ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
herald said:
I'm not sure which side of the discussion you're on. I think you're right, in general, but I'd be interested to know what your opinion is on the thread subject.
Save the world? No thanks.
- Thread starter Morose
- Start date
I'm not sure which side of the discussion you're on. I think you're right, in general, but I'd be interested to know what your opinion is on the thread subject.
Morose, if you weren't trying to rag on people, why did you choose words like "lazy" and "adolescent"?
You still cling to a couple misconceptions...
Save-the-world games are no more easy to write than any other game. The difficulty in writing a game does not come from the general premise (be it save the world, save the town, save your own skin, get the beer, or what have you), but in working up all the details. And whether the world is threatened or not has nothing to do with coming up with intriguing details.
Similarly, having a taste for save-the-world games is no more or less adolescent than having a taste for RPGs in general. The game is about doing things you cannot do in real life. After you've made this escapism a hobby, the exact details of the plot hardly make you more juvenile.
Saving the world does not require "superman" characters. Depending on the details of the story, you can save the world with supermen, with mediocre stat and level characters, or with first-level commoners.
So, perhaps you should practice what you preach - open up your own mind to a possibility you haven't considered: A world-saving game that doesn't fit your own preconception of them.
You still cling to a couple misconceptions...
Save-the-world games are no more easy to write than any other game. The difficulty in writing a game does not come from the general premise (be it save the world, save the town, save your own skin, get the beer, or what have you), but in working up all the details. And whether the world is threatened or not has nothing to do with coming up with intriguing details.
Similarly, having a taste for save-the-world games is no more or less adolescent than having a taste for RPGs in general. The game is about doing things you cannot do in real life. After you've made this escapism a hobby, the exact details of the plot hardly make you more juvenile.
Saving the world does not require "superman" characters. Depending on the details of the story, you can save the world with supermen, with mediocre stat and level characters, or with first-level commoners.
So, perhaps you should practice what you preach - open up your own mind to a possibility you haven't considered: A world-saving game that doesn't fit your own preconception of them.
Furn_Darkside
First Post
die_kluge said:
Possibly, and I would be more then willing to talk about the subject at hand if he wasn't insulting.
The final nail in the coffin was for him to turn around and suggest he was not trying to "rag on" those dm's he calls lazy and the maturity level of the players he questions.
Why have a discussion with someone who spits in your face?
FD
Last edited:
Furn_Darkside
First Post
*double post*
Last edited:
Tom Cashel
First Post
I prefer to run a campaign in which PCs must do six impossible things before breakfast.
After breakfast, the campaign concerns the prevention of petty thefts by street urchins in the market square. Also, PCs lend a hand to streetsweepers.
After breakfast, the campaign concerns the prevention of petty thefts by street urchins in the market square. Also, PCs lend a hand to streetsweepers.
First of all, nothing I say should be mistaken for wisdom. It's an opinion. In some cases its an educated one and in others completely biased as most opinions are wont to be. Opinions vary and no one is "right". Hence the reason discussion boards exist.
As for my use of "lazy" to describe a DM, I apologize if it was misunderstood. While very few DMs are lazy as such (it takes quite a bit of effort to put together any campaign... even a bad one
), I find that using cliches and relying on stereotypes to drive the plot *is* lazy when compared to the works of more creative individuals. Even the most hackneyed of campaigns still takes more work than most players are willing to invest (which is sad, and an entirely different topic worth discussion), but that was what I meant by "lazy".
Furn_Darkside: if you disagree with my statement, then why not post a counter argument? "You hurt my feelings" or "Stop attacking me" doesn't hold much water with me. You obviously favor a superheroic style of game or you wouldn't have felt like I was attacking you. Why do you feel that "saving the world" is a necessary element to a campaign? I'll stand by my *opinion* until I'm presented with a reason to think otherwise. Of course I'll understand completely if you dimiss me since we hold opposite views and you might not deem me worth your time to debate. No hard feelings on my part as I understand the need to pick your battles.
As for my use of "lazy" to describe a DM, I apologize if it was misunderstood. While very few DMs are lazy as such (it takes quite a bit of effort to put together any campaign... even a bad one
), I find that using cliches and relying on stereotypes to drive the plot *is* lazy when compared to the works of more creative individuals. Even the most hackneyed of campaigns still takes more work than most players are willing to invest (which is sad, and an entirely different topic worth discussion), but that was what I meant by "lazy".Furn_Darkside: if you disagree with my statement, then why not post a counter argument? "You hurt my feelings" or "Stop attacking me" doesn't hold much water with me. You obviously favor a superheroic style of game or you wouldn't have felt like I was attacking you. Why do you feel that "saving the world" is a necessary element to a campaign? I'll stand by my *opinion* until I'm presented with a reason to think otherwise. Of course I'll understand completely if you dimiss me since we hold opposite views and you might not deem me worth your time to debate. No hard feelings on my part as I understand the need to pick your battles.
Tom Cashel
First Post
Morose, what do you mean by "saving the world"? One of those "omigosh the whole world will explode unless we..." campaigns, or a "hideous evil will overrun the whole world unless we..." campaign?
I wasn't aware that it was so widespread to save the "whole world" in a D&D campaign. In all my 20+ years of gaming, I've only had PCs "save the world" once--but that was the at the end of a three-year campaign, and the world didn't even realize it was being saved.
In short, I don't understand your gripe.
I wasn't aware that it was so widespread to save the "whole world" in a D&D campaign. In all my 20+ years of gaming, I've only had PCs "save the world" once--but that was the at the end of a three-year campaign, and the world didn't even realize it was being saved.
In short, I don't understand your gripe.
Umbran- you bring up some very good points. It's apparent that I was guilty of some stereotyping myself. You bring up several twists that could keep such a campaign interesting. I guess I was mostly thinking of the proliferation of the seemingly MMORPG inspired "gain levels, get items, become uber" style campaigns I've heard too much about lately. So I'm definitely glad I started this thread. See... I've learned something!
"He can be taught!"
"He can be taught!"
Tom Cashel- As I make mention of in my last post to Umbran, I was mostly referring to the type of game where the goal is to become more and more powerful to the point where the only real challenge (or supposed motivation for becoming so powerful in the first place) is to save the world from some powerful force. As I noted in that same post, I am definitely guilty of making some assumptions for which I apologize. The original purpose for this thread was to generate discussion on campaign motivations and suggest that motivations do not always need to be so melodramatic. "Saving the world" was my example. Sorry for not being clear.
