Irrational Indifference in RPGs

[Ladybird]

And that's just the setting as a whole. Then there are things like the Blood Angels. Who are space marines who are also genetically engineered supersoldiers who are also avenging-angel metaphores who are also warrior monks who are also vampires who are also berserkers and DEAR LORD MAKE IT STOP! D<

They're also blood survivors from a blood toxic blood death blood blood world and blood led by a blood marine that even other marines look up to.

40k throws everything at the wall, because it knows some of it sticks. Everyone is someone's Gary Stu. It's glorious excess that falls apart if you spend more than a minute thinking about it... but if you want excess, it's got you covered. It substitutes scale for depth.

blood

 

[TristramEvans]

Although I really like WFRP, everything about 40K leaves me completely uninterested in it. When I hear people start to talk 40K ‘canon’ my indifference collapses into itself like a Black Hole.

I'm mostly the same way. I generally prefer Fantasy over SciFi in general, but 40K just never grabbed me. I hate Space Marines, and everyone else seems to get treated as second fiddle. I do enjoy Necrons, though, but then I like most Ccybermen rip-offs...because I like Cybermen.

But the one exception is If The Emperor Had A Text-To-Speech Device. That show has created a love for that version of the 40K setting that I cannot measure.

 

[David Johansen]

So, for me, the 40k sweet spot was probably third edition. I played Rogue Trader but it was a piecemeal mess. And, frankly, it was too jokey for my tastes. I actually like the models a lot. The Imperial Army were a bunch of scared looking and sickly guys and girls. The Eldar had a really alien fish-like look with really swept back helmets and organic looking weapons. The marines were, well beakies. The Squats were dwarf hells angels. Tyranids had Zoat ambassadors. There were two female figures in marine style powered armor in the Adventurers range. Lots of character to the figures. Lots of fun. But third edition tidied up the rules, toned down the over powered stuff and put all the army lists in the core book. If only they'd allowed tanks to move and fire their main gun, I think it would have been close to perfect. Roll to win the game not withstanding. The cult of the space marine wasn't quite so entrenched. They were good but they were far from invincible. I really believe that the fluff going with movie marines destroyed the game. It's the move from gritty to cinematic I guess. But for all that, I sure wish something else was the top game. Something science fiction but clean edged and more hopeful.

 

[Baeraad]

They're also blood survivors from a blood toxic blood death blood blood world and blood led by a blood marine that even other marines look up to.

40k throws everything at the wall, because it knows some of it sticks. Everyone is someone's Gary Stu. It's glorious excess that falls apart if you spend more than a minute thinking about it... but if you want excess, it's got you covered. It substitutes scale for depth.

blood

Huh. Okay, that might be the best explanation for the setting I've ever heard. "Just add more stuff!" seems to be the only common denominator.

That still leaves me indifferent, though.

 

[CRKrueger]

The biggest problem with 40k is that despite being the largest and most popular sci-fi setting that didn’t come from movies, television, or comics, the setting itself is totally at the mercy of the model division. So are the mechanics. Everything that happens in 40k is for only one purpose.

Selling “Toy Soldiers”.

All other concerns are secondary, if they even exist at all.

Satire, Farce, Cinematic, Classic British Grimdark, Modern Uber Grimdark, Superheroic. Pick a theme, genre, trope, flavor, what have you, 40k does it all, with no Canon and no Truth to the setting, by design.

The only depth at all to the setting comes from the Black Library, particularly authors like Dan Abnett or Aaron Dembski-Bowden. Some of the Forge World books have done some decent setting work, settling on a specific tone and going with it.

I realize the purpose. You can play Space Marines as genetic mutant superheroic knights, or they can simply be elite psychologically conditioned troops like Sardaukar, and somewhere, there’s official text supporting your interpretation. the Imperial Guard can be anything from Black Adder to Lawrence of Arabia to the SW Empire to Saving Private Ryan and the game supports it.

That’s why it’s so popular, there’s a million different mind’s eye views of the 40k universe and Games Workshop says “Yep, that’s it.” to all of them.

Trying to nail things down to a certain level of setting consistency required for a Roleplaying Game, especially certain types of Immersive Sandbox play seems a Fool’s Errand.

 

[Sommerjon]

I found I'm also indifferent to Vance.

Same here.
I read one and was like " annnnd... meh?"

 

[Nobby-W]

Same here.
I read one and was like " annnnd... meh?"

I just bought a secondhand Vance anthology quite recently and had much the same reaction. It was OK, I guess, and one can see where the Vancian magic tropes came into D&D from now, but ... meh.

However, I think the Dying Earth stuff was published somewhere about 1950 and as I understand it wasn't really like anything that had been done before, so I can see how it might have been a bigger deal at the time.

 

[Voros]

I don't consider Dying Earth nearly the best of Vance nor the best place to start with Vance.

Truth is he wrote a lot more science fantasy than fantasy to begin with so Dying Earth isn't even representative of most of his work. Of his early novels I prefer The Big Planet, To Live Forever and Languages of Pao.

I think he comes into his own as a writer around The Dragon Masters and from there books like The Last Castle, The Blue World and Emphyrio are among the best of his works I've read. His Eyes of the Overlord and Cugel's Saga are much more confidently written and satricially sharp. I've yet to read his last DE book Rhialto the Marvelous.

The Face and Lyonesse are his late period masterworks.

The thing with Vance is that like Leiber and unlike most big fantasy writers he's not that concerned with conventional world-building, he is mostly about language and satire. If those don't tickle your fancy you're unlikely to be impressed as unlike Leiber Vance usually cares little for conventional plotting.

His worlds are built with a few vivid and bizarre details that grow out of those central concerns of language and satire, instead of the other way round.

And I wouldn't say that the Dying Earth stories were that original; Leigh Brackett's Mars stories are a clear influence on Vance's DE, as are CAS, Burroughs, Meritt, Cabell and other 'oriental fantasists' from the pre-pulp and pulp era.

 

[CRKrueger]

I don't consider Dying Earth nearly the best of Vance nor the best place to start with Vance.

Truth is he wrote a lot more science fantasy than fantasy to begin with so Dying Earth isn't even representative of most of his work. Of his early novels I prefer The Big Planet, To Live Forever and Languages of Pao.

I think he comes into his own as a writer around The Dragon Masters and from there books like The Last Castle, The Blue World and Emphyrio are among the best of his works I've read. His Eyes of the Overlord and Cugel's Saga are much more confidently written and satricially sharp. I've yet to read his last DE book Rhialto the Marvelous.

The Face and Lyonesse are his late period masterworks.

The thing with Vance is that like Leiber and unlike most big fantasy writers he's not that concerned with conventional world-building, he is mostly about language and satire. If those don't tickle your fancy you're unlikely to be impressed as unlike Leiber Vance usually cares little for conventional plotting.

His worlds are built with a few vivid and bizarre details that grow out of those central concerns of language and satire, instead of the other way round.

And I wouldn't say that the Dying Earth stories were that original; Leigh Brackett's Mars stories are a clear influence on Vance's DE, as are CAS, Burroughs, Meritt, Cabell and other 'oriental fantasists' from the pre-pulp and pulp era.

Every writer has major, minor, and subconscious influences on their work. I guess no writer is original except the first?

 

[Voros]

Every writer has major, minor, and subconscious influences on their work. I guess no writer is original except the first?

I think originality is overrated as a value in art so can't say I care one way or another if someone is 'truly' original, if such a thing was even possible, which I don't think it is.

Either way, the early Vance DE stories strike me as near pastiche of Cabell just with the overt eroticism turned down for the pulps. By the mid-60s Vance has much more 'found his voice' which is rather chilly and distanced.

 

[CRKrueger]

I think orignality is overrated as a value in art so can't say I care one way or another if someone is 'truly' original, if such a thing was even possible, which I don't think it is.

So Vance is no less original than anyone else? Just wondering. You don’t care I guess...except to bring it up in the first place.

 

[Voros]

So Vance is no less original than anyone else? Just wondering. You don’t care I guess...except to bring it up in the first place.

Pretty much, I think in writing 'originality' is less important than a distinctive writing style or voice, that is something Vance had in spades once he came into his own. There was little 'original' about his Dying Earth world, Brackett had sketched much the same ideas in her Mars stories (which borrowed heavily from Burroughs), it was the vividness and decadent style that Vance brought to that world that was his acomplishment.

 

[TristramEvans]

I don't even know what "completely original" means. I suspect it has nothing to do with quality though.

 

[Endless Flight]

 

[Ladybird]

I think originality is overrated as a value in art so can't say I care one way or another if someone is 'truly' original, if such a thing was even possible, which I don't think it is.

Either way, the early Vance DE stories strike me as near pastiche of Cabell just with the overt eroticism turned down for the pulps. By the mid-60s Vance has much more 'found his voice' which is rather chilly and distanced.

I like seeing new things. But I also like seeing... iteration two or three, early enough that the creators still understand why things are the way they are, but have had a chance to knock the rough edges off.

 

[AsenRG]

Every writer has major, minor, and subconscious influences on their work. I guess no writer is original except the first?

The first writer was influenced by the stories he had heard.

 

[Villein]

Battletech's lore. I like Battletech as a game very much, but as soon as people start talking about when House Chadwick beat up Clan Moon Moth in 3042 my eyes glaze over.

This is a problem for me because all the other people I know who love Battletech love the lore. One of them is trying to reread every single novel.

 

[The Butcher]

I think originality is overrated as a value in art so can't say I care one way or another if someone is 'truly' original, if such a thing was even possible, which I don't think it is.

Either way, the early Vance DE stories strike me as near pastiche of Cabell just with the overt eroticism turned down for the pulps. By the mid-60s Vance has much more 'found his voice' which is rather chilly and distanced.

Hadn't even heard of Cabell before but if he's been an influence on Vance, I'm in. Where to start?

 

[Voros]

Hadn't even heard of Cabell before but if he's been an influence on Vance, I'm in. Where to start?

Cabell wrote ironic satrical medieval fantasies in the 20s and 30s. I've only read The Silver Stallion, a collection of interlinked short stories, if I'm recalling correctly it was published as part of Lin Carter's classic Adult Fantasy series. I thought they were good but not mind-blowing and his books are hard to find so I haven't had much chance to dig into him more.

They were definitely reminscent of Vance's interlinked short stories in terms of style and tone although I think I'd give the edge to later Vance by a wide margin.

 

[Nobby-W]

I don't even know what "completely original" means. I suspect it has nothing to do with quality though.

Some things are original but not necessarily terribly good. Novelty can give these things a pass, e.g. D&D. Some things can do cliched tropes well but still fall short as they are flogging a dead horse conceptually. e.g. Avatar. Some things can do stuff others have done before but hit the sweet spot because the tropes aren't cliched yet. e.g. Full Metal Jacket. Some things manage to combine novelty and quality, e.g. Dune.

In a role playing game, you have considerations around usability and accessibility of the tropes to consider. Originality may or may not be an issue. Take the OSR for example - this substantially consists of re-hashes of D&D and yet people still enjoy playing OSR games and many of the products sell very well.

Some originality is needed to avoid heartbreakers that don't differentiate themselves but the 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration rule applies. I think a little originality can go a long way if the product is otherwise well executed.

 

[Voros]

Some things are original but not necessarily terribly good. Novelty can give these things a pass, e.g. D&D. Some things can do cliched tropes well but still fall short as they are flogging a dead horse conceptually. e.g. Avatar. Some things can do stuff others have done before but hit the sweet spot because the tropes aren't cliched yet. e.g. Full Metal Jacket. Some things manage to combine novelty and quality, e.g. Dune.

In a role playing game, you have considerations around usability and accessibility of the tropes to consider. Originality may or may not be an issue. Take the OSR for example - this substantially consists of re-hashes of D&D and yet people still enjoy playing OSR games and many of the products sell very well.

Some originality is needed to avoid heartbreakers that don't differentiate themselves but the 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration rule applies. I think a little originality can go a long way if the product is otherwise well executed.

Originality in rpgs and originality in literature are pretty distinct though. In many ways it is surprising how little real experimentation took place in rpgs for so long, at least in terms of what was published. For a long time a lot of games were just variations or responses to D&D. I don't think you see a lot of really different games until the mid to late 80s. I still think CoC in the early 80s was the real game changer.

 

[AsenRG]

Originality in rpgs and originality in literature are pretty distinct though. In many ways it is surprising how little real experimentation took place in rpgs for so long, at least in terms of what was published. For a long time a lot of games were just variations or responses to D&D. I don't think you see a lot of really different games until the mid to late 80s. I still think CoC in the early 80s was the real game changer.

You mean, apart from Tunnels and Trolls and Traveller, to name but a few?

 

[Nobby-W]

You mean, apart from Tunnels and Trolls and Traveller, to name but a few?

STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA
STR, DEX, END, INT, EDU, SOC
OK, D&D didn't have spaceships, mostly.

 

[AsenRG]

STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA
STR, DEX, END, INT, EDU, SOC
OK, D&D didn't have spaceships, mostly.

Class-based
vs
Skill-based, including for social skills

Level-based progression
vs
Raising individual stats (if at all) via training, study, implants and other ways

Random-roll chargen
vs
Lifepath-based chargen

Attsck roll on a table based on a single number based solely on armour
vs
Attack roll on a table based on type of armour and weapon

Damage applied to level-based HP
vs
Damage applied to your stats (which seldom change)

Yup, totally the same thing!