Originality

[AvarielAvenger]

It depends on the aspect and instance in which that origionallity manifests itself. To say that nothing 'origional' will sell well is too general.

Very well, I will use a more specific definition. Nothing that variates too much from the more successful previous worlds like the Fogotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc. Will do as well as a world that has the same basic theme as those worlds.

To claim that Dark Sun didnt sell well because it was origional and the related psychological ... is bollox.

How so? The most common complaints I've seen about Dark Sun is "it was too weird" or "I don't think I could get into that kind of world". And likewise for Planescape and Spelljammer.

In RPGs, it comes down to how long it takes to build the storyline, how easy it is to convey awe inspiring tranquility/beauty/fear. I would be playing Dark Sun if it is possible to play/GM at the level of RPGing required. Which is just about impossible.

That's your opinion. You can easily convey all of the things you just described in a good Dark Sun campaign. I've seen it done. The Dark Sun world was quite intriguing and playable as a world, but it was simply too different for most people to accept it.

The more awe inspiring the setting requires awe-inspiring adventures if it is to sell successfully.

Really? So you consider Dark Sun "awe-inspiring"? Most Dark Sun adventures I saw were simple quests to survive. That isn't very "awe-inspiring" in my mind.

Regretably, re: Dark Sun, its usually the gladiator type politics. Its origionallity brutally limits the playability within the world by demanding either extreme role-playing or epic level campaigning of armines - in which case you mightaswell play warhammer/whatever.

Since when? I've seen enough "normal" campaigns run in Dark Sun that don't contain either "extreme role-playing" or "epic level campaigning" to know that's a fallacy.

1) Being Origional and being Alien (which is origional but unplayable) is quite different.

You are proving my point. The "original" you want is a slight variation in theme from that from which you're used to. Anything that variates too greatly from this strikes you as "alien" and thus "unplayable".

2) Being an Awe-inspiring setting (Planescape/Planescape), typically demands awe-inspiring adventures. This is quite difficult. GMs are not professional novellists. The GM cannot give out chapters of behind-the-scenes happenings and intrigue.

Again, Planescape, like Dark Sun, does not need to be run as "awe-inspiring" or have huge plane shaking quests and adventures any more than a normal campaign needs to have adventurers constantly saving the world from some hideous, unspeakable evil, that they, and they alone can stop.

Planescape and Dark Sun are no different from other campaign settings in the regard of what kind of adventures you can run.

When it comes to something like spelljammer, it suffers in the same way as Dark Sun. The setting might brutally limit the playability within the setting. The justification is the island-effect. An island within the middle of space is expected to be the horrific dwelling of some enemy/ally. If the DM mentions it, there is something to slay.

Again, this is not the case. A Spelljammer campaign can be run with the same ease and style as just about any other campaign.

The weakness within spelljammer is a magnification of the weaknesses in roleplaying... in general. One cannot do justice within the spelljammer setting because its the small finer points, the day to day happenings within an intresting world which make it intresting, but are impossible to achieve within a 6 hour gaming session.

Your point? The Spelljammer setting is no harder to detail than any other.

Those intresting points are achievable within novels, but not in roleplaying.

Again, what relevance does this have?

This thread with bearing towards the WotC setting search. Yes, I'd imagine they'd reject darksun and spelljammer and they dont want a yellow room painted blue.

They don't want a setting that is too different from previous settings, because most people (apparently including yourself) are disturbed when facing the prospect of trying something too far different from what they've experienced before. So they're trying to find a good setting that has the same basic theme as DL, Greyhawk, and FR, but with a slight variation to make it "different".

Lets take the worst-case-bland scenario.

They would take the realms, kill all the known plot anchors (thay, elminter, sisters, drow, waterdeep, desert, etc, bleh). They'd replace them with pervasive social structures that change the adventure triggers and continue changing as much as possible.

The key point is that one shouldnt be looking at alien worlds, because they're difficult to roleplay. Instead, their origional anchor would be something that has some pervasive structure in which there are many more adventure triggers.

Once again, you refer to worlds that are suitably different from the normal as "alien". Why do you think that is?

You think roleplaying something from Dark Sun/Planescape is harder than roleplaying, say, a Holy Knight Of St. Cuthbert in Greyhawk? Or how about a wandering Genasi Sorcerer who wields Spellfire in the Realms?

I've seen more "normal" characters in Dark Sun/Planescape campaigns than I have in many of the "normal" worlds.

The thing that disturbs people about the other worlds is not the ease of "roleplaying" within them, it is the fact the worlds have too much variation from what they're used to.

That would make GMing alot easier and improve the players enjoyment within the realm.

Spell Jammer has the problem that 'defending the ship', is the same as 'defending the caravan'. Pillaging the citidel is the same as pillaging... the citidel.

But it's in a context which many people, including yourself, find "alien" and disturbing, because it variates too greatly from what they're used to.

And that's why a campaign world like that won't work, and that's why WoTC requested a setting "similar to our other worlds, like Greyhawk, DL and FR."

 

[freedoms_edge]

I think that what AvarielAvenger is trying to say here, is that for a campaign that is "different" from the standards that we are used to, we as the DM's / PC's must be willing to throw ourselves fully into those worlds and not be put aback by preconceptions or things being different. Don't deny that you don't do it, we all do. It's much easier to play a charcter in the realms or greyhawk, as you don't have to throw yourself into a completely strange world, there is always some aspect of familiarity there.

All a world can ever be is what YOU make it.

sigh.

Rant done.

 

[Eysia]

4. "The same as before but different" is the consensus approach. It seems everyone knocks SpellJammer and DarkSun 'cause they're too far left-field and therefore didn't sell well. This has nothing to do with their "orginality" or their grooviness; just a matter of sales.
...
Can't we come up with something that IS generally marketable AND inspiring? Something that's not just more of the same?

AvarielAvenger
Very well, I will use a more specific definition. Nothing that variates too much from the more successful previous worlds like the Fogotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc. Will do as well as a world that has the same basic theme as those worlds.
...
How so? The most common complaints I've seen about Dark Sun is "it was too weird" or "I don't think I could get into that kind of world". And likewise for Planescape and Spelljammer.
...
And that's why a campaign world like that won't work, and that's why WoTC requested a setting "similar to our other worlds, like Greyhawk, DL and FR."

Why are we still rehashing this argument? I think everyone who's bothered to read both pages of this thread agrese that WoTC don't want something that's too different from FR (because they're concerned it won't sell).

Can we put this argument to bed?

Lizard
How does that saying go? "Genius consists of looking at what everyone else has looked at, and seeing what no one else has seen."

It's what you add to an idea, or how you combine ideas, or how you twist, shape, distort, mutate, or change ideas, which matters. A 'great innovator' is someone who manages to leap ahead a dozen mutations at once, going from shrew to man in a single jump.

Yes! The twist!

I stated before that I focused my twist on the goals of the heroes. I felt that I could encompass lots of playing and PCing styles and still give the players (and WoTC) something new to chew on.

How did you guys manage your twist? What did you choose to innovate?

-Eysia

 

[AvarielAvenger]

Why are we still rehashing this argument? I think everyone who's bothered to read both pages of this thread agrese that WoTC don't want something that's too different from FR (because they're concerned it won't sell).

Can we put this argument to bed?

I was not responding to you, I was responding to another poster. If my comments had been directed at you, I would've either quoted you, or specifically mentioned you in my post.

 

[Eysia]

I was not responding to you, I was responding to another poster. If my comments had been directed at you, I would've either quoted you, or specifically mentioned you in my post. [/B]

Avariel, this is a public forum. Your comments "to another poster" as visible to us all. If you wanted to have a private conversation with him, you could have emailed him off-list.

Don't get testy.

I was simply pointing out, that if you re-read the entire 2 pages of this post, you will see plenty of other people who agree with your position (I for one agree with you completely). Therefore, your play-by-play debate with trix is pointless as your argument has already been won; and frankly, the same back-n-forth is getting tiring.

-Eysia

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Avariel, this is a public forum. Your comments "to another poster" as visible to us all. If you wanted to have a private conversation with him, you could have emailed him off-list.

Don't get testy.

Salutations,

Eysia- topics often fray into a few ongoing discussions within one topic. That is not necessarily a bad thing- and if you think a post is irrelevant, then you can always ignore it.

and frankly, the same back-n-forth is getting tiring.

Haha- most message boards would be empty if it wasn't for the "same back-n-forth". The big differences is new people.

For example- this discussion on originality of the submissions is not new to this message board. Your view points and a few others are- so it is worth discussing again.

FD

 

[Umbran]

Re: Re: Originality

There are no new ideas. Anyone who thinks there are has probably just not been exposed to enough of the art of the past.

There are plenty of new ideas. Anyone who doubts this has probably just not been exposed to enough science of the present.

I'm sorry to say, but the view you state here is short-sighted. Human art is based upon human experience. Until we reach the point where there are no new experiences to be had, there will be new ideas, new art.

Human experience is based upon our world and society, which changes with our knowledge of the world and universe, and changes with our technology. There are still new things to do, new artistic media to discover and create. Heck, there's whole new planets, new ways of life. Until we have seen and done everything to see and do, there will be new inspirations, and thus new ideas...

And even beyond that. We are not even limited by what is and what can be. We are capable of imagining that which is physically impossible.

 

[Lizard]

Re: Re: Re: Originality

There are plenty of new ideas. Anyone who doubts this has probably just not been exposed to enough science of the present.

Very well. Name a new idea, a wholly new idea, one which has no clear antecedents or which cannot be described as "Like X, but with Y"

 

[Eysia]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Originality

Very well. Name a new idea, a wholly new idea, one which has no clear antecedents or which cannot be described as "Like X, but with Y"

I'd like to tell you, Lizard, but I don't want to ruin my chances of getting to the 100 page bible stage!

....just kidding. Lighten up, fella.

You are, of course, correct.

As you so eloquently explained, human ideas are based on human experience (and extrapolation through imagination). Creation is the act of taking things, often made of smaller building blocks like atoms, paint, or ideas and creating "new" things. These new things, though being based on smaller known things, are still "new".

Examples: Language, TCP/IP, lasers, non-Newtonian physics...

But consider this: Humanity can only know for sure what is within our direct experience. Once we go outside of that (which on a universal scale is a lot of stuff... we're a tiny dirt speck floating in the great out there), we are in the truly unknown. The truly "new". That, I think, is Umbran's point.

The writing of H.P. Lovecraft very nicely defines the unknowable. As does the mystical writings of Buddhism.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that we don't know it all yet, as there is equally nothing wrong with admitting that original ideas are often based on previous concepts.

You guys (Lizard and Umbran) are two sides of the same coin... but at least it's gold!


-Eysia

 

[Umbran]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Originality

Oh, I admit wholeheartedly that a great many ideas are reformulations of the old. I simply reject the idea (which must have started as new sometime ) that there are absolutely no new ones left.

Very well. Name a new idea, a wholly new idea, one which has no clear antecedents or which cannot be described as "Like X, but with Y"

Aisde from the fact that originality does not actually require a lack of antecedants, nor does it preculde "Like X, but with Y", I shall meet your task...

As Eysia mentions, there's lots of new ideas in non-newtonian physics. But, there were some new things in newtonian physics, too. Specifically, calculus (whether or not you believe Newton first constructed it) was built from whole cloth, and has no antecedent.

Einsteinian relativity, including specifically it's grounding principle - that light travels at a speed constant in all frames when nothing else in the universe does so.

Much of of Quantum Mechanics has no antecedent, and the Copenhagen interpretation thereof was certainly unheard of.

The life forms of Robert L Forward's books The Dragon's Egg and Rocheworld include new concepts.

The original Dyson sphere (not the "hollow world about a star", but instead the idea that a species would so fully surround it's star with satellites as to absorb all visible light from the star).

Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.

Douglas Adams' "Infinite Improbability Drive" and "Bistromathics".

That the man commonly known as "Carrot Top" could be an effective spokesman for anything.

Do you need me to continue?