Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5183307" data-attributes="member: 4937">Now, let's move back a second and look at the big picture. Someone reading this thread may be inclined to think I've hijacked it and gone off on a tangent that is completely off topic.&nbsp; I don't believe that is the case.&nbsp; I believe I've brought the discussion back to place that is very relevant to the original poster's point.Role Playing Games are Role Playing Games.&nbsp; The discussion we've been having about creating good RPG literature has no real parallel in the creation of any form of non-gaming literature.&nbsp; You can't really have hard illusionism in a novel, because the words are fixed on the page and do not move in response to the reader's perception of those words.&nbsp; You wouldn't try to teach someone about writing novels or screenplays by explaining illusionism, adventure paths, sandboxes, and narrow-broad-narrow.&nbsp; This is entirely a discussion relevant to RPGs and not really to anything else.My basic complaint against the OP is that he wasn't very careful in composing his list.&nbsp; A more carefully constructed list might have seen me being one of his defenders right from the start, because the point he seems to be wanting to make after composing the list - &quot;we need to treat role playing games as such&quot; - is one I very much agree with.&nbsp; I think we still are muddling around a bit when it comes to good RPG and module writing techniques.&nbsp; I think our efforts still resemble those of the early novelists who were uncertain of the worth and legitimacy of their chosen literary form, and who lacked clear models of how to be novelists because no one had ever done it before.&nbsp; I think the best of our RPGs and stories for them resemble something like 'Moby Dick', with its constant dithering over whether it is a screen play, a natural history, or a travelogue, and ultimately being a rather thin (but memorable) novel.&nbsp; I look at something like the DL series, and see the same blend of genius and confusion.&nbsp; I read so many modules where I believe the author could make the adventure he's described interesting, and some DMs might be able to stumble into it by some combination of luck and insight, but where the writer has failed to actually describe how to do so.&nbsp; We are still moving somewhat blindly as creators of this artform called 'the role-playing game'.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5183307, member: 4937"] Now, let's move back a second and look at the big picture. Someone reading this thread may be inclined to think I've hijacked it and gone off on a tangent that is completely off topic. I don't believe that is the case. I believe I've brought the discussion back to place that is very relevant to the original poster's point. Role Playing Games are Role Playing Games. The discussion we've been having about creating good RPG literature has no real parallel in the creation of any form of non-gaming literature. You can't really have hard illusionism in a novel, because the words are fixed on the page and do not move in response to the reader's perception of those words. You wouldn't try to teach someone about writing novels or screenplays by explaining illusionism, adventure paths, sandboxes, and narrow-broad-narrow. This is entirely a discussion relevant to RPGs and not really to anything else. My basic complaint against the OP is that he wasn't very careful in composing his list. A more carefully constructed list might have seen me being one of his defenders right from the start, because the point he seems to be wanting to make after composing the list - "we need to treat role playing games as such" - is one I very much agree with. I think we still are muddling around a bit when it comes to good RPG and module writing techniques. I think our efforts still resemble those of the early novelists who were uncertain of the worth and legitimacy of their chosen literary form, and who lacked clear models of how to be novelists because no one had ever done it before. I think the best of our RPGs and stories for them resemble something like 'Moby Dick', with its constant dithering over whether it is a screen play, a natural history, or a travelogue, and ultimately being a rather thin (but memorable) novel. I look at something like the DL series, and see the same blend of genius and confusion. I read so many modules where I believe the author could make the adventure he's described interesting, and some DMs might be able to stumble into it by some combination of luck and insight, but where the writer has failed to actually describe how to do so. We are still moving somewhat blindly as creators of this artform called 'the role-playing game'. [/QUOTE]

Verification