Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8069582" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So my last comment on this topic, since we seem to be talking past each other.First, the analogy. If you like writing in free verse, then of course you would say that it gives you more options to play with. For example, you can use &quot;orange&quot; a lot more than someone writing rhyming stanzas. On the other hand, if you prefer a more formal structure, then you are necessarily giving up some options, in order to enjoy the creative advantages of that formal structure. If I am writing a Crybin Petrarchan Sonnet, then I am necessarily going to limit myself, but I am doing so in a formal way because it provides me other options for creativity. In addition, I can also play against type (for example, Dante used a three rhyme technique) but I can only do so if that type is already established!As I keep writing, it is perfectly fine to view this as mere underpinnings to allow you more options- a &quot;MadLibs&quot; style mix-n-match of race, class, background to get the traits you want for your character, without having to worry about any formal constraints. It's all about options! High-strength gnome barbarians with a scholar background, and high-intelligence bugbear wizard with a gladiator background .... it's all good. Whatever works at your table.But that same pain that you feel- that's the joy that I feel when I get a character concept that is against type, but also works perfectly for me. As I keep writing -- all of those character concepts that I dream of to play against type don't work if the type isn't established and formalized. It's just a philosophical difference, which is okay! Different people can enjoy different things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8069582, member: 7023840"] So my last comment on this topic, since we seem to be talking past each other. First, the analogy. If you like writing in free verse, then of course you would say that it gives you more options to play with. For example, you can use "orange" a lot more than someone writing rhyming stanzas. On the other hand, if you prefer a more formal structure, then you are [I]necessarily giving up some options, in order to enjoy the creative advantages of that formal structure[/I]. If I am writing a Crybin Petrarchan Sonnet, then I am necessarily going to limit myself, but I am doing so in a formal way because it provides me other options for creativity. In addition, I can also play against type (for example, Dante used a three rhyme technique) but I can only do so if that type is already established! As I keep writing, it is perfectly fine to view this as mere underpinnings to allow you more options- a "MadLibs" style mix-n-match of race, class, background to get the traits you want for your character, without having to worry about any formal constraints. It's all about options! High-strength gnome barbarians with a scholar background, and high-intelligence bugbear wizard with a gladiator background .... it's all good. Whatever works at your table. But that same pain that you feel- that's the joy that I feel when I get a character concept that is against type, but also works perfectly for me. As I keep writing -- all of those character concepts that I dream of to play against type don't work if the type isn't established and formalized. It's just a philosophical difference, which is okay! Different people can enjoy different things. [/QUOTE]

Verification