Quote from: blakkieIf you aren't headed towards something then you are relying far more on chance of getting somewhere you enjoy.  And people's ability to and enjoyment of twisting and stretching their thinking has functional limits, varying from one person to the next.

Yes.  Though intention is a really difficult thing to quantify, I think it has a lot to do with the process of making things and their eventual success (although "success" is certainly a loaded word).  If a GM or designer or maker of wedding cakes is coming from a place of "I don't want orcs," or "God, I hate those cakes with flour and icing," it still begs the question: what do you want?  And the gm/designer/wedding cake crafter has to answer that question.  Often it's a passionate answer, which can lead to something great.  Other times it's a fill-in, default, negatively-defined answer that amounts to, "well at least I don't have flour and icing," which can spell doom.

If the process begins from "I think wedding cakes should have flames and shit on the side and taste like Jack Daniels and, to bring out the flavor of the JD, we really can't have any flour," and you are able to consistently and creatively execute said cake, I'd call that a successful incorporation of originality.  And a sweet cake, though, in my opinion, cakes should always have icing, dammit.  

Quote from: S. John RossI think a very traditional work can be original ... I think originality just boils down to personal investment. A game or setting is original if it bears the distintive metaphorical thumbprint of its designers. Even if it's built from familiar-looking bricks.

Going back to your Five Elements of a Commercially Successful Role-Playing Setting, I think your "Cliche" element points to the effective limit of originality for a fantasy game setting with broad appeal.  The ability for a setting to allow players and GMs to incorporate cliches and familiar genre conventions makes a setting more approachable, easier to understand, and easier to use for both player and GM.  

If the game is so original that it can't be associated with any cliches or familiar genre conventions, then it's going to require a lot of work (in the form of reading setting material) for the GM and players to understand and perhaps a lot of ongoing work for the GM and players to use since they, too, will have no choice but to be original and figure things out from scratch.  It's always easier to be derivative than original and maybe that's not such a bad thing when it comes to ease of use for a setting.

And I think your Uresia points to how role-playing settings (at least those looking for some commercial success) should be original.  For that setting, you mined the less-well-known but rich-with-cliche video game RPG genre for cliches and did a lot with attitude rather than setting details.  So one way to be original is to mine less-used and less-well-known genres for their cliches and another way to be original is to infuse the setting with a different attitude than other games.  

Warhammer FRP, for example, has many of the same cliche elements as standard D&D fantasy.  It's not the setting details that make the biggest difference (e.g., Skaven) but the attitude of the setting -- the whole "A Grim World of Perilous Adventure" thing.  Vampire: The Masquerade did cliche movie monsters and hooked them into the whole Goth attitude and subculture.  

A third way to be original is mashing cliches and genres together, taking bits from both (or all of them).  Dark Sun was essentially D&D done as dark post-holocaust fantasy.  Deadlands was the Western merged with fantasy and horror.  And Rifts largely succeeded by being a big bucket of cliches from various genres that hadn't been combined before.  

So being original doesn't have to mean that each element has to be totally unlike anything anyone has ever seen before.  And maybe that's exactly the wrong way to be original if you want the setting to be easy to run and have broad appeal.  All you really have to do is make sure that the combination of elements, their sources, and their attitude are unique.

(And, yes, I'm going to keep haunting you about those Five Elements of a Commercially Successful Role-Playing Setting because even though I appreciate why you think they are dangerous, I think that they could help steer people who don't know any better away from some simple but fatal mistakes.  But I've only included one here.  Like breaking the killer joke into individual words in that Monty Python skit, only one out of five shouldn't do any harm. )

Quote from: John MorrowGoing back to your Five Elements of a Commercially Successful Role-Playing Setting, I think your "Cliche" element points to the effective limit of originality for a fantasy game setting with broad appeal.

Well, again, I think it points to the limits on novelty. And you know I don't like discussing the Five Elements in public

QuoteThe ability for a setting to allow players and GMs to incorporate cliches and familiar genre conventions makes a setting more approachable, easier to understand, and easier to use for both player and GM.  

Absolutely, yeah. Props, costumes, backdrops ... they're tools for what the game is actually about, and what the game is actually about is characters having adventures. Using oddball props and costumes rarely makes the characters or adventures any better, and taken to extremes it draws attention and energy away from them, which is just plain bad.

QuoteIt's always easier to be derivative than original and maybe that's not such a bad thing when it comes to ease of use for a setting.

I can see that we're just not going to agree on the terminology. Such is life.

QuoteAnd I think your Uresia points to how role-playing settings (at least those looking for some commercial success) should be original.  For that setting, you mined the less-well-known but rich-with-cliche video game RPG genre for cliches and did a lot with attitude rather than setting details.  So one way to be original is to mine less-used and less-well-known genres for their cliches and another way to be original is to infuse the setting with a different attitude than other games.  

Uresia mined anime based on computer games, yes (not computer games directly), but really that's only about a fourth of it. At least half of it is rooted in even more familiar old-school D&D traditions ... stout dwarves and snooty elves and dungeons and copper/silver/gold currency and the lot. Even the overall vaguely-defined technology level is deliberately set at about the "Known World/Mystara" level. Uresia is original because it's a very personal stew ... because I didn't phone it in, basically, and because another game designer given a similar assignment wouldn't have approached it anything like I did (though, certainly, they might do something just as groovy or groovier). But the ingredients in that stew are meat and potatoes, with just a pinch of lotus and wasabe (and a few other things, including whatever the hell Zork and Groo are made of).

All of my work is meat-and-potatoes work, because all of my work (and my gaming) is about stuff I dig, and the genre details are just props for me to get to that stuff.

I like to call it the "swimming pool" approach. You've got a shallow end for comfortable fun splishy-splashing and a deep end for those seeking more room to maneuver or a place to dive. A trad-fantasy gamer can go into Uresia and say "I wanna play a thief" and the setting welcomes and rewards him for that. If he wants to play something odder later on, there's plenty to be had in the form of slimes and snowmen and shamed philosophers and whatnot, but nobody who just wants to play a Human Fighter need ever feel like the poor cousin in the party for that.

QuoteWarhammer FRP, for example, has many of the same cliche elements as standard D&D fantasy.  It's not the setting details that make the biggest difference (e.g., Skaven) but the attitude of the setting -- the whole "A Grim World of Perilous Adventure" thing.

Plus, it has that third thing beyond originality and novelty. It has quality. Flipping through the original WFRP1 core book is an exercise in awe ... evocative presentation (and all in black white and grey), consistent feel, fun writing, tons of character and adventure inspirations. Quality will always be a welcome thing, and WFRP radiates it. I like to just sit here envying it sometimes, to remind me of how many more decades I can spend developing my skills before I can be anything like complacent.

Quote(And, yes, I'm going to keep haunting you about those Five Elements of a Commercially Successful Role-Playing Setting because even though I appreciate why you think they are dangerous, I think that they could help steer people who don't know any better away from some simple but fatal mistakes.

You even remember the full title. That's just eerie.

Thank god, at least, that you weren't (apparently) at any of the panels where I expounded on my accursed "Layered Laws" principles.

QuoteLike breaking the killer joke into individual words in that Monty Python skit, only one out of five shouldn't do any harm. )

My dog has no nose ...

Ok, let's say I'm pitching my new setting for next week's game.

There is a feudal kingdom, in the mountains is a dwarf kingdom and there are elves in the forest.  The game will involve an epic quest in which the party will save the kingdom by reuniting the pieces of the magical mcguffin and preventing the big bad from getting them.

Original?  Not so much.

However, and here is why gaming is cool, the kicker is that this time it isn't some author's characters doing all this, it's your characters.  You make the peace with the dwarves, you explore the elven forests, you reunite the magical mcguffin and defeat the big bad.  You do it, all of it.

And that is why this hobby rocks.  Originality is not the point, the point is that it is our story of how we did that stuff, as long as the players are into it and the GM is having fun and we all are on the same wavelength I could care less about how cliched the setting is, because me doing that stuff?  That never gets old.

Otherwise, I agree with S John that originality is not simply novelty.  Novelty in particular is massively overrated.

But, given the choice between elves, dwarves, quests and feudal kingdoms with players and a GM that are into it and doing something novel with people who are jaded give me the elves every time.  Originality comes from the fact that it's our game, with these players and this GM, it doesn't come from the setting.

Just about everytime I hear someone describe a game with "no elves or dwarves" I roll my eyes, this is not to say I ONLY like fantasy games with those things--in fact I love Talislanta, Providence, and (arguably) Ars Magic all for not having those things in the traditional sense--I find them interesting and unique.

But you know how many players want to play noelves, and nodwarves?

My experience is that many  players new to gaming, and old players experienced in gaming alike see fantasy through a certian lens--that lens quite often has Elves, orcs, dwarves.

There is NOTHING inherently wrong with those ideas--or the fantasy party which includes a wizard, priest, warrior, and a rogue.

That doesn't mean one can't do something fun non-typical within those concepts just that certian expectations exist with some people.
 
As to general games which include those things--I've not yet found a game myself that does them "right' to me.

Quote from: SilverlionBut you know how many players want to play noelves, and nodwarves?

Nobody gets inspired to play by what's not in a game, people get inspired by what is in it.

So, my game has no elves is not a selling point.  My game is a Conan-esque sword and sorcery epic in which humanity is alone save for eldritch races that the party may encounter sounds much more fun.

The second has no elves, but that's not the selling point.

I've been running a fantasy game recently which had no demihumans in it, that was not a selling point, the selling point was the cool ancient near east setting.  It didn't have elves because it had no reason to have them, not because not having elves is intrinsically a good thing.

That's why, although I quite like Talislanta, I don't like the no elves advertising.  I don't care what's not in your game, tell me what is.

Quote from: BalbinusSo, my game has no elves is not a selling point.  My game is a Conan-esque sword and sorcery epic in which humanity is alone save for eldritch races that the party may encounter sounds much more fun.

That alone doesn't sell to me. This isn't to say I can't be interested in an interesting swords-and-sandals game, just that nothing you said sells the game to me.

I really LIKE castles, and mail in my games (and spears and maces, I'm not fond of swords..)

Take those out and your MORE likely to lose me than Elves or orcs.

 I like original fantasy works.


I also like classic fantasy sorts (Moorcock, Howard, Tolkien, Eddison, Anderson etc.) too.

But what you put above doesn't tell me what makes your game "fantastic" part of fantasy at all. Other than it has eldritch races. Great, so it has fantastic things you can't be? What are they?

When people mention Elves and Dwarves they are evoking a standard cliche a handle that says "this is what is here" but also a specific aspect of what is "here" its a more narrow detail than what you wrote. (The same with "unique" elves--if I start describing Soul Eating monstrosities the reaction may be 'buh what? No thank you.)


"Humanity is alone." Full stop--might be interesting

but this ".. save for eldritch races that the party may encounter." could easily cover a game with Elves and Dwarves.

I /like/ Elves and Dwarves and Dark Age trappings.

Your idea is a different set of the "same old stuff" btw. Just a different variant. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Although, most people I have gamed with over the years--LIKE, and want Elves and Dwarves and orcs and castles and such.


It is a lot harder to sell them Talislanta, Providence, or Exalted (the latter almost mind boggling so as popular as all other WW products are with some of them)

Mind you--most players I stick with will play whatever I pitch. But they still have preferences. When those preferences are the stated ones--then having those things (in an expected way) is more likely to sell it than having any alternative thing.

Quote from: S. John RossWell, again, I think it points to the limits on novelty. And you know I don't like discussing the Five Elements in public

Well, that's why I didn't post all 5, just the one that was relevant.

Quote from: S. John RossAbsolutely, yeah. Props, costumes, backdrops ... they're tools for what the game is actually about, and what the game is actually about is characters having adventures. Using oddball props and costumes rarely makes the characters or adventures any better, and taken to extremes it draws attention and energy away from them, which is just plain bad.

Yes, that's a good way to put it.  Too much novelty (OK, I'll use your word, but more on that below) draws energy away from what the game is really about.

One of the GM's in my group really likes to include unusual measurements or unusual variations on familiar measurements in his game (e.g., in one setting, an hour was actually three hours long) because they help give him a sense that the game setting isn't our world.  Measurements are a fundamental part of how people experience and describe their world and unless the GM and players are going to expend the effort to make the measurements of a role-playing setting as natural in their minds as the measurements they use in the real world, they are either going to (A) use real world measurements (English or Metric) because it's easier, (B) slip and use real world  measurements out of habit and without thinking (e.g., even the original Battlestar Galactica would slip and use words like "year" and "birthday" from time to time), or (C) have to translate everything in the game into and out of real world measurements in order to get a sense of what they mean.  The net effect is a lot of effort and struggling for very little benefit for most people.  My suggestions to him is that if he must do this, make sure his fantasy measurements have a 1:1 (or nearly 1:1) translation to a real world measurement so, for example, if he wants characters to say "pace" in the game, it's easy for a player to turn it into "yard" or "meter" as needed with little effort and if someone slips up and says "yard" or "meter", it's easy enough to pretend they said "pace".

Quote from: S. John RossI can see that we're just not going to agree on the terminology. Such is life.

I think your word was technically more accurate but I was sticking to (A) the word used in the original post and (B) the word most people use when they really mean "novelty".  I should point out that nit-picky insistence on using particular plain English words in a precise way is the first step down the road to jargon (though you'd have to insist on using them in unusual, non-intuitive, or incorrect ways to make a real mess out of things and totally confuse everyone).  You really don't want that, now do you?

A big part of avoiding the whole jargon trap is trying to understand what a person meant to say, rather than getting caught up on the particular words they were using and to just use their words, even if they aren't perfect.

Of course the whole quest for "originality" is pretty strange, given how derivative the whole hobby really is most of the time.

Quote from: S. John RossUresia mined anime based on computer games, yes (not computer games directly), but really that's only about a fourth of it. At least half of it is rooted in even more familiar old-school D&D traditions ... stout dwarves and snooty elves and dungeons and copper/silver/gold currency and the lot. Even the overall vaguely-defined technology level is deliberately set at about the "Known World/Mystara" level.

Correct.  I was thinking that when I talked about fiddling with the attitude.  While you do use a lot of the trappings of familiar old-school D&D, you do make them novel by playing with the attitude, both original and borrowed from the anime based on computer games.

Quote from: S. John RossUresia is original because it's a very personal stew ... because I didn't phone it in, basically, and because another game designer given a similar assignment wouldn't have approached it anything like I did (though, certainly, they might do something just as groovy or groovier). But the ingredients in that stew are meat and potatoes, with just a pinch of lotus and wasabe (and a few other things, including whatever the hell Zork and Groo are made of).

While I think there is some truth to the quality being related to it being personal and not phoned it, I think the more important things is the meat and potatoes bit.

Quote from: S. John RossAll of my work is meat-and-potatoes work, because all of my work (and my gaming) is about stuff I dig, and the genre details are just props for me to get to that stuff.

Again, I think there is a bit more to it than that, but maybe you are too close to see it in yourself.  Part of the reason I enjoy your posts and game writing, even when they are not my cup of tea (e.g., Uresia really isn't in many ways) and even though I'm not even entirely sure I'd actually enjoy playing in one of your games, your focus is on actual play and not simply talking about playing.

Years ago, you made an observation on rec.games.frp.gurps that you could tell who was actually playing games and who was just thinking about playing games or just reading them based on the sorts of questions they asked.  And you were right.  You can tell the difference if you look for it.  

People who don't focus on actually using gaming material in play write all sorts of stuff that reads well but doesn't actually support a GM or players actually using it  to role-play.  That's where you get books full of flavor fiction, background history, and all sorts of details that are cool to read about but isn't really useful in play.  Your books tend to focus on stuff that's designed to actually be used and interesting in play.

So perhaps the advice to draw from that is that if you want to put a lot of novelty into your game, make sure that people can actually use it in play.  

Of course I  do think some people purposely sell books designed to be read rather than played, in order to capture the market of role-players who no longer have time to play but still by game books.  That seems to be at least one of the driving forces behind meta-plots.  They give an official framework of a campaign that people who read the books can imagine they were playing, even if they never actually play it.

Quote from: S. John RossI like to call it the "swimming pool" approach. You've got a shallow end for comfortable fun splishy-splashing and a deep end for those seeking more room to maneuver or a place to dive. A trad-fantasy gamer can go into Uresia and say "I wanna play a thief" and the setting welcomes and rewards him for that. If he wants to play something odder later on, there's plenty to be had in the form of slimes and snowmen and shamed philosophers and whatnot, but nobody who just wants to play a Human Fighter need ever feel like the poor cousin in the party for that.

Great way of looking at it.  Again, I think that comes from your focus on thinking about how people might actually play in the setting, as opposed to just making it fun to read (not that it wasn't also interesting to read).  

Quote from: S. John RossPlus, it has that third thing beyond originality and novelty. It has quality. Flipping through the original WFRP1 core book is an exercise in awe ... evocative presentation (and all in black white and grey), consistent feel, fun writing, tons of character and adventure inspirations. Quality will always be a welcome thing, and WFRP radiates it. I like to just sit here envying it sometimes, to remind me of how many more decades I can spend developing my skills before I can be anything like complacent.

Well, the feel and fun writing are a lot of what I meant by attitude.  It evokes feelings and inspires.  Warhammer FPR is another book that's also designed to be played.  The GM chapter in the original includes example after example of common tasks that players might try and how to resolve them.  I've often wondered why more rule books don't have a chapter like that, describing how to handle a player listening at a door and so on, rather than burying that information into a sprawling poorly-organized rules chapter or, as is common these days in games like d20, burying that information inside of the skill, feat, and weapon descriptions so that you have to flip across several sections to get the full picture.

Quote from: S. John RossYou even remember the full title. That's just eerie.

Well, you were very specific that I had to get the title right when I mentioned it once on RPGnet, so it stuck with me.  I think it also helps illustrate why you think it's dangerous.

Quote from: S. John RossThank god, at least, that you weren't (apparently) at any of the panels where I expounded on my accursed "Layered Laws" principles.

No, just he I-Con panel with Liz Danforth and you (I think there might have been a third person there, too) and I don't remember you mentioning that one.  What does it have to do with?

Quote from: John MorrowMy suggestions to him is that if he must do this, make sure his fantasy measurements have a 1:1 (or nearly 1:1) translation to a real world measurement [...]

My own take on it for Uresia: http://www.io.com/~sjohn/uresia-measurement.htm

The first paragraph brings the "swimming pool" approach front-and-center. The rest of it I use as an excuse to give sideways peeks at Uresian behavior, as usual.

QuoteI should point out that nit-picky insistence [...]

You have misread my (admittedly clumsy) attempts at graceful deflection of what is, to me, a personal matter. I'm not graceful by nature, so I retreat into formality. If this comes across as "insistence" on some kind of "technically-correct" specific usage, then I can only say that that is far preferable to me typing my more visceral first-blush response.

I'm sure no offense was intended (by you or by others), and I'm also sure that simply taking your meaning without comment would be the saintly thing to do. Either way, unless I'm hammered by similar comments daily (not even close, I'm happy to say) there's no risk of my response sliding me into jargon

QuoteWhile I think there is some truth to the quality being related to it being personal and not phoned it, I think the more important things is the meat and potatoes bit.

If the meat-and-potatoes was the more important part, I wouldn't have a quarter-ton of dull-as-dishwater meat-and-potatoes RPG books lying around (it used to be more than half-a-ton; I've been culling).

Which, I think, explains some of the fannish thirst for conspicuous novelty. Give them enough utterly tedious trad-fantasy and they begin to associate trad-fantasy with tedium. A cruel Pavlovian trick played on gamers

Tedious RPG supplements are the result of poor (often, apathetic) design. That's the more important part, for good or ill, and it's what I mean when I say quality is a separate matter.

QuoteAgain, I think there is a bit more to it than that, but maybe you are too close to see it in yourself.

Rather, there is a lot more to it than that, but I was using a pithy toss-off summary targeted for easily-digestible relevance.

Quoteyour focus is on actual play and not simply talking about playing.

Yeah. I'm a gamer. Many game-writers (and editors, and publishers) aren't. It stands out as a difference, and I wish it didn't. In my freelancing days it was the source of a fair bit of friction (when people who hadn't gamed regularly in over a decade would micromanage editorial decisions and slash apart outlines based on vague half-remembered ideals).

QuoteNo, just he I-Con panel with Liz Danforth and you (I think there might have been a third person there, too)

I made a lot of long-term friends that day. With health and time permitting, I'll even have some Liz Danforth sketches in Uresia 2nd Edition (and that's also the day she snagged me for CityBook work ... still one of the things I'm proudest of in all my time writing games).

[Edited Addition: The third person was Eric Trautmann. He and Pete Schweighofer were both there representing West End Games that year, and I got on well with both of them; see my recent plugs hither and yon for Pete's new groovy ebook]

Quote[...] and I don't remember you mentioning that one.

Yeah, that one was one I did mostly at GMing panels at DC/MD/VA conventions (Castlecon, for example, or informal gamer-powwows at Disclave).

QuoteWhat does it have to do with?

Stuff.

Quote from: S. John RossThe first paragraph brings the "swimming pool" approach front-and-center. The rest of it I use as an excuse to give sideways peeks at Uresian behavior, as usual.

Which is an excellent way to handle it.

Quote from: S. John RossYou have misread my (admittedly clumsy) attempts at graceful deflection of what is, to me, a personal matter.

I'm not sure exactly what personal matter you are talking about here (the use of "novelty" vs. "originality", the issue behind the terms, the Five Elements, or something else).  My assumptions was that you were simply advocating the word "novelty" over the word "originality" because you felt it was a more accurate term for what's really being described and I was simply trying to point out that's how a lot of the various theory jargons started out.  If that's not what you were doing or if you had a better reason for pushing the term, then please ignore that point.

As for the Five Elements, the reason I keep bringing them up is that I think they contain two insights ("Cliche" is one of them, I can tell you the other one via email or private message if you really want to know) that I think could help people (A) understand why certain settings and genres are not commercially successful and (B) avoid mistakes that could limit the appeal of a setting for role-playing.  The reason I brought up "Cliche" here is that I think it provides some insight into the limits of novelty and something that get's missed because people don't always grasp the importance of it in their quest for "novelty".

Quote from: S. John RossIf the meat-and-potatoes was the more important part, I wouldn't have a quarter-ton of dull-as-dishwater meat-and-potatoes RPG books lying around (it used to be more than half-a-ton; I've been culling).

It's the "more important part" to the extent that a setting that is all meat-and-potatoes  (perhaps as a broader euphemism for "Cliche") will be more useful to most role-players than a setting that is all novelty and no meat-and-potatoes.  That's not to say that a role-playing book should be only meat-and-potatoes, only that it shouldn't be absent.  This goes back to why I think "Cliche" was an important insight.  People trying to do something new tend to forget the fundamentals, even if you don't.

Quote from: S. John RossWhich, I think, explains some of the fannish thirst for conspicuous novelty. Give them enough utterly tedious trad-fantasy and they begin to associate trad-fantasy with tedium. A cruel Pavlovian trick played on gamers

I think there is a much simpler explanation.  When almost all role-players start playing, even the meat-and-potatoes was novel.  I think that's what drives it.  Nostalgia and a desire to return to the wide-eyed innocence of their first role-playing experiences before they became jaded and the meat-and-potatoes became old.  That's a bit of a fool's errand since the real problem is that the role-player is not longer a naive teenager and the past they are seeing is likely seen through rose-colored glasses.

Quote from: S. John RossTedious RPG supplements are the result of poor (often, apathetic) design. That's the more important part, for good or ill, and it's what I mean when I say quality is a separate matter.

Fair enough.  I was already assuming a writer with some enthusiams and a desire to write a good book.  There really isn't anything you can do to fix an apathetic or incompetent writer (except, perhaps, not hire them ever again), so I don't even consider them.  I can understand why you do, though.

Quote from: S. John RossRather, there is a lot more to it than that, but I was using a pithy toss-off summary targeted for easily-digestible relevance.

Again, fair enough.

Quote from: S. John RossYI made a lot of long-term friends that day. With health and time permitting, I'll even have some Liz Danforth sketches in Uresia 2nd Edition (and that's also the day she snagged me for CityBook work ... still one of the things I'm proudest of in all my time writing games).

Sound interesting.  I always like her artwork going back to her Traveller stuff.  Her Citybook art was good, too.

Quote from: S. John Ross[Edited Addition: The third person was Eric Trautmann. He and Pete Schweighofer were both there representing West End Games that year, and I got on well with both of them; see my recent plugs hither and yon for Pete's new groovy ebook]

I thought I remembered a third person and, yes, WEG rings a bell.  I remembered Liz because I always liked her art and I remembered you where there because I went back and wrote down your Five Elements (your mistake was to write them on a blackboard so I could copy them down and remember them) and I've never been able to look at Aunt Beru quite the same way again thanks to your description of your Star Wars game where Ben had a crush on her.  Overall, you impressed me as someone who knew what he was talking about, which is not a given on role-playing panels.

Quote from: S. John RossYeah, that one was one I did mostly at GMing panels at DC/MD/VA conventions (Castlecon, for example, or informal gamer-powwows at Disclave).

It seems like you've pretty much given up on grand theories and categorizing things, correct?  Is it because of a bad experience, because you are afraid of how it will get used/abused, or some other reason?

Quote from: S. John RossStuff.

Fair enough.  I didn't think you'd be stupid enough to fall for that.

Quote from: SilverlionJust about everytime I hear someone describe a game with "no elves or dwarves" I roll my eyes, this is not to say I ONLY like fantasy games with those things--in fact I love Talislanta, Providence, and (arguably) Ars Magic all for not having those things in the traditional sense--I find them interesting and unique.

But you know how many players want to play noelves, and nodwarves?

My experience is that many  players new to gaming, and old players experienced in gaming alike see fantasy through a certian lens--that lens quite often has Elves, orcs, dwarves.

There is NOTHING inherently wrong with those ideas--or the fantasy party which includes a wizard, priest, warrior, and a rogue.

That doesn't mean one can't do something fun non-typical within those concepts just that certian expectations exist with some people.
 
As to general games which include those things--I've not yet found a game myself that does them "right' to me.

in my group this has gone down the middle. I wanted to play a fantasy game, one of my players begged off, the other was down with it. They comprimised and agreed to SF. I wrote up a fantasy setting anyway, no elves no dwarves, instead I used neandrathals, the murr (think one evolutionary step up from homo sapiens sapiens in some ways, a couple steps back in others, a combination of vikings and Melborneans...kinda), Reptarchs (down trodden Saurain bottom feeders) and Snowapes (huge sentient apes with advanced technology).  I did a lot of other things too, brought the tech level up to late rennasance/ early industrial, in some places, although others are still medeival, and others still are paleolithic. Magic is distrusted, and dangerous- technological items like clocks can cause a spell to go awry; subsequntly some towns have giant gearworks in place merely to keep sorcerers from using their  abilities. In some places fantics known as clockwardens hunt and kill anyone who uses, or is suspected of using, magic.

After becoming familiar with the setting material, the players flipped their positions, somewhat, anyway. The guy who said no was suddenly interested, the guy who said yes was stand offish, but still willing.

we'll probably start in a couple of weeks, it will be interesting to see how it comes out.

Quote from: John MorrowWhich is an excellent way to handle it.

Plus, it gave me an excuse for the image of "Slimes traveling coach."

QuoteIt's the "more important part" to the extent that a setting that is all meat-and-potatoes  (perhaps as a broader euphemism for "Cliche") will be more useful to most role-players than a setting that is all novelty and no meat-and-potatoes.

It's just a matter of us disagreeing on the overlap, then. That's cool, too.

QuotePeople trying to do something new tend to forget the fundamentals, even if you don't.

Sometimes, certainly, but as I said earlier, I think that very often it's about seeking a shortcut to distinction. They haven't forgotten anything; they're just motivated by something other than good game design. I'm not entirely guessing on that point, either; I've suffered through many a long conversation at conventions with fellow game-writers going on about their Grand Vision of Freshness and Difference That Will Redefine Gaming As We Know it And Breathe Life Back Into This Or That Tired Genre. Nine months later, out plops a forgettable RPG book complete with entirely new, even-more-artful misspellings of the word "magic."

QuoteWhen almost all role-players start playing, even the meat-and-potatoes was novel.  I think that's what drives it.  Nostalgia and a desire to return to the wide-eyed innocence of their first role-playing experiences before they became jaded and the meat-and-potatoes became old.

I've heard this from others, so I don't discount it and I don't doubt that it's true for many, or at least that many people firmly believe it's true. But I stand by my own observations.

QuoteFair enough.  I was already assuming a writer with some enthusiams and a desire to write a good book.

I sincerely mean this: that's beautiful and kind of sweet.

QuoteThere really isn't anything you can do to fix an apathetic or incompetent writer (except, perhaps, not hire them ever again), so I don't even consider them. I can understand why you do, though.

They are the vital backbone of the industry. Without them, the shelves at the game shop would be ... well, filled with comic books or anime DVDs, basically, because there'd be fuck-all for gaming supplements.

QuoteSound interesting.  I always like her artwork going back to her Traveller stuff.  Her Citybook art was good, too.

Aye. And she's quite a spark of wit and charm, too. If I were a generation younger I would have tried to woo her from Mike, I swear

Quote(your mistake was to write them on a blackboard so I could copy them down and remember them)

Clearly. It's bad enough when I can never escape ancient Usenet posts ...

Quote[...]and I've never been able to look at Aunt Beru quite the same way again thanks to your description of your Star Wars game where Ben had a crush on her.

If it were only a crush, Owen wouldn't have resented me so. I can still remember gripping her broad, womanly lapels as I ... oh, sorry. I must have immersed. Well, that's one word for it

QuoteOverall, you impressed me as someone who knew what he was talking about, which is not a given on role-playing panels.

It isn't, though that particular panel was a nice mix (Eric was being a little quiet that day, but I'm happy to say that he remains an inspiration and friendly voice to me even now, even if we don't write as often as we should).

QuoteIt seems like you've pretty much given up on grand theories and categorizing things, correct?

Not on your life! I'm a gamer and designer. I'm madly in love with categorizing, codifying, observing patterns, ordering things into rules and systems and methods and little arbitrary boxes. Always have been, always will be, and when I'm among certain people, in the right context (a project, or a campaign), we go on for hours, and great stuff comes of it.

I avoid Internet-forum "theory" discussion for dozens of little reasons and three or four big ones. Many of those reasons (amusingly and recursively) are also the reasons I don't engage in internet-forum discussion of the reasons themselves.

Quote from: S. John RossSometimes, certainly, but as I said earlier, I think that very often it's about seeking a shortcut to distinction. They haven't forgotten anything; they're just motivated by something other than good game design. I'm not entirely guessing on that point, either; I've suffered through many a long conversation at conventions with fellow game-writers going on about their Grand Vision of Freshness and Difference That Will Redefine Gaming As We Know it And Breathe Life Back Into This Or That Tired Genre. Nine months later, out plops a forgettable RPG book complete with entirely new, even-more-artful misspellings of the word "magic."

OK, got it.  But then my question is, was their Grand Vision ever realistic and would it have worked as intended in the hands of a more competent writer, a less apathetic writer, or simply a writer with more time?

Quote from: S. John RossI've heard this from others, so I don't discount it and I don't doubt that it's true for many, or at least that many people firmly believe it's true. But I stand by my own observations.

I think maybe you are seeing the issue as a writer and I'm seeing the issue as a consumer.  Perhaps writers are writing for the distinction and to redefine gaming but I think the reason why consumers keep demanding novelty, like baby birds chirping for a regurgitated worm, is nostalgia.  Distinction isn't going to motivate a consumer, though they might also be motivated by a desire for a knight in shining armor to show up and save the hobby with something new.  

Quote from: S. John RossI sincerely mean this: that's beautiful and kind of sweet.

Nah, I'm not an idealist.  I know that's not the norm.

Quote from: S. John RossThey are the vital backbone of the industry. Without them, the shelves at the game shop would be ... well, filled with comic books or anime DVDs, basically, because there'd be fuck-all for gaming supplements.

That's a sad thought.  Given what they pay for writing for role-playing lines, what's the motivation of apathetic writers?  Delusions of grandeur?

Quote from: S. John RossIt isn't, though that particular panel was a nice mix (Eric was being a little quiet that day, but I'm happy to say that he remains an inspiration and friendly voice to me even now, even if we don't write as often as we should).

Nothing personal against Eric for him being forgettable (I did remember a third person was there).  You were on a roll that day and were a tough act to compete with.  

Quote from: S. John RossI avoid Internet-forum "theory" discussion for dozens of little reasons and three or four big ones. Many of those reasons (amusingly and recursively) are also the reasons I don't engage in internet-forum discussion of the reasons themselves.

OK.  Again, fair enough.

What are these "Five Elements", anyway?

Quote from: John MorrowOK, got it.  But then my question is, was their Grand Vision ever realistic and would it have worked as intended in the hands of a more competent writer, a less apathetic writer, or simply a writer with more time?

Any pile of ideas can be made into something that rattles the windows and blows the skirts up. Those visions are just piles of ideas like any other, as essential to a writer as hydrogen -- and just as hard to come by.

QuoteI think the reason why consumers keep demanding novelty, like baby birds chirping for a regurgitated worm, is nostalgia.

Same response as prior post

QuoteDistinction isn't going to motivate a consumer [...]

Indeed; I presented that as a designer goal; my comment from the gamer side of things (which I also have as a perspective, remember!) was in a different post. You and I are talking about two different things, though: You're talking about what motivates people toward novelty, while I was talking about what drives them away from trad-fantasy, which are complementary forces but really two different subjects. I think we disagree on both, but to be clear: we disagree on two different, though related things

QuoteThat's a sad thought. Given what they pay for writing for role-playing lines, what's the motivation of apathetic writers?  Delusions of grandeur?

Well, at the bog-standard nickel-a-word rate an apathetic writer who can really crank out the wordcount (and there are those out there) can cover his time just fine and doesn't have to lift heavy things or leave the house. But more seriously (but very generally): The apathetic ones want to write novels, computer games and comic books and see RPGs as either a "stepping stone" or "practice" or "a way to kill time while they finish their magnum opus or wait to hear back from Paramount about their Star Trek script." The apathetic ones do not have the love; some actually have the hate. In that, RPG writers really are a lot like the old pulp-writers ... Quite a lot of them really wanted to be Serious Literary Artistes and out-and-out resented the fantastically groovy stuff they were involved with. This includes two of my favorites, Hammett and Chandler, both of whom spent a lot of their brilliant pulp-writer lives feeling a bit dirty for being pulp writers. That's also common in gaming.

Jeff Dee and I discussed that and he's encountered the same thing with computer-game designers, who often would rather be movie-makers (for example). He told them: "Guys, this right here ... what we're doing ... this is cool." But, deaf ears, you know. Jeff and I found kindred souls in each other, and not just because he may as well be the real-life Hank Riley, either (his own words about Encounter Critical: "We knew these guys. We WERE these guys!")

Apathy isn't as common as good old fashioned incompetence, though. There's a heartbreaking thing that happens, where a new game writer comes on the scene full of love and enthusiasm and joy. No skills; he can't design for shit, but he's got the love so he will learn. And then he learns, and as his experience goes up his enthusiasm wanes, because the industry can do some harsh shit to a guy. Contract screw-overs, ugly compromises, the works.

Now, having a weekly campaign is a great tonic for that. The industry can be harsh but its power to drain enthusiasm is puny compared the power of ROCKING GAMING to replenish it. But, a lot of game writers decide that working in gaming means that they no longer have time to play in gaming. So.

This is all very gloomy and that can create the wrong impression if taken out of context. There are, of course, happy exceptions: a few glorious folks that love gaming, design well, and can surf the waves of the industry and walk away smiling (without actually walking away).

I'm not one of the exceptions, I'm sorry to say, but instead I found my own way to keep the love, keep the gig, cover my time and keep the campaigns truckin' along, rattling the windows and blowing up the skirts And now and then, I still dip a toe back in as favors to old friends.