I'll throw in that these two also to some extent collaborated with each other and quite likely discussed their world-building while in process of doing it; they and some others had a literary group they called the Inklings, who met each week (on Tuesday, I think) in a particular pub in Oxford. There's now a commemorative plaque in said pub, above the table they used to frequent; or at least there was when I was last there in 2014.Certain authors are notorious for having laid out the world in excruciating detail before putting pen to paper about the story itself. I would argue that, given their age at time of writing, neither Tolkien nor CS Lewis were RPGers, but both noted their worlds are modeled first, then written.
Google it. I did. None of the dictionary sites on the first page agree with you.
Certain authors are notorious for having laid out the world in excruciating detail before putting pen to paper about the story itself. I would argue that, given their age at time of writing, neither Tolkien nor CS Lewis were RPGers, but both noted their worlds are modeled first, then written. Doc Smith clearly has more ideas than make it into Lensman, things that retain internal sense, but are not actually detailed out in the novels, and has a deep seated sense of how it worked. Verne was notorious for his attentions to minute (and manufacturable) detail; his radium driven Nautilus is astonishingly excellent as a prediction of the technology. And HG Wells was a gamer, albeit a miniatures wargamer, not an RPGer, but his writings have the same level of world creation as any RPG-fiction writer.
Hell, I'd love to see what HG would have done with an RPG... as his Little Wars is a delightful read, and not a bad game at all.
In your playstyle, perhaps.
In Burning Wheel, playing to push your character's goals over those of other characters is explicitly part of the intent. And why the game has a "any conflict needs a roll" rule within it.
Alien, the preview "Cinematic Starter Kit" explicitly has hidden agendas for the PCs.
You're being rather noisesomely chauvinistic about your play style over all others.
My preferred style is no in-party violence, and only limited in party conflict. I want players to engage both with their character and the story...
But there are many styles of play that, in the right groups, work.
The character building process in quite a few games begins with generating game stats, not story elements.
Old school D&D, for one.
Traveller... the backstory even is generated mechanically in CT, MT, TNE, T4, T20, and T5....
R Talsorian Games' Cyberpunk (2013/2020) and Mekton (I, II, Z) have random backstory generation and random attribute generation (albeit roll them all, then place).
Many groups, the story arises out of play, not out of some prior fictional stricture. The character often arises out of the stats and the play, rather than the other direction. GM as operating system for an open world, rather than GM as story pusher.
Some people can't handle random generation conceptually. Others can't handle non-random conceptually, tho' that's a bit less common. Most can handle either, but prefer one or the other.
Ideally, the game arises out of a combination of the group-members' desires and their interactions with the rules at a level comfortable for all involved.
A couple things on this.
I don’t think that developing backstory and setting and having very structured worldbuilding done ahead of writing is a negative thing. For Tolkien and Lewis and many other writers, it works for them to work a lot of this stuff out ahead of tine. Although due to revision and multiple drafts, it’s hard to say how much was actually SET ahead of time and not adjusted as needed. I expect there was a lot more in flux with all the Middle Earth backstory than we tend to think.
Having said that, even if these writers had established their world perfectly and unchangingly before they wrote their actual novels, I don’t think that’s the same as having mechanics dictate story. Backstory isn’t a game mechanic, as you go on to establish yourself. ( Quote)
Tolkien was continuously tinkering with the mythology of Middle Earth, right up to his death. There are contradictions in his writings because of this. The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings don't really feel like quite the same place. Gollum is not quite the same character, and yet we praise Tolkien for the depth and richness of his world building. It certainly wasn't all thought out before hand, but the continual changing hasn't taken away from the authentic feel of Middle Earth. So yes, nothing was set in stone, and a lot was tinkered with as needed. Apparently, Tolkien claimed than when he first wrote the scene with Strider at The Prancing Pony, he didn't know who he was, and whether he was a good guy or a villain.
As for C.S. Lewis? I'm sure things were always changing. Tolkien complained about his friend's chaotic world building, after all.
The Sword is a free demo adventure for Burning Wheel that is also reproduced in the Adventure Burner. The following is from scenario intro:I do not know what Luke Crane's intent was there, but it does not necessarily follow that because dice are involved that the players are competing.