Find the Anime Challenge

[WizarDru]

IMO the word "meaningless" is being overused on this board for things that it doesn't apply to.

I never used the term "meaningless". In fact I think I said something to effect of exactly opposite that. I don't recall it being used in this thread up until the last page or so. So I don't disagree. It sounds like you're mostly concerned with a issue of sophistry, which I don't know really reflects on the topic that much.

Yea, but what has appeared to have happened at this time (this a big thread) is "that's meaningless, next!"

Have you followed the entire thread? Because while some folks have said that, I think it would be a gross-mis-characterization to state that this was the only reaction. By later pages of the thread, after the same issues were raised and similarly put down, perhaps...but more detailed dissections happened in the first several pages. I think you're taking one comment from the end of the discussion and painting with something of a broad brush, here.

Are sure? Take Spell Spheres for clerics for example (in 2E). To me, that was an idea with some potential but poor implementation and design. Had anyone anyone actually playtested it and given feedback on it, I would not have expected it to take the final form that it did.

Yes, I am sure. I'm not talking every single specific feature, but in general trends. Skills were not in OD&D, but progressively they became added as players and designers recognized the evolution of the game, from Non-Weapon Proficiencies on to the eventual Skill System in 3e, 3.5e and next 4e. GURPS featured a much more complicated skill system back in the mid-80s, as did Hero. Eventually these influenced D&D's designers. Not having played 2e, I can't comment on the success or lack thereof of Spell Spheres...though if it's what I think it is, then the whole concept of Domains evolved from them, which is exactly what I was driving at.

"Moved on" I think has connotations that are overly presumptuous IMO. Especially in terms of art. I find much of the later stuff in 3E to be "childish" IMO, overly reliant on cheap computer effects and cartoonish muscles and not as interesting as alot of the landscape-oriented stuff.

Since I wasn't referring to art here, but rules systems, I'm not sure what you consider presumptuous about it. In reference to the phrase 'meaningless', which I didn't use, I can only say that we aren't dealing with 'abstracts' here, as you seem to be saying. There most clearly are specific pictorial elements which can be ascribed to anime. Part of the point of this thread was to discuss and describe them. While the actual specific words of art vary (such as 'face faults', for example), it is very clear that the common usage of the word 'anime' is often ascribed to a particular style or related styles. If you change the word 'anime' to 'cubism', does that makes the idea more salient?

 

[gizmo33]

I never used the term "meaningless". In fact I think I said something to effect of exactly opposite that. I don't recall it being used in this thread up until the last page or so. So I don't disagree. It sounds like you're mostly concerned with a issue of sophistry, which I don't know really reflects on the topic that much.

Maybe that is what I'm concerned about. I've wanted to talk about art in the past on this board but the responses I've gotten have often been really aggressive and fixated on the vocabulary and other details that I thought were a distraction from the points I was trying to make. In any case I'm not sure how applicable my comments are to the thread as a whole but I didn't think my post would prevent further discussion on the other facets of the issue. Also - I'm sorry if you took the proximity of my comments to be implying that you personally said something about "meaningless".

 

[gizmo33]

It's not ambiguous, because, I pretty much know what the poster means. "This art is crap. Anime is crap. Thus this art is anime" seems to be the common refrain. The problem is, the art isn't really related to anime in more than an oblique fashion.

Well then I suppose you do know what a poster means by "anime" then I agree, in the example you've given it's not all that ambiguous. I can't answer for every use of the word anime, but the "hot/cold" answer I think was relevant just to illustrate that context was an issue. "Hot/cold" could also be the beginning of a long rant about the use of words, popular definitions, slang, etc. since those words frequently come up in all sorts of contexts not having to do with temperature. But I think you can anticipate my points on this. Whether or not you'd want to fix these definitions for all time I guess is an open question (clearly, "yes" in your case). Then again, I'm realizing that the comments you're thinking of are not very constructive ("DnD art is crap") so I would expect my encouragement to be constructive about people's questionable use of terms like anime would not be welcome advise and probably not appropriate in those cases.

 

[gizmo33]

Since I wasn't referring to art here, but rules systems, I'm not sure what you consider presumptuous about it.

Here's the quote:

What I enjoyed or considered acceptable in 1982 doesn't cut it, now. Hell, what I considered acceptable in 1997 doesn't cut it now. Game design has moved on. Popular art has moved on.

You were referring to art in what I responded to. I guess there's some sort of miscommunication here. But it seems pretty clear to me that you were equating rules with art in a way to show by analogy that in the way that rules have improved (a little more solid ground in terms of objectivity) so has art.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is, your hot/cold analogy isn't really applicable. Hot and cold are relative terms. Always. Anime is not. It's a genre term. And, as such, it exists outside of any other considerations. Anime is a descriptor for a specific set of styles and themes, just like any other genre word.

Yes, there is all sorts of fuzziness at the outskirts of the genre, but, that doesn't make it relative, it just means that there is overlap between different genres and certain works are more difficult to place within one or the other. It's not about fixing the definition for all time. It's about using a word in the way it's meant to be used.

Again, should we change the definition of a word to satisfy people who use the term incorrectly?

An absolutely beautiful example of what we're talking about just cropped up in another thread:

A lot of people play D&D as a sort of Sim S&S Fantasy World game, and by pushing your brand as a specific, non-generic entity with a specific, extremely quirky implied setting you may find that aspect of D&D's ability to deliver on that suffering. Thus far it's hewed fairly closely to Tolkien, who stuck to mythology, which was okay (everyone knows what a dwarf is)...

In the same paragraph, he's equating Sword and Sorcery fantasy with Tolkien. Yet, S&S fantasy as a genre is pretty much the complete opposite of Tolkien and was, in fact, coined as a term as a reaction to Tolkien's High Fantasy works. In other words, Rounser here is dead wrong in his use of the term. He's used the wrong term to make his point. It doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

So, should we simply ignore this and guess what his point is or should we challenge it and ask for clarification? Me, I've been challenging people on this anime thing for years. Dozens to times I've asked people to provide examples whenever I've seen the whole "3e art is anime" thing pop up. And, until this thread, I never ever got an answer.

So, no, it is not acceptable IMO, to simply let sloppy thinking slide. If you want to make a point, make it. Using the wrong words doesn't get your point across. It's not about fixing a definition in stone, it's about being able to better communicate. Again, I could say that 3e art is Surrealist. I'd be wrong. I'm sure I could probably point to some Surrealist influences somewhere in some book, but, 3e art is by no means Surrealist.

So, should I never be challenged if I state that 3e art is Surrealist? Should it just be ignored and people should instead guess what I'm trying to say? I don't think so.

I've got zero problems with someone not liking the art. Heck, there's lots of art that I don't like. My beef is when people are using the wrong words to make their point and then acting like it should be self evident what they mean. Say what you mean or don't bother.

 

[Wolfspider]

In the same paragraph, he's equating Sword and Sorcery fantasy with Tolkien. Yet, S&S fantasy as a genre is pretty much the complete opposite of Tolkien and was, in fact, coined as a term as a reaction to Tolkien's High Fantasy works. In other words, Rounser here is dead wrong in his use of the term. He's used the wrong term to make his point. It doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

You are right in pointing out that S&S and the kind of high fantasy present in much of Tolkien's work are very different. I just wanted to mention that much of what is considered classic S&S (the works of Howard, for example) predates Tolkien's LotR trilogy and the Silmarilion.

 

[Nifft]

My beef is when people are using the wrong words to make their point and then acting like it should be self evident what they mean. Say what you mean or don't bother.

Clap clap clap!

Again, I could say that 3e art is Surrealist.

Not the art so much as the game in itself. Marvelous Pigments, for one example. "Ceci n'est pas --- zut alor! C'est une pipe!" The ability to bodily visit the Plane of Dreams. The spell detect thoughts.

But there's also a few bits of obvious art like this:

Anyway, good point, good thread, let's retire the anime mud slinging.

Cheers, -- N

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

You are right in pointing out that S&S and the kind of high fantasy present in much of Tolkien's work are very different. I just wanted to mention that much of what is considered classic S&S (the works of Howard, for example) predates Tolkien's LotR trilogy and the Silmarilion.

I don't believe Hussar is saying otherwise; he's saying the TERM Sword and Sorcery, as opposed to just 'fantasy,' came about to distinguish the two types.

I'm not sure if that's CORRECT, mind, but that's what he's saying. I had the same thought as you the first time I read his comment, but figured it out when I went to quote it and say the same thing you did.

 

[gizmo33]

In the same paragraph, he's equating Sword and Sorcery fantasy with Tolkien.

But his point doesn't rely on the similarity or difference between S&S and Tolkien and I think it's somewhat of a distraction to debate the meaning when Rounser's core issue (from what I can tell by by the quote) is that some prior edition of DnD was generic fantasy, whereas some other version (4E I guess, or whatever) is not.

If the difference between S&S and Tolkien is significant to the discussion, then IMO it's just easiest to say that in specific ways that avoids relying on the definition. I'd say something like "Conan, an example of S&S, doesn't have dwarves. Furthermore, the literature in that genre is distinct in many significant ways from Tolkien. So saying that DnD stays close to Tolkien would then suggest that DnD has strayed far from Conan". Or something like that - I'm not really sure of the context of the conversation. But this way you avoid having to debate something that ultimately doesn't support your conclusion AFAICT. Or at least your point is just as easily established - and in a way that implicitly defines your terms.

The bottom line for me with this thread (or this section of it) and in other places where this is discussed is that I think everyone knows what everyone else is really trying to say. It's possible that the vocabulary thing is causing a conflation of ideas or other problems that need to be cleared up. But AFAICT the folks calling "shennanigans" on the use of the term anime are too general IMO in their objections for me to make much use of them in understanding their ideas that are pertinent to the subject. Sort of a "you're wrong, now say everything again" kind of response that IMO is not constructive.

 

[Nifft]

But his point doesn't rely on the similarity or difference between S&S and Tolkien and I think it's somewhat of a distraction to debate the meaning when Rounser's core issue (from what I can tell by by the quote) is that some prior edition of DnD was generic fantasy, whereas some other version (4E I guess, or whatever) is not.

What?

Hussar's point has nothing to do with Rounser's point being valid or invalid.

It has to do with Rounser's misuse of genre terminology. It's an analogy to how people were misusing the genre of anime.

This thread is about a mis-used genre term. The thread where Rounser was posting is not.

Cheers, -- N