The Cardinal
First Post
wow
irrelevant crap
by a second-rate sf writer
who would have thought such a thing possible?
irrelevant crap
by a second-rate sf writer
who would have thought such a thing possible?
Running a game takes place in something closer to "realtime" than writing a story, so you need to have some details already in place when your players encounter them, becuase if you have to stop to think about them when they get there, that makes for a really boring game.
Pbartender said:You can still have the illusion of a complete world without actually having a complete world.
Ditto. If an author revels too much in worldbuilding, you'll get bored, unless you want that worldbuilding - that's the reason why Lord of the Rings is liked (because the world is only hinted at), and why the Silmarillion is less liked or often called boring - it's only a worldbuilding tale.Hobo said:QFT. Although some of my favorite sci-fi and fantasy authors defy that advice--Edgar Rice Burroughs, for instance. J. R. R. Tolkien. But I can see his point for an author.
Sooooooo...by this logic Tolkien is a boring nerd?
Cam Banks said:...
So are we on two sides of a divide, here? Do we all need the statistics, charts, solved mysteries, and so forth? Or is that just a thing some of us want?
Kamikaze Midget said:So, people are saying it doesn't apply in D&D. Why not?
Who? M. John Harrison? Who are we talking about here? What has he written? Why haven't I heard of anything this guy has done?
robberbaron said:He's quite right - if you want the players to move through the world without really being in it.
Personally, I like to know that there is more to a gameworld than a series of dungeons, a list of maidens to be rescued/deflowered (depending upon alignment), etc. Games I've played in which had no depth seemed little more than multiplayer Fighting Fantasy books.
It would be interesting to have a poll on this subject.