D&D 4E 4e Design and JRR Tolkien

[WayneLigon]

As to author's "owning" their work. Ballocks. Complete and utter ballocks. Once a text is released, it has to stand on its own. The author can claim whatever he or she likes after the release, but, their interpretation is no more valid than anyone else's. If your interpretation is unsuported by the text, it's wrong. Full stop. If it's supported by the text, then fair enough, it's a valid interpretation. The more support you can find in the text for your interpretation, the more valid it becomes.

The author is the only possible authority on their own work; they don't make 'claims' or 'interpretations' about their own work, they make statements of unassailable fact and are the only ones qualified to do so. Everything written about their work by anyone else is opinion or guidance at the very best; usually it's just a way for someone to make a buck off the work of someone else, much like a jackal makes a meal off bones and gristle.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The author is the only possible authority on their own work; they don't make 'claims' or 'interpretations' about their own work, they make statements of unassailable fact and are the only ones qualified to do so.

While I agree that authors are the most qualified authority on their own work (or at least, certainly, about their intentions with respect to it), I have read far too many conflicting statements by authors about their work to say they are unassailable.

Ex: I don't believe for a second that Han Solo was meant to shoot second.

Ex: I don't believe for a second that JKR had the plots to all seven novels in her head when she started novel 1.

Authors can and do have agendas like anyone else. Their opinions on their work can and does change. They can and do discover unexpected meanings/contexts have appeared that they were not consciously aware of at the time of writing. They can and do lie.

As House says, "Everybody lies."

Unless you have reason to believe to the contrary authorial statements are certainly the least controvertial form of argument by authority that I can think of, though.

RC

 

[WayneLigon]

Ex: I don't believe for a second that Han Solo was meant to shoot second.

I do make exceptions for cases of obvious insanity on the part of the author.

 

[JohnSnow]

Now, that out of the way... OMFG!!!! Gandalf is GAY!?!?!?!...
*blood begins to shoot out of my eyes...

Of course he is. That's why Peter Jackson cast gay actor Ian McKellen to play him in the movies.

Oh yeah, and Magneto's gay, too.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Of course he is. That's why Peter Jackson cast gay actor Ian McKellen to play him in the movies.

Oh yeah, and Magneto's gay, too.

*weeps uncontrolably, probobaly tears of blood

 

[Raven Crowking]

I do make exceptions for cases of obvious insanity on the part of the author.

 

[shilsen]

While I agree that authors are the most qualified authority on their own work (or at least, certainly, about their intentions with respect to it), I have read far too many conflicting statements by authors about their work to say they are unassailable.

...

Authors can and do have agendas like anyone else. Their opinions on their work can and does change. They can and do discover unexpected meanings/contexts have appeared that they were not consciously aware of at the time of writing. They can and do lie.

Oh, hell! I just agreed with you completely.

The apocalypse is coming!

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Yeha, I'd say it's more prophecy than power. But there is some comment about the greater members in Sauron's armies being immune to ordinary weapons. Boromir's blade can't injure the cave troll, but Sting can, as can the blades the Hobbits pulled from the Barrow. And it's Merry's blade that deals the critical blow, though Eowyn lands the killing stroke. ANd here's my evidence:

"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. And glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

Funny I'd always interpreted the "prophecy" as like much of what JRR wrote using Man in the sense of 'the race of Man' and that Eowyn was completely superficial it was actually the Hobbit who dealt the deathblow, being the only one who struck him that wasn't Man.

 

[Hairfoot]

D&D 1e wasn't about defeating the BBEG; it was far more S&S.

Can you expand on that? I'm not rebutting it, but 1e was so long ago I can't remember what it was about, other than orc-killing.

 

[PeterWeller]

Maybe it would be more correct to say that early D&D was more focused on ongoing narratives, while the later versions of the game have focused more on contained narratives. For example, Gygax, Arneson, and Greenwood's, along with many other early adopters' campaigns are supposedly continuing until this day, while the WotC marketers have determined that the average campaign begun nowadays lasts for about a year. This might reflect a change in the perception of what a campaign is. The early form, ongoing continuous narratives built around a group of characters is definitely more evocative of Howard's and Leiber's stories. The modern form, contained stories dealing with an overall conflict and its resolution are more like Tolkien's.

Now, I don't know if there was a change in perception and style or if both styles have existed side by side for as long as the game has existed. I've run and played in both types of campaigns in OD&D, 2E, and 3.X, and the system has never seemed to favor one style over the other.

I wonder, though, if this change in attitude is real, how much of it has to do with a generation of gamers whose earliest experiences with role playing included playing Final Fantasy games and other CRPGs, which, by their nature, lend themselves better to the second style, and if that is true, will the MMO have the effect of swinging the balance back towards the first style.