Saturday, Saturday, Saturday night's all right...

[Mark van Dyk]

That's cool

To Thormangi:

I just like building things that last in the game. It seems that I am quite the exception!

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I am curious why you interpreted my original question as a choice between characterization and plot? Never did I mention plot. The question was whether people enjoyed longer campaigns with more character development or shorter ones with less character development. Nowhere is there mention of plot.

The original post invited nothing about your preferences, either. My post was not about you. It was not a claim that you preferred characterization over plot, nor was it claim that plot was unimportant to long vs. short campaigns. It only claimed that I prefer plot over character development, that plot is more important to me, and I like backing up my claims with something to give justification for my preferences, largely to begin the process of self-defence before you start attacking my choices.

I merely indicated that length of campaign is not important to me. I indicated plot development is more interesting to me than character development. All good arguments should involve supporting evidence. I offered such, indicating my background and economic support level makes my stance typical, thus showing I am not some weirdo in having this viewpoint. I indicated that short campaigns offer plot just as well as long campaigns, so both facets of gaming offer what is important to me.

In fact, I assume in all games that there should be a very strong plot.

If you are going to assume something, you should state your assumptions, as I cannot read your mind. You stated, "...roll some dice, kill the bad guy and go home..." This indicated a perceived lack of interesting plots in short games. Your assumption that all games should have strong plots was not clear. Also, as Will Durant said, "The great snare of thought is uncritical acceptance of irrational assumptions." Still, you asked a question. I felt I answered it. I did not know your assumptions. To make my post clearer, here:

What sort of games do you like best?

Games with an interesting plot.

Do you like long campaigns or short ones that offer more chances to play different characters and different scenarios?

I have no preference here, as I indicated. Plot motivates me to play, and both situations offer such. Character development is not really a motivation for me unless such development drives the plot.

I hope, since I left out the evidence to show that I am not bizarre for holding this opinion, that you understand my opinion on the proffered subject. I have reworded my answer considerably, especially now that I know your assumption. If I need to repeat myself again to make myself clearer, please let me know.

I also wondered why you chose to use as your supportive evidence a work that was evidently self published because apparently no one desired to publish the work or acknowledge its validity.

Because it was at hand, and it wasn't an important enough of a point to go looking for further research. All I wanted to show was that I am not anomalous for holding my opinion, that, indeed, I am quite typical. It was not offered to say anything about you. It was offered in defense of ME.

You are arguing here on false authority. One of the fallacies of argument is attacking the circumstances of the evidence/argument instead of the evidence/argument itself. Attacking Dr. Payne because she self-published does not dispute her research. Many researchers self publish. If you want to dispute her research, state an authoritative source, please. If you can PROVE she chose self publication because no one desired to acknowledge its validity, then do so. I am not saying her word is the final one on the subject, and I am sure there are dissenting opinions out there, but many researchers self-publish. There is no shame in that. Dissenting opinions would indicate that I am strange and/or unique, and if that is your purpose in proving her research invalid, more power to you. Although I attempted to show my opinion is typical for people in my situation, I will accept the "strange" label if you blast her research out of the water.

It seems that you attempted to ignore certain facets of my post in order to create a platform for your own unrelated thoughts. Is this the case?

No, that is not the case. I merely indicated that length of campaign is not important to me. I indicated plot development is more interesting to me than character development. All good arguments should involve supporting evidence. I offered such, indicating my background and economic support level makes my stance typical, thus showing I am not some weirdo in having this viewpoint. I indicated that short campaigns offer plot just as well as long campaigns, so both facets of gaming offer what is important to me.

I am getting tired of defending everything I say to you. I feel as though I am holding discourse with a child. What facets of your post did I ignore with my own post? If my thoughts are so unrelated, why respond at all?

 

[Mark van Dyk]

First of all

ammending...

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I am not big into one-shot adventures the purpose of which is to just have a little variety and flavor, roll some dice, kill the bad guy and go home. I like variety and flavor, don't get me wrong, but for me, getting to know my character--- and thus some facet of myself--- is more appealing to me than playing an adventure just because the scenery is different.

Aha! I answered my own question. I found the facet I ignored! My apologies for ignoring it.

The short campaign is not just a change of scenery to me. Certain plots and characterizations are better realized in a different mileau. For example, it is difficult to have a Lovecraftian game if the gods are real. The good gods will provide the power necessary to fight the evil ones. If gods are unreal, then mortals must stand on their own against the evils of the world. Another example: Fey from fairy tales are very different than elves from DnD or Tolkien. I enjoy both, but it is hard to justify both presentations in one campaign world. Another example: Some people prefer high fantasy, where whimsical magic dominates life and functions as technology does for us today; Others prefer a lower fantasy, where magic is a sinister force that cannot help out mankind as a whole in any way. Both viewpoints cannot exist on a single campaign world, but both are fun. The desire to play multiple campaigns is not merely a background change, but a fundamental mindset change, which I find fascinating.

Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms? Virtually no difference because there is no change in mindset. Forgotten Realms or Call of Cthulhu? Huge change in mindset. Nyambe vs. Rokugan? Another change in mindset.

The problem with Inzeladun is that I tried to incorporate too many different mindsets within a single campaign. I am thinking of repositioning Inzeladun to be multiple worlds - all with the same lay of the land, but with different mindsets, all seperated by veils of reality. The dark Inzeladun where the gods are not real and magic is horrible and sinister. The Inzeladun with flying ships and talking whales. The Inzeladun conquered by mind flayers. The Inzeladun enslaved by the undead. The Inzeladun without magic. The psionic Inzeladun. Right now Inzeladun feels like the Silver Age DC comics; there was so much crap piled on, and much of it conflicting and at variance, that they had to blast their universe apart with a cosmic war, creating multiple Earths - one which contained the Golden age versions of the characters, several with other Silver Age varients, then the Earth with the current heroes and their revised histories.

Anyway, I digress. I do not feel that a change in game is just a change in background. It is a change in mindset, characterization, and suggested plots. All of that interests me. And since it is a complete game/campaign change, it does not conflict with prior games, creating the huge Inzeladun mess I have on my hands.

As for defending my position, I teach my students to never make an assertion without backing it up with evidence. I am in that mindset, so if I make an assertion, I try to give an example or a bit of evidence to back the assertion up. It is a good debating technique, and I will likely continue the practice.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

First of all, I was not arguing anything with you or anyone else. I find your need to bring supportive evidence to back up your opinions to be unnecessary. I find that your immediate assumption that I am going to attack your preferences to be rather defensive in the extreme. If you are tired of defending your position, then just state your position and leave it at that. We are all entitled to our preferences. It was just a simple question.

To repeat myself, I teach my students to never make an assertion without backing it up with evidence. I am in that mindset, so if I make an assertion, I try to give an example or a bit of evidence to back the assertion up. It is a good debating technique, and I will likely continue the practice.

Oh, and once again, thanks for the insults.

I was trying to find insults in my post. I see the comment about the child could have been so percieved because I failed to back up my assertion about my feelings with evidence. My apologies. Your post was of the "Why this, why that?" variety, which is often how children approach statements of assertions and observations of circumstances. That is all I meant. See what happens if I fail to give evidence of an assertion, even one that is simply a statement of position?

Which is more revealing? The man who insults or the man who is insulted?

I would answer the questions posed, but you will have to clarify them for me.

First, what exactly are you assuming is being revealed here? I do not understand the underlying assumption.

Second, the second question seems to be more of a fragmented statement than a question. It does serve to define the "which" referred to in the former question, so it should probably be included as a subordinate clause in the original question.

If you will define what exactly is being revealed, I will happily attend to your question. If you want to modify the second question so it is actually asking something, I will attend to that as well.

 

[Mark van Dyk]

Aha!

Yes, I would agree with you that Inzeladun has been an incorporation of far too many ideas. It has resulted in one big cluster grouping. This is not a negative criticism, mind you. Just an agreement. I know that you were attempting to please everyone and that this has led to the present state of affairs. I do not agree with your plan to make alternate realities of Inzeladun. Why not leave Cthulhu to Cthulhu and keep these games separate? There is no need to have them all in one game, for they all exist in separate games already! What you would be doing is reinventing the wheel to a certain degree... People who like Cthulhu should just play Cthulhu! and so on... I just thought though that putting these different ideas into different ages could also work just as well...

Anyway...

Let us bury this hatchet of criticism and look at this all from a positive stand point... one that is set upon making things better! All change must come from a certain amount of negativity, also, or nothing will change at all. Your own situation at present is an indication of change resulting from criticism or some amount of negativity. When someone tells you they want a change, it comes from some discontent they have with the game. You perhaps saw my discontent as louder than anyone else's, but it was coming from the same place, essentially. We all wanted to influence you and the game to be the way we wanted it.

Now, as you say, it is a mess.

This is my most positive take on your world:

It is a fantastic world. Yet, too many influences have spoiled the stew. This is not to say that my voice is better or should be listened to more than anyone else's, though you will agree that no one in the game has a better understanding of Inzeladun, and you as a DM, than me! This aside, my personal feelings are that Inzeladun should be the work of one great master, Vincent Darlage, with the assistance of players who will add to the game with their characters and that which they create, not with how they want you to change the world to suit them.

I complained about facets of the world. Others wanted this and that added to the world, yet none of us did this within the game. We are all guilty of contributing too much in the way of our own separate visions of Inzeladun without contributing to this vision within the frameworks that you set up as a DM.

I feel that I as a player at least attempted to create the visions that I saw in my head within the game. What I would ask others to do is, rather than wishing for Vince to add certain facets to Inzeladun, take the initiative to create a character that will add these facets him/herself! In this way the world will grow and change far more effectively than with additions of other game materials and modules and badgering Vince to make the changes on his own.

Thoughts?

 

[Mark van Dyk]

I shall not answer...

In reply to Inzeladun Master's last post:

I choose not to answer. This is not constructive. Please see my other post where I attempt to offer some constructive ideas. You and I slugging each other with words will go nowhere...

 

[BobProbst]

I enjoy both long campaigns and one shots but in both cases it is an attachment to my character that drives me. I scrapped Sheng Dao because he wasn't alive for me -- Spaulding felt similar until he became corrupted.

Recently, I have learned that I really can't "build" a character and be happy with playing him-- they have to build themselves. It usually comes from a personality trait of image I have of the character -- the class then comes second and the stats are set to match the vision I have.

When looking into a character for Chris' undead hunter campaign, I looked at playing a psion of sorts since I know little of the rules for that -- I rolled stats and build my Psychic Warrior but got nothing -- it was just a piece of paper. Later, I was thinking about the Gaowyn campaign and was suddenly struck with the idea of playing a noble knight from the Order of Tyr. Young, inexperienced, unsure of himself but wanting to live up to the expectations of his King and beloved country that was fought so bravely for. Bam, character.

It makes no difference whether the character lives for 1 session or 100 -- I love playing when I have that personal connection to the adventure, but plot is largely secondary (though an exciting plot that lets me explore and expand the personality of my character is all the better!)

 

[Fyrestryke]

I noticed that there is a desire to play lots of different kinds of games here. It made me wonder about campaigns and short adventures. I prefer long campaigns where my character develops and creates things that stick around for a little while after the character is gone. I am not big into one-shot adventures the purpose of which is to just have a little variety and flavor, roll some dice, kill the bad guy and go home. I like variety and flavor, don't get me wrong, but for me, getting to know my character--- and thus some facet of myself--- is more appealing to me than playing an adventure just because the scenery is different.

How about you others? What sort of games do you like best? Do you like long campaigns or short ones that offer more chances to play different characters and different scenarios?

Well, I, myself, prefer long campaigns and long running characters. But, I love trying new things, playing other games, seeing if elements of all the good games can be incorporated together to create one uber game. But that's just me, I suppose. I still say that if we could find the perfect mix of Inzeladun/DND/Conan RPG/Cthulhu, we'd have the best RPG system ever.

I love using Saturdays to try different things out. Take Cthulhu for instance. The more I play it, the more I like it. When I first played it, I wasn't too thrilled with it, but it grew on me. I love the dark/mysterious aspect, but I wasn't really enjoying it fully. I enjoyed the way Vince and Bob ran those two first games and I had a great time, but it didn't feel like my 'cup of tea'. The third installment with Bob was more awesome than the first. I still can't put my finger on it, but there's just something that Cthulhu lacks when compared to DND or Conan. I do feel that if we play Cthulhu in the "wild west", I'll like it even more than the previous times.

We may end up playing things like Judge Dredd only one time, but I would rather give it a shot than never even check it out.

Like the rules from Unearthed Arcana. We used some of them on Saturday and everyone had a great time. We decided after playing with one of the rules for awhile (Vitality and Wound Points) that it had its good points and bad points and decided not to use that variant in the next game.

I like a little variety and sure don't mind playing one shot adventures. Just getting together with my buddies and playing games is good enough for me.

Is that what you were looking for or did I get off track?

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Why not leave Cthulhu to Cthulhu and keep these games separate? There is no need to have them all in one game, for they all exist in separate games already! What you would be doing is reinventing the wheel to a certain degree... People who like Cthulhu should just play Cthulhu! and so on... Thoughts?

Thus comes the desire to try different game systems. Many of us like other things beyond standard DnD. Limiting ourselves to Inzeladun was part of the problem - everyone wanted to try things they liked, and rightly so. Right now, Conan is proving to be the best game system I have ever run, in that it is the most satisfying to me and my preferences for fantasy. However, it is not everyone's cup of tea, so I am trying to return the Saturday sessions back to its original idea: variety, trying out different system, alternate realities, using different games masters for different presentations and varied atmospheres, giving everyone a chance to play or try something different. This way we can try out different things, instead of just incorporating it into a single campaign. If someone wants to play Spelljammer, great! No need to attach it to Hyboria or Inzeladun. Want to play cyberpunk? Okay, no need to attach elements of it to Hyboria or Inzeladun.

Although I run the online game of Inzeladun, I will not return to developing Inzeladun further until such time as I can actually devote my attention to it wholly. The online game is the most pure game of Inzeladun I have run in years because all the players make changes to the world within the game and it is still strictly DnD fantasy, but still has my concept of the world being a constant struggle for survival in place and my concept of arcane magic in place. There are no video-game fireballs being thrown about in that game.

I hope that explains, to some extent, the need to play a variety of games instead of focusing on one long campaign. The variety actually inspires purity I think. If someone wants to focus on a single character, play that character in the different settings. If not, then don't. This way, I don't feel the need to try different things within the context of a single setting. The last thing I need is to have AT-AT's marching across Zamora to attack Shadizar just because someone wants to fight stormtroopers or something similar.