I was thinking about the article on detective novels, too. And if it helps the reactionaries, think of it as a spectrum rather than discrete boxes. At one end is Raiders of the Lost Ark (BAD), at the other is Last Tango in Paris (GOOD). They're both great movies, but Raiders concerns itself largely with action and adventure. It has easiliy identified villains, clear goals for the hero and simple resolutions. That's easily gamed! Last Tango in Paris doesn't have any antagonist, and the conflict is entirely internal. That would be a tough one to stat up in trad RPGs (I'm sure there's an indy game somewhere that'd do it).

That's what I'm getting at, and what I think the thread title means. As with all these things, I'd say it's a useful rule of thumb rather than a commandment from on high. And apologies to Old George if I'm mangling his dichotomy.

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyI was thinking about the article on detective novels, too. And if it helps the reactionaries, think of it as a spectrum rather than discrete boxes. At one end is Raiders of the Lost Ark (BAD), at the other is Last Tango in Paris (GOOD). They're both great movies, but Raiders concerns itself largely with action and adventure. It has easiliy identified villains, clear goals for the hero and simple resolutions. That's easily gamed! Last Tango in Paris doesn't have any antagonist, and the conflict is entirely internal. That would be a tough one to stat up in trad RPGs (I'm sure there's an indy game somewhere that'd do it).

That's what I'm getting at, and what I think the thread title means. As with all these things, I'd say it's a useful rule of thumb rather than a commandment from on high.

Maybe at one end there's Raiders and on the other there's King Solomon's Mines (with Richard Chamberlin & Sharon Stone). The former is a "good" movie and the latter a "bad" one. Now both are gameable using the criteria you put forward. But does the latter necesarily make for good gaming. Well yes and so does the former. So it's really not about source material is it ? I mean Last Tango is clearly not a "game" movie although I'm sure one could adapt characters and themes from it.

Kyle makes a good point about bad acting and cheesy plots. But then shouldn't the question be - Why does gaming read like bad novels or seem like bad movies ?

Regards,
David R

QuoteBut then shouldn't the question be - Why does gaming read like bad novels or seem like bad movies ?

I have some thoughts on that, but it's probably safer to blame Gary Gygax.

Quote from: David RKyle makes a good point about bad acting and cheesy plots. But then shouldn't the question be - Why does gaming read like bad novels or seem like bad movies ?

Because most people - gamers or not - are terrible actors, unable to convey subtle ranges and mixtures of emotion and ideas. So they just ham it up.

The cliches are a bit different. That depends on the mood at the game table. Some are people are fairly serious about their gaming, some are light-hearted and crack lots of jokes. I'd say that even if just one person at the game table is taking it lightly and is talkative (rather than quietly light-hearted) then it spreads across the whole game table, people joking and laughing. And I think that light-hearted is most common. "It's just a game." So to get any strong reaction you have to use cliches. Nuanced layers of meaning won't do it.

Put bad acting and "it's just a game" together, and you get ham acting and cliches, which are as I said the basis of bad movies. But can make for a fucking good game session.

Quote from: David RMaybe at one end there's Raiders and on the other there's King Solomon's Mines (with Richard Chamberlin & Sharon Stone). The former is a "good" movie and the latter a "bad" one. Now both are gameable using the criteria you put forward. But does the latter necesarily make for good gaming. Well yes and so does the former. So it's really not about source material is it ? I mean Last Tango is clearly not a "game" movie although I'm sure one could adapt characters and themes from it.

You're misapprehending what's meant by good and bad here. It's nothing to do with the quality of the finished piece. It's essentially high art vs low art: cheesy genre stuff yields more gameable situations than literary works. This is becuase cheesy genre stuff focuses on easily defined external threats, while literary works tend to focus on internal conflicts that are not easily gameable.

You could run the plot of Raiders with virtually any mainstream RPG out there. The cannot be said of The Last Tango in Paris.

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyYou're misapprehending what's meant by good and bad here. It's nothing to do with the quality of the finished piece. It's essentially high art vs low art: cheesy genre stuff yields more gameable situations than literary works. This is becuase cheesy genre stuff focuses on easily defined external threats, while literary works tend to focus on internal conflicts that are not easily gameable.

You could run the plot of Raiders with virtually any mainstream RPG out there. The cannot be said of The Last Tango in Paris.

Ned

No, he's not misapprehending. He's adding a different axis of "good-bad". Think Lawful-Chaotic vs. Good-Evil. He's pointing out that there are "good" and "bad" movies - even within the same genre - that are equally gameable. In gaming, it's not a question of quality, but of focus. Your difference was one between two good movies, one inward focused and one outward focused. David proposed that the dichotomy between focuses is more important for gaming that that between good and bad.

BTW, David - I hope you have read the original King Solomon's Mines (and She) by H. Rider Haggard and realize the movie is really poorly adapted. The original novel rocks as hard as Raiders.

-clash

So... he was agreeing? :confused:

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeySo... he was agreeing? :confused:

Ned

AFAICS, agreeing and expanding.

-clash

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeySo... he was agreeing? :confused:

What clash said

(Although I'd rather not refer to genre stuff as low art...)

Don't worry Clash, I've read Haggard....I was going to use Robin Hood as the example - Robin Hood (the Patrick Bergin version) vs Prince of Thieves....or maybe the Robin & Marion vs Prince of Thieves.....then said sod this, and went with Solomon's Mines

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWhat clash said

(Although I'd rather not refer to genre stuff as low art...)

Don't worry Clash, I've read Haggard....I was going to use Robin Hood as the example - Robin Hood (the Patrick Bergin version) vs Prince of Thieves....or maybe the Robin & Marion vs Prince of Thieves.....then said sod this, and went with Solomon's Mines

Regards,
David R

Agreed!  The movie was hideous! I had such great expectations, because I loved the book so... I really hated the idea of anyone basing their opinion of the book on that movie!

Great gaming resource, though!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice... I really hated the idea of anyone basing their opinion of the book on that movie!

You're not the only one clash. I got a lecture from one of my players....

Also Ned, when gamers say "bad" movies, I doubt they are talking about the distinction between high and low art. They are talking about the quality of the finished product.

Regards,
David R

Ah, okay, no worries.

However, I am certain that the phrase under debate is referring to high art/low art. I really don't think it's a bout well-made books and films versus poorly made books and flms. Without giving it too much thought, I would be inclined to think that well-made "bad" films would have more and better gameable ideas than poorly made "bad" films. I might be wrong though.

Ned

GHOSTS OF MARS - perfect example . Not a great movie - but a great situation for a roleplaying scenario or campaign.

Also helps that its a remake of Assault on Precinct 13, which itself is a remake of Rio Bravo.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074156/trivia

- Ed C.

That's an excellent example, Koltar. It's slightly complicated by two facts:

1) John Carpenter is that rare creature, a director of working-class action movies. Not to use CGI in the 21st century is like a class decision ("good honest labor"), which then generates a visual style. That's totally different from Raiders, and that's one reason why I'm not into the high/low dichotomy, either. (Another is that it excludes the dreaded middle, which is the default rpg.net taste these days: middle brow schlock, IOW kitsch that thinks it's "high.")

2) and related to 1): I don't think John Carpenter could ever be really bad. Even the worst Carpenter movie, which is probably what GoM is, is still a Carpenter movie.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity2) and related to 1): I don't think John Carpenter could ever be really bad. Even the worst Carpenter movie, which is probably what GoM is, is still a Carpenter movie.

I think the worst Carpenter movie is Escape From LA....simply because it's the most unCarpenter movie he's ever made (it's dangerous straying from your working class roots)....well besides Village of the Damned of course. Not that being unCarpenter is necessarily a bad thing. It's worked once before with Starman.

My Hunter campaign was based on his early work although it has to said his "good" early work.  

Regards,
David R