Is your game ever "done"?

[barsoomcore]

As always, more information tends to reduce disputes.

rycanada: I think it's safe to say that my Barsoom has been "done" in your sense for probably going on three or four years now. Now I gotcha. To me, it's a long way from any reasonable definition of the word "done", but we can use different definitions. I won't squawk.

 

[jester47]

On Tolkien.

Yes and no. If you look at the Hobbit before it was reedited to fit better with the Lord of the Rings, we know that JRRT intended for it to exist as place to tell his stories. If you read his corresponence you will discover that he initially considered the ring that Bilbo found to simply be a ring that turned you invisible. That was it! In fact he is quoted as saying that he was not sure if the ring Bilbo had found should be the one ring.

The Lord of the Rings is such a powerful story. Its like the sun. When you look into the sky the sun is all you can really see. Even though when the sun is not there there are numerous other lights there, the moon and the stars. When you look into middle earth the lord of the rings is its pretty much all you see. But there are other stories, like the hobbit and minor tales.

The Third age is what Tolkein made Middle Earth for. But he made the third age to tell his stories. The lord of the rings is the grand finale. I am sure however that he had many more stories in his head that he did not tell. He mentions many in the Lord of the Rings, like the story of Weathertop, or the details of the ringwraiths and how they fell, or aragorns adventures before the events of the ring. The adventures of other heros of the war. There are countless tales to be told there that he just never got around to that were only distantly related to the stuggle for the control of Middle Earth. No doubt the Lord of the Rings is the big important story of the Third Age, and I think that is why he chose to write that one. He could have given us the story of some ancestor of Bilbo's. But we got the story of how it all wraps up.

No its very clear that Middle Earth was not made for just one story.

Aaron.

 

[Ry]

Garr... I tried to clarify, ended up muddying. You were quite right in saying the previous implication was a good deal off from what "done" is.

Reading my most recent post, I realize I got a bit off track; I am done in the sense that I don't have to do any more prep. The setting is sufficient to just sit down and game in, and will continue to be ready in that way.

All those new things I mentioned (villains, dungeons, etc.) aren't ones I need to actively design or prepare - but of course some will arise in play, and I'm free to add if I wish. The reason I said "they will" instead of "they could" is because I know it will happen; I'll still be reading EN World, using ideas from rpg books and fictions, etc. I was focusing too hard on dispelling idea that my campaign didn't have room in it for more.

Basically, the game is done in the sense that I don't need to add more content than the kind that would arise in play.

 

[barsoomcore]

jez -- I don't see that it's "very clear". He published two works set in this world, which combine to tell a single story about the end of the Third Age. That he had innumerable stories in his head, or written in his notes, or mentioned in his letters, does not lend weight to the notion that he created the world with the intent of telling more stories in it.

I have dozens of tales and notes and stuff about Barsoom, reams of pages, maps, pictures, lists, spreadsheets, the whole shebang. There's MEGABYTES of information about Barsoom that I've created, much of which has nothing to do with the primary story. If we apply YOUR logic to my work, we come away with the conclusion that it's "very clear" that Barsoom was created to tell more than one story.

Which would be 100% untrue.

So it's perfectly possible (given the exact same conditions exist) that it is 100% untrue with respect to Professor Tolkien and Middle-Earth.

I'm not saying that it is or it isn't. I'm saying we can't tell. And much more to the point, I'm saying it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter WHY you create your setting. Your motives have nothing to do with the resultant richness or depth your setting possesses. Those qualities are a function purely of the output, not the process or the psychology behind it.

 

[Ry]

Could we comprimise and say that David Eddings' settings were made for just one story?

 

[barsoomcore]

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Could we comprimise and say that David Eddings' settings were made for just one story?

I'd say you could say David Edding's himself was made for just one story.

 

[Ry]

Ah, David Eddings. Really, though, I never feel bad about poking fun at the Belgarileniumaloremuli, because I always mention that the Elenium was the inspiration for my biggest, best campaign ever. Like I just did now.

Ah well, I muddied up my original question, so I guess it's just lost to eternity.

 

[J_D]

I have to chime in in support of Barsoomcore here. For those who don't see what he means about Middle Earth, I think the best analogy is to a chemical reaction. You have a test tube. You pour in various substances that react with eachother. Eventually, the various chemicals finish reacting with eachother after presenting you with a dazzling display of froth, pungent odors and a dramatic change in colour.

This is essentially the theory of the Tolkienesque world. In order to produce another beautiful, dramatic reaction, you have to add new ingredients. The chemicals you started with are done.

Now, if you want to view the test tube as the world, then yes -- there are an infinite number of chemical reactions you can have in there. But we're viewing the starting combination of chemicals as of the beginning of the reaction as the world.

At the end of LOTR, the elves are gone; the rings are gone; magic is gone; the last of the Maiar all leave Middle Earth. Now, if you see Middle Earth as that map that folds out of the book, then Middle Earth isn't over. But barsoomcore and I see the elves, magic, the rings, etc. as part of what makes Middle Earth Middle Earth.

This is like saying that Star Trek is over because Captain Kirk is no longer in command of the Enterprise! I know there are some people who will indeed say that, but I think such an attitude is patent nonsense. The universe that holds the Federation, Klingong, etc., etc., is bigger than Captain Kirk and the NCC-1701 or NCC-1701A. Similarly, although the elves, the rings of power, and the Maiar are all leaving Middle Earth, there's still lots of people there to have stories. I don't think that the absence of those things would necessarily wipe out Middle Earth as a setting.

I don't think that the chemistry analogy works here. Any really good world is going to be more than just A and B together producing C. It will include that, of course, but should also include more. I think Middle Earth does this. I think it has more - a lot more - than just ingredients A and B. A better chemistry analogy would be a flask containing a veritable soup of reactants reacting simultaneously, much like the primordial soup that gave rise to life. You can take a few chemicals out and still have lots of activity in the mix.

It is true that Tolkien's intent was to create Middle Earth as the backdrop for his story, but in judging Middle Earth as a world in its own right his intent is completely irrelevant. To reduce all of Middle Earth to just the story of the War of the Ring and claiming that the world itself is over once the story is does the world-setting itself an incredible disservice and, indeed, disrespect.

J_D, I think there's a basic misunderstanding at work here.

I expect so, since we seem to be talking past each other, or using different definitions for our terms.

It seems like you're arguing that it's possible to create more exciting stories in Middle-Earth (to continue with the example in question) than the one told in The Lord of the Rings. I don't contest that notion.

Then we're in agreement on that point!

The notion I'm contesting (and for all I know you agree with this, we seem to be at cross-purposes here) is that Tolkien created Middle-Earth with the intention of using it to tell more stories than the one told in the only works he published in that setting. There's no evidence that he did so. My point is that it doesn't matter.

I agree, and I made that very point in my last post that Tolkien's intent was irrelevant to the point I was making. I never said that Tolkien intended to write more stories, so you're contesting something I never said.

My point is that whether you develop your setting with the intent to only ever tell ONE story, or whether you do this work with the hope of telling a wide array of stories has no bearing on the richness and depth of the setting itself.

And my point, once again, is that the intent behind the development of the setting is irrelevant.

This thread started with the general premise that "the world is done." There's two ways you can take that, and it seems that some of us are using different definitions for at least one of those two ways. Let me state what my definitions are.

From a worldbuilding perspective, "the world is done" means the world is fully complete and there's no new detail to add. Everything's already detailed so that every last part of the world has enough information to be playable. While the threshold of "playable" is debatable, since I'm a details-oriented kind of person my threshold is probably at a more fine-grained level than most people. My threshold, in part, is the point where every street in every city is named, every building and its inhabitants are identified. No matter where in the world the PC's go, the DM can just look up what's there from previously existing notes and doesn't have to create anything new. With that threshold, I don't think it's possible for any world to ever be "done".

From a story perspective, "the world is done" means that every interesting story has already been told and that there's nothing interesting or exciting left to do in the world. If there are still interesting or exciting stories to tell in the world, still interesting or exciting things for characters in the world to do, then the world is not done. Based on what fusangite said in his original post, I interpreted his words to mean he prefers a world like this, a world that is "done" once his story is told. He might have merely meant that he didn't want to tell another story in that world and wanted to move on to another world for the next campaign and I would not have disputed that, but that is not what "the world is done" means to me. I took him at the meaning and context of his comment, and I was objecting to that meaning. I was trying to say then, and I still maintain now, that a world-setting that is "done" after just one story is a lame and shallow world. Now, I've clarified exactly what I meant, although I thought it was perfectly clear before. If you think that a world that is "done" (by my meaning of that word in the story perspective) after only one story doesn't necessarily indicate a lame and shallow world, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Then in a succeeding post you said:

I have dozens of tales and notes and stuff about Barsoom, reams of pages, maps, pictures, lists, spreadsheets, the whole shebang. There's MEGABYTES of information about Barsoom that I've created, much of which has nothing to do with the primary story. If we apply YOUR logic to my work, we come away with the conclusion that it's "very clear" that Barsoom was created to tell more than one story.

Which would be 100% untrue.

So it's perfectly possible (given the exact same conditions exist) that it is 100% untrue with respect to Professor Tolkien and Middle-Earth.

I'm not saying that it is or it isn't. I'm saying we can't tell. And much more to the point, I'm saying it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter WHY you create your setting. Your motives have nothing to do with the resultant richness or depth your setting possesses. Those qualities are a function purely of the output, not the process or the psychology behind it.

Agreed that the motive, the "why", is entirely irrelevant. I said that last post. Even if you decide you never want to run another Barsoom campaign again after yuor current one ends, that says nothing about whether Barsoom as a setting is "done" by my definitions. By my definition and what you've described of your world, Barsoom is not done even if you never run another campaign in it. The only fact relevant to "done" in the story context is that there are still stories you could tell therefore it's not done.

 

[Kalothagh]

I just realized something; for the first time ever, I feel like my campaign setting is done. Not that there isn't room for expansion and improvement - just that I am perpetually ready to run game after game. My DM notes are brief and complete, my handouts are done, and I know exactly how I would approach adding any kind of new idea to the setting. I feel like no matter how long the players run through this setting, I'll be ready for them.

So, first I have to ask, have you ever had this feeling?

Nope, never, not ever, no chance.....
As the saying goes, no matter what you do or how well you have laid down your plans, the PC's will inevitably it up. Don't ask how, they just do... they're an unpredictable lot are PC's.