Quote from: jhkimFor example, the last D&D game I ran was a tactical one-shot where the PCs were all kobolds trying to defend their homes and families against the invading adventurers -- which was all about messing with the D&D subtext.

Which 3e says is cool, and they support it really well. But prior editions? Certainly not so much. Which is interesting because 3e narrows some other things down compared to prior editions. If only by actually providing rules where there were none before.

There was a 2e adventure called Reverse Dungeon that was about the players being humanoids fighting off an attacking party of adventurers. It was pretty well done, and didn't have any problems working within the rules of second edition.

Quote from: ReimdallFalse dichotomy.  Simplicity is not equal to low-brow, and complexity is definitely not equal to high-brow or elevated or transcendent.  Often, the most difficult to pull off or successful take on a thing is the most simple or elegant.

I hadn't thought of that, but now that I do...what's the plot of Romeo & Juliet?  Teenagers from rival families wanna bonk, right?

Good point, there, Reimdall.

Quote from: blakkieThat seems to be why the original WW stuff bothered so many people. It got right up in their nose. Perhaps because they were -missing- a layer, playing characters from the other side?

Dude, I loved me some "Mage", but it got up my nose, too; I thought it was kind of juvenile.  Man, it got grating...but I loved the concepts enough to stick with it, riff it on my own.  Finally however, I made my own decision: the real enemy were the Nephandi, no matter what the WW bullpen had to say about it.  The Trads were just as misguided as the Technocracy -- it made them both more interesting.

That said, I was an Ether backer from Day 0.

That's a somewhat simplistic view of the plot, which had a lot more going on than just that.

Quote from: James McMurrayThat's a somewhat simplistic view of the plot, which had a lot more going on than just that.

Uncontestedly.  But it's the core, isn't it?

Simple stuff, I think, often works better than overly-complex stuff because it's easier for the audience to grasp, get into and ride with.  Uncluttered and direct, it strikes closer to more hearts, so to speak.  

By no means am I advocating that everything should be simplistic!  If you take the greatest works of mankid, however, you'll find simple, direct plots at their core.

And there're only 36 of the suckers to begin with, after all.

If you're watching Star Trek, though, it's only 5.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I hadn't thought of that, but now that I do...what's the plot of Romeo & Juliet?  Teenagers from rival families wanna bonk, right?

Well, yeah, actually - I think that pretty much sums it up.   The kernel starts there, in that simple place, and then spins outward.  And that's where the universality sets in, and the - well - don't get me started.  

Actually, that's interesting, because if you want to look at some of that guy's later work - Cymbeline, Pericles,  - it seems like those are definitely plays where put aside the human kernel in the middle and was reveling in complexity for complexity's sake (and maybe had more to "say?"), and I think they kind of suffer for that.

That said, I think the big thing about subtext is that it always exists, and it's part of what playing/reading a game is about.  Can't get away from it.  It's part of the Act of Interpretation.

THAT said, how much baldness or in supertitles you want your subtext is a good conversation.  Personally, I'm with flyingmice and everybody else that are saying subtext that gets in the way of a GM and group's game isn't useful.  Or to that effect.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Uncontestedly.  But it's the core, isn't it?
By no means am I advocating that everything should be simplistic!  If you take the greatest works of mankid, however, you'll find simple, direct plots at their core.

D'oh!  You beat me to it, and more simply.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!And there're only 36 of the suckers to begin with, after all.

Yah.  Of course, for the comedies, it's really only 3 or 4 of the funniest gimmicks, recycled.   But, damn, they're funny.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Finally however, I made my own decision: the real enemy were the Nephandi, no matter what the WW bullpen had to say about it.

That's something both the Techies and the Trads agreed on, at any rate: after all, even a Chorister might somehow be convinced to see the light of reason and join the Union, but once someone enters the Cauls, he'll be a Nephandus forever.

All right, so in the first edition the Technocracy was pretty much Evil with a capital E, a portrayal which wasn't exactly helped by some of the worst intro fiction in oWoD. In the second edition, they were toned down and made much more human, with endearing details like the good-natured rivalry between the Pan-Dimensional Corps of the Void Engineers and the Sons of Ether, or Technocratic dreadnoughts battling against Nephandi hordes while the Traditionalists evacuate Mus: in fact, Techie PCs are playable with just the information given in the 2e core. And of course, with Guide to the Technocracy Revised gave a whole new life to the old "They are the real heroes of the setting!" debate.

Quote from: GrimGentThat's something both the Techies and the Trads agreed on, at any rate: after all, even a Chorister might somehow be convinced to see the light of reason and join the Union, but once someone enters the Cauls, he'll be a Nephandus forever.

All right, so in the first edition the Technocracy was pretty much Evil with a capital E, a portrayal which wasn't exactly helped by some of the worst intro fiction in oWoD. In the second edition, they were toned down and made much more human, with endearing details like the good-natured rivalry between the Pan-Dimensional Corps of the Void Engineers and the Sons of Ether, or Technocratic dreadnoughts battling against Nephandi hordes while the Traditionalists evacuate Mus: in fact, Techie PCs are playable with just the information given in the 2e core. And of course, with Guide to the Technocracy Revised gave a whole new life to the old "They are the real heroes of the setting!" debate.

QFT. Especially since my friends and I have run as many Technocrat games as we've run Tradition games. The thing about a post-modern viewpoint is that even the core text is up for reinterpretation. When I first read the game, I said to my friend, "This is interesting, but who's the good guy?" Of course, I started in 2nd ed.

I guess you're welcome to fly off the handle about post-modern bullshit. I mean, if that's fun for you, go ahead. I see Mage being more about, "What is reality actually happened to be as relatavistic as the the morals and identities we assume are?" And you make a game with it. The Traditions were wrong to call it 'magic', because it really wasn't, and that's the sticking point. It's reality.

Now, like I said, you can go apeshit about it, but it's really just fantasy. It's a world that's like ours for the purpose of contrast, and because you don't really have to work hard at making a setting. It's just, the rule is different. Yeah, there's subtext, but it's not about how toasters are evil.

Hmm. Now that I think about it, Guide was a late 2e supplement, a sort of a prelude to Rev which otherwise would have supported Technocratic PCs rather nicely, but for some reason neglected to give much information about them in the core.

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

I have zero interest in an RPG with a subtext that overwhelms the main text.  

I'll never play "Waiting for Godot: The RPG".

Other than that, I'm not so worried.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI have zero interest in an RPG with a subtext that overwhelms the main text.  

*gasp* Turtle Guy for The Win!

Quote from: blakkie

Quote from: jhkimFor example, the last D&D game I ran was a tactical one-shot where the PCs were all kobolds trying to defend their homes and families against the invading adventurers -- which was all about messing with the D&D subtext.

Which 3e says is cool, and they support it really well. But prior editions? Certainly not so much. Which is interesting because 3e narrows some other things down compared to prior editions. If only by actually providing rules where there were none before.

My impression is that playing kobold is supported roughly as well by D&D as playing the Technocracy is in Mage.  

Within the core books, there's some token mention of playing the bad guys as an option -- but there's no real advice on it and limited options.  Plus, well, they're bad guys -- i.e. they're evil without much depth.  However, in both cases there are apparently some later supplements which support this better.  (I've seen in stores the Technocracy guide and a D&D book on playing monsters, but don't own them.)

Quote from: jhkimPlus, well, they're bad guys -- i.e. they're evil without much depth.

Still, since Mage is a game about conflicting ideologies, even the Technocracy has a fairly solid rationale behind its actions: the Nephandi are the closest thing to "evil" mages in the setting, and even they have better reasons for what they do than just "being the bad guys".

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I hadn't thought of that, but now that I do...what's the plot of Romeo & Juliet?  Teenagers from rival families wanna bonk, right?

Good point, there, Reimdall.

Even better yet Luhrmann's version Romeo+Juliet chopped the script down and made it into this glizy extended music video. Complete with a Cardigans song. Not something you'd typically associate with 'deep'. But hot damn did the movie ever work.