Josh Sawyer on "the importance of real-world knowledge for game design"

[Gromnir]

Day-um. I can't believe I'm actually seeing people argue that researching a topic before writing about it is a bad thing. O tempora.

 

 

straw man. lose two points and try again.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Tale]

how much do i need to know? how much Rule is there needed to knowing before breaking is ok?

More than your target audience does. If one takes art and creativity as a form of teaching, even if only in abstract or non-literal terms, then it's important for the teacher to know more than the students.

 

Like Josh said, you need to know a bit about something to have anything meaningful to say about it.

 

If your stance is otherwise that they need not try to be meaningful, simply entertaining, then we'll just have to disagree. Star Wars is popular, sure, but it's not a very meaningful property. And I will personally be more pleased by works that have something to teach me than those that simply find me in common company for liking.

[mcmanusaur]

infusing knowledge/reality to make evocative = good.

treating reality as a goal, in-and-of-itself = bad.

 

For calling out others' straw man arguments, you seem quite prone to them yourself. All that Josh said in that video was that in order to achieve the ultimate goal of a compelling fictional setting, knowledge of reality's working is one prerequisite. No one is arguing that settings must be realistic, but rather that an understanding of the causal processes that have shaped the real world can help to create a believable and convincing fictional setting. If nothing else, this is because the real world is the only guide we have to go on when it comes to inventing sensible and internally consistent scenarios. Our psychology is simply inseparable from the world we live in, and even if we actively tried not to base our creations off of reality we would fail miserably. If you don't understand some of the nuance surrounding real world "rules", you may find yourself inadvertently breaking a different rule entirely, and bad things happen when a creator doesn't know which rules govern their creation (especially when you put that creation in someone else's hands).

Edited August 24, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Gromnir]

 

how much do i need to know? how much Rule is there needed to knowing before breaking is ok?

More than your target audience does. If one takes art and creativity as a form of teaching, even if only in abstract or non-literal terms, then it's important for the teacher to know more than the students.

 

Like Josh said, you need to know a bit about something to have anything meaningful to say about it.

 

If your stance is otherwise that they need not try to be meaningful, simply entertaining, then we'll just have to disagree. Star Wars is popular, sure, but it's not a very meaningful property. And I will personally be more pleased by works that have something to teach me than those that simply find me in common company for liking.

 

1) "more than your target audience does" is an exceedingly limited threshold. you wanna stick with such a fuzzy and limited goal? fine. clear josh is suggesting more.

 

2) nuts

 

"if one takes art and creativity as a form of teaching"

 

somebody wanna explain to tale what logic fallacy he is using?  *shrug* even if we were to somehow force onto art a universal educational  quality, then it necessarily would needs be quite broad. so broad in fact that it would be near meaningless.  is haiku and pottery that is accepted by lay-folk and scholars alike as art that perhaps teaches something only so vague as "that is beauty as i have not seen before and my world is a better place now that i have experienced it" removed from tale's notion of art?  be dismissive of star wars 'cause o' your knowing of art is, in our estimation, the height of arrogance. 

 

3) josh is correct, and wrong

 

yup, you gotta know a bit about something to say something meaningful 'bout it.... but josh gets hung up on stuff that aint necessarily meaningful to his audience. 'cause we stick the trappings o' the roman legion in a story, it does not mean that our "something meaningful" is the trappings o' the roman legions. and just because you know something, doesn't mean you got something meaningful to say. even more relevant in the present context, just because know a bit (or even alot) doesn't mean you got anything ENTERTAINING to say. we is talking about games-- entertainment media.  one o' the best history classes we ever took were a freaking community college course we grabbed over a summer for no other reason than that we were trying to graduate a year quicker. we went to Cal and some other UC schools for undergrad, masters and jd and took history classes at all levels. we had professors who were at the pinnacle o' their profession. we has a hard time remembering most o' their names, and we has a very good memory. nope, the class we recalls most were the one taught us by some guy at a no-name JC in northern california. the guys that, for the most part, bored us to tears such that we slept through their classes and pretty much learned through independent study was Very knowledgeable. my profs, no doubt, knew a bit about history. the fact is that their knowledge didn't give them any special gift for communicating in such a way as to make the subject entertaining should be noteworthy. probable more noteworthy is we bet they all thought they were entertaining. josh gots alot to say...

 

4) you need not know more than student to teach them something

 

bunk. is some students out there that will grow too old for this bit o' wisdom to be useful: people who know less than you, can teach you important lessons.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

 

infusing knowledge/reality to make evocative = good.

treating reality as a goal, in-and-of-itself = bad.

 

For calling out others' straw man arguments, you seem quite prone to them yourself. No one is arguing that settings must be realistic, but rather that an understanding of the causal processes that have shaped the real world can help to create a believable and convincing fictional setting. If nothing else, this is because the real world is the only guide we have to go on when it comes to inventing sensible and internally consistent scenarios. Our psychology is simply inseparable from the world we live in, and even if we actively tried not to base our creations off of reality we would fail miserably. If you don't understand some of the nuance surrounding real world "rules", you may find yourself inadvertently breaking a different rule entirely, and bad things happen when a creator doesn't know which rules govern their creation (especially when you put that creation in someone else's hands).

 

 

*sigh*  

 

bad saur... bad.

 

poster above said, " I can't believe I'm actually seeing people argue that researching a topic before writing about it is a bad thing. "

 

 

we never claimed that josh or some other poster argued specifically that reality should be a goal (although that happens more than a bit in threads such as these...and note how many times josh refers to "real-world" or "realistic" in video). we did say that he misses forest for trees and gets swallowed up by minutiae and details rather than making evocative. heck, listen to his discussion of character interactions. he wants believable/realistic, but his characters is typically... flat. 

 

josh is a knowledgeable guy, and we would be pleased to hear he is handling mechanics or management o' any number o games, but the more involved he seems to get with story and characters, the less we like the project. iwd2? honest hearts? part o' the problem we has with josh seems to be explained in his video.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[mcmanusaur]

 

 

infusing knowledge/reality to make evocative = good.

treating reality as a goal, in-and-of-itself = bad.

 

For calling out others' straw man arguments, you seem quite prone to them yourself. No one is arguing that settings must be realistic, but rather that an understanding of the causal processes that have shaped the real world can help to create a believable and convincing fictional setting. If nothing else, this is because the real world is the only guide we have to go on when it comes to inventing sensible and internally consistent scenarios. Our psychology is simply inseparable from the world we live in, and even if we actively tried not to base our creations off of reality we would fail miserably. If you don't understand some of the nuance surrounding real world "rules", you may find yourself inadvertently breaking a different rule entirely, and bad things happen when a creator doesn't know which rules govern their creation (especially when you put that creation in someone else's hands).

 

 

*sigh*  

 

bad saur... bad.

 

poster above said, " I can't believe I'm actually seeing people argue that researching a topic before writing about it is a bad thing. "

 

 

we never claimed that josh or some other poster argued specifically that reality should be a goal (although that happens more than a bit in threads such as these...and note how many times josh refers to "real-world" or "realistic" in video). we did say that he misses forest for trees and gets swallowed up by minutiae and details rather than making evocative. heck, listen to his discussion of character interactions. he wants believable/realistic, but his characters is typically... flat. 

 

Well, if no one has really argued that reality is a goal in and of itself, and you're not meaning to claim otherwise, then I must question the purpose of the except of yours that I quoted.

 

I'm not going to say anything either way about the quality of characters written by Josh, but I will say that in my opinion really none of the RPGs I have played have had sufficiently interesting or deep characters. However, I do firmly believe that Josh's approach is the right one, and at any rate flat but believable characters are generally better than the usual alternatives (at least in my personal opinion), which consists of hyper-exceptional Ace McBadass's, generic Mary Sue's, and other exaggerated yet cliched archetypes. I guess I can't really speak for most people, but when I think of what- or who- characters should be like to be more compelling, I think of real people.

 

Also, for me, the amount of detail that you put on display is largely independent of how stable your world's foundation is, unless of course your world is unstable by virtue of possessing no explanatory detail. But I think the point is that realistic detail and nuance is more of a creator's aide than something you must constantly hold over the player's head to have any credibility.

Edited August 24, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

infusing knowledge/reality to make evocative = good.

treating reality as a goal, in-and-of-itself = bad.

 

For calling out others' straw man arguments, you seem quite prone to them yourself. No one is arguing that settings must be realistic, but rather that an understanding of the causal processes that have shaped the real world can help to create a believable and convincing fictional setting. If nothing else, this is because the real world is the only guide we have to go on when it comes to inventing sensible and internally consistent scenarios. Our psychology is simply inseparable from the world we live in, and even if we actively tried not to base our creations off of reality we would fail miserably. If you don't understand some of the nuance surrounding real world "rules", you may find yourself inadvertently breaking a different rule entirely, and bad things happen when a creator doesn't know which rules govern their creation (especially when you put that creation in someone else's hands).

 

 

*sigh*  

 

bad saur... bad.

 

poster above said, " I can't believe I'm actually seeing people argue that researching a topic before writing about it is a bad thing. "

 

 

we never claimed that josh or some other poster argued specifically that reality should be a goal (although that happens more than a bit in threads such as these...and note how many times josh refers to "real-world" or "realistic" in video). we did say that he misses forest for trees and gets swallowed up by minutiae and details rather than making evocative. heck, listen to his discussion of character interactions. he wants believable/realistic, but his characters is typically... flat. 

 

 

 

I'm not going to say anything either way about the quality of characters written by Josh, but I will say that in my opinion really none of the RPGs I have played have had sufficiently interesting or deep characters. However, I do firmly believe that Josh's approach is the right one, and at any rate flat but believable characters are generally better than the usual alternatives (at least in my personal opinion), which consists of hyper-exceptional Ace McBadass's, generic Mary Sue's, and other exaggerated yet cliched archetypes. I guess I can't really speak for most people, but when I think of what- or who- characters should be like to be more compelling, I think of real people.

 

 

 

will address this part specific, but only briefly as we is having this argument in another thread a bit further up the board resulting from a linky to http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/08/23/creating-dragon-age-party-members.aspx  

 

the vast majority of crpg characters is... cartoonish. apparently, the current scheme for developing crpg characters makes such a result almost inevitable. that being said, obsidian has a core of rather dedicated fans. is not combat mechanics of alpha protocol or kotor2 that got'em their fans neither.  obsidian can/has done better.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[JFSOCC]

GAH,, I frikking hate this bbcode sometimes let's try this again

 

This post is so terrible that I will go over it piece by piece.

I'll ignore the terrible grammar and punctuation.

 

In other words, you need to understand the rules in order to break them.

 

The most fantastic sci-fi and fantasy books I've read (Hyperion Cantos springs to mind) are those that incorporate a deep scientific understanding of our real universe, and yet manage to convincingly break all the rules.

platitudes and anecdotal evidence?

 

Platitudes are meaningless words, but knowing your subject is hardly meaningless, it is essential to write well.

 

we has used the tired saw regarding knowing before breaking. it is a good guide, but it ain't some kinda rule in and of itself. also, am thinking it is more useful for mechanics than for conceptual in any event. think i gotta have some kinda serious knowledge o' pre-columbian south american cultures to be writing an entertaining fantasy based loose on incan legends? how much do i need to know? how much Rule is there needed to knowing before breaking is ok?

with his basic grammar school education, we doubt Shakespeare were doing serious historical investigations to be creating his plays. in point o' fact, we doubts anybody would use Shakes as some kinda model o' historical accuracy. what rules were he breaking?

 

If you want to to look real, yes, you need to research it well. The clothing styles, the writing systems, the social hierarchies and political systems. You need to know what used technologies were. Did you know they had a system of writing with knots?

This information is out there, accessible. I don't know what Shakespeare(shakes? really) had access too, but it doesn't compare. 

 

America's greatest author (north, south and central) is arguably Faulkner. am suggesting you maybe take a looksee at his education and how he approached writing process.

That's like, just an opinion man. And just as anecdotal and the post you're criticising.

 

the most popular sci-fi franchise, by far, is star wars, and there ain't no freaking serious science in that.

That's a great piece of ignorance. Star Wars draws heavily on Eastern (Japanese) influences. Particularly Bushido and Zen-Buddhism. The style of the movies is fairly common east Asian method of story telling and pays homage to older East Asian movies. So while the "science" aspect is certainly under-represented, you cannot say that George Lucas didn't first research his subject.

 

for every kim stanley robinson you care to name (dan simmons probably don't count as hard sci-fi) there is dozens o' well-loved authors who only gots the most incidental and largely broken knowing of that which they is writing. anecdotal will not get us very far, particularly when it seems clear that the genuine scientists don't got some advantage when crafting popular or good sci-fi. we could do all-day-long the anecdotal thing as you introduced, but am not sure it would be helping.

You are squarely, perhaps deliberately missing the point. You don't do research on your subject matter to make it exactly like the real world, you do it for inspiration. Not only is the real world far stranger than fiction, it enriches your imagination to know more of it. This is what makes for great writers, they have a wide range to draw from.

Anyway, MRStark wasn't supplying anecdotal evidence, he was supplying an example.

 

I can give you another one: James Clavell, author of the book King Rat(amongst others), about someone surviving in a Japanese prison camp. James Clavell survived as a Prisoner of War in Changi, one of the worst, if not the worst, of the Japanese WWII prison camps. As such, he has got much more knowledge about the workings of a prison camp, so we learn more about the types of risks, the means of survival, the mindset of the guards and their culture, than we would of say, David Mitchell writing a skit about cricket. How you don't get this baffles me.

 

keep in mind we has said that first-hand knowledge o activities and serious scholarship may improve writing where author uses details to makes more evocative.  other end of spectrum is just as true, no? ignorance can be breaking suspension o' disbelief. if a writer is so clear lacking knowledge of Real, then anybody with even a bit o' genuine knowledge will be dismissive of the writer's work... though that threshold is hardly fixed. tv cop tasting cocaine or heroin drives us nuts, but you see all the time. just 'cause Gromnir is bothered by such things clearly does not mean that the insanity o' a modern cop tasting possible evidence that amounts to an unknown substance from an unmarked package is wacky enough to ruin suspension o' disbelief for most audience.

You're contradicting yourself, and making the point you're trying to disagree with.

We do groan when a cop tastes drugs, because we know it generally doesn't happen. It DOES break suspension of disbelief.

 

infusing knowledge/reality to make evocative = good.

treating reality as a goal, in-and-of-itself = bad.

Not a dichotomy we were trying to argue. Never did we say that reality was a goal, realism is, or "Verisimilitude".

 

josh, it seems, frequent misses forest for trees. he wanna get each branch and leaf accurate. can't possibly have birches at such latitude. birch forests can't be near as dark as described. is implausible. and if you do got birches, the forest humus would not nearly be as dark and damp as described. etc.

josh spends loads o' effort trying to get flora and fauna o' his forest accurate, thinking that doing so is important. to a certain degree it is... but josh gives disproportionate weight to such stuff. he ends up with a believable forest in which we don't give a darn 'bout what happens.  2  words: honest hearts.

two words: Anecdotal evidence

Besides, I sincerely doubt that Josh wants to copy reality, at no point do I hear him say that, or do his words imply it. I don't want to speak for him, but I believe knowledge is meant as a basis for inspiration and creativity, not as a blueprint not to be diverted from

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

I would love an Inca, Mayan or Aztec setting btw, that is absolutely something I'd love to see. These are rich untapped cultures which would make for great fantasy material.

Edited August 24, 2013 by JFSOCC

[Carlo]

JFSOCC - it's evident you haven't run across Gromnir before on the NWN community boards.  His heyday was in the pre-NWN release ALFA project, so that's over 10 years ago.  (Dates me as well).  Anyone who remembers those early days of the project might get a kick out of the comic satire download on this page, courtesy originally of Anon.

 

Back on topic, top-class world/universe builders like Poul Anderson, Jack Vance and Roger Zelazny indeed wrote what they knew, with very different styles and areas of expertise.  I would say their knowledge of topics ranging from psychology to genetics to fencing enhanced their abilities to describe and create fantastic (in the full sense of the word) and sometimes literally mind-blowing works.

[Gromnir]

gotta love these nonsensical responses wherein we get replies to snippets.  is honest difficult to decipher in quote form. what the heck, we pointed out that 'cause the initial poster were relying on anecdotal, we would use in response... but no doubt your parsing prevented you form realizing. 

 

...

 

*chuckle* 

 

your Shakespeare response is classic though. who cares what he had access to? 

 

Harold Bloom: mr. Shakespeare's, "Julius Ceasar"  was a travesty of a play, filled with historical inaccuracies and outright fabrications. to call any of his dramatic works "histories" is a vulgar misrepresentation.

 

pundit: professor, you do realize that William Shakespeare, a man with only a public school grammar level education wrote his play around 1600? 

 

Harold Bloom: really? gosh. well then, i revise my opinion as follows: that Shakespeare chap was clearly the greatest writer of dramatic prose to ever put pen to paper...

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[JFSOCC]

I love how you cherry pick the most inane and irrelevant part of my post to respond to, while completely ignoring my arguments.

[Gromnir]

I love how you cherry pick the most inane and irrelevant part of my post to respond to, while completely ignoring my arguments.

 the whole thing were largely inane, and as we said, the wacky reply/quote attempt made it largely nonsensical as you weren't actually responding to us. you realize how absolutely ridiculous it gets if Gromnir were to actual respond to each o' your silly reply/quote responses? not gonna do it.

 

dont want us to respond to inane parts? advice: don't write/post/say inane. 

 

duh.

 

back on topic. real world knowledge can be helpful where developer can add details to make more compelling or evocative, but actual real world knowledge necessary is often very small to nil. 

 

write what you know? we got a reply:

 

"nothing can be more limiting to the imagination than only writing about what you know"

 

write about what is or was? that is what journalists and/or historians is paid to do. writer of fiction... or developer of a game with a fantasy setting? seriously?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 24, 2013 by Gromnir

[JFSOCC]

 

I love how you cherry pick the most inane and irrelevant part of my post to respond to, while completely ignoring my arguments.

The whole thing were was largely inane, and as we I said, the wacky reply/quote attempt made it largely nonsensical as you weren't actually to us wasn't to you, or was, it's not exactly clear what you mean to say. You realize how absolutely ridiculous it gets if Gromnir were to actual respond to each o' your silly Unduly dismissive. reply/quote responses? Not gonna do it. Oh yes, so silly that you don't actually want to respond to it. Except my arguments are not inane, just inconvenient to you as they challenge your held beliefs and you rather not face challenges like the **** you are.

 

Dont (strike the don't, it doesn't belong here. Unless you want me to write inanely to make you respond.) want us to respond to inane parts? Advice: don't write/post/say inanely, or "inane things". That's funny coming from a guy who doesn't know how to write properly, has half-backed ideas unsupported by good arguments.

 

Duh.

 

Back on topic. Real world knowledge can be helpful where developer can add details to make <something, I'm going with the narrative> more compelling or evocative, but actual real world knowledge necessary is often very small to nil <is often unnecessary>.  A repetition of your previous opinion, still unsupported, and conveniently ignoring all the counter-arguments made. You've made up your mind and aren't willing to listen to others, what a shocker

 

Write what you know? we I got a reply:

 

"Nothing can be more limiting to the imagination than only writing about what you know" Maybe if you know nothing. But here's the deal, the argument I and others have made; You don't ONLY write about what you know, but you need a solid basis to work from, you can move from there and explore the unknown.

 

Write about what is or was? That is what journalists and/or historians is paid to do. Writer of fiction...or developer of a game with a fantasy setting? seriously? Right, because the Historical fiction genre doesn't exist; Because these subjects are somehow off limits to writers of fiction. Right.

 

HA! Good Fun! You are an idiot.

 

[Gromnir]

oh. let us see how long you keep silliness going.  Gromnir has been posting this way since totsc were being developed, so we bet we outlast you by a bit... but will be fun to watch.  

 

*sigh*

 

again with the reply/quote, but in different format. slow learner. oh, and getting worked up 'cause we call your posting "inane" is more than a little amusing, seeing as that were your choice o' description for your response... disappointing but not surprising.  

 

...

 

you make it difficult to respond and stay on-topic. is some insulting and childish language an **** expletive, grammar corrections (HA!) and redundant and pointless claims that we ain't making an argument.  not give us much to work with, and will probably get thread pruned.

 

historical fiction genre? well, we guess that were a responsive counter-argument... kinda. yes indeed, there is arguably a sub-genre o' fiction one can call historical fiction. no Pulitzer category or national book award category for historical fiction... is more just a bit a shorthand publishers use to better direct customers, no?  that being said, is obsidian making historical fiction? no?  kinda a pointless response then, but yeah, we suspect that in the extreme limited scenario in which an author o' a work claims to be creating "historical fiction," we does think some inclusion of "what is or was" is necessary.  but please note that by inclusion o' the word "fiction" they is still is not writing about "what is or was." fiction, by definition is writing about that which is imaginary.

 

and for every time you wanna mindlessly repeat "write what you know" as if it is some kinda axiom for authors, we can point to another author who is dismissive o' such nonsense. 

"creative writing teachers should be purged until every last instructor who uttered the words "write what you know" is confined in a labour camp. please, talented scibblers, write what you don't. the blind guy with the funny little harp composed The Iliad. how much combat do you think he saw?"

 

but again we feels the need to repeat as it keeps getting lost by folks with short attentions spans or those who is intentional obtuse. we is not arguing against research and first-hand knowledge. personal experience may add to flavor o' writing. sadly, some writers/developers get lost in the details, particularly if they genuine believe in the "super-duper" importance of such details.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps please recall what we said 'bout thread prunes. call folks idiot or use **** is kinda like express ticket to prunedoom. doing such stuff is like saying, "you win." we personally find such antics amusing, but mods dont and we would like to keep you on the line a bit longer.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Gromnir

[Leferd]

Lolz.

 

The cycle repeats itself yet again. I think when Bio invented the Reapers, they created them as a parody of Grommie coming back out from hibernation waiting for someone to call him out on his posting style.

 

...

 

Josh definitely takes his history very seriously which is consistent with his general approach to game design. I minored in history in college and this interest/knowledge/fanaticism of history has allowed me to talk way too much about the minutae that has proved to be detrimental to my keeping conversations from being interesting. ZZZZZ

[JFSOCC]

historical fiction genre? well, we guess that were a responsive counter-argument... kinda. yes indeed, there is arguably a sub-genre o' fiction one can call historical fiction. no Pulitzer category or national book award category for historical fiction... is more just a bit a shorthand publishers use to better direct customers, no?  that being said, is obsidian making historical fiction? no?

Not no, Yes. Project Eternity is said to be comparable to around the 16th century of our world, technology wise, and for some of the societies. With some differences, because the developers are NOT trying to make an exact realism simulator, as you seem to suggest.

 

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/palooka.htm

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm

Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Edited August 25, 2013 by JFSOCC

[Gromnir]

 

historical fiction genre? well, we guess that were a responsive counter-argument... kinda. yes indeed, there is arguably a sub-genre o' fiction one can call historical fiction. no Pulitzer category or national book award category for historical fiction... is more just a bit a shorthand publishers use to better direct customers, no?  that being said, is obsidian making historical fiction? no?

Not no, Yes. Project Eternity is said to be comparable to around the 16th century of our world, technology wise, and for some of the societies. With some differences, because the developers are NOT trying to make an exact realism simulator, as you seem to suggest.

 

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/palooka.htm

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm

Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

 

Gromnir should take your advice and stop arguing with you, but you is just so darn obtuse that it is cute.

 

start with another quote... just for fun. "bad books on writing and thoughtless English professors solemnly tell beginners to "Write What You Know," which explains why so many mediocre novels are about English professors contemplating adultery."

 

we never claimed that pe was being presented as an exact reality simulator. please find where we said such a thing. we can wait.

 

...

 

no? no such comment by Gromnir?

 

what we said is that JOSH can seeming get fixated on details such that his design, while having many elements o' admirable authenticity, is often leaving us with otherwise stale or flat content.  we referenced honest hearts and iwd2, not pe. tell us what espoused goals o' pe is pretty darn useless (and funny) when we is in a thread that has josh describing his personal philosophies 'bout the super-duper importance o' research and first-hand experience. 

 

oh, and lets drop the absurdism. we thinks even josh would dismiss your suggestion that pe, as it uses real-world cultures as basis for some in-game civilizations, would fall within the fuzzy definition o' historical fiction. not exactly shooting for Killer Angels. your wacky stretching exercise has virtual every fantasy novel or game ever made fall into historical fiction genre as most authors borrow elements from real world cultures. no doubt david eddings or lloyd alexander would be surprised to find out they were writers o' historical fiction.  

 

but then again, historical fiction bit is a largely nonsensical definition, so maybe an absurdest argument is bestest. good on you for going all unreasonable. 

 

...

 

am gonna take one last stab at where we thinks josh is stumbling.  "write what you know" is good/bad advice. have heard it ascribed to Solzhenitsyn or Hemingway... which we s'pose is good advice if you were a big game hunter who were a nurse in the spanish civil war or spent time in soviet gulag and stalin's cancer wards. then again, only quote by Hemingway we can find that is close to our broken axiom is, “From all things that you know and all those you cannot know, you make something through your invention that is not a representation but a whole new thing truer than anything true and alive.” is kinda sad that Hemingway's original quote is not greeting card sized and easily recalled.  the "write what you know" hobgoblin might never have spawned if Ernie were just a bit more trite. even so, we thinks the write-know advice is good if one focuses on gut-level emotion rather than facts.  good writing, like good music or good painting, speaks to us on an emotional level.

 

write what you know is advice to aspiring artists... not historians and journalists. tell a historian or journalist to write what they know seems more than a little silly, yes? pointless advice. josh reads the trite bit o' advice, wrong. am thinking he reads as a historian rather than artist, and so we end up with honest hearts.

 

if Gromnir puts a tree in a story, the goal is not to makes an accurate tree. if we spends any effort on description of tree is 'cause we is trying to get audience to Feel something. josh ain't writing short stories or novels, but am thinking he loses sight o' fact that in this regard, games trees is no different than trees in novels. you is adding 'cause you want players to feel. does combat feel exciting and visceral? does old windmill location evoke dread? does forest makes player feel claustrophobic or trapped? whatever. is emotions you is trying to reach.

 

*shrug*

 

am thinking we has exhausted this topic, but if anybody gots a fresh pov, we is game.

 

HA! Good Fun! 

[Malekith]

 

historical fiction genre? well, we guess that were a responsive counter-argument... kinda. yes indeed, there is arguably a sub-genre o' fiction one can call historical fiction. no Pulitzer category or national book award category for historical fiction... is more just a bit a shorthand publishers use to better direct customers, no?  that being said, is obsidian making historical fiction? no?

Not no, Yes. Project Eternity is said to be comparable to around the 16th century of our world, technology wise, and for some of the societies. With some differences, because the developers are NOT trying to make an exact realism simulator, as you seem to suggest.

 

 

I'm not geting involved in this, but PE is no historical fiction by any stretch of the word. Ziets in formspring said spesificaly that PE cultures are not real earth nations and cultures transplanted in a fantasy world like in Dragon Age.

[mstark]

(For the record, I am completely ignoring anything said by/to Gromnir as I see no reason to feed this particular individual. I also haven't read any of his posts.)

 

I'm not geting involved in this, but PE is no historical fiction by any stretch of the word. Ziets in formspring said spesificaly that PE cultures are not real earth nations and cultures transplanted in a fantasy world like in Dragon Age.

In order to invent a believable "culture", whether you know anything about existing cultures or not, you will still require a deep understanding of why humans are pack animals, why we have evolved into a socially dependent species, why there is such a thing as 'group behavior', why we look up to leadership, and why and how we construct social phenomena around ourselves. Generally, you will need to study existing cultures in order to extrapolate such information, but it could potentially be done by studying either human psychology, or evolution, and extrapolate similar information.

 

With a solid understanding of the fields/examples mentioned above, you can then lay down behavioral patterns, in a believable manner, to form a completely new culture with no connection to Earth's existing cultures, other than being recognizable to us as a human phenomena.

 

You would follow the same pattern to invent "believable" magic. It annoys the hell out of me when fantasy books drop magic on you as a "snap-of-the-finger-makes-anything-happen", with no explanation whatsoever. I much prefer reading something that at least gives a remotely believable explanation to magic other than "it's magic". Project Eternity, fortunately, has souls/animancy, and what appears to be an entire school of meta-science behind it. Love it.

 

 

[Felonious]

So what I am led to understand from the latest sway in this thread is that it's best to ignore Gromnir, even though he makes some very valid points, due to his in character posting style and penchant for a bit of embellishment, I would imagine for entertainment purposes?  Sound logic.  I truly hope that this thread is simply an aberration and the rest of this Board is far less close-minded.   Pity.

[Malekith]

(For the record, I am completely ignoring anything said by/to Gromnir as I see no reason to feed this particular individual. I also haven't read any of his posts.)

 

I'm not geting involved in this, but PE is no historical fiction by any stretch of the word. Ziets in formspring said spesificaly that PE cultures are not real earth nations and cultures transplanted in a fantasy world like in Dragon Age.

In order to invent a believable "culture", whether you know anything about existing cultures or not, you will still require a deep understanding of why humans are pack animals, why we have evolved into a socially dependent species, why there is such a thing as 'group behavior', why we look up to leadership, and why and how we construct social phenomena around ourselves. Generally, you will need to study existing cultures in order to extrapolate such information, but it could potentially be done by studying either human psychology, or evolution, and extrapolate similar information.

 

With a solid understanding of the fields/examples mentioned above, you can then lay down behavioral patterns, in a believable manner, to form a completely new culture with no connection to Earth's existing cultures, other than being recognizable to us as a human phenomena.

 

You would follow the same pattern to invent "believable" magic. It annoys the hell out of me when fantasy books drop magic on you as a "snap-of-the-finger-makes-anything-happen", with no explanation whatsoever. I much prefer reading something that at least gives a remotely believable explanation to magic other than "it's magic". Project Eternity, fortunately, has souls/animancy, and what appears to be an entire school of meta-science behind it. Love it.

I don't disagree. But a setting can be internaly consistent and believable, while being completely alien and pure fantasy.

Being based in how reality works doesn't make something historical fiction

[JFSOCC]

Sometimes I wonder if people are deliberately obtuse just to **** with me.

 

Gromnir mostly ignores the valid points others make because it doesn't fit his narrative.

 

And historical fiction is one of the examples, but there are many reasons to research your subject matter.

 

And yes, I sincerely hope a great deal of fantasy, imagination and completely new things will find their way into P:E, but I am glad, no, happy, that people like Josh Sawyer take their job seriously and research before they produce.

Because all those things that annoy so many of the fanbase, like boobplate/"naked armour" or fake "ye olde English" won't find themselves in P:E because the devs did their due diligence.

 

I seriously don't understand how you guys don't get this.

 

And let me get one thing clear:

Knowledge does not limit the imagination, it does the opposite, it frees the imagination. It is a pre-requisite for creativity and originality.

 

A five year old child will NEVER be able to imagine a beautiful architectural building into its smallest detail, and while many architects are less than special, those who created true beauty were the experts, not amateurs.

 

The argument that shakespeare didn't research his subject matter ignores his experience and training as a playwright, his knowledge of plot devices, and his mastery of the English language. He had to learn these things.

 

You simply cannot create something from nothing. Like the Mitchell and Webb skit I posted earlier: sure you can write your fantasy about being a doctor into a series, but it's not going to be particularly good unless you can make it convincing.

"We need to bring this man medicine"

-

 

Even IF you somehow could produce something without any research at all, something quite good, people are not going to connect with your story or setting if they cannot emphasize or understand it.

[Felonious]

I believe you are oversimplifying his stance; from what I decipher from Gromnir's posts, he feels that Mr. Sawyer attempts to impart too much reality into his fantasy world development, to the point where the infinitesimal details of realism can absorb creative resources which could have been better served being utilized in other areas.  Do not let your anger at his style of posting, baiting as it may be, blind you to the fact that he does carry some knowledge and a valid point of view into this discussion.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I believe you are oversimplifying his stance; from what I decipher from Gromnir's posts, he feels that Mr. Sawyer attempts to impart too much reality into his fantasy world development, to the point where the infinitesimal details of realism can absorb creative resources which could have been better served being utilized in other areas.  Do not let your anger at his style of posting, baiting as it may be, blind you to the fact that he does carry some knowledge and a valid point of view into this discussion.

 

Pretty much sums up what Gromnir is saying. Also, some things that Josh Sawyer likes in a pnp game may not translate into a crpg, despite wanting to put it into the game. While it might be more realistic, some things just aren't fun in a crpg. We've seen that with item durability being taken out. And it really comes down to is the game fun to play? Yes/No.

 

You only have to look at IWD 2 to notice some glaring things that frustrates players. Battle Squares, Fell Woods, lack of any useful or good loot in most of the game for your characters, some of the FedEx quests, a lot of the mini-boss fights only drop gold and gems and no armour/weapons, ... and so on. While there's a lot of good stuff in IWD 2, there's some real let downs as well. What comes across as a good game overall, could have been a fantastic game.

[Monte Carlo]

Gromnir is an experienced contrarian, provocateur and troll, in the old-skool and largely positive definition of the term.

 

In my, albeit limited, experience there is more fun and enlightenment to be had in arguing with him than not. He also couldn't care less what you think, so have at him. He won't mind.