Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI really don't see why this is a problem.  This relativistic bullshit utterly infests RPG discussion forums.  In fact, if there's a reason why I respect The Forge it's for having the balls to say "Actually, I think you'd have more fun if you played this way".

  I have no problem with people arguing with me or disagreeing with me on what the fact of the matter is about different things, but I can't stand the fact that whenever you want to talk about anything that isn't subjective everyone assumes the recovery position and calls for their parents to come pick them up.

  Obviously you can't force people to play the way you do or read the kinds of books you do or watch the kinds of films you do but I really think that if you're not willing to stand up and say "You'd be better off doing what I do" and then explain why it is you're right and others are wrong then I seriously question your commitment and your passion for anything.

  Seriously, only gamers suffer from this.  If I go onto a comedy forum and say "Black Books is the greatest comedy series of all time" I can have an argument about it with people who will come back with the fact that I'm wrong and that it's clearly Monty Python's Flying Circus.  If I go on a sci-fi list I can argue that Stephen Baxter is a better writer than Arthur C Clarke and we can have an argument about it.  On a number of occasions, I've even been convinced that someone else's One True Way was correct and I was wrong.

  RPGs should be "about" something.  Whether it's a one off con game or a the first in a series of rulebooks.  You walk into writing something with a load of intellectual baggage with you, you should know where those pieces of baggage show up and know how to manipulate and exploit them.

  Warhammer is a Great Game because, post enemy within, it is about the realities of living in that period.  It is interesting because up until that point, nobody had looked at that side of things.

  Paranoia is a Great Game because it is all about mankind's tolerance for brutality and his tendency to enforce and encourage that brutality when it's to his advantage.  How else do you think that the Computer survives?

  Call of Cthulhu is a Great Game because while your character might well acheive some stuff and learn a little bit about the mythos, in the long run he's going to wiond up dead or crazy and that's what life is.

  As a text, Mage is clearly about the fact that science is an oppressive force that stops people from having whatever half-baked opinion they feel like having.  If it had the balls to stick to this subtext then it would undeniably be a great game... I mean how many RPGs explore philosophical concepts?  But with lashings of in-game rationalisations, it hamstrings itself... it allows you to play "nice" scientists and makes it clear that not all scientists are evil even though it cites, at great length, a passage from a Robert Persig book that suggests that the laws of physics are no more real than the ghosts that American Indians believe in.

Okay. Your wrong for giving a shit about politics in a fucking RPG. I'm not. It works.

Objective enough?

Zachary,

I may have misread, but I think Mr A jumped off from game texts to a more general point, that in debating games we should say what we think and not be afraid to disagree or be disagreed with.  I don't think he was arguing all games need an obvious subtext.

Actually, one of the things that has made this my main forum now is precisely that, Settembrini for example can tell me that I am flatly wrong and don't know what I'm talking about and I can argue back and neither of us gets banned for it.  I like that, I would far rather someone like Settembrini took me to task and stood his ground than read another platitude.

Trouble is, for those of us used to posting on rpg.net, with the way the modding has gone we've all rather been trained into a kind of inoffensive politeness which in a way is not terribly respectful.  I think it is more respectful for Settembrini (sorry to pick on you set, you just popped into my mind when writing this) to say he thinks I am flatly wrong than it is for him to dance around the topic for fear of causing offence.

So, let's start another thread, credo, in which we state what we really think.

Quote from: BalbinusZachary,

I may have misread, but I think Mr A jumped off from game texts to a more general point, that in debating games we should say what we think and not be afraid to disagree or be disagreed with.  I don't think he was arguing all games need an obvious subtext.

Ah, see, since my post was quoted, and I was discussing game texts specifically, I figured that's what he was at.  That's what I was discussing anyhow.  I agree we should all be able to agree/disagree on a forum without fear obviously, but that's a bit different than being preached to in a game, which can get grating (it can on a forum, too, but telling a text to piss off is somewhat less effective than doing it to a forum member).

QuoteActually, one of the things that has made this my main forum now is precisely that, Settembrini for example can tell me that I am flatly wrong and don't know what I'm talking about and I can argue back and neither of us gets banned for it.  I like that, I would far rather someone like Settembrini took me to task and stood his ground than read another platitude.

Trouble is, for those of us used to posting on rpg.net, with the way the modding has gone we've all rather been trained into a kind of inoffensive politeness which in a way is not terribly respectful.  I think it is more respectful for Settembrini (sorry to pick on you set, you just popped into my mind when writing this) to say he thinks I am flatly wrong than it is for him to dance around the topic for fear of causing offence.

So, let's start another thread, credo, in which we state what we really think.

Cool.  I can get behind that.

Regarding subtlety and seriousness, I don't find them important myself.  Could people give some non-fictional examples of what they're talking about?  

So, on the non-subtle side, we've got things like Paranoia and Macho Women With Guns, which are in my top-ten games.  I'm also at least interested by Diana: Warrior Princess, though I haven't played it yet.  I think these are all pretty cool games, and I'm not

On the other hand, I do a lot of serious games as well, like Harn, Call of Cthulhu, and so forth.  

Quote from: Zachary The FirstThere's a difference between an evil conquering overlord named Beorgegush who rules as a priest-king by help of his demon Crony, Rovar, and characters being caught in the middle of a war that through experience, they learn was more nuanced and complicated than they originally thought.

Many game publishers wear their pet causes/beliefs on their sleeves, too, never realizing that hitting folks over the head with something, no matter how progressive or right you feel you are, is not the best way to garner popularity for you or your work.

Er, is that true?  For example, many people have criticized Mage -- either for being too extreme in its views or (by Mr. Analytical) for not being extreme enough in its anti-science.  And yet it's a popular game line, so the court of the marketplace has something to say about it.  

I'm suspicious that the difference here is not wearing your cause on your sleeve, but the extremity of the author's viewpoint.  So moderates especially might have trouble with extremist views, but it's fine for extremists.  Conversely, moderates don't mind moderate causes in the games.

Quote from: BalbinusPomo analysis generally holds author intent as irrelevant, or in any event the author's interpretation as no more valid than anyone else's.

So no, I doubt they would ask the author.  What would he know about it after all?

Well, personally, I vastly prefer the post-modernist bullshit to the modernist bullshit.  

The post-modernist bullshit cares about what normal people actually take away from reading the book itself.  The modernist bullshit is having an artist spatter some paint on a canvas, or write a totally incoherent jumble of words, then pontificate at length on what that means -- because the work means what they say it does.  

You have to choose your poison on this one.

Quote from: jhkimWell, personally, I vastly prefer the post-modernist bullshit to the modernist bullshit.  

The post-modernist bullshit cares about what normal people actually take away from reading the book itself.  The modernist bullshit is having an artist spatter some paint on a canvas, or write a totally incoherent jumble of words, then pontificate at length on what that means -- because the work means what they say it does.  

You have to choose your poison on this one.

Can I choose none of the above?

The author's intent is relevant, however the author can fail to communicate that intent in the work.  In addition, a work may have an inadvertent or unintended subtext either because the author didn't realise they put it in their or because circumstances give part of the work a relevance never originally intended.

However, the reader may also fail to understand the work.  If I read Lord of the Rings and decide it is really a parable about the Russian Revolution I may simply be wrong.  My interpretation is not valid just because it's mine.

Equally, if I paint a blob and explain how it is a symbol of the malaise of modern Western consciousness, but everyone but me sees a blob save a few critics who have read my explanation, it's a blob and nothing more.

So, none of the above.

Quote from: jhkimEr, is that true?  For example, many people have criticized Mage -- either for being too extreme in its views or (by Mr. Analytical) for not being extreme enough in its anti-science.  And yet it's a popular game line, so the court of the marketplace has something to say about it.  

I'm suspicious that the difference here is not wearing your cause on your sleeve, but the extremity of the author's viewpoint.  So moderates especially might have trouble with extremist views, but it's fine for extremists.  Conversely, moderates don't mind moderate causes in the games.

John,

I suppose I just need to start typing YMMV before every post I make.  Really, you do make an interesting point here.  For the case of Mage, I suppose your classical Luddite may feel the anti-science is not prevalent enough, whereas your technophile will be the exact opposite.  For me, it is less about any particular cause, I should and more about presentation of that cause, whatever it may be.  Games like Blue Rose struck me as somewhat clumsy crusading, which I don't care for, whatever the cause.  I suppose for me, a theme could be considered "moderate" to my sensibilities, but if I felt it the author was trying too hard to push it, I still wouldn't enjoy it.  However, I am fully willing to admit that the moderation/extremism model may be the case for some folks--I just don't think it quite works for me.

Quote from: BalbinusCan I choose none of the above?

The author's intent is relevant, however the author can fail to communicate that intent in the work.  In addition, a work may have an inadvertent or unintended subtext either because the author didn't realise they put it in their or because circumstances give part of the work a relevance never originally intended.

However, the reader may also fail to understand the work.  If I read Lord of the Rings and decide it is really a parable about the Russian Revolution I may simply be wrong.  My interpretation is not valid just because it's mine.

Equally, if I paint a blob and explain how it is a symbol of the malaise of modern Western consciousness, but everyone but me sees a blob save a few critics who have read my explanation, it's a blob and nothing more.

So, none of the above.

Got room in that boat for me?  That was the intent of my example. Not that we should take the author's word blindly, but, you know, pick up the phone and maybe he's got some insight on it that'll help so you don't go off the freaking deep end.  After all how many people would even consider making that Loman="low man" connection if they were just reading through the story and enjoying it for what it was?  It was just a case of someone with too much time doing staring at it to hard and thinking about it too much.

My opinion on this of course makes it quite ironic that you find me in this thread. But then this entire messageboard is based on pretty much the same irony in RPGPundit's opine of "just game" instead of overthinking it. So, you know, it's pretty much par for the course around here. :pundit:

Quote from: blakkieNot that we should take the author's word blindly, but, you know, pick up the phone and maybe he's got some insight on it that'll help so you don't go off the freaking deep end.  After all how many people would even consider making that Loman="low man" connection if they were just reading through the story and enjoying it for what it was?  It was just a case of someone with too much time doing staring at it to hard and thinking about it too much.

Hm.  I guess that makes Tolkien completely off the fucking deep end, since he spent years working out the etymology, derivation, and meaning of his fictional names.  

I don't really buy this, though.  Names, and words in general, have associations -- they're never empty.  They have layers and layers of associations, really.  The choice of words and names is half the craft of an author or poet.  The name "Loman" will have connotations, and those are relevant to how people read the work.  I'm not going to defend a particular connotation or not, but you need to have a better answer than Butch from Tarantino's Pulp Fiction.*

* "'Butch'... What does it mean?"
   "I'm American, honey. Our names don't mean shit."

Well modernism is technically the whole mechanistic thing isn't it?  with lots of angles and greyish tones.

I definitely think that we should take the author's word into account, but we should also bear in mind what he might have subconsciously put in and you can get at those by looking at the author's background and other pieces and piece together what a work actually means.

I think that's pretty cool... it's like a detective novel.

For instance, I watched the TV adaptation of the MR James story "Whistle and I'll come to you" which is about this bumbling college professor who digs up a bone pipe, blows into it and then gets visited in the night by weird ghostly things.

Now CLEARLY, there's a sense in which this is all about James' homosexual impulses.  He puts a long, thin hard thing to his lips and then he's kept up all night by things pushing the bedclothes out of shape.

However, James had children.

But the character was evidently a lot like James, who was a proper Ivory tower sort.

Despite the homosexual interpretation being really cool, I want to say that I don't know enough about James to really pronounce on whether this is what he meant.  Did he secretly crave the cock?  did it keep him awake at nights?

Quote from: jhkimHm.  I guess that makes Tolkien completely off the fucking deep end, since he spent years working out the etymology, derivation, and meaning of his fictional names.

Um, he was the author.** I'm talking about not bothing to ask the author what the intent was.

QuoteI'm not going to defend a particular connotation or not, but you need to have a better answer than Butch from Tarantino's Pulp Fiction.
"'Butch'... What does it mean?"
"I'm American, honey. Our names don't mean shit."

You need to have? Why? Because sometimes they don't mean shit. Sometimes a penis is just a penis, or whatever Freud said.

In the case of "Willie Loman" the true source of the name was irrelavent to most people that watched the play, unless they happened to have seen and remembered that particular movie. Of course someone else decided to read a different meaning into it which was entirely unintended....which is exactly my point.


** As to whether or not Tolkien was completely off the deep end, well that's another entirely different subject.

Is a piece of art (because we're there now, right?) successful if the creator conveys what they intended to the auditor/reader/consumer/whatever?

Is it successful if whatever gets made elicits a tasty response that is richer than anything the author intended?  Or not even richer, just different?

I know that sounds relativistic, but critical theory always seems to boil down to rating how qualified people are to consume created things.  Or how correct they are in their manner of consumption.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstFor me, it's all about subtlety.  There's always going to be subtext.  What I don't enjoy is when it becomes "Supertext", so to speak ("Hey!  YOU!  THIS IS  THE ONETRUEWAY!").

Quote from: beejazzOkay. Your wrong for giving a shit about politics in a fucking RPG. I'm not. It works.

QFT

Quote from: jhkimShould RPGs try not to have subtext or themes?  Or should they just not have subtext which you don't like?  

I like it when an RPG has a theme, but I want to be able to put my own mark on it.  

Gearing up for a Mage game (first edition, I think), I wanted the Technocracy to be a real choice.  The way it's presented, the Technocracy is capital-E Evil.  I wanted it to be a choice between freedom and persecution vs. comfort and conformity.  So I could have my PC say, "I actually want to give up the Mage life and live with my wife in the consumerist world, because having that freedom isn't worth it to me."

Or in Star Wars, saying that the evil guy who now wants to repent should actually be fucking killed for all the bad shit that he did.

I want rpgs to have subtext or themes. That's the fun part for me. Even if a game does not have a theme or subtext, by the time I run it, it will.

Regards,
David R