Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 7323937" data-attributes="member: 59082">I read the first page, skimmed the second and last, so forgive me if I am repeating some of what has already been said. I get the sense that some have touched upon what I want to say, but perhaps not in the way I want to say it.I'm going to use the analogy of fantasy fiction. I know that RPGs are a different medium, but there are similarities and we can at least use one as analogy for the other.I think one of the main reasons that Tolkien's Middle-earth remains the example par excellence of fantasy worlds and world building is the depth it provides - and not just awkward, amateurish or rushed depth, as if it was created with a "Fantasy World Generator." It is lovingly crafted but, most of all, gives the sense of aliveness, and that for everything the reader encounters, there is a story behind it. It seems, feels, as if Middle-earth exists independent of the books set in it.Many fantasy worlds come across like the set of an old spaghetti Western; you may not see it, but you know the buildings are just one wall with supports - sort of like in Blazing Saddles. Everything seems paper-thin and, to some extent, contrived. Perhaps the most important difference between fiction and RPGs, in this context at least, is that in RPGs the players are--to varying degrees--co-authors of the story. They have agency, even if they play in a non-pemertonian railroad campaign. It is just a matter of degree. So where there are just supports behind the wall, the players can fill that in with their own ideas. But I think it could be argued that it doesn't seem as real when I, as a player, am thinking it up - vs. when the DM is. In a similar fashion, as a player I much more enjoy discovering a magic item than buying one in a shop. Discovering it has an extra sense of magic to it, because I don't have all the control. What @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> seems to be questioning is the probably more common approach of creating a setting--of some degree of depth--before hand, or using a setting like the Forgotten Realms, in which there is much less "primal flux." There is always some, always Terra Incognita, and even if there isn't much, it is intrinsic to the game that the DM can make the setting their own.But @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> doesn't seem to like the idea that the DM has superior or overriding authorship over the players. I haven't posted much in the last year or two, but this is the same underlying agenda he's been pushing for years. Nothing wrong with that, but he (you) does seem to be advocating for it as the Right Way to Play D&D. But to me this comes down to campaign group preference, and a diversity of possible ways of playing.Who knows, maybe 10 years from now the Pemerton Approach will be dominant way of playing D&D. We'll all be looking back at the Dark Ages of railroady adventure paths, pre-made settings, and DM hegemony. But I personally hope that the future will continue to open up new paths, and that a plethora of styles will be played and honored.But to go back to the original question. I think the reason for world-building is primarily to provide depth and a sense of meaning, realness and context to game play.</blockquote>

Verification