POV, Yeah You Know Me

[Scott Christian]

Thanks, I am an adult with a day job. I know what work is.

Then you also know that work can have a broad definition. My wife works from home on Fridays, except some of that time is watching Netflix and tending the garden, and then maybe thinking about a spreadsheet or two. I work on Fridays, and I am busy from the second I walk in, to the second I leave. Both can be called work.

We were talking about GMs. You sound like you are trying to make this about published authors. I am not following you on that journey.

No published. I am making the point that people who do a lot of work on their campaigns strengthens their POV. Are you really going to argue that a lack of POV comes more often from people who put a lot of work into their campaign, as opposed to those that don't?

I have, over the years, known a bunch of folks who spent lots of actual work developing material for games, and have the results be an incoherent mess.

Because, again, effort does not ensure point of view. Narrowing to a point of view requires discipline, focus, and understanding of the needs of the medium.

Then those people didn't work, they dabbled and doodled and dillied with their ideas. Someone who works concentrates and focuses on details. They connect things. They edit. They rewrite, and then they rewrite again.

As for ensuring POV, you said that. I did not. I said working a lot on a campaign strengthens your point of view.

It may not ensure it, but it definitely strengthens it.

Well, except that I am saying that the result had no specific point of view. They work on a ton of stuff, and cram it all in there, unwilling to kill any idea off for the greater good.

Again, then they are not working. They are jotting ideas down, not editing, not rewriting, not considering the greater impact. It sounds like a hodgepodge of ideas, which is more brainstorming with a strong outline, than working. (I actually think what they are doing is the most fun part!)

 

[Lanefan]

My campaigns typically run three to five calendar years, and the players generally choose how much interactin with the greater setting they want.

Good to hear.

I've never had a problem with starting with a sketch, though. YMMV.

Starting with a sketch, when I did it, was great for the first bits of the campaign; but the sketch set non-cohesive precedents that turned into really frustrating limitations as things went along later. Thus, since then I try to start with a more cohesive whole, even if there's still lots of gaps for later expansion within that whole.

 

[eudyptes]

Then those people didn't work, they dabbled and doodled and dillied with their ideas. Someone who works concentrates and focuses on details. They connect things. They edit. They rewrite, and then they rewrite again.

Again, then they are not working. They are jotting ideas down, not editing, not rewriting, not considering the greater impact. It sounds like a hodgepodge of ideas, which is more brainstorming with a strong outline, than working. (I actually think what they are doing is the most fun part!)

The quality of the output is not necessarily related to the amount of work (yes, work) put in.

Look, I write a LOT in my day job. I was a communications minor. I worked as a proofreader, editor, and typesetter in between graduate schools. I'm pretty good at writing (both in my own opinion and in the opinions of others, ha). It takes experience and training to get good at it, for most people.

People who are not trained, people who write for fun and for their friends but don't practice regularly (which is to say, people who write as a hobby), might very well work very hard at what they do. They might edit, revise, even get feedback from others, spending hours and hours, agonizing over details. And their output still might be a jumbled mess. The organization of thoughts isn't easy for everyone, and transferring it to the written word isn't, either.

All of that is just to say that I think it's terribly unfair for you to try to define the work of others as "dabbling" because the output isn't of the quality they wanted. The only way I think you can define "work" the way you're using it is professional, work-for-pay, and using that model, the vast majority of us here are dabblers.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Something that works for one person doesn't work for another? Suprise pikachu face!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The quality of the output is not necessarily related to the amount of work (yes, work) put in.

Look, I write a LOT in my day job. I was a communications minor. I worked as a proofreader, editor, and typesetter in between graduate schools. I'm pretty good at writing (both in my own opinion and in the opinions of others, ha). It takes experience and training to get good at it, for most people.

People who are not trained, people who write for fun and for their friends but don't practice regularly (which is to say, people who write as a hobby), might very well work very hard at what they do. They might edit, revise, even get feedback from others, spending hours and hours, agonizing over details. And their output still might be a jumbled mess. The organization of thoughts isn't easy for everyone, and transferring it to the written word isn't, either.

All of that is just to say that I think it's terribly unfair for you to try to define the work of others as "dabbling" because the output isn't of the quality they wanted. The only way I think you can define "work" the way you're using it is professional, work-for-pay, and using that model, the vast majority of us here are dabblers.

I’ve had to learn at least 2 other different ways of formal writing beyond the preferences of the legal profession. And a huge chunk of my education & professional life involved composition, editing writing, revision…and revision…and revision…*

So I’ve often been called on to edit the work of others.

My biggest personal challenge was in the last class of my MBA program, where my team had to do research for and report to a real-world client that had contacted the school.** The report involved a live presentation and a written report.

The thing is, I was the only native speaker of English on the team. The others were Russian, Japanese, Chinese, and a South American woman whose country I cannot remember (sorry).

I volunteered to assemble the final paper, and it was one of the most difficult things I have ever done in my academic life. Each person’s contribution was written in their own idiosyncratic style, influenced by their facility with English. I had to get it into one consistent tense, POV and so forth.





* Though not quite as much as my friends with comm/journalism degrees.

** Our client was a small entertainment startup, but other teams in the class dealt with other businesses, like grocery chains and even NHL and MLB teams.

 

[Scott Christian]

The quality of the output is not necessarily related to the amount of work (yes, work) put in.

Look, I write a LOT in my day job. I was a communications minor. I worked as a proofreader, editor, and typesetter in between graduate schools. I'm pretty good at writing (both in my own opinion and in the opinions of others, ha). It takes experience and training to get good at it, for most people.

People who are not trained, people who write for fun and for their friends but don't practice regularly (which is to say, people who write as a hobby), might very well work very hard at what they do. They might edit, revise, even get feedback from others, spending hours and hours, agonizing over details. And their output still might be a jumbled mess. The organization of thoughts isn't easy for everyone, and transferring it to the written word isn't, either.

All of that is just to say that I think it's terribly unfair for you to try to define the work of others as "dabbling" because the output isn't of the quality they wanted. The only way I think you can define "work" the way you're using it is professional, work-for-pay, and using that model, the vast majority of us here are dabblers.

I would agree, the vast majority of DMs are dabblers. Heck, half of the paid DMs I talk to tell me they just wing it or use one page of notes. But to be fair to my point, I was replying to this:

I have, over the years, known a bunch of folks who spent lots of actual work developing material for games, and have the results be an incoherent mess.

Because, again, effort does not ensure point of view. Narrowing to a point of view requires discipline, focus, and understanding of the needs of the medium.

And my reply was that is not work. If you do a lot of work developing material for games, and it is still an incoherent mess, then you didn't work. (And granted, I am under the assumption we are talking about able-minded, intelligent people that can communicate, much like you would find on this forum.)

@eudyptes My claim was merely that people that do more work have a stronger POV. People who work an awful lot on their campaign are generally able to express and communicate their campaign's POV better.

Can there be an outlier. Sure. But in reality, we all know putting in the work should lead to better communication.

 

[Umbran]

And my reply was that is not work. If you do a lot of work developing material for games, and it is still an incoherent mess, then you didn't work. (And granted, I am under the assumption we are talking about able-minded, intelligent people that can communicate, much like you would find on this forum.)

Wow. That's some condescension that knows few bounds.
I'll leave you to it. Just don't trip while you looking down your nose at people.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you do a lot of work developing material for games, and it is still an incoherent mess, then you didn't work.

Struggle is real.

People put in hard work on things and still fail.

My Dad was one of the first two blacks to be admitted to his med school. He was also the only one of them to graduate- the other guy had a nervous breakdown. He still worked hard while there, despite his failure.

 

[Scott Christian]

People put in hard work on things and still fail.

Of course they do. I myself have poured work into a classroom lesson, and watched it fail miserably. Please read what I wrote though. The discussion was about having a POV, and I stated:

My claim was merely that people that do more work have a stronger POV. People who work an awful lot on their campaign are generally able to express and communicate their campaign's POV better.

If I would have done no work, or just outlined that classroom lesson, the odds are it would have been an even bigger disaster. I find it difficult to believe that people who sit down and do concentrated work on their campaign come up with a disorganized mess. I find it even harder to believe that people who sit down for four hours a week and do concentrated work on their campaign express their POV worse than if they had just outlined a campaign and doodled 100 ideas that popped in their heads. That is my argument. I even said - directly in the quote you quoted me from - Can there be an outlier? Sure. But if you put your energy and concentrated effort into something, most likely you can better communicate that to a group of people.

Wow. That's some condescension that knows few bounds.
I'll leave you to it. Just don't trip while you looking down your nose at people.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what you are even talking about here. I called the people on this forum "able-minded," and "intelligent," and able to "communicate" well. How is that me looking down on people? In my world, that is a compliment, and I compliment because I know it's true based on my interactions with the forum. Many people on here are smarter than me - I can tell. That's fine. It does not threaten me, nor does intimidate me. And I certainly don't turn my nose down at them.

You stated you have seen "many" people do a ton of work on campaigns that were still incoherent messes. I said, they didn't work, they outlined, doodled, had brainstorming sessions, etc. I then defined what work is for you. And I assume the people you are talking about are just as smart as me or anyone else on this forum. Then I said, if they worked, it would not be an incoherent mess. A mess? Maybe. But a lot less of a mess than if they just doodled and outlined. Might it still fail the table? Sure. But it would still have a stronger POV than if they just played a game of impromptu.

 

[Byrd]

I then defined what work is for you.

Rewriting the dictionary, are we?
Well, isn't that nice for you.