Quote from: JimLotFP;465755(and hell, if I were making this game right now I'd get the rights to reprint some of those campaign descriptions from the "Weird Fantasy Atmosphere" thread and put them in the Referee book, picking only the ones that had the least in common with the others to give an idea of how widely applied the game could be)

Heh, let me know if you want 'em for the next edition of the game (if there is a next edition, of course).

Quote from: Cole;465752Both good articles.

Do you see a distinction between the broader weird sensibility and the "weird fantasy" that James Raggi proposes as the assumed setting of the LOTFP game? Vornheim feels, at least to me, weird in a way very distinct from that James's Raggi's weird fantasy; of course given two independent authors they're not going to be entirely the same. The weird fantasy of LOTFP proper seems to eschew for example the pervasive trippy orientalism of a Pegana or Dreamlands or a Zothique style. (Maybe this speaks to your Weird vs "Noirish" question.)

I think there is a recognizable thing LOTFP is going for but even if the rule system is strong, out of the box it is lacking in stuff to help the DM get it into play, less than original D&D offered to help the DM get Gygax's take on fantasy into play for example.

The simplest "setting" idea embedded in James' rules is: the characters are weak (and defined by actions not stats), the world is strong (and mysterious).

This is a very horror-movie idea but also an idea derived from classic "tales of adventure" and the rules kinda support that playstyle even without anyone telling you that;s what they're going for.

Having done like 20 rpg pdcast interviews with him at this point, I think James' had an understandable conflict between competing incentives with LOTFP:WFRPG. On one hand:

-he wanted monsters and setting to be mysterious and GM-designed

-he wanted the "setting" to be open so the audience would realize the rules could be be used for any D&D-type game (audiences are hard to communicate with & it's easier to keep shit simple--there are people out there who think that because Vornheim is PUBLISHED by LOTFP that it's FOR James' game, when it's actually system-agnostic.)

-he felt that the real setting-type action in what LOTFP does is the adventures and supplements like "Random Esoteric Creature Generator" and "Death Frost Doom" which--like Vornheim--are not specific to any certain version of D&D

on the other hand....

-LOTFRP is a book that people will buy perhaps without any of that other stuff and the more full of goodies it is the more useful it, as a  product, is.

So whatever you think of how it came out, that's where his head was.

My job was way simpler:

Write down everything I used when running a city in my campaign plus all the information I knew for sure about it that might be useful to anyone else.

So, yeah, Vornheim is a very specific instance of a very specific "weird fantasy" sensibility--that was my remit. I would argue that James' modules (not his game) are likewise specific. The actual game had a much larger and more pretzel-shaped row to hoe.

As for our sensibilites: yeah, they're different in a lot of little ways. He prefers a horrorish one-overwhelming-threat-per-story feeling whereas I prefer a more Moorcock/MJ Harrison the-world-is-dense-with-weirdness approach.

Which, obviously, is why it's much easier for me to design a weird city supplement full of weird options whereas he's more comfortable designing individual adventures built around individual threats.

Welcome, Zak.

I don't really see the characters as "weak", not moreso than in any other edition of D&D, anyways.  


RPGPundit

Of course weird fantasy exists.

most fantasy is weird.

you're weird.

shutup.

Quote from: misterguignol;465618Literary history proves that this is the case.  First, you get innovators.  Their work will be labeled after the fact.  Then you get people who either

1) imitate the conventions of the "label" or "genre" slavishly

or

2) take the work of the innovator and add their own twist on it, furthering the innovation.  Get enough people putting a similar spin on the same conventions and you end up with another label or perhaps a sub-genre.

The classic example is LOTR, which is an important ancestor to modern swords-and-sorcery, modern epic high fantasy, AND modern Anglophile low fantasy, which are all competing and fairly distinct genres.

I think the thing I would say that sets apart "weird fantasy" is the peculier juncton of both the dreamlike and the ironic. It is surreal, and wild, but not freewheeling or impressionistic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;465579Seriously, this is one case where he shouldn't have fucking told me, he should have SHOWN me.

This was my impression as well.  

LotFP feels very constrained by the D&Disms with moments of real brilliance and cool bits that don't add up to a useful whole. I'd love to see what Raggi would create if he allowed himself to create outside of D&D.

That said, I have not run the game. Perhaps it shines in actual play, but the cool bits are much more in the fluff than in the crunch.

Planescape.


Mainly as depicted in the PC game Torment - youre a amnesiac dead man who befriends a necrophile flying skull, visits a brothel of intelectual lust, have a gestalt of rats for a foe, living in a city the shape of a donut in the void between planes of existance, where belief shapes reality. Oh, and you look like this.

If this aint weird, I dont know what is.

Any work of fiction or game setting worth a damn is one that can't be easily pigeonholed.

Quote from: Spinachcat;466193LotFP feels very constrained by the D&Disms with moments of real brilliance and cool bits that don't add up to a useful whole. I'd love to see what Raggi would create if he allowed himself to create outside of D&D.

You'll note that this is not what I was suggesting at all; quite the opposite, I suggest that Raggi should not have been so scared of including things that are pretty standard in a D&D game: monster lists, magic items, random encounter tables, etc.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;466233You'll note that this is not what I was suggesting at all; quite the opposite, I suggest that Raggi should not have been so scared of including things that are pretty standard in a D&D game: monster lists, magic items, random encounter tables, etc.

RPGPundit

I don't know that it's a matter of being "scared" so much as (a) not liking the standard-issue stuff and (b) knowing full well that 99.999999% of the people who would buy his game already have access to that sort of thing from other games if they wish to include it.

I'm sympathetic to Raggi's idea of monsters being unique... created to suit rather than coming from a shopping list. It helps add to the mystery. I like bits of mystery in my fantasy.

I must say, I still don't really get LotFP and what it actually is. Especially in regard to weird fantasy.

After reading the review and looking at the pictures, I would say the "weird-" here means B-MOVIES GORE.

Quote from: Elfdart;466237I don't know that it's a matter of being "scared" so much as (a) not liking the standard-issue stuff and (b) knowing full well that 99.999999% of the people who would buy his game already have access to that sort of thing from other games if they wish to include it.

No, I'm pretty sure he was fucking scared; that if he included a list of monsters in his book it would keep people from making their own.  Which is fucking stupid, because had he made a little "Monster compendium" in the game, it would have served as inspiration for people to make their own versions; whereas without anything except vague instructions saying "just make up your own thing" people are far more likely to go rely on those existing monster lists from other versions of D&D.

RPGPundit