![](https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/images/reksio/flecha.png)
(04-28-2016, 09:33 PM)Graeham Wrote:I think this makes quite a bit of sense. In general, that is how I feel.(04-28-2016, 09:19 PM)Caspar Wrote:(04-28-2016, 09:15 PM)Graeham Wrote: FFXIV is FFXIV. I detest the idea of completely breaking the game's lore even if I dislike certain elements of it. Bending, however? That's a different story - but even then I only do it if it's plausible and a means to add some depth to an element of the lore that may not yet have been expanded on. I feel like there's more than enough interesting material to work with in this setting without having to defile what exists. Especially when there's countless interesting niches that go without any love or attention.Defile? That's strong language. But although a great deal of lore is very much set in stone, other elements are vague. We don't know much about the climate in Othard, for example, or the type of food Garleans eat. In those cases, how do you address things the lore *doesn't* cover, or not in enough detail? I guess how much bending is "permissible," is my question.
Ultimately I hold the firm belief that if someone is just going to ignore the established lore in a setting and do whatever they like instead then that's probably a solid sign that they'd be better off elsewhere...or just limiting their role-play to something like Skype or a setting they create themselves.
I can only assume they'd be happier doing that if they show no actual love or passion for FFXIV itself. When I fell out with Blizzard's storytelling I took my leave of WoW because the game's lore no longer interested me. I could probably go off and pretend the stuff I disliked didn't happen but...that's only a way to exclude a great many people. Even if people buy into it then it's just replacing canon with fanon. Which, to me, comes across as rather obnoxious.
That's my personal stance on it anyway.
If something is left vague - such as what, exactly, Othard is like - then it's fine to make an effort to fill in the gaps, especially if it's done by expanding upon what we do know about a particular vague aspect of the lore.
I do feel as though people risk writing themselves into a corner if they embrace too many aspects of the setting that are left without much lore though.Â
In short? I'm willing to turn a blind eye to 'bending' but not to 'breaking'. The former is something I've done myself whilst the latter, to me, just makes me lose interest altogether.
I like to try and give people what they want if they come up with a concept, so I will instinctively seek holes in the lore to grant them the freedom they want as creator. However when it comes to me, I do that only if the concept I want to execute demands it. There is so little lore in the corners of the setting I'm most curious about that I have to scavenge here and there to make something resembling a background that would satisfy me.Â
These elements are usually written such that I can downplay or minimize them to adjust organically to the tastes of the RPer opposite me. Some people refuse to acknowledge anything they don't see in the game. While that defeats the purpose of creative writing for me, and I think it's inherently self contradictory as a viewpoint given every original character is non-canon, I appreciate the challenge inherent with writing according to self-imposed restrictions a great deal, and I've gotten used to being vague enough in dialogue that this usually never causes a clash in writing styles between me and others.
Why this is necessary, and creates so much extra work for me, is that I've got tastes as well. Sometimes my story demands a rote character and other times it demands an unorthodox one that pushes the limit of what is available to us in the setting material. Whether I do the former or the later when entering a setting really depends on what I feel like at the time. I generally see the grey area RP as harmless so long as it doesn't subtract from what already exists in game. My phrase for this is, and always has been, being in favor of things that expand the setting and do not shrink it. Most of the original material I write is usually with the express intent that others, if they find it interesting, can participate or use it as well if they want to. The other factor I consider is whether it diminishes the value of existing setting details or contradicts them. I feel like overall, through putting time and effort into building my mortar to fill in the gaps, I've avoided this. The idea was to be vague in small strategic details about Doma that I can adjust it when more concrete lore arrives, or to localize the background such that it can coexist with new lore as it comes. Yet there's always room for improvement, and I have to be willing to retcon doing this, and that carries some inherent difficulties.
So in the end, I'd say that I'm fine with anything, even made up stuff, unless it directly contradicts the lore, and even in the latter case, I would be *privately* okay with it if it was sold to me well. If the work is invested, and the writer takes the time to construct detailed content to explain what they do, I'd be a liar if I heaped scorn upon that. If I broke the lore aggressively and criticized the lore bending of others, I would be a hypocrite, and if I was a strict lore adherent privately but outwardly approved of lore twisting, I would also be a hypocrite. In the end I think my view is not that different from most people so far. My only real intense sticking point is wishing for others to have flexibility and to not deliberately misrepresent the lore, whether they want to snap free of it or glue themselves to it.
ã€Œè’¼æ°—ç ²ã€ã‚’使ã‚ã–ã‚‹ã‚’å¾—ãªã„!
AV by Kura-Ou
Wiki (Last updated 01/16)
My Balmung profile.
AV by Kura-Ou
Wiki (Last updated 01/16)
My Balmung profile.