcome. That goes for here, that goes for elsewhere.

So we don't share those discussions publicly. The few of us who do that stuff find like minded people to do that with, and do so through private messages and the like.

For instance, I asked about using 4eminsters in 5e. For me, this is a simple math problem which could be solved by spreadsheets, spitting out a convenient table to use 4e monsters on the fly, it's just a matter of doing the math to build that table.

Instead I got a bunch of responses that it's impossible.

If you go to 5eg, they hate all homebrew and houserules, and shit on anyone who dares bring the subject up.

>it's a pervasive, "world building is for dms, system mechanic design has to be left to the publishers".

Heres a discord to discuss homebrew and houserules for d&d. It's pretty new and hasn't really taken off yet though.
discord.gg/xC2WV57

>rarely are GM tips, house ruling, and homebrewing discussed compared to worldbuilding
So try posting threads about it then.

Depends on the group. In my experience that approach is very rare outside "storytelling games" like fate, wherein you play more as a writer on a team of writers, not directly as the character in the story.

>never before in human history has its leading society (in this case, American society) been so coddled, weak, and unable to face life
Go eat your oatmeal, grandpa.

Not OP, but I do this occasionally. They get less traffic. And if you try to discuss homebrew or houserules in any general except gurps, people throw fucking tantrums.

There was a guy asking about what would need to be changed to make large creatures balanced for some sort of marauding hordes campaign in d&d. It was like they couldn't even understand the question, it was comical.
>"you want a game where 15 foot tall monstrosities are playable? Just make them miniature and use existing stats for medium creatures."
Then a few of them told him what the problems were with allowing large creatures, and got offended when he started trying to fix those problems with houserules rather than giving up and using medium creatures only.

>Seeing how "shit" is the opposite of "well executed."
If that's the case, then "execution" is just another word for a nebulous measure of quality, and the phrase "execution is more important than originality" becomes tautological: "the quality of a work is a better measure of its quality than its originality is." And that statement is coherent only because originality is distinct from quality and relatively well-defined!

I don't disagree with the assertion that a work can be both original and terrible. I do think that originality is a good thing: all else being equal, I'd prefer a (relatively) original work to a more derivative one. (The recency of this criterion of valuation is not relevant except insofar as it suggests that our valuation of originality is arbitrary-- but everything we could place under the heading of "execution" is pretty arbitrary, too.) But I reiterate that I accept the notion that originality isn't everything, and I think most people would. What bothers me is the way some people use this criticism as a club, suggesting that those who create original but flawed works are too dumb to realize that there's more to art than originality.

Put it like this: Imagine that you're giving advice to someone, and you say "Try to be less derivative." There's no well-established way to get better at having original ideas, so it's not immediately clear how you'd do that, but the meaning of the advice is clear. But what if you said "Well, you need to execute better"? How would you do that? What the hell does it mean? As constructive criticism, it's useless; when mixed with smugness, it's downright infuriating.

Go eat your "panic attack" medicine, Millennial.

This approach works with almost any standard game.

It's the 'default' in PbtA games like Dungeon World and Apocalypse World, but despite the terminology those games are almost 100% 'traditional'.

Literally nothing stops people doing it in DnD. Obviously you can't ignore the mechanics quite as much, so it's harder to say "in this setting trolls can fly and they spit fire!" but for general fluff there's no reason not to go wild.

...

I guarantee you're a pussy that can't bench your bodyweight, lol

>millennial memeing.
Most of the other millennials I've met are just like more tech savvy gen x'ers, the nonfunctional, psychologically medicated, selfie bloggers are a minority, a minority we avoid.

Of course you *can* make up the setting on the fly, by committee.

The books just don't advocate for it, and most groups don't. Many if us actively don't like that sortof gameplay.

Im fine with players influencing the setting, before the campaign starts. I'll sit down for a night and play a round of dawn of worlds with a homebrew deity creation system at the beginning. I'll even allow them to lay out the basics of the major races in the setting and then I'll build them.

But once the campaign starts? You don't have the ability to assert things about the world. By that point races, factions, places, major npcs, and a timeline of what happens by when if the players haven't intervened, have already been defined, at least in broad strokes if not all the specific details, and that's what I'm using to run the campaign.

Those aren't exclusive to millennials either. They just self-medicated with alcohol and nobody knew or cared the existed.

playing P&Ps with other people instead of just reading about them has pretty much killed my interest in worldbuilding. 99% of the time there won't be any time for exposition. most players expect to jump right into combat, or exploring, or sneaking or whatever without wading through walls of text and if you try to deviate from that they will lose interest very quickly. I've had players who were playing LoL on the side alt-tabbing into the game every 5 min to check if their turn was up. unless you have plans to turn your campaign into a novel at some point in the future (which isn't a crazy idea, some famous fantasy novels were inspired by P&P campaigns) worldbuilding is a waste of time. just get a premade setting or make shit up as you go

That's because infodumps are bad storytelling. Flesh out the world in-game, rather than having us watch the Star Wars textscroll before we begin.

World building is not a waste of time. Exposition is a waste of time. World building is how you make sure there's interesting shit going on for your players interact with, and ensure that the campaign is both interesting and makes sense.

If you need to info dump it should be very high level abstraction.

Headers, tldr tag lines, and the brief summaries of subjects, To be read on demand, or skimmed as necessary, in a brief campaign primer.

We don't want to read your 50 page setting document.

Give us 2-3 page point form version, with more detail on specifics that we can look up if it's relevant to what's going on.

Also, formatting your world building this way will make it easier for you to find shit you need to reference while Dming or planning a session.

>that lack of reply

Not OP but curious what him being a new DM has to do with the lack of homebrew discussion on tg.

I guess that might be true for people who play Pathfinder or D&D. I like universal systems because I don't want to be tied to fantasy. I suspect, however, that the vast majority of people who "worldbuild" are more like -- they do it because it's fun. In your scheme, that would make them "failed fantasy writers" and thus incompetent, railroading GMs, but that's a ludicrous contention.

I haven't run anything in a long time, but here's an example of the way I think "worldbuilding" is fun, valuable, and very much distinct from "failed fantasy writing":

A while ago, there was a thread in which the OP complained about "normies" being bad at roleplaying, offering a few player character concepts as examples: a fighter with twin blades, a plant girl who ran a potion shop, and a 200-year-old dwarf who escaped from slavery. The OP said that these characters were terrible because the first was a Kratos ripoff, the second was overpowered, and the third lived about fifty years longer than dwarfs usually do, as well as having "just escaped one day." To me, these complaints seemed stupid, but they also prompted some "worldbuilding." The blades might (as another poster suggested) be de-powered heirlooms of great importance; what were they like before? What do plant people do in the setting-- what potions do they make, what does it mean to be a "plant girl", who makes the super-deluxe potions...? If the dwarf lived that long, the slavers must have some way of extending the lifespan of their slaves. Who are they, why would they do that, and how do they do it?

(Cont'd)

If I came up with good answers to those questions, the players would get to play what they wanted to play, and hopefully they'd have a good time. Knowing me, I wouldn't run the campaign about thieves that the OP of the thread wanted; I'd run a light-hearted campaign of high adventure in a world with scheming viziers and one-eyed generals and flying castles. Contra , there would be no horsecocked lesbian futa elves. (Nor would I include my own fetish by, say, adding a gentle, compassionate NPC who healed and nourished the PCs by breastfeeding them blessed milk from her E-cup tits. Because that would be terrible. And the damn murderhobos would kill my waifu anyway.)

>“A generation is now growing old, which never had anything to say for itself except that it was young. It was the first progressive generation – the first generation that believed in progress and nothing else…. [They believed] simply that the new thing is always better than the old thing; that the young man is always right and the old wrong. And now that they are old men themselves, they have naturally nothing whatever to say or do. Their only business in life was to be the rising generation knocking at the door. Now that they have got into the house, and have been accorded the seat of honour by the hearth, they have completely forgotten why they wanted to come in. The aged younger generation never knew why it knocked at the door; and the truth is that it only knocked at the door because it was shut. It had nothing to say; it had no message; it had no convictions to impart to anybody…. The old generation of rebels was purely negative in its rebellion, and cannot give the new generation of rebels anything positive against which it should not rebel. It is not that the old man cannot convince young people that he is right; it is that he cannot even convince them that he is convinced. And he is not convinced; for he never had any conviction except that he was young, and that is not a conviction that strengthens with years.”
TLDR: Eat shit, old man. You were never the tough guy you think you are.

>And if you try to discuss homebrew or houserules in any general except gurps, people throw fucking tantrums.
That's sad. I prefer worldbuilding, but homebrew obviously has a place on Veeky Forums. This board really needs to lighten up a bit and stop whining about everything.

This style of argument is popular on Veeky Forums. It usually compares modern societies to historical ones, evaluating the two in terms of nebulous, hard-to-measure characteristics of recent origin. (Did the Romans have a concept of "escapism"?) These comparisons often make no sense, because the last two or three centuries of human history are wildly different from the preceding fifty or sixty; in this case, you're comparing an industrialized society built on approximately two centuries of exponential economic growth to an unspecified collection of societies in which most people were agricultural laborers.

This kind of social darwinist nonsense is always propagated by people who have lived even more of the experience of coddling, weakness and inability to face life that they try and pass onto strangers. It's never someone who's been witness to wars, unrest, revolutions and suffering who indulges in the cynical jaded misanthropy and sweeping disdain for anyone else. Miura or George R R Martin are sooner to capture what you claim than Tolkien or David Gemmel.

Then there's the business of escapism being such an integral part of the experience of life that religions and philosophies center on how to ameliorate the ennui and despair of living. To say nothing of drugs and alcohol.

Who does have it on the mark is among others who note worldbuilding needs to be the means to an end, not the end itself. A great setting is worth fuck all without a good story, and a good story can overcome even a dreary and uninspired setting. Most people playing a D&D session or whatever want to read fiction, not a history book. There are those of us that do like history books but even there history tends to have a kind of story to it - the story of the development of the French nation, the story of how the Mid-east became Muslim, the story of how the Romans placed more stock in individual men than in families and clans.

Cynical misanthropic jadedness does not get you any points or friends. It does get you (you) though.

>we discuss how each race of elf engages in different sexually deviant acts
Take a look at . That's a thread about worldbuilding. Does that look like kinky elf sex to you?

Sauce?

books.google.com/books?id=RJcKWPu0QDIC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=G.K. Chesterton "A generation is now"&source=bl&ots=Uvx0eSHeG6&sig=Xzks5PYJPR_i80ksGIdWkzzAf7o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKze6nyNDVAhWBZiYKHafjAUAQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=G.K. Chesterton "A generation is now"&f=false

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton

The more things change the more they stay the same. That seems to be a quote that isn't apocryphal like the "Youngins don't respect their elders" thing often attributed to Socrates or some Sumerian author.

worldbuilding isn't autistic. it's a key part of the roleplaying experience. what IS autistic however, is """"worldbuilders"""" jerking off to their own special snowflake oc donut steel homebrew setting. but also what said. its just an easy way to get a bunch of (you)s.

>Why is this board dominated with "In your setting...?" threads?
Because Veeky Forums has more or less statted everything and we need something to do.

>tg has statted everything
>no more homebrew or houserules are even possible, everything is already built!
And yet, wotc is still publishing stuff for 5e, and people frequently complain abouthow 5e lacks mechanics that cover character types from previous editions.
And that's before you get into mechanics to support custom settings, or stuff for other systems.

Your claim is bullshit.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Read the comment chain:

>
>>Why is this board dominated with "In your setting...?" threads?
>Because Veeky Forums has more or less statted everything and we need something to do.

>Tibetan tick-tack talkshow.
A day will come when somebody calls this place a japanese anime imageboard, and we'll all be confused as fuck.

That's because this is clearly a Mongolian yak farming community.

>Not OP but curious what him being a new DM has to do with the lack of homebrew discussion on tg.

Not the lack of homebrew mechanics, but rather his complaint about the surfeit of talk about homebrew settings.

My experience is that, as myself and other GMs I know get older and more experienced, we do less work on mechanics because we pretty much have the mechanics we want/need.

You don't need new mechanics every time you start a new game. But you *do* need a new story.

And one of the absolutely best ways to get a good (effort:outcome) ratio in story? Worldbuilding.

So it makes sense if GMs on this talk about worldbuilding more than we talk about anything else.

Tabletop offers more than a purely mechanical game experience. The speciality of tabletops is the intractable world that other games cannot offer. People that world build may seek to refine this unique story/world aspect by planning their worlds, allowing greater player interaction/immersion in an consistent 'living' environment.

are millennials the easiest group to troll ever?

is this why the art of trolling is quickly becoming lost?

more like millennials have an over reliance on memes or are ex-redditors so they dont have a good grasp on what actually "trolling" and "shitposting" is

>This kind of social darwinist nonsense is always propagated by people who have lived even more of the experience of coddling, weakness and inability to face life that they try and pass onto strangers. It's never someone who's been witness to wars, unrest, revolutions and suffering who indulges in the cynical jaded misanthropy and sweeping disdain for anyone else. Miura or George R R Martin are sooner to capture what you claim than Tolkien or David Gemmel.
>Cynical misanthropic jadedness does not get you any points or friends. It does get you (you) though.
Very eloquent. I'm adding it to my copypasta folder.

Uh...what? Maybe lay off the Adderall, you're trying too hard to sound intelligent.

How in the fuck did you get "Social Darwinism" from a post about how escapism is popular in modern society?

I hate GMs like this.
You cannot make combat fun or interesting. Combat in and of itself has a narrative you just need to know how to run combat.

Not an argument

it was a question not an argument you fucking dunce

To be honest I don't even play tabletop games. I just really fucking like worldbuilding for its own sake.

>So it makes sense if GMs on this talk about worldbuilding more than we talk about anything else.

>"on this"

meant "on Veeky Forums

No idea how that happened.

>Because a disturbing amount of the people on this board don't actually play the games they discuss.
there is disturbingly higher number of posters who spout dumb memes like this

anybody who claims that either westeros or arda would have turnerd out to be more interesting if they had been designed by committee on the spur of the moment is either a liar or a legal retard

sure who can get player buy-in this way. but you sure as hell are going to decrease the quality of the gameworld. not to mention that the GM traditionally is meant to provide a gameworld to explore.

>Give us 2-3 page point form version, with more detail on specifics that we can look up if it's relevant to what's going on.
that's terrible. the secondary objective of world-building is to stimulate the fantasy of readers