|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 1, 2016 16:37:23 GMT -5
These posts down in the Dragon Thread resulted in a new topic so I have quoted these posts and then moved the rest of it here so as to continue the conversation without derailing the thread topic. (I hope I am not offending anyone in doing so) The Admin I'm very tired of dragons, generally, of late. Their codification and boxed-in cookie-cutterness is (and has been) a great disservice. I'm working on a re-invisioned species of Dragon; perhaps more, dino-ish. I was tired of them after year 1. But that also included just about every generic knock-off from myth, legend, folk tale and speculative literature. My WoK is, for the most part, all new stuff. But we must keep some wyrms crawling about. And those skeletons too, don't yah know...? I on the other hand have always loved dragons and that is also why I am always striving to come up with a unique vision of dragons and why I tweak things from time to time to keep it fresh. I am not using the list above. You can see what I am doing down in my campaign section and I have quite a bit more to post there. However, the above list is a place for some to start to imagine something unique. Oh yes, but I am easily jaded unless I am progressing imaginative leaps even outside of what I have just created. It's a curse and a gift at once...  Everything new soon becomes "Done that, what's next?" I understand the fascination with dragons, i do. I have always been more fascinated in what "isn't" rather than what "is," if you catch my drift. I'm not there. Getting tired of Dragon's is like getting tired of beauty or justice. Dragons are pretty archetypal for me. The mechanics never grow tiresome for me, as they are for me, as are most 0e mechanics, simply thin, light abstractions that empower rather than constrict role play. If I role played every dragon the same way, well, yes, I would get tired of that dragon. But I don't. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 1, 2016 17:03:55 GMT -5
Oh yes, but I am easily jaded unless I am progressing imaginative leaps even outside of what I have just created. It's a curse and a gift at once... Everything new soon becomes "Done that, what's next?" I understand the fascination with dragons, i do. I have always been more fascinated in what "isn't" rather than what "is," if you catch my drift. I do understand what you mean. I am not easily jaded, but I would get there too eventually if I were not always tinkering with things. I'm not there. Getting tired of Dragon's is like getting tired of beauty or justice. Dragons are pretty archetypal for me. The mechanics never grow tiresome for me, as they are for me, as are most 0e mechanics, simply thin, light abstractions that empower rather than constrict role play. If I role played every dragon the same way, well, yes, I would get tired of that dragon. But I don't. I also understand what you mean too. I think tetramorph that I fall someplace on the continuum between you and robkuntz. I think I lie closer to him along that continuum, but since I do not do it for a living and my time is limited I perhaps can enjoy what I create for a longer time, because it is not also my job. As he says, " It's a curse and a gift at once... " Another factor is for him the creation of the new is the fascination, whereas for me the sharing of the new with my group is more my main fascination. In a way you are in a really sweet spot and that is cool too! |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 1, 2016 17:16:33 GMT -5
Thanks, Admin Pete. I guess, for me, the attraction to 0e, like that of the "Free Kriegspiel" from whence it came, is that of knowing the situation so well that you can trust the judgment of the referee, rather than needing an exact statistical mapping with the mechanics. That becomes all the more necessary when we are dealing with fantasy, as there is nothing to map exact mechanics too. I take this to be what forms much of our crowd's intuitive dissatisfaction with the unbelievable amount of rules found in "new school" gaming. For me, the more the ref makes up the world, the more I feel like I am being asked to play a bit character in his or her own fan fiction. I would rather that they write their novel so that I can read it. The more I can trust that the ref is engaging the shared classical legendaria which we inherit in the west, the more I can trust his or her judgment. (I suppose I would also enjoy a fantastical Japanese medieval wargames campaign, I just am not familiar enough with it to run it, or trust the ref to know it either.) "Progressing imaginative leaps" for me come in terms of deeper and deeper engagement with the archetypes, not ever changing kaleidoscopic surface machinations. I am ever amazed at Gygax and Arneson's intuitive capacity appropriately to sketch out the minimal number of mechanics necessary to outline a classical archetype, while leaving the rest to the imaginative interpretation of the ref during play. Truly amazing. Not bored yet! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 1, 2016 17:20:47 GMT -5
I'm not there. Getting tired of Dragon's is like getting tired of beauty or justice. Dragons are pretty archetypal for me. The mechanics never grow tiresome for me, as they are for me, as are most 0e mechanics, simply thin, light abstractions that empower rather than constrict role play. If I role played every dragon the same way, well, yes, I would get tired of that dragon. But I don't. What is archetypal to me is thought, progressing it. Now becomes the decision of what direction more assiduously progresses the thought of "Fantasy". And I will assure you, that that is not through thoughts regarding mechanics. The idea that a game incorporating a mutable axis for both conceptual and material development and that merges the two when that is possible or warranted, and that expands or contracts same when it is not, is the only pretext for engaging upon the assumption that "light abstractions that empower rather than construct role play." I can empower role play in conceptual ways without light, or even, extant mechanics. This is, in fact, embedded in the play strata on many levels as conceptual leaps and imaginative exchange and thus as imbedded laws. Rules on the other hand are optional for attaining those leaps. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 1, 2016 17:25:18 GMT -5
. . . not through thoughts regarding mechanics. Rules on the other hand are optional for attaining those leaps. Looks like we are in substantial agreement. Nothing quite like the fusion of horizons! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 1, 2016 17:44:33 GMT -5
Oh yes, but I am easily jaded unless I am progressing imaginative leaps even outside of what I have just created. It's a curse and a gift at once... Everything new soon becomes "Done that, what's next?" I understand the fascination with dragons, i do. I have always been more fascinated in what "isn't" rather than what "is," if you catch my drift. I do understand what you mean. I am not easily jaded, but I would get there too eventually if I were not always tinkering with things. I'm not there. Getting tired of Dragon's is like getting tired of beauty or justice. Dragons are pretty archetypal for me. The mechanics never grow tiresome for me, as they are for me, as are most 0e mechanics, simply thin, light abstractions that empower rather than constrict role play. If I role played every dragon the same way, well, yes, I would get tired of that dragon. But I don't. I also understand what you mean too. I think tetramorph that I fall someplace on the continuum between you and robkuntz . I think I lie closer to him along that continuum, but since I do not do it for a living and my time is limited I perhaps can enjoy what I create for a longer time, because it is not also my job. As he says, " It's a curse and a gift at once... " Another factor is for him the creation of the new is the fascination, whereas for me the sharing of the new with my group is more my main fascination. In a way you are in a really sweet spot and that is cool too! I create new things to be used too, PD. New equals always fresh; fresh equals mysterious; mysterious (for the players) equals immersed; immersed comes the closest to Fantasy. This, after all, is a FANTASY Role Playing Game, and as Gary exactly noted in the foreword, "These rules are strictly Fantasy". Fantasy as the noun, and not as derived from the noun phrase, fantasy-fiction. In fact it wasn't until several years after D&D's release that the trailing "Game" part was added to clarify (and in some cases confuse) its typification--we all referred to it as FRP until then. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 1, 2016 17:47:41 GMT -5
. . . not through thoughts regarding mechanics. Rules on the other hand are optional for attaining those leaps. Looks like we are in substantial agreement. Nothing quite like the fusion of horizons! Methinks you have pulled forth the "end-around" card. Good play, that, though our horizons are not as meshed as they would appear to be. The day that happens we become BORG.  |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 1, 2016 18:26:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 1, 2016 19:11:06 GMT -5
Over-individualization had nothing to do with the BORG. Perhaps you meant that folks are not different enough in their individualism? I understand fusion of horizons. But without admitting to it, would it then be bad not to fuse (the opposite of "good")? There is difference between each and every human that makes room for them at the same time, or should. History tends on one hand to admit to it, and by the record on the other hand, refute it. People are still killing each other over differences rather than embracing points of views as unique. In whatever case I maintain my individual slant as do you, thus our philosophies differ, and therein I can find no fusion; but I have, and will will always maintain, nothing but respect for anyone's opinions and differences. The idea of the game was that it was supposed to be different for all, not sameness which would then tend towards group think. Gary and Dave disagreed from the get-go, and I disagreed with Gary, and many others disagree with me, etc. Designers coming together in thought is a rarity; for it is by their vary individual natures that they progress their own artistic insights and strengths by degrees and kinds; and the best ones that I've ever noted are the few who strode away from the group and made something unique and thus produced art rising above the circular jargon of their past (Arneson being one of those I am referring to). In fact true artists have traditionally had contempt for their peers after a fashion; but yet history is filled with examples of these few who made a difference by being different. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 1, 2016 20:54:32 GMT -5
Oh, sorry, robkuntz, I reread my post and I realize I worded myself really unclearly. What I mean is that the BORG represent the FEAR, or negation of the American construct of the self. And I find that our modern construct of the self to be inordinately individualistic. The BORG is what you fictionalize as the enemy if the goal is complete alienation. I guess if the Romans had done sci fi they would have made a fictional enemy that looked a lot like completely isolated individuals purchasing prepackaged food in shrink wrapped containers and watching separate television shows in air-conditioned cubes without windows. Very scary. Hey, wait a minute . . . I still don't think you're tracking me with the fusion of horizons thing. But let us not waste anymore thread space on that one! |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 2, 2016 1:09:32 GMT -5
I create new things to be used too, PD. New equals always fresh; fresh equals mysterious; mysterious (for the players) equals immersed; immersed comes the closest to Fantasy. This, after all, is a FANTASY Role Playing Game, and as Gary exactly noted in the foreword, "These rules are strictly Fantasy". Fantasy as the noun, and not as derived from the noun phrase, fantasy-fiction. In fact it wasn't until several years after D&D's release that the trailing "Game" part was added to clarify (and in some cases confuse) its typification--we all referred to it as FRP until then. I did not mean to imply that you created solely for the purpose of creating things separate from using them, so I evidently stated it badly. What I was trying to say, based on your earlier comments was that I see two distinct pleasures - one being the creation of the NEW and the other being the sharing with others of the NEW and that I had the impression, perhaps wrongly so that the creative part was a bit more dominant in you than the sharing part, although both are present in strong measure. I have no doubt that you want the new things that you create to be used, just that I had the impression, again perhaps wrongly so, that 1-A is creating and 1-B is having it used instead of vice versa or instead of exactly equal. If I am wrong in this impression, I did not mean to offend. I will tell you that for myself I get a lot of pleasure from creating new things, but I personlly get even greater pleasure from having it used. For me having it used is 1-A and the creation itself is 1-B and the difference between the two is very small but not non-existent. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 2, 2016 1:22:34 GMT -5
I think we used to have a very individualized culture, but that it is becoming less so over time as the culture becomes more and more about making everyone be round pegs that fit into universal one size fits all round holes. Instead of the norm being that all shapes had (at least in theory, if not totally in practice) the opportunity to find their own reasonably well-fitting hole. The drive now is for complete homogenization to make us all completly the same, that is to say we are in danger of becoming the BORG where there are no distinct and unique individuals with distinct and unique thought and ideas, but only unending blandness and complete agreement on everything under the sun. I do not know about you, but I don't want to live in a world where there is no dissent allowed, where complete agreement on everything is required and from cradle to grave no one has an original idea or a unique thought. I read the novel 1984 for the first time when I was 10 years old and to me it is and remains the scariest story that I have ever read. We have the technology to enforce that way of life way beyond what George Orwell envisioned and we are so close to living in that world I sometimes wonder if it is inevitable. Then I go play some OD&D and introduce someone to it for the first time and they are blown away with how much fun it is and hope springs eternal. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 2, 2016 4:17:29 GMT -5
I address the vital vs. mechanistic concepts in my book; and I agree with everything you state above, PD, which expose these two ideas and their ongoing battle. The idea of difference is what drove Arneson to create the concept and use it to begin with. I see the BORG, unlike Tetramorph's conception, as you do. Not as a fearful reaction to preserve some strange and inordinate individualism, but as the continued assault upon the individual to become that collective. OD&D should indeed be encouraging holistic perspectives--positive individual and group--which in different cases, these days, might indeed be an awakening for many, as the omnipresent sameness is otherwise served as a daily staple on so many other societal levels and thus becomes "the nature of things" as constructed for the vast majority of people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 2, 2016 10:58:08 GMT -5
In todays world many people have come to think that lack of complete agreement is enmity and they have no room for differences; whereas the truth is that differences are the spice of life, without differences we would be very boring to each other and have nothing to teach each other and nothing to learn from each other.
IMO this forum and this fellowship should/has to be about embracing our differences in many areas as a good thing and to foster the understanding that two people can disagree on many things and yet still be good friends/close friends and still enjoy each others company. I don't want to be like some forums where any dissenting thought is shouted down and the poster hounded off the site.
I want to be a forum where you can post your ideas and I can tell you what I like or don't like about it and why, what grabs me or doesn't grab me and why and you can understand that I am not saying that your idea is bad. Telling you "Wow that is great" is of course a good thing and what we all want to hear. But telling you, "Sorry that just doesn't grab me", does not mean that it is "BAD", it justs means it is not to my taste and no offense is meant or intended, you and your group may be perfectly happy with it and that is wonderful. I want a forum where we can be that honest with each other. Sometimes we may suggest tweaks. If I or someone else suggests tweaks or changes, your are under no obiligation to use those suggestions and I should not be offended if you don't and vice versa.
If we look down in the Member Campaigns forum there are 14 different campaigns listed and most of us have only posted a little, but they are all different and unique. I think they would all be fun to play in and I wish that we lived in a small enough geographic area that we could take turns playing in each others campaigns. I hope someday for this forum to have 100 campaigns listed with enough info posted that it is clear that everyone is different and unique and what an awesome thing that is that they are different and unique. Will all of us like all 100 campaigns - no not likely, but that is not a bad thing, after all we are different we have different tastes. Things that excite you might bore me to tears and vice versa, again that is not a bad thing, it just is and we should accept that. Agreement is not a bad thing, but neither is disagreement. Getting upset with each other because we don't agree on everything - that is a bad thing if it ruins or prevents friendships.
When I look at someone's campaign I don't go "Wow, I want to imitate that campaign and make mine just like it." No, I go "Wow, I would love to play in his or her campaign." If I want to imitate it is to imitate the example of creativity and unique thought by becoming more creative and unique in thought in what I design and build and have to share.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Apr 2, 2016 11:35:16 GMT -5
Good discussion. Now I maybe in the minority here I do enjoy my dragons and some standard monster types as do my players. Just from reading novels or seeing movies I enjoy gaming in a world where certain fantasy tropes exist. But I also do get tired of the same old monsters or the excessive amount of monsters. So while I may have dragons they won't be common or a rumor of a monsters may lead the players to believe it to be an already existing one they are familiar with. They hear a rumor of a golem and from the facts they piece together they'll lead themselves to believe it's an iron golem then when they find the creature it turns out to be a robot. So while they think they are fighting a strange new type of golem it could be a robot.
I try to keep them on their toes. I also don't have monsters as prolific in my games. Humans can be more monstrous then real monsters.
|
|
Everything new soon becomes "Done that, what's next?" I understand the fascination with dragons, i do. I have always been more fascinated in what "isn't" rather than what "is," if you catch my drift.
