Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why Didn't Harry Potter Change the Game?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7734382" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I completely disagree. The Star Wars setting is not realistic and is clearly a fantasy setting rather than hard science fiction. But you can play in a setting that isn't realistic as long as it coherent and in particular coherent between the margins, in the unexplored space implied by the story. Up until the release of 'The Force Awakens' and 'The Last Jedi' Star Wars was a coherent setting, and particularly coherent in the expanded universe (since so much of Star Wars was basically created from the RPG version of the universe). The setting was vastly more coherent than its space fantasy competitor 'Star Trek', which was itself at least coherent enough to play a game in as something other than 'Captain Kirk'. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it was intentional on her part in a sense, but not for the reason you give. Rather it's intentional in the sense that she didn't give a flying flip about how sensible it was as a game when she introduced it in book one, but she had a very definite intention in creating it. The parody elements of the game, and in particular how the wizarding world's love of quiddith parallels the English love of 'futball', were added to the series in later books and aren't I think really a big part of the game's initial conception. The entire structure of quidditch and everything in it was designed to highlight Harry's role as 'the chosen one' and reinforce the initial book one story of an ordinary kid who had seemingly lost in the lottery of life learning that in fact he was a lottery winner - independent, rich, famous, talented, and gifted with seemingly everything a boy could want. The story doesn't stay there, but when quidditch is first introduced it's a sport for an unathletic slightly nerdy kid with glasses to excel in and nothing else. But, that game is clearly nonsensical and clearly created by someone with no real interest in sports or games.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Correct. The seeker ruins the game and turns a team sport into an individual sport. Because the Seeker scores the preponderance of the points, in any roughly evenly matched group, the team wins who's seeker wins. When the game is introduced, Rawlings literally has the team captain say this. That makes sense from the perspective of the zero to hero narrative of the first book, but doesn't make a lick of sense from the perspective of a team captain who wants to play a sport that he himself knows he's largely irrelevant in. Worse, it makes the game have no predictable length. The seeker is the game's clock. So why not just have seeker vs. seeker contests? Well, because even as a contest between seekers, outside of the artificial drama of a narrative, a seeker vs. seeker contest would be as much or more about luck as anything else. Any attempt to control luck, would make it basically Olympic cycling at best. I mean maybe if grabbing the snitch scored 20 points, and it was a first to three sort of thing that ended the game, then that would sort of make sense. But in the story world, we are told that quidditch didn't really take off until the introduction of the seeker/golden snitch and the current 100 point all or nothing rules. We're told that the seeker is what made the game so popular. Again, that makes sense for reinforcing the zero to hero narrative, but doesn't make the slightest bit of sense in terms of how a group of people on a team would evolve the rules to make everyone feel like they are participating in a sport, or in terms of how fans of a sport would demand drama in their sport.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7734382, member: 4937"] I completely disagree. The Star Wars setting is not realistic and is clearly a fantasy setting rather than hard science fiction. But you can play in a setting that isn't realistic as long as it coherent and in particular coherent between the margins, in the unexplored space implied by the story. Up until the release of 'The Force Awakens' and 'The Last Jedi' Star Wars was a coherent setting, and particularly coherent in the expanded universe (since so much of Star Wars was basically created from the RPG version of the universe). The setting was vastly more coherent than its space fantasy competitor 'Star Trek', which was itself at least coherent enough to play a game in as something other than 'Captain Kirk'. I think it was intentional on her part in a sense, but not for the reason you give. Rather it's intentional in the sense that she didn't give a flying flip about how sensible it was as a game when she introduced it in book one, but she had a very definite intention in creating it. The parody elements of the game, and in particular how the wizarding world's love of quiddith parallels the English love of 'futball', were added to the series in later books and aren't I think really a big part of the game's initial conception. The entire structure of quidditch and everything in it was designed to highlight Harry's role as 'the chosen one' and reinforce the initial book one story of an ordinary kid who had seemingly lost in the lottery of life learning that in fact he was a lottery winner - independent, rich, famous, talented, and gifted with seemingly everything a boy could want. The story doesn't stay there, but when quidditch is first introduced it's a sport for an unathletic slightly nerdy kid with glasses to excel in and nothing else. But, that game is clearly nonsensical and clearly created by someone with no real interest in sports or games. Correct. The seeker ruins the game and turns a team sport into an individual sport. Because the Seeker scores the preponderance of the points, in any roughly evenly matched group, the team wins who's seeker wins. When the game is introduced, Rawlings literally has the team captain say this. That makes sense from the perspective of the zero to hero narrative of the first book, but doesn't make a lick of sense from the perspective of a team captain who wants to play a sport that he himself knows he's largely irrelevant in. Worse, it makes the game have no predictable length. The seeker is the game's clock. So why not just have seeker vs. seeker contests? Well, because even as a contest between seekers, outside of the artificial drama of a narrative, a seeker vs. seeker contest would be as much or more about luck as anything else. Any attempt to control luck, would make it basically Olympic cycling at best. I mean maybe if grabbing the snitch scored 20 points, and it was a first to three sort of thing that ended the game, then that would sort of make sense. But in the story world, we are told that quidditch didn't really take off until the introduction of the seeker/golden snitch and the current 100 point all or nothing rules. We're told that the seeker is what made the game so popular. Again, that makes sense for reinforcing the zero to hero narrative, but doesn't make the slightest bit of sense in terms of how a group of people on a team would evolve the rules to make everyone feel like they are participating in a sport, or in terms of how fans of a sport would demand drama in their sport. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why Didn't Harry Potter Change the Game?
Top