It is a strange and difficult question.
What makes an MMO and beyond a fantasy creation good ?
Why is Lore driven design important ?
Why must races and classes be differentiated ?
I think that the answer is the inner consistency of reality.
An immersion process that makes the player or reader to join a fantasy world and to believe in it because it has the inner consistency of reality.
When this miracle happens, the person stops being an external observer of a fantasy creation but an actor of his own "secondary life".
So I thought that as long as the development team has this unique target against which each decision should be weighted in mind, the game will be good.
Sofar it seems to be the case.
Of course I didn't find it alone and others said it better :)
So for all of you a jewel that deserves to be read over and over when fantasy creation is your concern.
The mental power of image-making is one thing, or aspect; and it should appropriately be called Imagination. The perception of the image, the grasp of its implications, and the control, which are necessary to a successful expression, may vary in vividness and strength: but this is a difference of degree in Imagination, not a difference in kind.
The achievement of the expression, which gives (or seems to give) “the inner consistency of reality,” is indeed another thing, or aspect, needing another name: Art, the operative link between Imagination and the final result Sub-creation.
For my present purpose I require a word which shall embrace both the Subcreative Art in itself and a quality of strangeness and wonder in the Expression, derived from the Image: a quality essential to fairy-story. I propose, therefore, to arrogate to myself the powers of Humpty-Dumpty, and to use Fantasy for this purpose: in a sense, that is, which combines with its older and higher use as an equivalent of Imagination the derived notions of “unreality” (that is, of unlikeness to the Primary World), of freedom from the domination of observed “fact,” in short of the fantastic.
I am thus not only aware but glad of the etymological and semantic connexions of fantasy with fantastic: with images of things that are not only “not actually present,” but which are indeed not to be found in our primary world at all, or are generally believed not to be found there. But while admitting that, I do not assent to the depreciative tone. That the images are of things not in the primary world (if that indeed is possible) is a virtue, not a vice. Fantasy (in this sense) is, I think, not a lower but a higher form of Art, indeed the most nearly pure form, and so (when achieved) the most potent.
Fantasy, of course, starts out with an advantage: arresting strangeness. But that advantage has been turned against it, and has contributed to its disrepute. Many people dislike being “arrested.” They dislike any meddling with the Primary World, or such small glimpses of it as are familiar to them. They, therefore, stupidly and even maliciously confound Fantasy with Dreaming, in which there is no Art; and with mental disorders, in which there is not even control: with delusion and hallucination.
But the error or malice, engendered by disquiet and consequent dislike, is not the only cause of this confusion. Fantasy has also an essential drawback: it is difficult to achieve. Fantasy may be, as I think, not less but more sub-creative; but at any rate it is found in practice that “the inner consistency of reality” is more difficult to produce, the more unlike are the images and the rearrangements of primary material to the actual arrangements of the Primary World.
It is easier to produce this kind of “reality” with more “sober” material.
Fantasy thus, too often, remains undeveloped; it is and has been used frivolously, or only half-seriously, or merely for decoration: it remains merely “fanciful.” Anyone inheriting the fantastic device of human language can say the green sun.
Many can then imagine or picture it. But that is not enough—though it may already be a more potent thing than many a “thumbnail sketch” or “transcript of life” that receives literary praise.
To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably require labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, a kind of elvish craft.
Few attempt such difficult tasks.
But when they are attempted and in any degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art: indeed narrative art, storymaking in its primary and most potent mode.
(J.R.R.Tolkien 1939)
Nikademis said:Very poignant, but quite hard to decipher at times.
Borumber said:good gosh my brain hurts after reading that. I felt like I was reading a college level text at times. From the parts that I could grasp I would say its pretty true that this "art" does take work thanks to all the people working on their dime and time!
Istuulamae said:
Yes, the language is dense compared to most of today. Guess because it was written 75 years ago, by a British professor. I think he says two things that are relevant to PROTF: the "arresting strangeness" of good fantasy (which is just a fun way to put it); then what he says about the world being credible at the end. You want to make a green sun? Cool. Give me a world where I can believe there's a green sun. That's where some modern or game fantasy falls short. It isn't just thinking oddly, or stopping at wild creativity. Give the place some logic and structure. Then you're not asking people to believe in your crazy world, you're presenting something real for them to experience.
This is the same reason why I loved Star Trek so much when I was a boy. All of the technology in Gene Roddenberry's world had rules, depth, and its own specialized language. Deflector array, warp drive, anti-matter containment, sensors, shields, phasers, shuttle craft, transporter beam (heisenberg compensator anyone?), iso-linear optics, positronic matrix, tri-corder and so on... Though far from perfect, Star Trek presented its technology in consistent ways so that I was not constantly being fatigued by requests from the author to suspend my disbelief over and over again.
Star Trek was not really a show about traveling thorough space. The science fiction was just a backdrop for stories about conflict resolution, ethics, hope, friendship, despair, politics, discovery, betrayal, personal fulfillment, etc. In other words, it was about people, not things. If you think about the true stories that you enjoy most, you will see that they are about these same kinds of things. Fantastic realms can provide us with different lenses through which we can examine our stories, but they are not themselves the story. This is, I think, part of Tokein's point.
Joseph Campbell provides excellent perspective on such discussions in his book _The Hero with a Thousand Faces_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces ; Extra Credits also does a series on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWKKRbw-e4U
CelevinMoongleam said:
Istuulamae said:
Yes, the language is dense compared to most of today. Guess because it was written 75 years ago, by a British professor. I think he says two things that are relevant to PROTF: the "arresting strangeness" of good fantasy (which is just a fun way to put it); then what he says about the world being credible at the end. You want to make a green sun? Cool. Give me a world where I can believe there's a green sun. That's where some modern or game fantasy falls short. It isn't just thinking oddly, or stopping at wild creativity. Give the place some logic and structure. Then you're not asking people to believe in your crazy world, you're presenting something real for them to experience.
This is the same reason why I loved Star Trek so much when I was a boy. All of the technology in Gene Roddenberry's world had rules, depth, and its own specialized language. Deflector array, warp drive, anti-matter containment, sensors, shields, phasers, shuttle craft, transporter beam (heisenberg compensator anyone?), iso-linear optics, positronic matrix, tri-corder and so on... Though far from perfect, Star Trek presented its technology in consistent ways so that I was not constantly being fatigued by requests from the author to suspend my disbelief over and over again.
Star Trek was not really a show about traveling thorough space. The science fiction was just a backdrop for stories about conflict resolution, ethics, hope, friendship, despair, politics, discovery, betrayal, personal fulfillment, etc. In other words, it was about people, not things. If you think about the true stories that you enjoy most, you will see that they are about these same kinds of things. Fantastic realms can provide us with different lenses through which we can examine our stories, but they are not themselves the story. This is, I think, part of Tokein's point.
Joseph Campbell provides excellent perspective on such discussions in his book _The Hero with a Thousand Faces_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces ; Extra Credits also does a series on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWKKRbw-e4U
Agree. Fantastic stuff.
That is another necessary attribute of fictional world building, and really just story telling in general: connection. Making it believable, like Tolkien said, is essential. But if there's nothing worth connecting to in your wonderfully believable world, what good is it?
At first I didn't want to elaborate because it could never be as good as what Tolkien said.
And I agree, indeed, his text (which is an extract of a larger one) is difficult and needs thinking a while after every sentence.
But in regard of the comments, I will try to save some time to the discoverers of this text because I already invested the necessary time to "decode" the master.
So in summary.
Tolkien is analysing a Subcreation, e.g our Universe is THE Creation and a fantasy world is A Subcreation and asks 2 questions :
1) How does the process of Subcreation work ?
2) When is a Subcreation successful ?
This clearly shows that the subject is relevant for this board because the Pantheon Dev team is attempting a Subcreation and (certainly) wishes it to be successfull ;)
To 1) he says that the process is in 2 parts - Imagination and Art ( a "kind of elvish craft").
Imagination provides the raw material and generates interest because it shows "things not present in our primary world".
But Imagination is by far not enough to get a Subcreation..
Imagination is to Subcreation what a lump of rock is to Michelangelo's David.
So the most important part is the Art which will give to the Image the "inner consistency of reality" e.g it is this consistency that characterises the Subcreation.
In Tolkien's or Pantheon's case this Art is story telling or Lore. Note that the Image (e.g graphics) are less important because they "only" provide the raw material. A necessary but not sufficient condition.
To 2) he says that the ultimate sign of success is when the Subcreation (e.g Imagination + Story) make the fantasy world almost isomorphic (for lack of a better word) to the Primary (real) world.
In other words Images like green skies or Unicorns are not a problem for believability (e.g immersion) as long as the Art and the "elvish skills" give us a world whose inner consistency (e.g including green skies and Unicorns) is undistinguishable from the inner consistency of our primary (real) world.
Technically Tolkien achieved this goal by creating legends, history, languages and cultures of the Middle Earth which gave to the actual story happening thousands of years later (Frodo travelling to Mordor to destroy the one ring) the "inner consistency of reality". And it works !
I am quite sure that if Tolkien lived today, he would write something about the necessity of having Lore driven MMOs .
Ah and I saw that Istuulamae is totally on the same frequency as the Professor what didn't surprise me ;)