Another factor is that it is much easier to just come up with details and way harder to write the kind of tight, focused, character and story driven ideas that make the examples you shared so evocative. It’s hard to do, which is why it doesn’t get done that often. But as a goal, is an excellent. Makes me feel like doing some worldbuilding on my own.

And I really don’t understand GamerGeekGirl’s aggressive comment. That coda was clearly a little expression of humility from someone who clearly respects the people he cited in his post, to the point that he doesn’t feel worthy of being compared to them. Bizarre reaction by gamergeekgirl, just bizarre.
.-= walkerp´s last blog ..Board statistics =-.

The “gamer funk” is one such stereotype and I believe it stems from a simple lack of awareness of that particular social norm.

I don’t know if this thread will spark to life again later, but I’m willing to let this interesting tangent-discussion serve as a springboard for later conversation. I’d suggest, though, that many people who fall somewhere on the high-functioning side of the autism spectrum are aware of e.g. bathing norms, and reject them consciously out of a blend of disbelief/misunderstanding and instinctive tribal signaling. i.e. ‘We’re the ones with more to do than shower today,’ that sort of thing.

Robin Laws has some smart things to say about this in his ‘See Pg XX’ columns, particularly in the context of control-freak behaviour and his Dying Earth RPG’s persuasion mechanics. Which is the same thing as saying Laws discusses this topic somewhere; far as I’m concerned, the man’s an unimpeachable authority on GM practice and theory.

OK, tangent off!
.-= Wax Banks´s last blog ..Worldbuilding is storytelling: complication, complexity, and micronarratives. =-.

Very interesting!

Then again, where would we be without ? I especially like the person who invented the wheel. Circles are nifty.

I don’t believe autism is a mental condition, and I’m not sure about a genetic offshoot, but I do believe that it is a neurological phenomenon. That is, regardless of how much the brain affects the mind and the mind affects the brain, there are concrete differences in brain structure from an early age. It is not curable, nor do I believe that most people with what I call “functional autism” wish to be cured. “Functional” in this case means “able to function in society”, as opposed to people who cannot effectively communicate. I have little experience with what the general public calls autism, just Asperger’s Syndrome (a.k.a high functioning autism).

For those reading along at home, please note that I am not passing judgment or saying that anything about Asperger’s/functional autism is bad. I’m stating facts and observations, regardless of how the rest of society judges those traits. The “gamer funk” is one such stereotype and I believe it stems from a simple lack of awareness of that particular social norm. I myself lack much of that awareness, but I can comprehend more than some so I consider myself very lucky. If I were to not understand the cause and repercussions of gamer funktitude — just one of many, many concepts a human being must absorb to function in human society? I’d be quite funky.

And for the record, I’m among those that think that Autism is not a mental condition, but may possibly be a phenotype (trait) of a genetic off-shot of Homo Sapiens.

“It’s the autism-spectrum version of playing god: surveying charts and tables and lists and believing, for just a moment, that a world can be contained in such a form.”

As someone diagnosed with Asperger’s, I find this not at all offensive. It is *exactly* the reason I believe so many people touched by autism play RPGs. It makes a world — maybe not this one, but *a* world — understandable. Understanding the world around me is not something I’m used to in my daily life.

Gaming systems, not necessarily the worlds they go with, are my primary point of latching-on-with-way-too-much-energy. If I find a RPG world I love (FFG Midnight FTW) I can easily slip into creative-without-numbers mode, and then get as detailed as I can. Not as detailed as I *should*, perhaps…

Ha! You forgot “fatbeards” too! Although from what @theprincesswife says, she likes being part of the old farts organization. It’s the beard, man…

In all seriousness – that’s exactly what I try to provide in my settings – enough skeleton so that I can start hanging the meat and skin when I need it.
.-= Chgowiz´s last blog ..The One Page Dungeon Contest PDFs =-.

I think I’ll drive down your place next fall with a bottle of Rye so I can learn your Writing-fu secrets.

You are in all seriousness more than welcome – Boston is rubbish this time of year, you’ll love it. Though I can sum up what I know of writing-fu at the moment: voluble dilettantism draws a crowd.

Check! ;v)
.-= Wax Banks´s last blog ..Worldbuilding is storytelling: complication, complexity, and micronarratives. =-.

@GDG and other chivalrous souls: Let’s all step back from the Nuclear flame war button and take a hefty puff of the Joint of harmony. We’re all pals here.

Well, this has been a swell afternoon.
.-= Wax Banks´s last blog ..Worldbuilding is storytelling: complication, complexity, and micronarratives. =-.

You have very precisely missed the entire point of Ptolus. Many people want to be able to make that stuff up for themselves. Many others don’t. Ptolus is for those who don’t.

Oh come off it. I wouldn’t have read and enjoyed and gladly stolen repurposed material from Ptolus if I hadn’t understood this.

But for GMs working up their own worlds, I do believe that Ptolus isn’t the right worldbuilding model – they’re (we’re) better off emulating less exhaustive or reference-form works. (I’d say, however, that the Ptolus adventures are superb examples of their form(s). To each their own, as you and Señor Ross say.)

One of the topics on which I agree with the ‘old school renaissance’ boys club is that the tendency to obsessively detail FRPG worlds poorly serves the dramatic/narrative side of roleplaying. Hence my (honestly not mean-spirited, though on rereading perhaps too snide) aside about the autism spectrum: the hyper-rational manifestations of so many GM imaginations can get in the way of the social-improvisation aspects of RPGs. What’s often a virtue in published materials can be counterproductive in a homebrew setting.

It would seem, in other words, that we may or may not agree in principle, but you feel I’ve criticized Ptolus for not trying to be something other than it is. That wasn’t my intention.

But with respect, I think your in-passing category error – eliding the difference between what a gaming group needs at the table and what certain GMs want at their writing desks – is as big a deal as my complaints. A wag might point out that that difference is at the heart of this post…

See the Diamond Throne for the opposite approach.

I look forward to it!
.-= Wax Banks´s last blog ..Worldbuilding is storytelling: complication, complexity, and micronarratives. =-.

Perhaps you should come back when you grow up?

Please, please, recalibrate your irony meter.
.-= Wax Banks´s last blog ..Worldbuilding is storytelling: complication, complexity, and micronarratives. =-.

The point of the article is clear: advice to NEW GM’s on how to write-up their campaign worlds.

More to the point… don’t worry about fleshing everything out. Stick to simple bullet points that will get reactions from the players. Things that will make them ask questions like “what is that all about??” or “how does this work?” Things that will inspire the players, along with the GM, to investigate or come up with solutions to their questions. As a result, the bullet point material will become more and more fleshed out in areas of interest of the entire playing group.

The alternative is for the GM to spend hours and hours writing game world information that ultimately might not even spark any interest at all among the gaming group. That’s a lot of work to put into something that just goes unnoticed, don’t you think?

Keep it simple. Stick to bullet points. Flesh out the bullet points as interest demands. Don’t worry about the bullet points that get no comments (not yet anyhow). As time permits, look into reworking those bullet points, if necessary (it could be that the material is dead on, and that is why no questions are raised about it).

All in all, I think its a great approach. It gets the players more involved. It gets the perspective of 4, 5, or more people raising questions, commenting, and adding to the material… instead of just one person alone (the GM) doing it.

Now, GDG may not be an industry professional like Mona, but she’s high profile enough that she shouldn’t (in my opinion) be throwing around statements like “come back when you grow up”, especially in reply to a comment that was clearly intended as a tongue-in-cheek way of saying “this is just my opinion…”

As for whether Wax missed the point of Ptolus or not, I’m not sure (yet) that’s true. This particular post effectively says “focus on the interractions, not the detail”, and as advice for a DM building their own world, that’s excellent advice. Ptolus might do both, but ultimately that’s beside the point.

Wax expressed a preference as to how a world should be constructed. He used Ptolus (or at least one tiny section of that very large book) as a counter-example. It doesn’t matter what Mr Cook’s intentions were when writing the book; the fact remains that Wax prefers a different type of worldbuilding schema.

To use an analogy, it’s valid to express an opinion that a banana shouldn’t be blue. It’s completely irrelevant to that opinion that the grower (or even the purchaser) of the banana wanted it to be blue.