Lamentations of the Flame Princess is made of lies
Ron Edwards:
Hi Vincent,
I'm not intellectually satisfied with your responses to one of the issues I've mentioned.
It is this: you cannot reasonably claim that because you shifted to "plan B," and that plan B was in fact enjoyable for you, that the circumstances of the plans A/B disconnect were somehow productive.
This is why I talked about dissecting out the issues. One issue is what the source of the disconnect was. You initially talked about this in terms of rules and text, but the discussion has at least opened that up a little bit. Here, I'm talking about another issue: the difference between (i) a creative disconnect which generates fruitful tension, resulting in a uniquely positive outcome (very Hegelian); vs. (ii) a creative disconnect which was simply intractable, forcing either breakdown or for one "side" wholly to abandon its current priorities.
Based on your account, (ii) is clearly what happened. It is not relevant whatsoever to describe how much fun the ultimate application/play was for you. That's wonderful, it's great, it's jolly, but it does not change the straightforward observation that (i) did not happen, and I am beginning to think you're dodging this realization, perhaps even to yourself.
Best, Ron
lumpley:
David: I'm sticking to my contention that my reading gritty, weird historical horror in the GMing text wasn't poor reading. It might have been naive - I'm willing to suppose that people with more D&D experience might already have known to bring Vance into their reading - but it was an honest, otherwise astute face-value read.
I probably could have figured out how to change character creation to get the much poorer game I'd pre-imagined, if I'd known and been willing to put in that design work. That would have been a shame.
I don't think a simple instruction would do, no, and in fact that instruction might already be in the text. Simple instructions aren't game design.
But most importantly, again: that would have been a shame. What I really got is much better than what I'd pre-imagined.
C: You're right! I played D&D for (effectively) the first time in 2008.
-Vincent
lumpley:
Ron: I don't know about Hegel, but I can't figure out why (ii) is clear to you. Tell me what (i) might have looked like here?
For my part, I don't see plan A as a whole plan. It didn't have any players in it, just me and my own daydreaming. I was imagining what Lamentations play would be like the way sometimes people imagine what Sorcerer play will be like, and then come the moment, they're like, HOLY FUCK. I was imagining all wrong about this game. I don't know if I want this after all. Unless ... unless ... yes! HOLY FUCK.
In my daydreams about the game, I was in charge of the moral boundaries of the PCs' actions. I was in charge of deciding what's grotesque in our game and what's beautiful. In reality, so it turns out, I'm just - holy fuck - not in charge of that. That's the difference between plan A and plan B. I could have ditched out over it, but instead I'm embracing it and going forward enthusiastically. Is that the same as abandoning plan A and my own vision for the game? I don't think it is. I think it's my vision coming into startling, challenging, fruitful contact with the reality of the game.
-Vincent
contracycle:
Hmm, well,in terms of the negation of the negation, I'd suggest something else. If the players had come up with a different idea of what is qrotesque and what is beautiful, then although it would have been different from your presumptions, it would still have operated in the same frame. But instead, the jettisoned the very idea of the beautiful vs. grotesque completely in favour of a knowing, detached cynicism. So the contradiction between you and the players didn't result in a refinement or negotiation or evolution or sharing of ideas about what you had originally envisioned, but the need to completely ditch all that stuff and find something new.
C. Edwards:
Quote from: lumpley on October 14, 2011, 07:17:20 AM
C: You're right! I played D&D for (effectively) the first time in 2008.
That's cool. It's always nice to see how someone not steeped in a certain type of game or style of play approaches it.
Quote from: lumpley on October 14, 2011, 10:43:11 AM
In my daydreams about the game, I was in charge of the moral boundaries of the PCs' actions. I was in charge of deciding what's grotesque in our game and what's beautiful. In reality, so it turns out, I'm just - holy fuck - not in charge of that.
I keep considering this because I'm not seeing how you ever could be in charge of those things. You can present your vision of the game world and that, combined with what the players may know about the system being used, will help shape how the PCs view that world and act within it. So I'm thinking that I'm not actually understanding what you mean.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page