Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7402882" data-attributes="member: 996">I'd say that's closer to the 90s view.&nbsp;The purpose of the game was small-scale fantasy wargaming.&nbsp; ;PThe current purpose of the game is to rehabilitate a brand tarnished by fan tantrums, by treading that always-difficult tightrope between appealing to (or at least not actively repulsing) potential new fans, and appeasing old ones.&nbsp; Every property that started out selling mainly to a 'cult following' has that problem at some point.&nbsp; &nbsp;In context (which I believe was traditional D&amp;D), at best arguably /part/ of a form of 'storytelling' - in the 90s RPGs-should-actually-be-collective-storytelling-exercises wolfie sense.&nbsp; The DM does describe imaginary nouns, and maybe even an imaginary situation they're in, the player then interact with that, said interaction being handled by an inconsistent mix of DM fiat and dysfunctional mechanical resolution.In some rare instances, the result might, in retrospect, be recounted (perhaps with the aid of some rose-colored corrective lenses) as a reasonably entertaining story.&nbsp; Though, more often, it's just annoying to listen to someone recounting their D&amp;D character's exploits.&nbsp; The process is not a story, it's more like a rather complicated and picturesque shell game.Worldbuilding strikes me as like creating a 'bible' that writers working on a series use as a reference, to help them avoid screwing up continuity &amp; contradicting established canon.That, or like writing the Silmarilion, but only quoting from it, yourself, never letting anyone else actually read it.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7402882, member: 996"] I'd say that's closer to the 90s view. The purpose of the game was small-scale fantasy wargaming. ;P The current purpose of the game is to rehabilitate a brand tarnished by fan tantrums, by treading that always-difficult tightrope between appealing to (or at least not actively repulsing) potential new fans, and appeasing old ones. Every property that started out selling mainly to a 'cult following' has that problem at some point. In context (which I believe was traditional D&D), at best arguably /part/ of a form of 'storytelling' - in the 90s RPGs-should-actually-be-collective-storytelling-exercises wolfie sense. The DM does describe imaginary nouns, and maybe even an imaginary situation they're in, the player then interact with that, said interaction being handled by an inconsistent mix of DM fiat and dysfunctional mechanical resolution. In some rare instances, the result might, in retrospect, be recounted (perhaps with the aid of some rose-colored corrective lenses) as a reasonably entertaining story. Though, more often, it's just annoying to listen to someone recounting their D&D character's exploits. The process is not a story, it's more like a rather complicated and picturesque shell game. Worldbuilding strikes me as like creating a 'bible' that writers working on a series use as a reference, to help them avoid screwing up continuity & contradicting established canon. That, or like writing the Silmarilion, but only quoting from it, yourself, never letting anyone else actually read it. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification