See this is kind of interesting, because from a purely creative writing perspective 'show don't tell' is actually a rather poor 'law' of storywriting, but it's also quite easy to understand why it gets parroted and taught in schools: because it teaches people to present information such as worldbuilding in an engaging, authentic way. In fact when I teach high schoolers creative writing one of the first things I run through is a more nuanced view of 'show don't tell', because teachers have pushed it as a kind of rule that people later take as an iron hard rule for prose writing (since "don't" is a pretty imperative term). It's not, because 'telling' and 'showing' have their own applications and purposes, which is something I only ended up learning formally in uni. Showing is useful because it presents information in a natural way that tries to mirror how real characters would speak, think and act. A simple example is no one really says "The main character of this story is Aemeath", and instead they will provide that detail through a more natural integration such as a phone call that namedrops a character, or in WuWa terms rumours of the name of the girl who disappeared ten years ago. 'Showing' is essentially an engaging and authentic (this is key, authenticity is not the same as realism) way of usually providing information. Telling is where stuff gets interesting because it really has two purposes. The first is to provide information directly, which has gotten a bit of a bad rep for being boring and has been something teachers have been trying to cull from storywriting. For instance, "Lucilla realised that Rabelle College wasn't going to secure funding after all" may be boring exposition but in some parts of the story being clear cut is necessary. Your reader does not possess the same mind as the writer, their realm of knowledge of the story and it's world is not the same as that of its creator. And understanding trumps all- the artistry you've weaved into a story matters less if the reader can't really understand its meaning or purpose. However what is taught little is the second art of telling. Consider this sentence: "Eris' checkbook was no longer than three pages.". This is purely telling and the direct transfer of information, but it can also be engaging. Why? Because it is a statement that forces you to ask questions about not just what was just presented, but also ask questions about existing assumptions. For example, you would assume that Eris is heavily involved in the financials and business side of running the Fractsidus in the New Fed, so why would her checkbook be so short? Is she doing something in particular or shady that has caused this? If her checkbook is so short, what game is she playing to fund the organisation? Is she even actually responsible for this in the first place? In limited quantities, these questions can be crucial for storytelling because you set up questions that the reader expects to be answered later, and these questions build engagement. Essentially, the second art of telling in a story functions on the omission and admission, that you can selectively add or remove certain details to generate or keep reader interest. That's why I much prefer 'show and tell', rather than 'show don't tell' or 'tell don't show'. They're both use cases with practical applications in storywriting that can be used when a situations requires it.