Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6111878" data-attributes="member: 6696971">A couple thoughts right quick.On inherent relevance as complicationI think the best way to consider the comparative &quot;relevance as complication&quot; of &quot;the desert&quot; and &quot;the siege&quot;, with respect to whatever thematic content is waiting in &quot;the city&quot;, is to contrast their identity without &quot;the city&quot;.&nbsp; &quot;The desert&quot; is still &quot;the desert&quot; without &quot;the city&quot;.&nbsp; Conversely, &quot;the siege&quot; is dependent upon &quot;the city&quot; for its very existence.&nbsp; Without &quot;the city&quot;, &quot;the siege&quot; would cease to exist.&nbsp; As such, its relevance as complication to whatever content the PCs wish to engage in within the city, given its state as married to or progeny of &quot;the city&quot; (however you'd like to put it), is inevitable/intrinsic...eg it has no autonomy external to &quot;the city.&quot;&nbsp; It is naturally endowed with relevance while &quot;the desert's&quot; identity is autonomous and, as such, its relevance requires the GM to endow it with such.&nbsp; That isn't to say that it can't have relevance and that it won't be &quot;fun&quot; (for some groups/playstyles).&nbsp; Its just to say that &quot;fun&quot; and &quot;inherent relevance as complication&quot; are different things.&nbsp; And PCs can reason this out and recognize it before engaging.&nbsp; Hence, Hussar summoning his centipede to hedge risk that the GM will not properly load the desert with &quot;inherent relevance as complication&quot; while being, presumably, ready and willing to engage with &quot;the siege&quot; due to its &quot;inherent relevance as complication.&quot;On inherent relevance of journey to themeSaving Private Ryan was about:- When are the needs of the one (Private Ryan's mother who had already lost 4 sons) greater than the needs of the many (the sacrifice of the Rangers' lives for Ryan's safe return and also with respect to compromising the overall mission of WWII)?- At what point (if ever) is the mission irrevocably fubar (eg the sacrifice of the Rangers' as men and as war assets for one man's safe return...for the solace of his mother...becomes incomprehensible or too great a cost to sensibly endure)?- Can you ever possibly live up to their collective noble sacrifice and &quot;earn it&quot;?Journey in Saving Private Ryan is absolutely mandatory for the establishment of the emotional weight of each of those themes.&nbsp; Without each of their stories being given exposition and without each of their sacrifices played out before us, the weightiness of the themes considered is rendered impotent.&nbsp; If we transition from the recognition of the mother's lost sons to the reading of Abraham Lincoln's letter to a bereaved mother during the American Civil War straight to finding Private Ryan and defending the bridge...we're left uninvested and unmoved...and thus ill-equipped to fully consider the thematic material as posed.The same goes for the thematic material in 3:10 to Yuma and plenty of other movies with similar thematic material.&nbsp; The journey itself is imperative for establishment of thematic material.&nbsp; Now consider John Adams or Band of Brothers.&nbsp; Each of those episodes has very specific, self-contained, thematic material that it focuses on and that it challenges and conveys masterfully; sans journey or any material not intimately bound to it by 1st order effect.&nbsp; You can watch each of those episodes, with no experience with the other episodes, and absorb the take-away.&nbsp; Specifically John Adam's acceptance of the case to defend the British troops and their Captain after the Boston Massacre...regardless of the price to his law practice, the potential danger to he and his family and, ultimately, his upward mobility; and he was a man of no small vanity.- Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.- It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that&nbsp; guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world&nbsp; that they cannot all be punished.&nbsp; But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to&nbsp; die, then the citizen will say, &quot;whether I do good or whether I do evil&nbsp; is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection.&quot;- The law no passion can disturb. &lt;snip&gt;&nbsp; On&nbsp; the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the&nbsp; prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder, to the clamors of&nbsp; the populace.He believed those things, had them tested, and unrelentingly advocated for them and stood by them in his defense of the contingent of British troops, despite unimaginable pressure (on all fronts) to not take the case.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6111878, member: 6696971"] A couple thoughts right quick. [B] [I]On inherent relevance as complication[/I][/B] I think the best way to consider the comparative "relevance as complication" of "the desert" and "the siege", with respect to whatever thematic content is waiting in "the city", is to contrast their identity without "the city". "The desert" is still "the desert" without "the city". Conversely, "the siege" is dependent upon "the city" for its very existence. Without "the city", "the siege" would cease to exist. As such, its relevance as complication to whatever content the PCs wish to engage in within the city, given its state as married to or progeny of "the city" (however you'd like to put it), is inevitable/intrinsic...eg it has no autonomy external to "the city." It is naturally endowed with relevance while "the desert's" identity is autonomous and, as such, its relevance requires the GM to endow it with such. That isn't to say that it [I]can't [/I]have relevance and that it [I]won't[/I] be "fun" (for some groups/playstyles). Its just to say that "fun" and "inherent relevance as complication" are different things. And PCs can reason this out and recognize it before engaging. Hence, Hussar summoning his centipede to hedge risk that the GM will not properly load the desert with "inherent relevance as complication" while being, presumably, ready and willing to engage with "the siege" due to its "inherent relevance as complication." [B][I]On inherent relevance of journey to theme[/I][/B] Saving Private Ryan was about: - When are the needs of the one (Private Ryan's mother who had already lost 4 sons) greater than the needs of the many (the sacrifice of the Rangers' lives for Ryan's safe return and also with respect to compromising the overall mission of WWII)? - At what point (if ever) is the mission irrevocably fubar (eg the sacrifice of the Rangers' as men and as war assets for one man's safe return...for the solace of his mother...becomes incomprehensible or too great a cost to sensibly endure)? - Can you ever possibly live up to their collective noble sacrifice and "earn it"? Journey in Saving Private Ryan is absolutely mandatory for the establishment of the emotional weight of each of those themes. Without each of their stories being given exposition and without each of their sacrifices played out before us, the weightiness of the themes considered is rendered impotent. If we transition from the recognition of the mother's lost sons to the reading of Abraham Lincoln's letter to a bereaved mother during the American Civil War straight to finding Private Ryan and defending the bridge...we're left uninvested and unmoved...and thus ill-equipped to fully consider the thematic material as posed. The same goes for the thematic material in 3:10 to Yuma and plenty of other movies with similar thematic material. The journey itself is imperative for establishment of thematic material. Now consider John Adams or Band of Brothers. Each of those episodes has very specific, self-contained, thematic material that it focuses on and that it challenges and conveys masterfully; sans journey or any material not intimately bound to it by 1st order effect. You can watch each of those episodes, with no experience with the other episodes, and absorb the take-away. Specifically John Adam's acceptance of the case to defend the British troops and their Captain after the Boston Massacre...regardless of the price to his law practice, the potential danger to he and his family and, ultimately, his upward mobility; and he was a man of no small vanity. - Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection." - The law no passion can disturb. <snip> On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder, to the clamors of the populace. He believed those things, had them tested, and unrelentingly advocated for them and stood by them in his defense of the contingent of British troops, despite unimaginable pressure (on all fronts) to not take the case. [/QUOTE]

Verification