Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EditorBFG" data-source="post: 3460704" data-attributes="member: 24719">I think what Harrison basically means by &quot;worldbuilding&quot; in fiction is the equivalent of boxed text in a module.Some groups want the GM to read the boxed text. But I don't know a lot of them personally. While I think adventures should be written with detailed room descriptions for the GM-- boxed text is useful in that regard-- I also think the GM should describe things organically as the game proceeds rather than forcing players to listen to the literary stylings of the adventure writers.Same thing with world descriptions in fiction. The writer needs to understand his world with as much or as little detail as is necessary to propel the story and maintain consistency. Tolkien's worldbuilding was his hobby, but the descriptions he includes in the actual narrative of LOTR are necessary and stylistically appropriate. Starting writers need the advice Harrison is dispensing; seasoned authors, I think, choose what they want to tell the reader with the accuracy of experience and know the rules well enough to break them.I see prose with too much world description all the time.EDIT: By the way, I think all this debate about Harrison's validity as a successful author is tangential and irrelevant to the discussion. We're evaluating the statement itself, not debating the literary merits of the writer who made it. There are almost certainly bad or talentless writers who can teach a good creative writing class, and I know for a fact there are brilliant writers who cannot give writing advice worth a darn (and they usually know it; art is something they do rather than talk about). So Harrison's qualifications, other than perhaps being a published author who was asked for such advice in the first place, are immaterial.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EditorBFG, post: 3460704, member: 24719"] I think what Harrison basically means by "worldbuilding" in fiction is the equivalent of boxed text in a module. Some groups want the GM to read the boxed text. But I don't know a lot of them personally. While I think adventures should be written with detailed room descriptions for the GM-- boxed text is useful in that regard-- I also think the GM should describe things organically as the game proceeds rather than forcing players to listen to the literary stylings of the adventure writers. Same thing with world descriptions in fiction. The writer needs to understand his world with as much or as little detail as is necessary to propel the story and maintain consistency. Tolkien's worldbuilding was his hobby, but the descriptions he includes in the actual narrative of LOTR are necessary and stylistically appropriate. Starting writers need the advice Harrison is dispensing; seasoned authors, I think, choose what they want to tell the reader with the accuracy of experience and know the rules well enough to break them. I see prose with too much world description all the time. EDIT: By the way, I think all this debate about Harrison's validity as a successful author is tangential and irrelevant to the discussion. We're evaluating the statement itself, not debating the literary merits of the writer who made it. There are almost certainly bad or talentless writers who can teach a good creative writing class, and I know for a fact there are brilliant writers who cannot give writing advice worth a darn (and they usually know it; art is something they [I]do[/I] rather than talk about). So Harrison's qualifications, other than perhaps being a published author who was asked for such advice in the first place, are immaterial. [/QUOTE]

Verification