Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 3526268" data-attributes="member: 9225">Yes, I know we were all terribly upset about something somebody said about something that isn't even about RPGs that, of we were to imagine he was, would offend us because we drew lots of maps once. We get it. Check.The problem that Harrison is referring to comes from the fact that in literature, the setting is subordinate to the story. Raising the setting in an altar and dissecting it is not a substitute for telling a compelling story. This is even true for Tolkien, whose work was largely a way to create consistency in a myth cycle. There is little doubt that the myth cycle, not the maps, are the heart of Middle Earth. Post-Tolkien fantasy has often wallowed in the world without providing anything interesting happening to the people in it.Gaming is not literature. In a traditional RPG, everything is subordinate to character decisions. Characters (really players), like stories, need some consistent basis by which to make decisions and some sense of investment in the setting. GMs need to be able to dynamically create sources of conflict, whose resolution by the characters create the plot. A fairly detailed setting is a very useful tool for this, though again, details which are not relevant to the characters don't really have a purpose beyond pleasing the GM when he/she builds a setting.Finally, plots in RPGs are not quite like literary plots. It takes some skill (and sometimes a bit of railroading) to follow a traditional plot structure in a game. But episodic strings of conflicts are *also* plots and can be a lot of fun, even if they don't fit the idea of intro/rising tension/denoument in literary plots. After all, that model isn't even an absolute -- it's just tradition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eyebeams, post: 3526268, member: 9225"] Yes, I know we were all terribly upset about something somebody said about something that isn't even about RPGs that, of we were to imagine he was, would offend us because we drew lots of maps once. We get it. Check. The problem that Harrison is referring to comes from the fact that in literature, the setting is subordinate to the story. Raising the setting in an altar and dissecting it is not a substitute for telling a compelling story. This is even true for Tolkien, whose work was largely a way to create consistency in a myth cycle. There is little doubt that the myth cycle, not the maps, are the heart of Middle Earth. Post-Tolkien fantasy has often wallowed in the world without providing anything interesting happening to the people in it. Gaming is not literature. In a traditional RPG, everything is subordinate to character decisions. Characters (really players), like stories, need some consistent basis by which to make decisions and some sense of investment in the setting. GMs need to be able to dynamically create sources of conflict, whose resolution by the characters create the plot. A fairly detailed setting is a very useful tool for this, though again, details which are not relevant to the characters don't really have a purpose beyond pleasing the GM when he/she builds a setting. Finally, plots in RPGs are not quite like literary plots. It takes some skill (and sometimes a bit of railroading) to follow a traditional plot structure in a game. But episodic strings of conflicts are *also* plots and can be a lot of fun, even if they don't fit the idea of intro/rising tension/denoument in literary plots. After all, that model isn't even an absolute -- it's just tradition. [/QUOTE]

Verification