D&D General When the fiction doesn't match the mechanics

[Micah Sweet]

Hussar does have the advantage in that he’s accurately describing how fiction works.

Setting and world building are part of fiction. Just as important as plot and character, but not as sexy. My favorite part of fiction, and absolutely my favorite part of gaming.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar does have the advantage in that he’s accurately describing how fiction works.

It s not like what I called the refusal is limited to readers. There are a number of writers and game designers who refuse to understand that setting serves a specific purpose and has little value in and of itself.

This has been a perennial issue. You can go back to 2007 and this thread: https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-worldbuilding-is-bad.193738/

And you see this same discussion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It s not like what I called the refusal is limited to readers. There are a number of writers and game designers who refuse to understand that setting serves a specific purpose and has little value in and of itself.

This has been a perennial issue. You can go back to 2007 and this thread: https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-worldbuilding-is-bad.193738/

And you see this same discussion.

You mean that there a number of writers and game designers that refuse to agree with you that setting has little intrinsic value.

Please stop stating your opinion as objective fact.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You mean that there a number of writers and game designers that refuse to agree with you that setting has little intrinsic value.

Please stop stating your opinion as objective fact.

Whether they agree is irrelevant to whether it is true. Most world-building is not done for its own sake. I truly do appreciate good world-building. But, well, the word "building" kind of explains why this is true.

Architecture is an art. But it is also a technical skill, a practice, something people make quite a lot of money doing as their trained job. Any architect will tell you that buildings are built for some purpose. They are almost never built solely to display architectural skill. That sort of thing is what models, sketches, and concept art are for. And all of those things are also important! In their absence architecture is a much impoverished field. But, ultimately, you build a building for it to be used, for it to do something. The same is true of fictional worlds.

You build a world to say something, or to examine something, or to ask (and/or answer) a question, or to act as the stage for something else. That does not, at all, mean that world-building is of no value, rather the opposite, it has tons of value. But that value is instrumental, not intrinsic. What the world enables is the purpose, not building a place and cosmology solely because places and cosmologies are cool (though they absolutely are cool.)

Worlds are tools in the writer's toolbox. Good tools are better than poor tools. But the purpose of tools is to do something, not to be really pretty and sit on a shelf. Ornaments are nice, but they have rather a bad habit of sitting on a shelf or hanging from a wall and collecting dust.

 

[Hussar]

You mean that there a number of writers and game designers that refuse to agree with you that setting has little intrinsic value.

Please stop stating your opinion as objective fact.

Setting in and of itself, divorced from the narrative in which it resides, is of little value. It might be interesting in its own right, but, at the end of the day, setting serves narrative.

Seven page treatises in eleven tea ceremonies might be interesting to someone but, as part of game literature, they’re filler at best and a waste of space at worst.

 

[billd91]

Setting in and of itself, divorced from the narrative in which it resides, is of little value. It might be interesting in its own right, but, at the end of the day, setting serves narrative.

Seven page treatises in eleven tea ceremonies might be interesting to someone but, as part of game literature, they’re filler at best and a waste of space at worst.

Unless, of course, it serves your narrative. You gonna tell someone they’re choosing the wrong narrative elements to follow in their game?

 

[Hussar]

Unless, of course, it serves your narrative. You gonna tell someone they’re choosing the wrong narrative elements to follow in their game?

But … then it is not divorced from narrative. It only gains value insofar as it serves that narrative.

I’m not quite following your point I think.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Unless, of course, it serves your narrative. You gonna tell someone they’re choosing the wrong narrative elements to follow in their game?

If it serves the narrative, then that simply agrees with Hussar's point: world-building done in service to a narrative. The claim was world-building is purely valuable in and of itself, explicitly not serving any narrative at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If it serves the narrative, then that simply agrees with Hussar's point: world-building done in service to a narrative. The claim was world-building is purely valuable in and of itself, explicitly not serving any narrative at all.

I enjoy worldbuilding. It is valuable to me. It is also fun. I also enjoy reading about other people's worldbuilding. Most of it will likely not end up in a game. Nonetheless, I do not regret buying or reading any of it.

 

[Aldarc]

Most imaginary worlds I'm familiar with are like the real world, plus explicit supernatural stuff. Those are the worlds I make for my games, and the ones I prefer to play in, and almost all the worlds I've ever even seen.

I feel that when you set yourself up with this sort of argument, you will end up saying more about the limitations of your own perspective regarding how many fictional worlds you have seen or familiar with rather than making any meaningful assertion about how

But I just hope that you can recognize the difference between "simulating an imaginary world" and "simulating the reality of our world" and how being unable to do so creates a source of friction for many self-described simulationists. IME, it's often with the justification of "realism" and the "realistic," that I have seen some of the most egregious offenses to my moral sensibilities and my own desires to sit down and play a fun game with my friends without being told that it's BadWrongFun for being unrealistic.

I categorically refuse to accept any explanation of "magical air" that exists in no source other than the DMs rationalizing mind.

Jeremy Crawford talked about "background magic" or something to that effect when talking in his Sage Advice about the assumptions the writers at WotC operate under with the worlds of D&D and various game elements that are unaffected by anti-magic effects.

Really? I have several RPG core books and supplements that say otherwise. I don't buy it.

Which ones do you have that say otherwise? I think that it would be quite interesting to see what they have to say on the matter.

I'll start with one. In the opening chapter of the 1e D&D DMG, Gary Gygax refers to AD&D as something that is meant to be played as an enjoyable pasttime, and then declares, "As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste" (1979, pg. 9).