Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7389606" data-attributes="member: 71699">I wouldn't conflate world-building with realism or argue that it need be complete in order to be valuable.Tolkien wasn't interested in those things. He says in his various lectures, letters and articles that he was concerned with a consistent map (this seems more about the location of things, than deeper details like geology), chronology, languages and genealogies. I can't recall a statement from him about wanting a working economy or any concerns about technology. He failed in a few places to achieve even the ends he sought, which I think is reasonable. His prior and ongoing world-build was invaluable in his impressive and influential achievements.Here we can simply assert that no fantasy world ever created by a human has been complete and real. That's partly an issue with simulation: a simulation can't map 1:1 to the real without being the real. Partly an issue with available effort. Fortunately neither of those things need to be ideal, because it is also a result of what is necessary. A valuable, inspiring world like Glorantha can be created and used. Or if we choose to set our play in Dickensian London then we have either Dickens (incomplete, not entirely realistic), or recorded history (also incomplete, and by degrees a distortion of reality), or both, to thank. Progressive shared fiction relies on shared points of reference. World-building helps supply those. It doesn't need to end when the game starts. And who does what is scalable.That seems like a non-sequitur. Could you expand on your question? What are you trying to get at?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7389606, member: 71699"] I wouldn't conflate world-building with realism or argue that it need be complete in order to be valuable. Tolkien wasn't interested in those things. He says in his various lectures, letters and articles that he was concerned with a consistent map (this seems more about the location of things, than deeper details like geology), chronology, languages and genealogies. I can't recall a statement from him about wanting a working economy or any concerns about technology. He failed in a few places to achieve even the ends he sought, which I think is reasonable. His prior and ongoing world-build was invaluable in his impressive and influential achievements. Here we can simply assert that no fantasy world ever created by a human has been complete and real. That's partly an issue with simulation: a simulation can't map 1:1 to the real without being the real. Partly an issue with available effort. Fortunately neither of those things need to be ideal, because it is also a result of what is necessary. A valuable, inspiring world like Glorantha can be created and used. Or if we choose to set our play in Dickensian London then we have either Dickens (incomplete, not entirely realistic), or recorded history (also incomplete, and by degrees a distortion of reality), or both, to thank. Progressive shared fiction relies on shared points of reference. World-building helps supply those. It doesn't need to end when the game starts. And who does what is scalable. That seems like a non-sequitur. Could you expand on your question? What are you trying to get at? [/QUOTE]

Verification