TheRPGSite

By the little I've heard of this it sounds terrific in a weird mythic planescapey way.

So tell me more! Anyone played or read it? What your thoughts?

Like most LotFP stuff, it's pretentious, overrated, nihilistic trash with incredibly ugly artwork.

OTOH, the layout is really, really nice. Although I have doubts anyone would actually want to play it (unless they are masochists), the book is basically meant to be used, not read.

It's a LotFP adventure, so it's pretty light, so you can do however much work you want to port it to a better system.

Basically... it's so-so.  There's a lot of weird ideas that read like someone's cleaned up slambook regarding the art scene of the authors' hometown(s).  Which makes sense given that the Maze is as much an art museum as a prison as a dungeon (imagine that: a dungeon that's also a prison!).  There's enough detail to get you going, but expect to fill in the very large blanks.  There's also a lot of art that personally did nothing for me (too small and blobby for my tastes), although the giant map is kind of neat... depicting things by thematic relevance rather than simply contents (if there's a woman in a room, expect that room to have a picture of her face), which again fits in with the art display motif.  And (in the print version at least) there's a lot of what feels like redundancy in the text and maps both; some of it is for the sake of consistency in the presentation, but it still ends up feeling like wasted paper.

But honestly, I found it all pretty boring.  Like Alice in Wonderland but without the same sense of wonder and fun, just a burbling sense of contempt under the surface of weird-for-the-sake-of-weird dungeon crawling.  If you liked Death Frost Doom or A Red & Pleasant Land, this one may disappoint.  It's more bloated than DFD and less engaging and creative than AR&PL.

All that said!

I can see it working better in play than it does in reading.  You just need a group that either wants an odd dungeon crawl and wants to "sightsee", or enjoys actively interacting with oddities and finds fun from that.

Quote from: JeremyR;978150Like most LotFP stuff, it's pretentious, overrated, nihilistic trash with incredibly ugly artwork.

OTOH, the layout is really, really nice. Although I have doubts anyone would actually want to play it (unless they are masochists), the book is basically meant to be used, not read.

Basically agree with this, but also didn't like all the seemingly nonsense random effects/things each room had: this room is MC Escher stairs! This room you fall into the shadows! This room has some dragon-chick looking for art but apparently can't be arsed to do anything on her own for some reason!

Did yall get some super secret special edition published by Lamentations of the Flame Princess because my copy was publish by Satyr Press.

Quote from: AxesnOrcs;978166Did yall get some super secret special edition published by Lamentations of the Flame Princess because my copy was publish by Satyr Press.

[video=youtube;hou0lU8WMgo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo[/youtube]

Quote from: JeremyR;978150Like most LotFP stuff, it's pretentious, overrated, nihilistic trash with incredibly ugly artwork.

Quote from: san dee jota;978152It's a LotFP adventure, so it's pretty light...

:) So are you two agreeing or disagreeing?

Up thread someone compared it to Alice in Wonderland.  Close, but I'd say it is more Dunsany-esque:  Not very good Dunsany, though.  These things are subjective: But if you're looking for a distinctly weird and whimsical Place of Mystery, this is a good start.

I think it's a gorgeous book.  The materials and binding are extremely high quality.  The layout is a model of how intuitive design.  Art is subjective, but I like it pretty well (whereas I have no appreciation for Scrap Princess's art).  I really enjoyed reading it but ultimately decided I will never run it.  It's just too weird and doesn't provide enough useful stuff.  It's a spattering of ideas but I don't want to spend the time necessary to interpret it and try to relay it to my players and then adjudicate exactly what any of it means.

Quote from: Crawford Tillinghast;978171:) So are you two agreeing or disagreeing?

Dunno'.  Personally I can't stand LotFP as a system; it's like people forget fantasy heartbreakers exist and why they suck (and I say this as someone who doesn't hate Shadow of the Demon Lord, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay,  or Palladium Fantasy Roleplay).  LotFP should be thrown on the pile of forgotten games as just another fantasy heartbreaker.

But I do admit to liking -some- of the different adventures and such put out for it.  Maze just isn't one of them though (even though I like some of the author's other work).

EDIT: I'd agree MotBM -is- pretentious and overrated, with ugly artwork.  I wouldn't -quite- call it trash, as it -might- play better than it reads.  But -only- for the right group.

Quote from: Crawford Tillinghast;978171Up thread someone compared it to Alice in Wonderland.  Close, but I'd say it is more Dunsany-esque:  Not very good Dunsany, though.  These things are subjective: But if you're looking for a distinctly weird and whimsical Place of Mystery, this is a good start.

Fair enough.

Quote from: JeremyR;978150Like most LotFP stuff, it's pretentious, overrated, nihilistic trash with incredibly ugly artwork.

OTOH, the layout is really, really nice. Although I have doubts anyone would actually want to play it (unless they are masochists), the book is basically meant to be used, not read.

What do you mean by nihilistic?

I think it's a masterpiece, definitely in the top five D&D modules of all time.

1) Complex, yet run-able.

2) A big dungeon that changes with each trip down and feels "Alive".

3) Boldly original and different yet still a classic "Dungeon crawl" at heart.

4) Some great NPCs and set-pieces. More opportunity for "Social" encounters than the standard dungeon (i.e. negotiating with monsters, turning them against each other, making alliances, etc).

It is extremely weird, rather "Arty", and debatably pretentious, but I'm baffled by it being described as "Nihilistic". With a few exceptions the NPCs in the Maze have distinct personalities and goals can be reasoned with: Smart players will be rewarded, psychos attempting to hack their way through will not. It's quite dark in parts but it certainly doesn't celebrate evil.

What makes Legends of the Flame Princess different from D&D? And what is this "Flame Princess" supposed to be/mean? Serious question, as I keep seeing the name bandied about but have never seen a copy or  known anyone who played or owned it.

Quote from: Dumarest;978250What makes Legends of the Flame Princess different from D&D? And what is this "Flame Princess" supposed to be/mean? Serious question, as I keep seeing the name bandied about but have never seen a copy or  known anyone who played or owned it.

Pretty much nothing, it's just a D&D Basic variant with a slightly morbid/gothy/60's Hammer horror tone. The title comes from the name of the small-press metal 'zine the writer ran back when he was a music journalist and doesn't really mean anything. I like the game, but you don't need it and you could use LotFP modules with any D&Dish system with only trivial effort.  

I should also note that MotBM is NOT a Lamentations product, it just gets confused for one because it was done by people who usually write for them.

Quote from: Dumarest;978250What makes Legends of the Flame Princess different from D&D? And what is this "Flame Princess" supposed to be/mean? Serious question, as I keep seeing the name bandied about but have never seen a copy or  known anyone who played or owned it.

LotFP stands for Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Snake Cult nails the system, just B/X with some small tweaks.

Really LotFP existed to put out new OSR modules with an emphasis on weirdness and the retroclone system was released to promote the modules and help get the product into game stores. This isn't a slam btw but what Raggi (the publisher) himself says. Ironically the ruleset ended up outselling the adventures by an order of magnitude. Apparently people can't get enough minor variations on B/X instead of useful gameable material?

Best LotFP stuff to me is by Kowolski who also puts out stuff on his own.  Stuart's latest Veins of the Earth is also good. Red and Pleasant Land is good setting material if Alice in Wonderland meets vampires appeals. The tone of these tend to be weirdness in the Ashton Smith mode meets gonzo.

A lot of Raggi's own stuff is stereotypically 'metal' and a bit too goofy and juvenile for my tastes but YMMV. Death Frost Doom is a decent adventure til you discover the White Dwarf adventure that beat it to the punch by decades.

I like MotBM just fine but prefer the creators' other work. The tried something different theoretically useful in terms of the layout but I'm not sure it works. And of course as pointed out it isn't actually a LotFP release.

Regarding 'nihilism' I suspect JeremyR is probably the same bore who posts the same one sentence review on every LotFP product on Drivethrurpg. That he actually got praised for it from another poster, neither of them apparently realizing this isn't even a LotFP release, is pathetic.

Quote from: Itachi;978134By the little I've heard of this it sounds terrific in a weird mythic planescapey way.

So tell me more! Anyone played or read it? What your thoughts?

Pretentious - well, sure.

Overrated - its defenders certainly are fulsome. There have been a lot of positive reviews. OSR products tend to move through social groups of pre-existing fans who already like the same aesthetic so reviews are often either good or just silence if people don't like it.

There have been some pockets of silence in the community which suggests that some people didn't like it very much, but I don't remember seeing any complex reviews where people take apart what they don't like about it or why they think it doesn't work. Those are rare in any community.

Nihilistic - not sure where this came from. The setting has dark elements and the meta-situation is one that is very hard to resolve neatly without unleashing danger and chaos, but it is theoretically possible to 'save' one or more of the people in the Maze. Many of the characters are strange or threatening but none of the main characters are entirely monstrous. It certainly isn't intended as a Negadungeon in which you are more screwed for going in than you would be for staying out.

The Layout - A large number of the people who played it have remarked that they find the layout excellent and useful. Its designed, with really enormous effort and difficulty, to work well at the table and is considered by many (i.e. me, and people who agree with me) to be a new standard for layout.

If someone has sat down to actually use it and found the layout incoherent or difficult then I haven't heard about it, but then I wouldn't since if people hate it, they don't play it.

The Dragon Lady who wants you to steal art wants you to do it because if she uses her full powers, turns into a Goddamn Dragon and burns her way through the Maze, then she will inevitably destroy a lot of its unique treasures. Shes a Hyper-Powerful wrecking-ball assassin, and also an art lover, the two things conflict. I don't have my copy on me right now but in the original draft its almost the first thing she says, you enter the room and she's muttering to herself saying "It would be a shame to burn it all....". So she gets the PCs to grab art for her. In the original draft, the more times you bring her art, the closer you get to her losing her temper with you or just deciding to fulfil her mission. Not sure if that stuff is still in there.

I'm not really connected to my local art scene, but most of the stuff about art is from me. It doesn't really have a deep point behind it. The Monster Manual says that Medusa's like art so it made sense to me for part of the Maze to be a gallery, since if I was an immortal badass who was into art with my own hyper-dimensional space-prison then that's what I would do. The art theme kind of lead from there.

The strange space-warping traps are all at the 'opening' to the Maze, designed to stop casual travellers and strangers getting in. They are space-warpy rather than just pit-traps or whatever, it seemed to mesh with the art style and the developing logic of the Dungeon.

As for not being playable.. well you could google "maze of the blue medusa play through", in which case you would get these links;

http://neradia.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/uncommon-explorations-of-maze-of-blue.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/5rw2tw/has_anyone_here_ever_run_maze_of_the_blue_medusa/

Half way down here https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/5n5hm1/is_dungeon_crawl_classics_rpg_worth_it/

This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZQQFUfZlio

And a bunch more.

Your best option if you want to find out more is the buy either the simple or deluxe PDF http://www.rpgnow.com/browse/pub/10660/Satyr-Press they are both pretty cheap for what you get.

So far as I know the only hardcopies remaining with Satyr (about 40 I think) will be on sale at Gen-Con. We don't know if we are going to re-publish since Ken, the publisher, has health compliations and political stuff he is up to.

I like it; I recommend it.  At 300 rooms, it falls on the mega-dungeon side for purposes of practical play, so it's worth thinking about whether you mean to run the whole thing, or only use it as a place to escape from or retrieve a macguffin from.

As I understand it, the art came first, then Patrick Stuart did the writing off that, with feedback from the artist, Zak Smith.  That to me is cool, not only in theory, but that in practice it did produce something that no one else is producing.

You can check out the master painting here (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2016/03/maze-of-blue-medusa-faq.html).  If you like it you're a lot more likely to like the end product, and if not then not.  Definitely a blow against WotC/Paizo "characters standing around looking bad-ass" art though.

No idea where "nihilistic" comes from.  "Pretentious" only if decent art qualifies as pretentious.  "Not enough useful stuff" is likewise baffling to me.  It's full of original stuff, so... not enough stock monsters?  Not enough pit traps?  It can't be too many empty rooms, so I don't even know.

Quote from: Voros;978292Death Frost Doom is a decent adventure til you discover the White Dwarf adventure that beat it to the punch by decades.

Is there a name or link to that?  I'd like to look at it (heck, even just a synopsis).

I'll throw Qelong out there as another one worth looking into.  I'm not a big Hite fanboy*, but this one was a fun grab bag of the flavorful and the weird, and easily ported to multiple other games (the mark of good LotFP material!).  Forgive Us is a kinda' fun -little- horror adventure for low-level characters.  Scenic Dunnsmouth is an interesting little Lovecraft-inspired village sourcebook.  Broodmother Skyfortress... isn't bad, but it's probably not worth the cover price.  Monolith Beyond Space and Time has some neat ideas, but also probably isn't worth the cover price (a good review should spoil it sufficiently to be honest).  One nifty feature of those last two books: they can serve in multiple other weird games (supers, Numenera, etc.).

(*I like some of his stuff, but a lot of it feels targeted to the "I have no imagination of my own, so give me stuff" crowd.  Not that his work is bad, it isn't, it just often can feel uninspiring)

Quote from: JeremyR;978150Like most LotFP stuff, it's pretentious, overrated, nihilistic trash with incredibly ugly artwork.

OTOH, the layout is really, really nice. Although I have doubts anyone would actually want to play it (unless they are masochists), the book is basically meant to be used, not read.

First post is the best post. Spot on.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;9782322) A big dungeon that changes with each trip down and feels "Alive".

The setup for the dungeon involves the PCs entering the dungeon through a painting and if they don't go immediate murderhobo in there, the exit is stolen.  How are you running multiple excursions into the dungeon?  It felt more like an escape the dungeon setup then a multiple delve style game.

I think it's kind of brilliant, though maybe less my sort of thing than Deep Carbon Obsevatory/Veins of the Earth. I expect it will have to percolate a while before I have a sense of how I'll use it... maybe as a setting for some psychedelic urban fantasy.

Quote from: pjamesstuart;978320So far as I know the only hardcopies remaining with Satyr (about 40 I think) will be on sale at Gen-Con. We don't know if we are going to re-publish since Ken, the publisher, has health compliations and political stuff he is up to.

I do hope it somehow gets a second printing. I bought the PDF the moment I saw it was available but missed out on getting a hardcopy.

This was my review:

On the whole, it's a remarkable book, worth having a look at just because of how different it is from so much other RPG fare out there. Whether it finds use at your table will depend a lot on your tastes.

From what I've gleaned so far, the dungeon is a vast, variegated battlefield in which to tangle with random monsters. There are potent, dangerous platonic ideals of monster or magical room concepts here, which you'll recognize if you're familiar with Patrick's other writing (especially Fire on the Velvet Horizon).

It's light on system-specific details, which is fine with me: this isn't the sort of place where you'll find difficult climbs over rubble piles with quantified difficulty levels; instead there are rooms where the floor is liquid mercury, or where everyone's shadow is a 12' pit, or where the NPC makes time run faster.

If that sounds interesting, there's a ton of it, so you'll definitely get your money's worth.

The random monsters, too, are contextualized in a way that's useful. The book makes it clear they're talking to one another, learning from what the PCs do, and they aren't stupid - the chameleon women, for instance, will generally attempt to skulk out of sight and only engage the PCs once they're in a room that disadvantages them.

On the other hand, there are a few problems with clarity. First of all, the map used throughout is a piece of art - a few representational bits (e.g. a portrait of a ram-horned dragon-blooded gal), but lots of abstract bits (solid black rooms, rooms that are mostly squiggles). The art is super detailed, squiggly, and dark, so even the representational bits are hard to read, sometimes to the point where walls and doorways are tricky to discern.

This is mirrored in the writing - the room descriptions are occasionally impressionistic and evocative rather than clear. When this collides with the map confusion, it's really unfortunate.

Room 1 is depicted as a literal painting (it has a frame and everything); the text describes a painting you can enter under certain circumstances. Is room 1 the room where you find the painting, or the room the painting is in? Is the white space around the painting a place you can go?

I think the creator of the easier-to-read floorplan on the end papers may have been confused, too, because there's a sometimes-there door in the south of room 2 which is either not described or should be in room 1. (I might be wrong!)

In a few cases, the room concept has drifted away from the floor plan, such as two adjacent rooms which have (in the writing) become vertically stacked, connected by a chute. As far as I can tell, the relationship implied by the two maps is vestigial.

I think the correct attitude is probably not to care too much; the ideas are cool, so disregard feelings of uncertainty and play on.

Maze has tried very hard to be an eminently table-usable game text, and I think it's a big step in the right direction, salted with a few decisions that make no sense to me.

Rather than having GMs flipping back and forth between the map and unbroken chunks of room-description entries, the relevant portion of the art/map is shown every six pages.

This is super handy! No need to flip back to the main map and to figure out the spatial relationships, it's all right there.

The next two pages have the same goal but don't seem to pay off so well. The problem with page flippage is finding the page to flip to, not actually moving the paper, so repeating the map two more times and duplicating tables that are easily found on the back end papers feels much less valuable than the zoomed-in map.

The truncated room descriptions are particularly dubious. They're not summaries, just whatever would fit, so they're either incomplete, or multi-paragraph duplication of what's on the very next page.

Maybe I'm an ignorant vandalist, but it seems you could chop 70 pages out of the book and not lose anything.

In any case, from a content perspective this amounts to a minor point. If you dig the aesthetic, there's plenty to like, and if a radioactive Alice in Wonderland vibe is a fit for your campaign, it's brimming with gameable bits.

Quote from: under_score;978356The setup for the dungeon involves the PCs entering the dungeon through a painting and if they don't go immediate murderhobo in there, the exit is stolen.  How are you running multiple excursions into the dungeon?  It felt more like an escape the dungeon setup then a multiple delve style game.

I don't want to spoil the module... but roam around a little and ask NPCs questions.

Cows are important.

Quote from: san dee jota;978348I'll throw Qelong out there as another one worth looking into. .

Qelong is underrated... a grim and tragic Apocalypse Now set in Fantasy Cambodia. With very little work you could splice it together with Noisms' (Also-underrated) Yoon-Suin (Fantasy Thailand) and do a whole Fantasy Southeast Asia campaign.

I disagree on Broodmother Skyfortress, though. I think it's another in the top D&D modules of all time (But it is a little on the "Gonzo" side, and it's specifically designed to shake up an existing  campaign, so I can see how both of those things might be turn-offs to many).

I liked it.  I don't use adventures for the adventure itself, I mine them for ideas and this one has some interesting encounters and set pieces.  I think the art's OK: Zak's style doesn't match my personal preferences but it can still be evocative.  I'd give it a B.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;978500Qelong is underrated... a grim and tragic Apocalypse Now set in Fantasy Cambodia. With very little work you could splice it together with Noisms' (Also-underrated) Yoon-Suin (Fantasy Thailand) and do a whole Fantasy Southeast Asia campaign.

It is excellent as is Yoon-Suin but I wouldn't call the latter underrated, it has a strong cult following.

Quote from: san dee jota;978348Is there a name or link to that?  I'd like to look at it (heck, even just a synopsis).

It is Albie Fiore's The Lichway, (http://fightingfantasist.blogspot.ca/2011/08/lichway.html) one of several excellent adventures he wrote for White Dwarf.

I suspect Raggi read the Sussurus description in the Fiend Folio and thought of how it could be used in an adventure and the replaced it with a much less interesting variation in his original version, the later version changes it again. I think the Lichway is better as it 'punishes' PCs for being greedy and cruel whereas in DFD it is more simply a gotcha moment.

Quote from: Voros;978594It is Albie Fiore's The Lichway, (http://fightingfantasist.blogspot.ca/2011/08/lichway.html) one of several excellent adventures he wrote for White Dwarf.

I suspect Raggi read the Sussurus description in the Fiend Folio and thought of how it could be used in an adventure and the replaced it with a much less interesting variation in his original version, the later version changes it again. I think the Lichway is better as it 'punishes' PCs for being greedy and cruel whereas in DFD it is more simply a gotcha moment.

Regardless of which one you like better, they're really different.

Saying "The Licheway" is like Death Frost Doom is like somebody seeing Alien and then going OH MY GOD YOU GUYS I FOUND THIS SHOW CALLED MORK AND MINDY AND ALIEN IS A TOTAL RIP!!!!

Like nobody who reads both adventures and actually runs games for human players in real life could actually think they're similar. They both feature the same monster: the Sussurus, which the Licheway guy made up and which Raggi got from the fiend folio, but beyond that you'd have to be blind to literally every other thing about the structure mood and detail of the adventure to think they're the same.

I think back in the "Everyone get grumpy that a new post appeared on Grognardia" days, someone noticed this adventure Malisezewski positively reviewed had a sussurus just like Licheway, and then James-haters piled on like it was the Nixon tapes. You know how the internet is: when the other guy is in first place, everything looks like a Blue Shell.

PLEASE read them both--hell, I'll email anyone who wants a copy of Licheway. Nobody who claims they're the same is someone you should trust about anything. You just have to promise to block them once you find out I'm right.

Oh, and of course Maze of the Blue Medusa is nihilistic: it's fucking D&D.

Quote from: antiochcow;978153Basically agree with this, but also didn't like all the seemingly nonsense random effects/things each room had: this room is MC Escher stairs! This room you fall into the shadows!

It's strange that anyone would find these things strange.

Didn't the first floor of Castle Greyhawk have a fountain of snakes?

What's in your dungeons?

Thanks for the input folks. After reading your comments and the stuff linked by Pjamesstuart above I made my decision to get the pdf soon.

Regarding the "pretension" bit, I'm a fan of stuff usually associated with it around here and on other boards (Eg: Planescape/Everway/Nobilis/Apocalypse World/etc) then this label is actually a plus to me. :)

Quote from: Zak S;978646PLEASE read them both--hell, I'll email anyone who wants a copy of Licheway. Nobody who claims they're the same is someone you should trust about anything. You just have to promise to block them once you find out I'm right.

Oh, and of course Maze of the Blue Medusa is nihilistic: it's fucking D&D.

I agree it is pretty clear that Raggi wasn't ripping off The Lichway, just found the Sussurus in FF and went from there so of course they'll be similar in that way.

Quote from: Itachi;978721Thanks for the input folks. After reading your comments and the stuff linked by Pjamesstuart above I made my decision to get the pdf soon.

Regarding the "pretension" bit, I'm a fan of stuff usually associated with it around here and on other boards (Eg: Planescape/Everway/Nobilis/Apocalypse World/etc) then this label is actually a plus to me. :)

If you like Planscape etc you'll dig MotBM.

Quote from: Zak S;978646Regardless of which one you like better, they're really different.

Saying "The Licheway" is like Death Frost Doom is like somebody seeing Alien and then going OH MY GOD YOU GUYS I FOUND THIS SHOW CALLED MORK AND MINDY AND ALIEN IS A TOTAL RIP!!!!

Like nobody who reads both adventures and actually runs games for human players in real life could actually think they're similar. They both feature the same monster: the Sussurus, which the Licheway guy made up and which Raggi got from the fiend folio, but beyond that you'd have to be blind to literally every other thing about the structure mood and detail of the adventure to think they're the same.

I think back in the "Everyone get grumpy that a new post appeared on Grognardia" days, someone noticed this adventure Malisezewski positively reviewed had a sussurus just like Licheway, and then James-haters piled on like it was the Nixon tapes. You know how the internet is: when the other guy is in first place, everything looks like a Blue Shell.

PLEASE read them both--hell, I'll email anyone who wants a copy of Licheway. Nobody who claims they're the same is someone you should trust about anything. You just have to promise to block them once you find out I'm right.

I'm almost tempted to take you on your offer. But I'm not sure whether I own Death Frost Doom...:D
(And admittedly, I don't think I've got whoever said this on my G+/FB lists, so I can't block anyone even if I find you to be right:)).

QuoteOh, and of course Maze of the Blue Medusa is nihilistic: it's fucking D&D.

Since when does D&D come pre-packaged with a philosophy? Isn't pushing your views on the player a major failure of the new games, in your own opinion?
(Apologies in advance if I'm mixing up your opinions with someone else's).

Quote from: Zak S;978648It's strange that anyone would find these things strange.

Didn't the first floor of Castle Greyhawk have a fountain of snakes?

What's in your dungeons?

Never had a fountain of snakes, now that I think about it. I've had fountains of fire, acid, and/or living shadows, but snakes?
I should probably try that;).

Quote from: AsenRG;978974Since when does D&D come pre-packaged with a philosophy? Isn't pushing your views on the player a major failure of the new games, in your own opinion? (Apologies in advance if I'm mixing up your opinions with someone else's).

You can't push views on someone through a game. You have me confused with someone stupid. Advance apologies accepted.

Quote from: Zak S;978987You can't push views on someone through a game. You have me confused with someone stupid. Advance apologies accepted.

Then how come D&D equals nihilistic (which is a kind of view, too)?

Quote from: AsenRG;978992Then how come D&D equals nihilistic (which is a kind of view, too)?

Just because there is a view doesn't mean you're pushing it on someone.

D&D is nihilistic precisely because it doesn't push toward a meaning. There is no overarching hand which gives the narrative an outcome in line with any given philosophy. A session or campaign is 3+ people plus randomness pushing the thing this way and that way largely without regard to any moral that could be drawn when it's all over.

It is, like so many of the best things in life, a raw experience, not a lesson.

Quote from: Zak S;978999Just because there is a view doesn't mean you're pushing it on someone.

D&D is nihilistic precisely because it doesn't push toward a meaning. There is no overarching hand which gives the narrative an outcome in line with any given philosophy.

Wait.
So, in your view, unless there is an overarching hand giving the narrative an outcome in line another philosophy, the game is nihilistic? Am I getting your meaning right?

Quote from: AsenRG;979000Wait.
So, in your view, unless there is an overarching hand giving the narrative an outcome in line another philosophy, the game is nihilistic? Am I getting your meaning right?

Nihilism--first definition on Google:

"the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless."

The life of a D&D character conforms to no religious or moral principles and their life is meaningless. They exist only to entertain us and do whatever it takes to get that to happen.


in PHILOSOPHY

"extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence."

Nothing in D&D has a real existence. It is, by definition, fiction.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1183[/ATTACH]

For the record, in case anyone reads this in the future;

I don't think anything I've made is nihilistic and that includes MotBM. Zaks opinions and analysis are his own.

Quote from: Zak S;979002Nihilism--first definition on Google:

"the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless."

The life of a D&D character conforms to no religious or moral principles and their life is meaningless. They exist only to entertain us and do whatever it takes to get that to happen.

So, you could have just said "yes":). A system that doesn't conform to religious or moral principles is an expression of nihilism, in your point of view.

Funny, because that's something I've argued with [STRIKE]The Outrage Squad[/STRIKE] some people you really seem to dislike. You know them - they're the ones who claim that "systems that don't conform to religious or moral principles are an expression of nihilism/right-wingism/whateverism", and conclude that "therefore, systems should include/stipulate morality".

For the record, I think both you and them are wrong (though they're wronger, because they also think that one can push views through games;)). Why?
Because the life of a D&D character, a Flashing Blades character, a CP2020 character, a Twilight: 2000 character or a Feng Shui character isn't necessarily "rejecting all religious and moral principles", even if the system doesn't even mention those. They might be doing so...but nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to go for the easiest way. If you believe the character's life had no meaning other than entertaining you - it was your choice to be entertained in this way.
Me, on the other hand? I'd rather play my characters in those same systems* as people who follow religious and/or moral principles, thank you very much. Even if that was a net negative in game terms.

(I'm not planning to debate the part about "a D&D character's life is meaningless", because the definition of nihilism that you quoted doesn't assume that it matters - you're either rejecting all principles, or you're not. My characters don't reject them, as pointed above. Therefore, it's not true that all D&D characters/games are nihilistic - it's merely the way you have, presumably, chosen to play - I'm assuming here that you can easily determine whether your own games fit the criteria for being nihilistic, and that your conclusion is based on your own experience.

The characters themselves might be just as meaningless, but that, in itself, doesn't make them nihilistic. Unless, of course, nihilism is the moral/philosophical bend that I've decided a given character should have).


*As a total aside, I've come to believe that those are the only systems where making the moral decision would matter:D.
As one of the Outrage Brigade claimed on RPG.net, "if the designer is making one option easier than others, he should have known you'd pick it - and if that options is to be immoral, you can draw your own conclusions" - I'm quoting by memory, because I can't be bothered to look for the thread, but that was the general gist of it.
My answer was something flippant, but IIRC it amounted to "doing the right thing shouldn't be the easiest thing by the system, or you doing the right thing is meaningless".
That's right. Only in systems that don't incentivize following the moral and/or religious principles can characters actually follow those same priciples. In systems that do so, you're merely playing to the system - even if the characters were basically taking the same actions.

Quote from: pjamesstuart;979012For the record, in case anyone reads this in the future;

I don't think anything I've made is nihilistic and that includes MotBM. Zaks opinions and analysis are his own.

Rest assured, whenever I'm discussing any product with Zak, Pundit, Gronan, or a host of other people, I know that I'm discussing about their view of it. The products, MotBM included, has its own existence which is not necessarily related to the impressions people have about them.
And for the record, I do own MotBM, but my GM warned me not to read it, because she's planning to use it in her game:D.
Where the characters would also be motivated by moral and/or religious principles;).

Quote from: AsenRG;979090Why?
Because the life of a D&D character, a Flashing Blades character, a CP2020 character, a Twilight: 2000 character or a Feng Shui character isn't necessarily "rejecting all religious and moral principles", even if the system doesn't even mention those. They might be doing so...but nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to go for the easiest way. If you believe the character's life had no meaning other than entertaining you - it was your choice to be entertained in this way..

Me, on the other hand? I'd rather play my characters in those same systems* as people who follow religious and/or moral principles, thank you very much. Even if that was a net negative in game terms.

You're not making any sense at all.

I didn't say ANYTHING about what the imaginary character thought they were doing in the story or what the PC's philosophy is. Thats not relevant at all.

I didn't say a stupid, obviously untrue, simplistic thing like "Characters in games don't believe things". Nobody would ever say that: Clerics and paladins by definition believe things.

Please try to pay more attention before typing.

I said a true thing, not a stupid thing:

They could be mormons, they could worship a fish god, they could follow the strictest morality imaginable, it doesn't mean that their life and fate follow that principle.

Like just because my character thinks his fate is the result of a pig goddess' whims or that Faith Will Be Rewarded, the fact is it doesn't at all and he's wrong: his fate is the result of d20 rolls and what players decide. Always. It is the result of no moral or supernatural agency at all.

Characters' fates are determined by whim, not by moral principle, regardless of what the character thinks determines their fate.

There is, therefore, no moral lesson you can draw from their lives.

Quote from: Zak S;979138 his fate is the result of d20 rolls and what players decide. Always. It is the result of no moral or supernatural agency at all.

But if the player makes decisions based on either his personal or his character's imaginary moral principles, doesn't that mean his fate is determined by moral principle, within the bounds of those pesky d20 rolls?

Well, this thread sure took an interesting turn.

I find it interesting that LotFP has so much hate these days around here.  I think the description made in this thread of it as just 'slightly modified' is highly unfair. In its time, it was an absolutely revolutionary step in the OSR.  It's still way more revolutionary in terms of its mechanics than many other OSR rule-sets. It is pretty much the definition of 2nd wave OSR.

The changes in the rules change the whole way the game plays.

Yes, there's a tone of pretentiousness (and "nihilism") in LotFP products and their adventures tend toward "negadungeons". But the rules themselves were groundbreaking.


Unfortunately, having not read Maze, I can't really comment on it as such.

Just curious Zak, would you call a novel nihilistic because the characters and world depicted in the novels are fiction?  It seems like you're getting into the area of something like "anything not real is by objective definition nihilistic" (that's my quote, I'm not claiming you said it), which I think is why some people are balking at your definition.

Great topic for conversation btw.

Quote from: under_score;979140But if the player makes decisions based on either his personal or his character's imaginary moral principles, doesn't that mean his fate is determined by moral principle, within the bounds of those pesky d20 rolls?

Hmm, it does seem like many players or characters make choices that the dice and probability cannot save them from, they essentially choose their Fate knowing what it is going to be due to religious or moral principles.  How does that factor in, Zak?

Quote from: under_score;979140But if the player makes decisions based on either his personal or his character's imaginary moral principles, doesn't that mean his fate is determined by moral principle, within the bounds of those pesky d20 rolls?

The monsters don't obey the player's principles .

You can believe in whatever you want, if you end up in an owlbear's belly, it all came to nothing and Jesus didn't save you.

If you break your principles, and yet you still level up, Jesus didn't punish you.

Quote from: CRKrueger;979227Just curious Zak, would you call a novel nihilistic because the characters and world depicted in the novels are fiction?  It seems like you're getting into the area of something like "anything not real is by objective definition nihilistic" (that's my quote, I'm not claiming you said it), which I think is why some people are balking at your definition.
.

I don't care. I'm talking about a game. The game happens to fit every definition of the word.

Wouldn't that make every piece of entertainment nihilistic?

Usually when people apply the phrase to some sort of fiction or entertainment it's because that work actively pushes that viewpoint about the world.

Quote from: Zak S;979245The monsters don't obey the player's principles .

You can believe in whatever you want, if you end up in an owlbear's belly, it all came to nothing and Jesus didn't save you.

If you break your principles, and yet you still level up, Jesus didn't punish you.

What if a GM does have Hieroneous punish you, by taking away your Paladin powers because you didn't live up to your religious principles?

Or what if Hieroneous, because you are perfectly exemplifying those principles, does save you?

Quote from: Zak S;979246I don't care. I'm talking about a game. The game happens to fit every definition of the word.

Ok, but wouldn't you agree that a definition to be useful has to actually be true for everything that matches "every definition of the word?"

If novels fit that definition but are not nihilistic, yet roleplaying games fit that definition and are nihilistic, than that definition is not useful as it is being applied.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;979248Wouldn't that make every piece of entertainment nihilistic?

Usually when people apply the phrase to some sort of fiction or entertainment it's because that work actively pushes that viewpoint about the world.

It's not clear in your question what sentence or idea the word "that" is referring to.

Quote from: CRKrueger;979250What if a GM does have Hieroneous punish you, by taking away your Paladin powers because you didn't live up to your religious principles?

Or what if Hieroneous, because you are perfectly exemplifying those principles, does save you?

If that logic extends to the whole of the game (as the explicitly Christian D&D competitors of the 80s attempted to do--i dunno if they succeeded) then the game then has a philosophy. I know of no extant D&D product where this is so, though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;979253Ok, but wouldn't you agree that a definition to be useful has to actually be true for everything that matches "every definition of the word?"

If novels fit that definition but are not nihilistic, yet roleplaying games fit that definition and are nihilistic, than that definition is not useful as it is being applied.

We don't know which definition of "nihilistic" the dork on page one was referring to--because, like most dorks, he was just pissing in the pool and didn't really have a coherent thing he was saying, so he didn't stick around to answer questions, he isn't intelligent enough.

If a novel fits one but not the other, then it may not match whatever the fuck he was on about.

We do know, however, D&D fits both--the first because the end, being open to chance and improvisation and multiple authors, cannot contain a moral lesson. The second because it is fiction.

Depending on which definition the dork meant, any given novel may or may not fit, because the novel is only definitely fiction, thus only fitting the second definition--and yes, the early history of the novel is rife with condemnation from moralizers for being, unlike devotional literature, nihilistic and moral-less. Like drama, the novel grew out of a secularization of what was once a group of moralizing art forms.

Quote from: Zak S;979258If that logic extends to the whole of the game (as the explicitly Christian D&D competitors of the 80s attempted to do--i dunno if they succeeded) then the game then has a philosophy. I know of no extant D&D product where this is so, though.

Fair enough. Neither do I, btw.  I do try to make my campaigns reward or punish the following of religious tenets and principles when the campaign has "Overt Gods" who grant powers, send avatars, etc.  Obviously, that's not appropriate for all campaigns.

Moral principles are a little trickier as usually there is only internal reward or punishments unless you are doing something that should have logical external consequences in the setting, then I try to make sure those consequences occur.

BTW, do you know of any RPGs that you'd say do provide mechanical support for philosophies and religious or moral principles?  Trying to think of some, drawing a blank, maybe Pendragon?

Quote from: Zak S;979259We do know, however, D&D fits both--the first because the end, being open to chance and imporvisation and multiple authors, cannot contain a moral lesson. The second because it is fiction.

Ok, gotcha.

Quote from: Zak S;979259Depending on which definition the dork meant, any given novel may or may not fit, because the novel is only definitely fiction, thus only fitting the second definition--and yes, the early history of the novel is rife with condemnation from moralizers for being, unlike devotional literature, nihilistic and moral-less. Like drama, the novel grew out of a secularization of what was once moralizing art forms.

Yeah, the attacks against moral-less or lesson-less art goes back to ancient greece and probably further.  Aristotle wouldn't have used the term nihilistic, probably Epicurean or "lacking arete" or something, but he might have meant something similar.

In addition to Pendragon there's Dragonraid, (http://www.dragonraid.net/home) a rpg made in the 80s by evangelical Christians as a D&D-like RPG with explicitly moralistic mechanics. Actually sounds like an interesting game, (https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11723.phtml) still available to order directly online believe it or not. It looks sincere and was still condemned by the anti-D&D evangelicals.

As does Birthright, as the mechanics of moral reward and punishment of those rulers 'bound to the land' are built into the setting's land (Cerilia) itself. And also Ravenloft, in the classical moral pageant sense (for The Dark Powers of The Mists will intervene on behalf of making sure the Dark Lords shall forever be punished), which is arguably an extant game through 5e.

But now we're on a needlessly far tangent from the usages, and discussed definitional agreement thereupon, for "Nihilism."

Which is a pity because I am more curious about the at-table functionality formatting, a topic we were exploring years ago here with Zak, and now Zak's published something that is getting praise in that vein. I am curious what sort of presentation decisions bantered about here made the cut, and what has been their real world reception (ideally from actual play reports).

I also feel like long, oblique, run-on sentences at this hour, which is probably a sign that I should get sleep... ;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;979270As does Birthright, as the mechanics of moral reward and punishment of those rulers 'bound to the land' are built into the setting's land (Cerilia) itself. And also Ravenloft, in the classical moral pageant sense (for The Dark Powers of The Mists will intervene on behalf of making sure the Dark Lords shall forever be punished), which is arguably an extant game through 5e.

Neither of those products are very thorough about enforcing that morality.

QuoteBut now we're on a needlessly far tangent from the usages, and discussed definitional agreement thereupon, for "Nihilism."

No, it's a good and useful tangent, because it lets everyone know that the people who complained it was "nihilistic" as if that's a bad or rare thing are not intelligent or reliable and so should be blocked and ignored.

QuoteWhich is a pity because I am more curious about the at-table functionality formatting, a topic we were exploring years ago here with Zak, and now Zak's published something that is getting praise in that vein. I am curious what sort of presentation decisions bantered about here made the cut, and what has been their real world reception (ideally from actual play reports).

I also feel like long, oblique, run-on sentences at this hour, which is probably a sign that I should get sleep... ;)

All the play reports about functionality have been basically ecstatic (google "actual play""blue medusa" there's blogs and at least one podcast, plus youtube vids), people like that stuff is repeated so they don't have to flip pages, they like that things are summarized then expanded, that all the creatures are summarized again in the back, and we use all the Vornheim tricks like not letting things spill from one spread to the next, etc.

Book beats pdf though, unfortunately as the book is now out of print and 100some$ on ebay.

My personal criticism is that, functionalitywise, some of the room descriptions are too long because Patrick had written some great stuff and I didn't want to cut it down (though I often rewrote stuff I didn't like). The Red & Pleasant Land format...

-Short Stuff
-With Bullet Points
-If the players do this statements like this in a separate bullet
-If the players do this other thing in another bullet point
-Then Stats

...is my ideal. But there's no point in co-writing with Patrick Stuart if you're not going to let the prose breathe. We did our best.

You'd be right to argue the pictures don't always tell you a lot about the rooms they're in, but on the other hand point to another 300 room dungeon with a picture for every room, and directly on the map.  If 1 out of 10 help you remember "oh THAT room" without having to reread the description then they did more than the pictures for any other megadungeon.

Quote from: Zak SNeither of those products are very thorough about enforcing that morality.

Does Sagas of the Icelanders count? It's all about conforming to* social and genre expectations of the settlers culture of the period, or risking prejudice and curses upon your family. And this is ingrained in the mechanics.

Don't know if it's "enforced" in the way you put it, though. The rules are conscious to those social values and enforce them, but it's possible to challenge them if you will, and even drop them with the passage of time (and the contact with Christianity).

Quote from: Itachi;979284Does Sagas of the Icelanders count? It's all about conforming to* social and genre expectations of the settlers culture of the period, or risking prejudice and curses upon your family. And this is ingrained in the mechanics.

Don't know if it's "enforced" in the way you put it, though. The rules are conscious to those social values and enforce them, but it's possible to challenge them if you will, and even drop them with the passage of time (and the contact with Christianity).

I don't know I never played it.

Quote from: Zak S;979138You're not making any sense at all.

I didn't say ANYTHING about what the imaginary character thought they were doing in the story or what the PC's philosophy is. Thats not relevant at all.

You did say "The life of a D&D character conforms to no religious or moral principles".
Life, for us, is what you make of the things given to you by a "setting" with way more randomizers than the average game. If the characters make it a lesson in following a moral code, then it is a lesson in following a moral code.

QuoteI didn't say a stupid, obviously untrue, simplistic thing like "Characters in games don't believe things". Nobody would ever say that: Clerics and paladins by definition believe things.

Please try to pay more attention before typing.

You got me here - I just assumed you don't have many Paladins in your games, and I shouldn't have;).

QuoteI said a true thing, not a stupid thing:

They could be mormons, they could worship a fish god, they could follow the strictest morality imaginable, it doesn't mean that their life and fate follow that principle.

Like just because my character thinks his fate is the result of a pig goddess' whims or that Faith Will Be Rewarded, the fact is it doesn't at all and he's wrong: his fate is the result of d20 rolls and what players decide. Always. It is the result of no moral or supernatural agency at all.

I'd say that's not what the "life" of the characters is. That's the mechanics governing the outcomes of said life.
But a Righteous Deed isn't any less so if it fails. It's just less likely to end well for the one attempting it.

Arguably, to the best of our knowledge, the fates of RL people don't depend on any ethical or moral philosophies. And yet, if we follow them, we're not called "nihilistic".
Thus the "life" of a fictional character is, by necessity, whatever he did in actual play/on the pages of a novel, along with his motives for doing so. Not even the motives of the player - strictly the character's motives.

QuoteCharacters' fates are determined by whim, not by moral principle, regardless of what the character thinks determines their fate.

There is, therefore, no moral lesson you can draw from their lives.

That's, to me, akin to saying "the lives of novel characters are determined by the autors' whims, not by moral principle, regardless of what the character thinks determines their fate. There is, therefore, no moral lesson you can draw from their lives."

(I know published authors who used to cast doubt on the "determined by the authors' whims" part, so I don't subscribe to the above for even a minute. But it is a logical conclusion if we accept your approach).

Quote from: Zak S;979245The monsters don't obey the player's principles .

You can believe in whatever you want, if you end up in an owlbear's belly, it all came to nothing and Jesus didn't save you.

If you break your principles, and yet you still level up, Jesus didn't punish you.

Obviously, that was the divine plan all along!
(Or alternatively, it is a consequence of us having Free Will - we might deal with the owlbears, if we're prepared well enough, or fail to do so, if we fail to prepare well enough).

Quote from: Zak S;979256It's not clear in your question what sentence or idea the word "that" is referring to.

"That" is, undoubtedly, "Zak's line of reasoning".

Quote from: Zak S;979258If that logic extends to the whole of the game (as the explicitly Christian D&D competitors of the 80s attempted to do--i dunno if they succeeded) then the game then has a philosophy. I know of no extant D&D product where this is so, though.

So, "D&D is nihilistic", but Fate (and 2d20, arguably) embody the concept of cosmic balance - because for every bad thing that happens to you in those games, you can get a lucky break later:D?

That's a line of reasoning I'd expect from someone who was bashing D&D and trying to promote narrativist systems. Yes, I've read that logic already...on the Forge, in its early days.
I'm genuinely puzzled what you think you're achieving with basically repeating it.

Quote from: Zak S;979259Depending on which definition the dork meant, any given novel may or may not fit, because the novel is only definitely fiction, thus only fitting the second definition--and yes, the early history of the novel is rife with condemnation from moralizers for being, unlike devotional literature, nihilistic and moral-less. Like drama, the novel grew out of a secularization of what was once a group of moralizing art forms.

I haven't posted on the first page, so I assume "the dork" isn't referring to me. But FYI, I'm relating to the first definition you quoted - it's the one I usually mean when I refer to something as "nihilistic".
(And in some cases, I use it to refer to a Russian political movement from the 1860s, but I usually make it clear when that's the case. Now is not one of those cases).

Oh, and the moralizers were, of course, wrong;).

Quote from: Zak S;979256It's not clear in your question what sentence or idea the word "that" is referring to.

Classic evasion. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Dumarest;979322Classic evasion. :rolleyes:

What possible goal could I serve by pretending to not know what this one specific vague guy was talking about while answering everyone else's question you idiot?

What is there to evade saying here? It's not like there's some embarrassing scandal at the heart of "IS MAZE OF THE BLUE MEDUSA NIHILISTIC???"

It's not like these questions are hard to answer.

Especially because the writer can simply clarify their question and then OH NOES!! My clever evasion failed and now I have to answer them!!!!!!

Seek therapy.

Quote from: AsenRG;979292You did say "The life of a D&D character conforms to no religious or moral principles".
Life, for us, is what you make of the things given to you by a "setting" with way more randomizers than the average game. If the characters make it a lesson in following a moral code, then it is a lesson in following a moral code.

It's only a lesson if their eventual fate (death or success) conforms to some moral principle and/or the narrator pronounces a judgment on them that we need to be sympathetic to in order for it to work as intended.

Your paladin saves everyone: D&D is working as intended.

Your paladin gets bit by a rat and dies in a ditch at first level and everyone laughs: D&D is still working as intended.

QuoteYou got me here - I just assumed you don't have many Paladins in your games, and I shouldn't have;).

You assume a lot of bullshit. It wastes the time of everyone who is kind and generous enough to read what you write. You should ask questions before assuming things--especially if assuming them would require whoever you're talking to logically contradicting themself.

QuoteI'd say that's not what the "life" of the characters is. That's the mechanics governing the outcomes of said life.
But a Righteous Deed isn't any less so if it fails.

Just because a character or player thinks a deed is righteous doesn't mean the game agrees.

D&D is only moralizing if the game of D&D makes a judgment as to whether the deed is righteous and then declares the deed worthy in some way. There is no guarantee it will.

This is the question Is D&D nihilistic? Or moralizing?

It pronounces no judgment, in the vast majority of playstyles anyone honestly attests to, on the righteousness of actions. It is therefore nihilistic.

If your good deed guarantees you go to heaven, it would be moralizing. It isn't.

QuoteArguably, to the best of our knowledge, the fates of RL people don't depend on any ethical or moral philosophies.

That's because there is no god and life actually is meaningless and if you are smart and accept this then you might very well be called a nihilist.

QuoteAnd yet, if we follow them, we're not called "nihilistic".

Yes, because a person is not a fiction. A fiction's philosophy isn't drawn from what one of its characters do or believe, it's drawn from what the fiction does to them for believing it and whether that fate is approved by the narrator.

An obvious example of moralizing non-nihilistic fiction is Dante's Divine Comedy: The characters believe a wide variety of things. Some are punished, some are rewarded and it's al done in a way the author clearly approves of (or at least appears by most interpretations to approve of).

A player in D&D can try to live or play according to a moral principle, but the game and table won't necessarily reify it. So while you can say "Fred is a moralizing D&D player" it is inaccurate to say "D&D is itself moralizing".

QuoteThat's, to me, akin to saying "the lives of novel characters are determined by the autors' whims, not by moral principle, regardless of what the character thinks determines their fate. There is, therefore, no moral lesson you can draw from their lives."

No, you missed the incredibly, epically mind-bogglingly obvious:

A lone author can believe in a moral philosophy, like "Dolphins punish people who steal" and then.....they can write an ending where the person who steals is eaten by dolphins and the narrator goes "...and it was good they were eaten by dolphins, because that's the moral". In D&D you can't--that's the whole point. The PCs' destinies are not determinable by anyone except via a confluence of multiple authors and randomness. You read what happened to who and there is not going to be any moral cause and effect.

Any lesson D&D teaches will only ever be tactical, not moral.

QuoteSo, "D&D is nihilistic", but Fate (and 2d20, arguably) embody the concept of cosmic balance - because for every bad thing that happens to you in those games, you can get a lucky break later:D?

That's a line of reasoning I'd expect from someone who was bashing D&D and trying to promote narrativist systems. Yes, I've read that logic already...on the Forge, in its early days.
I'm genuinely puzzled what you think you're achieving with basically repeating it.

Narrative games were:

1. Specifically designed to copy the way "theme" works in 3-act drama. A PC's fate is often meant to be related to something that came up earlier. This can lead to the game enforcing a moral idea, as in Dogs In the Vineyard.

2. Designed by hippies.

...so they were, in some cases, right to say their games could preach a moral better than D&D.

They were just wrong to think of nihilism as a bad thing.

They thought this because they were hippies, that is: morons.

For example:

"
I realize I'm asking a classic story games newbie question: "My players keep pushing the game to be about killing monsters and taking their stuff, but I want it to be about philosophy and relationships and the things the Buddha taught! How can I trick them into playing how I want them to play?"
"
http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/18263/my-little-savages

A game is a party--parties shouldn't moralize, and aren't good at it when they try.

On the topic of the thread, rather than the sub-topics it spawned, all I can say is I am interested enough in this adventure that I would like to get it. I am intrigued by the formatting and layout - which is a rarity for me as usually I would never say I care about those things. But I don't care because almost all adventures use the same annoying formatting and layout. If this one improves on the standard, I am interested. In terms of content, I've always enjoyed this writer's ideas. Some are for me, others not, but there's always enough for me that I want to use it in my games where I can. A room where the shadows of the players become actual pits? My players would eat that up!

Quote from: Mistwell;979363On the topic of the thread, rather than the sub-topics it spawned, all I can say is I am interested enough in this adventure that I would like to get it. I am intrigued by the formatting and layout - which is a rarity for me as usually I would never say I care about those things. But I don't care because almost all adventures use the same annoying formatting and layout. If this one improves on the standard, I am interested. In terms of content, I've always enjoyed this writer's ideas. Some are for me, others not, but there's always enough for me that I want to use it in my games where I can. A room where the shadows of the players become actual pits? My players would eat that up!

When I run it, I actually have begun alternating between the existing random encounter table and this Bonus Vanilla One:

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2016/07/maze-of-vanilla-medusa.html


Bats

d100 bats. The AD&D rule for bats is there's a (# of bats)% chance of putting out torches. I think the Maze is a lot more interesting as a true resource-depleting dungeon, then when you run out of stuff you face the difficult choice of finding a hidden exit, finding a way past Lady Crucem Capelli or Mad Maxing supplies together from scraps and stolen equipment inside the dungeon.

Diseases are an option with bats but I kind of hate them in D&D because either you get rid of them and, yay, just made the cleric do a thing or you don't in which case you just hate your character for a while. Or they're "interesting" (now your piss is lobsters!) which is kind of a gonzo grotty zany Old School cliche.


Beholder

Not exactly a vanilla monster, but a standard one. Plus something where at least you know just how scary it is on sight, unlike all the other cryptic bosses hiding in the Maze. Or maybe it's just a gas spore. Maybe not wandering, maybe tucked away in one of the hidden rooms.


Arya Fucking Stark

Faceless assassin 13-year old. But who is she trying to kill? Maybe one of the statues? In which case how? And who is she pretending to be?


Blindheim

The frog so fucked looking you go blind is a good cascade-effect monster. Plus like did we do frogs? Don't think there's any frogs in there.


Carrion Crawler

Scavengers go wherever, right?


Drow

The drow are so fucking Maze. They'd be like shit who built this lit Maze we should kick it with them this is so #goals. We should kick it with them and turn them into weird spider hate cult friends underground. Whoever built this place must've read Vault of the Drow like...twice. Definitely that. And then they'd be like whaaat? Party of adventurers? You are asleep with our sleepy dust crossbows and we don't give a FUCK. Let's find something blue to touch until it's blaaaack and then resist 25% of all yr magic.


Goblin

Goblins are, as established, bad ideas. Going into the Maze is a bad idea. They'll talk backwards and try to steal art. Players will be like "Hah, idiots" and then the goblins will punch them and then what? The players punch them back but..wait, fuck, some of them are


Nilbogs

haha. Nilbogs get hit points when you hit them. Fucking read a Fiend Folio illiterates.


Lava children

Speaking of the Folio, just like "You hear a hissing sound down the corridor and smell sulfur". And a representative of WOTC is like "We decided it was inappropriate to have players murdering things that basically look like human children" and you'll be like "Yeah we're the OSR, you're lucky you have us, huh?" and then the players fail their Wis save and hug the babies and then scalding.


NPC party

NPC adventurers are like chickens, they're good with anything and they can replace you if you die. Tom Middenmurk's are the best.


Pudding

I can very easily see a chubby blanket of custardthick ooze like the unyellow part of a sunnyside egg scouring the lonesome smooth corridors. Color indicates resistance type: red= edged, blue=fire, etc. Standard biomedical approach to oozes: trial and error it until you get the right combo, then remember which is which. unless everyone who fought oozes last time is dead...


Rats

Rats start to look pretty tasty after all your food's been eaten by rats.



Wizard

In search of exotic stuff to put in stuff and do wizard stuff with. Probably the boss of like the goblins. Accompanied by 2 or 3 at all times.

I just literally got here and I have no idea what is going on in here, but I figured I'd leave my two cents here. I also did not know Zak S. posts on this forum. That's cool, and I hope the best for him.

As a fellow fan of old-school D&D, I agree with Zak that story games were a mistake, though he's a little harsh on the hippies.

I don't like hippies either, but at least they're not Goths or Punks. Hippies are less pretentious and malcontented, plus their music is better. I'll take Janis Joplin and Creedence Clearwater Revival over Sisters of Mercy and Type O Negative any day of the week.

TL;DR Anime Rules, Marvel and DC Suck. And much like Story Games and the whiny pretentious Goth kids at Onyx Path, Punk Rock was also a mistake. Sorry for those who like Punk, but all the pretentiousness within the modern punk scene combined with the fact that Goth spawned from Punk, I've grown to resent what Punk became. Goth was never good to begin with though. Shitty music, pretentious nihilism, and acting like emotionally masochistic malcontents while wearing guyliner and cutting yourself was never really my thing.

That's not to say Nihilism is inherently bad, because it isn't. But Nihilism only works when done right in a certain specific way. There is a time and a place for nihilism, but it must have some of kind of point or meaning to it.

I used to LARP with a bunch of stuck-up pretentious Goths and Punks, and I've never forgiven those subcultures since.

I think I'll go play my Classic D&D, if you need me, I'll be on the couch drinking Scotch and watching Sailor Moon.

I imagine when someone posts something like that they're really hoping 1000 new friends will be like omg we have the same taste  let's hang out.

Quote from: Zak S;979376I imagine when someone posts something like that they're really hoping 1000 new friends will be like omg we have the same taste  let's hang out.

Not really. I just really hate Goth and Punk things and felt like venting.

Ask anyone on this forum familiar with my posting history and they can confirm that my immense hatred of all things Goth and Punk is a hatred that knows no limit.

What a curious life to lead.

Quote from: Zak S;979385What a curious life to lead.

Um, okay....

You enjoy your life and I'll enjoy mine.

Goth chicks are sexy and I regret that when I was young and healthy I was all cool and aloof from subcultures like that instead of jumping in with both feet.

Hehe well said. :D

Quote from: Itachi;978134By the little I've heard of this it sounds terrific in a weird mythic planescapey way.

I've heard the comparison to Planescape twice now, but I haven't read what are the elements that are similar?

[FYI, I'm a Planescape fan and I like ZakS' work]


ZakS, what's your thoughts on the Maze of the Blue Medusa being compared to Planescape?

Was that an inspiration source?

Quote from: Doc Sammy;979375I used to LARP with a bunch of stuck-up pretentious Goths and Punks, and I've never forgiven those subcultures since.

Doc, the problem wasn't the Goths or the Punks. The problem was that you gamed with pretentious douche nuggets.

Pretentious douche nuggets can be found in any subculture. It's true that Goths had an unfortunate number of pretentious douche nuggets among the fandom, but I met some really fun Goths and gaming & partying with them was a blast.

Also, I am a confused about pretentious and punk in the same sentence. Is it an old school punk vs. new punk thing? I'm an Anthrax & Slayer fan since their first albums and in high school I hung with the metal/punk kids and "pretentious" wouldn't survive long in that scene.  BTW, early 80s had punkers and headbangers at same shows, bands of one genre opened for the other, etc.  Thus, the slam dance / mosh pits.

Quote from: RPGPundit;979214I think the description made in this thread of it as just 'slightly modified' is highly unfair. In its time, it was an absolutely revolutionary step in the OSR.  It's still way more revolutionary in terms of its mechanics than many other OSR rule-sets. It is pretty much the definition of 2nd wave OSR.

The changes in the rules change the whole way the game plays.

Have you reviewed the core book for Lamentation? If so, post a link. If not, email Raggi for a copy.

I read the PDF years ago and I don't remember seeing revolutionary rule changes, but I've never played LotFP so maybe I missed something major.

What are the revolutionary changes?

Why is it 2nd wave OSR? I though DCC was the poster child for that.

Or do you consider 1st wave to only be the direct retroclones like OSRIC, S&W, LL, etc?

Maze of the Blue Medusa is not written for Lamentations of the Flame Princess; it is a generic OSR publication. That being said, it can easily be dropped into any game where an island of cultists is occasionally invaded by groups of reptilian elitists that consider humans to be no better than slaves or food. This does fit quite well into the atmosphere of LotFP, which caters to adult tastes.

Anyone who wishes can download an art-free .pdf copy of LotFP and the Gamemasters book at no cost from RPGNow and assess the mechanics. This path bypasses any judgmental pontification from those who might not have actually played this system.

I have run LotFP games at conventions for years. It is mechanically elegant and fun. Anon!

Do not trust Ashen Chanterelle!

Welcome Lord Mhor!

Why did you pick LotFP among the various OSR games?

Do you feel its notably mechanically different than other OSR games or Old School D&D?

If so, how?

Let the judgmental pontification commence!

The encumbrance mechanics and spell lists are different. The Summon spell, available to magic-users at 1st level, takes up five pages and is worthy of study. The black powder weapons rules and early modern approach are a step away from the medieval standard of other systems. Spells are creepier. No fireballs. The annual Free RPG day publications are a nice touch as well.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;979375That's not to say Nihilism is inherently bad, because it isn't. But Nihilism only works when done right in a certain specific way. There is a time and a place for nihilism, but it must have some of kind of point or meaning to it.

Bwuh??

LOL :D

Quote from: Spinachcat;979440Have you reviewed the core book for Lamentation? If so, post a link. If not, email Raggi for a copy.

I read the PDF years ago and I don't remember seeing revolutionary rule changes, but I've never played LotFP so maybe I missed something major.

What are the revolutionary changes?

Why is it 2nd wave OSR? I though DCC was the poster child for that.

Or do you consider 1st wave to only be the direct retroclones like OSRIC, S&W, LL, etc?

Core book is available for free sans art.

Quote from: Spinachcat;979439ZakS, what's your thoughts on the Maze of the Blue Medusa being compared to Planescape?

Was that an inspiration source?

.

No.
To me Planescape just reads like "Hey: Neil Gaiman plus D&D planes".

But, yknow, Neil Gaiman was how--as a teenager--I found Thomas Pynchon and Maya Deren and a lot of other things I like better than Neil Gaiman so it's probably dishonest to say it was never ever an influence. I don't know about Patrick.

ZakS, do you feel comparisons to Planescape are valid for MotBM?

Or is it because both are considered "weird" fantasy vs. settings considered bog standard?

Also, what is your next project?

Quote from: Spinachcat;979440Have you reviewed the core book for Lamentation? If so, post a link. If not, email Raggi for a copy.

I don't think Pundit needs a review copy - he plays/played LotFP.

QuoteI read the PDF years ago and I don't remember seeing revolutionary rule changes, but I've never played LotFP so maybe I missed something major.

What are the revolutionary changes?

• The encumbrance rules. (I liked them immediately because they were very similar to the ones I use in my own heartbreaker.)
• The "skill system" is a logical application of another OD&D rule, the "1 in 6" roll. All actions (apart from combat, spells, or reactions - saves) are x in 6 rolls, for all characters, and only the Specialist (= thief class) can raise individual skills.
• Only fighters get better at combat. All other classes stay at their 1st level to hit chance.

Rules-wise it is one of the most elegant (house-ruled) clones available. I'd add in S&W's single save to make it my perfect version of D&D. (In fact, I did the reverse and added the skill system to my S&W version - the encumbrance was already in it.)

But the single best thing about LotFP is the organisation of the book(s), and the didactical structure. It is Mentzer perfected.
If only it wasn't written for the OSR crowd. With a different layout, art direction, theme, (and distribution...) it could be the best introductory RPG...

I like the LotFP ruleset but don't see encumbrance rules and other minor tweaks to fit the setting/playstyle 'revolutionary.' I also don't see it even remotely topping Mentzer as an introductory RPG.

Quote from: Spinachcat;979439I've heard the comparison to Planescape twice now, but I haven't read what are the elements that are similar?

[FYI, I'm a Planescape fan and I like ZakS' work]


ZakS, what's your thoughts on the Maze of the Blue Medusa being compared to Planescape?

Was that an inspiration source?




Doc, the problem wasn't the Goths or the Punks. The problem was that you gamed with pretentious douche nuggets.

Pretentious douche nuggets can be found in any subculture. It's true that Goths had an unfortunate number of pretentious douche nuggets among the fandom, but I met some really fun Goths and gaming & partying with them was a blast.

Also, I am a confused about pretentious and punk in the same sentence. Is it an old school punk vs. new punk thing? I'm an Anthrax & Slayer fan since their first albums and in high school I hung with the metal/punk kids and "pretentious" wouldn't survive long in that scene.  BTW, early 80s had punkers and headbangers at same shows, bands of one genre opened for the other, etc.  Thus, the slam dance / mosh pits.

I think it is a new vs. old thing. The new school punks I LARP'ed with hated metal and were very smug overall.

Yeah, Planescape seems to fit nicely with all Zak modules, from Vornhein to Red & Pleasant to Maze. A plane hopping crew from Sigil wouldn't feel out of place at all. I'm surprised it wasn't a direct inspiration.

Quote from: Spinachcat;979511ZakS, do you feel comparisons to Planescape are valid for MotBM?

If you were trying to describe the game to me--no. It would give me the mistaken impression it:

- was written in faux-dialect

-had far more whimsical art than it does

-movement was less physical

-more about magic portals and

-engaged ideas where different traditional mythic views of reality self-consciously existed in one multiverse.

But I don't need the module explained to me, I made it.

So: if someone's mind is divided up different than mine, then maybe "Planescape" is the nearest equivalent they can find. Maybe the "D&D" part of their mind is divided into "orc in a 10' room" "conan fighting a giant snake" and "weird things, like Planescape" in which case the Maze might seem more like the 3rd thing than the others.

For me, Maze is basically a vanilla D&D adventure with the bare minimum inventiveness I'd expect in a dungeon that large (as Vornheim was a vanilla fantasy city):

-There is a wide variety of monsters in the dungeon.

-It's really big.

-The design is nonlinear so you that you can end up doing the dungeon in any number of different ways.

-There are traps. These traps make sense considering who built them and what they were protecting.

-There are weird nonstandard tricks--these things are weird but they have a reason they're there. If all else fails its some kind of "test" and if even that fails then maybe it was designed by an insane wizard.

-There are enough traps that PCs look at every single thing in the dungeon sideways. Therefore every detail--even if harmless--is potentially important.

-The culture(s) that built the dungeon aren't the ones who live in it now (that's why there are traps and tricks guarding ancient hidden treasures rather than just guards in front of what amounts to a bank vault.)

-There is more than one intelligent faction living in the dungeon and controlling what goes on there (that's why 3-8 random adventurers have a chance of getting in and out--the enemy isn't inept, they just have to simultaneously deal with other shit besides you.) (That's also why there's more than one kind of trick and trap.)

-The whole dungeon functions together. A lever or key in location A can affect things that happen in location B. You have to go back sometimes to find these things.

-Dangerous features of the dungeon can be used against the dungeon inhabitants by clever PCS.

-The tricks and the traps alternate with monster fights but--more than that--they are integrated with monster fights so that they can work together. You never fight the same monster twice because environmental factors make a difference.

...many TSR and WOTC dungeons disappoint on these scores, but this is what I expect.

QuoteAlso, what is your next project?

I am currently working on a Patreon-funded crime/horror game built from scratch called Demon City:

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2017/03/demon-city.html

...and my most recent project for LotFP is in layout, and will probably be out before that, a wilderness crawl and wilderness-crawl kit titled either Black Metal Amazons of the Devoured Land or maybe just Frostbitten and Mutilated:

Previews:

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2015/03/amazons-of-devoured-land.html

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2017/02/paintings-black-metal-amazons-of.html

I waited for my toothache to get real bad before reading Zak's reply. As I expected, that was a good choice:).

Quote from: Zak S;979351It's only a lesson if their eventual fate (death or success) conforms to some moral principle and/or the narrator pronounces a judgment on them that we need to be sympathetic to in order for it to work as intended.

You can't draw lessons from things that weren't preached explicitly? Poor you.
Me, I don't need the lessons spelled, thank you;).

And that means that your example sucks, because it can easily be seen as conforming to a moral principle.

QuoteYour paladin saves everyone: D&D is working as intended.

Your paladin gets bit by a rat and dies in a ditch at first level and everyone laughs: D&D is still working as intended.

Paladin saves everyone: the moral lessons that can be drawn are numerous. Which one, if any, one does draw, is up to the players.

Paladin gets bitten by a rat and dies in a ditch: Was he trying to save people, avert some evil, or otherwise doing a Good Thing?

If yes, he died as a paladin should, and the moral lessons that can be drawn are numerous (and also, he went to the plane of Lawful Goodness, in many versions of D&D, so there's a moral pronouncement right there).

If not, he died pointlessly, and there are many moral lessons that could be drawn from that, too. Or maybe it was just a failure of the roleplaying part of the system (a.k.a. the player). But that's not D&D's fault.

QuoteYou assume a lot of bullshit. It wastes the time of everyone who is kind and generous enough to read what you write. You should ask questions before assuming things--especially if assuming them would require whoever you're talking to logically contradicting themself.

I also assumed positive stuff about you. Rest assured, you're doing your best now to dissipate those assumptions;).

QuoteJust because a character or player thinks a deed is righteous doesn't mean the game agrees.

Do you need the game to tell you whether a deed is righteous, or can you make moral judgements for yourself?

QuoteD&D is only moralizing if the game of D&D makes a judgment as to whether the deed is righteous and then declares the deed worthy in some way. There is no guarantee it will.

There's no guarantee it won't, either.
If the game makes the judgement, say by having the dead paladin go to The Heavens of Lawful Goodness, it did pronounce a sentence on it. And I'm not claiming all D&D games are not-nihilistic. I'm claiming your statement that D&D is inherently nihilistic is false.
(As an aside, I'm having lots of meta-fun right now, because I'm defending a system I don't really like against one of its better known proponents:D).

QuoteThis is the question Is D&D nihilistic? Or moralizing?

It pronounces no judgment, in the vast majority of playstyles anyone honestly attests to, on the righteousness of actions. It is therefore nihilistic.

"The vast majority of playstyles"=/=all playstyles".
If even one playstyle pronounces a judgement, the game is not nihilistic. It's the players that might make it so.

QuoteIf your good deed guarantees you go to heaven, it would be moralizing. It isn't.

It does guarantee that, if it's an alignment-changing deed.

QuoteThat's because there is no god and life actually is meaningless and if you are smart and accept this then you might very well be called a nihilist.

If you agree there's no god, you're an atheist, not nihilist. The conclusion that life is, therefore, actually meaningless, simply doesn't follow from this.

QuoteYes, because a person is not a fiction. A fiction's philosophy isn't drawn from what one of its characters do or believe, it's drawn from what the fiction does to them for believing it and whether that fate is approved by the narrator.

Actually, that might be disputed.
To me, a fiction's philosophy is drawn from what the reader sees in the fiction. And it might well be different for every person.

QuoteAn obvious example of moralizing non-nihilistic fiction is Dante's Divine Comedy: The characters believe a wide variety of things. Some are punished, some are rewarded and it's al done in a way the author clearly approves of (or at least appears by most interpretations to approve of).

And yet,

QuoteA player in D&D can try to live or play according to a moral principle, but the game and table won't necessarily reify it. So while you can say "Fred is a moralizing D&D player" it is inaccurate to say "D&D is itself moralizing".

But that's not what I'm saying. It's also not what I've been saying from the get-go. If you had been reading with as much attention you pretend to be paying, you'd have noticed that I admitted from the get-go that there are games and tables that wouldn't reify the principles Anton's character(s) are following.
But they might. And if they don't, it's their choice to not do so.

QuoteNo, you missed the incredibly, epically mind-bogglingly obvious:

A lone author can believe in a moral philosophy, like "Dolphins punish people who steal" and then.....they can write an ending where the person who steals is eaten by dolphins and the narrator goes "...and it was good they were eaten by dolphins, because that's the moral". In D&D you can't--that's the whole point. The PCs' destinies are not determinable by anyone except via a confluence of multiple authors and randomness. You read what happened to who and there is not going to be any moral cause and effect.

Oh please. If you can't imagine how you can make a principle like, say, "you will get what you give to your lessers" come into play, it's your fault for lacking imagination.
(Since we know you're not lacking in that department, I'm now - generously - assuming that you're either trolling, or just pretending you can't in order not to lose rhetorical points;)).

QuoteAny lesson D&D teaches will only ever be tactical, not moral.

On your table.

QuoteNarrative games were:

1. Specifically designed to copy the way "theme" works in 3-act drama. A PC's fate is often meant to be related to something that came up earlier. This can lead to the game enforcing a moral idea, as in Dogs In the Vineyard.

2. Designed by hippies.

...so they were, in some cases, right to say their games could preach a moral better than D&D.

...OK, thanks.
Hey, Internet? I got Zak S to agree with story-gamers! Yay?

(Just kidding, that's not actually an achievement. Now, maybe I should try it with Pundit...;))

QuoteThey were just wrong to think of nihilism as a bad thing.

Not really, but that goes beyond the scope of a debate about pretending to be a wizard. We also don't need to pronounce ourselves on the matter to decide whether a D&D game can be not-nihilistic, or not.

QuoteThey thought this because they were hippies, that is: morons.

Not all hippies were/are morons...but that's also beyond the scope of said debate.

QuoteFor example:

"
I realize I'm asking a classic story games newbie question: "My players keep pushing the game to be about killing monsters and taking their stuff, but I want it to be about philosophy and relationships and the things the Buddha taught! How can I trick them into playing how I want them to play?"
"
http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/18263/my-little-savages

OK, that's just funny:D!

QuoteA game is a party--parties shouldn't moralize, and aren't good at it when they try.

Well, we can at least agree on the parties.

[QUOTE="Doc Sammy;979381]Not really. I just really hate Goth and Punk things and felt like venting.

Ask anyone on this forum familiar with my posting history and they can confirm that my immense hatred of all things Goth and Punk is a hatred that knows no limit.[/QUOTE]
I can confirm your hatred of all things Goth and Punk knows no limits:D! Happy now?
Mind you, I'm not sharing your hatred.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;979388Goth chicks are sexy

I can confirm that, too...oh wait, you didn't ask for confirmation. My bad:p!

Quote from: AsenRG;979617You can't draw lessons from things that weren't preached explicitly? Poor you.

Irrelevant.

We're not talking about whether lessons can be drawn from D&D. We are addressing whether D&D is by nature intent on teaching them.

If you draw lessons that weren't explicit then it is you who are locating the moral, not D&D presenting it--that is, the game isn't moralizing, you are attempting to learn from experience.

An earthquake is not moralizing--but you can learn from it.

Before you move the goalposts again, I need to know if you grasp the logic of this.

Please answer before I continue.

If you aren't able to grasp this or at least address it, then you aren't intelligent enough to have a conversation with and I will stop talking to you.

I think Zak's point seems simple enough. There's nothing in D&D's mechanics or system that enforces a moral viewpoint and so the system could be considered 'nihilistic.'

I have read some of the evangelical criticisms of D&D and one was that the game was built on the assumption of killing monsters and collecting loot to gain greater and greater power. Obviously the XP system reinforces that. I know there is the argument that you were 'supposed' to avoid monsters and get the loot but I have serious doubts about how many people played D&D that way.

Of course the first thing people did when they got D&D was to play it in all kinds of ways beyond just hoovering up gold coins for XP.

But still the gold for XP mechanic could be argued to have a moral aspect, one in condradiction to the presence of the likes of the Cleric and Paladin. But so much of D&D was built ad hoc instead of some grand master plan that some seem to assume.

But what about alignment? This is something almost unique in D&D. There is no alignment in T&T, Runequest, Traveller or even CoC. Or any modern game I can think of. Does alignment even count as a 'mechanic' or it is more a setting, character or 'fluff' as it tends to have no mechanical effect. Except for those pesky Clerics and Paladins.

It's a subtle distinction to make, but I think D&D and many "traditional" games don't present a case that "existence and life are meaningless"; rather they're neutral on whether there's any meaning. I could imagine a game that positively reinforced the idea of meaninglesses, which is what I would call "nihilistic." By that definition, D&D isn't nihilistic.

Quote from: Zak S;979272Neither of those products are very thorough about enforcing that morality.

I didn't know it was about thoroughness now, but let's agree to disagree then, as this topic doesn't need any more distractions. I'm more interested in your product's module approach. :)

Quote from: Zak S;979272All the play reports about functionality have been basically ecstatic (google "actual play""blue medusa" there's blogs and at least one podcast, plus youtube vids), people like that stuff is repeated so they don't have to flip pages, they like that things are summarized then expanded, that all the creatures are summarized again in the back, and we use all the Vornheim tricks like not letting things spill from one spread to the next, etc.

Book beats pdf though, unfortunately as the book is now out of print and 100some$ on ebay.

My personal criticism is that, functionalitywise, some of the room descriptions are too long because Patrick had written some great stuff and I didn't want to cut it down (though I often rewrote stuff I didn't like). The Red & Pleasant Land format...

-Short Stuff
-With Bullet Points
-If the players do this statements like this in a separate bullet
-If the players do this other thing in another bullet point
-Then Stats

...is my ideal. But there's no point in co-writing with Patrick Stuart if you're not going to let the prose breathe. We did our best.

You'd be right to argue the pictures don't always tell you a lot about the rooms they're in, but on the other hand point to another 300 room dungeon with a picture for every room, and directly on the map.  If 1 out of 10 help you remember "oh THAT room" without having to reread the description then they did more than the pictures for any other megadungeon.

Thanks!

Did you get around to Regional Room Clusters setting a baseline connective description (a la Metroidvania regions, "The Kitchens," "The Clock Tower,") so as to save space for Specific Room features?

And were the rooms more Vornheim artistic visual snippets (in various perspectives, iirc) than architectural dimensions, which it sounds like, or a mixture of both? Basically, were you able to include more spatial content for such dependent GMs? (I'm not one, I actually loved your room's artistic visual snippets -- very Theater of the Mind supportive.)

And I know before you talked about the imperative of keying things directly onto the map, so as to avoid page flipping for reference. What text data did you prioritize, what was sacrificed, and what was compromised (like into an icon or part of room artwork)?

I want to take a look at it soon. Bryce of Tenfootpole found Patrick's prose splendid, evocative yet terse, in Deep Carbon Observatory. His excerpts were good, so I better understand your editorial pain.

If you had to hammer home Basic Best Practices module format lessons from your experience so far, what would be the primary five to ten goals?

ZakS, thank you for the breakdown.

Quote from: Zak S;979596I am currently working on a Patreon-funded crime/horror game built from scratch called Demon City:

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2017/03/demon-city.html

Are the PCs normal humans, enhanced humans or monsters themselves?

Quote from: Zak S;979596...and my most recent project for LotFP is in layout, and will probably be out before that, a wilderness crawl and wilderness-crawl kit titled either Black Metal Amazons of the Devoured Land or maybe just Frostbitten and Mutilated:

Previews:

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2015/03/amazons-of-devoured-land.html

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2017/02/paintings-black-metal-amazons-of.html

Excellent! I read the Devoured Land post years ago and hoped you'd develop it into a setting book. The Lychewives are fucked up scary.

QuoteDid you get around to Regional Room Clusters setting a baseline connective description (a la Metroidvania regions, "The Kitchens," "The Clock Tower,") so as to save space for Specific Room features?

Yes, but I actually think this could've been done slightly better because it's easy to slip between sections while exploring and it's annoying to have to reference the beginning of a section in order to see what else you're missing (the color coded page edges help tho). It's not a huge problem bc there's not that much meta-info, but next time it's a place to find a more user-friendly solution.

QuoteAnd were the rooms more Vornheim artistic visual snippets (in various perspectives, iirc) than architectural dimensions, which it sounds like, or a mixture of both? Basically, were you able to include more spatial content for such dependent GMs? (I'm not one, I actually loved your room's artistic visual snippets -- very Theater of the Mind supportive.)

Both Vornheim and Maze have accurate length & width dimensions drawn, it's just that instead of a bunch of squares inside the room or a bird's eye view, the room has a picture of what's in it inside.

QuoteAnd I know before you talked about the imperative of keying things directly onto the map, so as to avoid page flipping for reference. What text data did you prioritize, what was sacrificed, and what was compromised (like into an icon or part of room artwork)?

I wrote a description on the map that generalized but fit, so GM's knew which rooms would be more complex to prepare. So "Trap", "Sculpture", "Trappish sculpture", "Caged Fairy" etc.

QuoteIf you had to hammer home Basic Best Practices module format lessons from your experience so far, what would be the primary five to ten goals?

Same as the big dungeons in Red & Pleasant:

-Bullet point descriptions
-Use mini excerpts of the maps on the page with the descriptions for each
-Never let a room description spill past one spread
-Put the name of the room on the goddamn map
-Write "If the PCs..." statements as separate paragraphs so GMs can skip them if PCs don't do that
-Use color to make things clearer

Quote from: Spinachcat;979695ZakS, thank you for the breakdown.

Are the PCs normal humans, enhanced humans or monsters themselves?

They're normal humans (like True Detective) EXCEPT--one PC per group can opt to be the "problem"--that is, someone who is developing horror-movie style powers. The details are in the links under character generation.

QuoteExcellent! I read the Devoured Land post years ago and hoped you'd develop it into a setting book. The Lychewives are fucked up scary.

Well, they're on their way.

Quote from: Zak S;979703-Bullet point descriptions
-Use mini excerpts of the maps on the page with the descriptions for each
-Never let a room description spill past one spread
-Put the name of the room on the goddamn map
-Write "If the PCs..." statements as separate paragraphs so GMs can skip them if PCs don't do that
-Use color to make things clearer

IE: it's a reference work for the DM to run the game. So many folks just don't get that.

Hurdle 1: is the adventure actually a reference work to help me run the game?
Hurdle 2: is the stuff in it actually any good?

If those two criteria had separate score, Blue Medusa would be near the top in both categories, with most adventures failing miserably at even hurdle one. It's the combination of reference work and good stuff in it that justifies its praise.


Time to start digging in to GenCon to see whose gonna be there this year.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;979721IE: it's a reference work for the DM to run the game. So many folks just don't get that.

I agree. These days, I run a dozen+ games a year at conventions. When I'm standing in front of ten people who paid to be there and look down for a reminder of what's in a room, I don't want to labor through 12 sentences of bad fiction (usually useless trivia) followed by an ""Oh, also, there's a monster here." Ideally, the map itself has something to jog my memory (word, picture) and then the text lists first anything in the room that's immediately important to the PCs - strange creatures doing X, the obvious clue to a deadly trap, etc. If there are some important details that connect to the broader scenario, but are not immediate to resolving the party's entrance to the room, for the love of god, put that last. I also don't need lists of mundane items particular to a generic room type (kitchen, bunk room, etc). I can make that shit up in a millisecond.

Quote from: Voros;979650I think Zak's point seems simple enough. There's nothing in D&D's mechanics or system that enforces a moral viewpoint and so the system could be considered 'nihilistic.'

Unfortunately Nihilistic as an adjective states that it is belief system. One that rejects religious or moral principles. In contrast Nihilism as a philosophical concept has multiple facets including one Zak has been accurately point to Asen. If was me I would avoid the use use of Nihilistic and Nihilism in this content and just use the exact definition even though it longer to write out.

My view is that D&D isn't about any religious or moral view point. If there is one it is because the referee and/or player baked it into their campaign. The game itself just describes elements one could use in a fantasy campaign using it rules. Even the those RPGs that adopt a specific viewpoint (like the Christian RPGs of the 80s) can't get away from this. All they do is make it more work for the referee to other things with that particular game.

The reason they can't away from this Dave Arneson's discovery that playing a individual character in a campaign that focuses on that turned the whole exercise from something where you are trying to beat an opponent or achieve some victory condition into something more. Turned it into something that is more about the experience of being X and doing Y. And experiences are in of themselves morally neutral it is the people involved that infuses it with any sense (or lack of) of morality. RPGs are a toolkit for a referee to craft something for his players to experience.

The only way to escape this aspect of RPG is to turn it into a completely different game. Which often reverts it back to being a form of wargame where you are trying to achieve victory conditions in this case whatever moral principle the designer has baked into the rules.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;979721IE: it's a reference work for the DM to run the game. So many folks just don't get that.

Hurdle 1: is the adventure actually a reference work to help me run the game?
Hurdle 2: is the stuff in it actually any good?

If those two criteria had separate score, Blue Medusa would be near the top in both categories, with most adventures failing miserably at even hurdle one. It's the combination of reference work and good stuff in it that justifies its praise.

Yup, which is why Zak's work deserves the praise it gets and is worth looking at even if the type of adventure it depicts is not to one's taste. I followed my own ideas in this regard with Scourge of the Demon Wolf and it is the main reason why I segregated into two sections. One focused solely on the adventure and the other a supplement to make the book useful beyond the initial adventure.

BTW MoftBM is just $5 in pdf so if you're wondering about it just take a look.

Quote from: Voros;979875BTW MoftBM is just $5 in pdf so if you're wondering about it just take a look.

I recommend double-page view while DMing if you do use it, and print out the spreads on the "endpapers".

Thanks for replying!

Quote from: Zak S;979703Yes, but I actually think this could've been done slightly better because it's easy to slip between sections while exploring and it's annoying to have to reference the beginning of a section in order to see what else you're missing (the color coded page edges help tho). It's not a huge problem bc there's not that much meta-info, but next time it's a place to find a more user-friendly solution.

I like the color-coded pages (but I have a comment on that later). What about 'transitional areas', like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night using 'loading hallway' areas or a 'connecting secret passage' distinct from both regions? I already hear it in my head as a touch meta-, and it might cause headache to have unassociated rooms, but it's been a past video game solution. I know, crossing media doesn't always translate well, yet as an experiment?

Quote from: Zak S;979703I wrote a description on the map that generalized but fit, so GM's knew which rooms would be more complex to prepare. So "Trap", "Sculpture", "Trappish sculpture", "Caged Fairy" etc.

This'll be associated to my color comment: how "aging eyes" friendly do you work? There's condensing information, but as you allude more complex rooms would activate more tags. I'm assuming font limit of 10? At what point do you avoid it overlapping into the art? Do you find switching font colors accordingly necessary so as the Room Tags stick out?

Basically, what sort of tension is there between on-map room tagging and accessibility?

Quote from: Zak S;979703Same as the big dungeons in Red & Pleasant:

-Bullet point descriptions
-Use mini excerpts of the maps on the page with the descriptions for each
-Never let a room description spill past one spread
-Put the name of the room on the goddamn map
-Write "If the PCs..." statements as separate paragraphs so GMs can skip them if PCs don't do that
-Use color to make things clearer

I dig bulleted If/then statements for room triggers. When you mini-map-excerpt I assume you naturally remove room tagged text within its image, yes.

"Never let a room description spill past one spread," that means spill-over a page? Now do you find it better to write out and image the product first, then return to spill-over spreads and condense, or try line count limits per described room? I'd imagine the former as you say it is better to let the prose breathe.

And to color, again the accessibility issue. As an artist with an eye to referenceable work, what sort of considerations do you make for the color-blind? Anything that people tend to overlook that you found as an obvious solution from your art instruction? (e.g. don't pair yellow-purples, red-greens, etc. when tagging color references, etc.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;979891What about 'transitional areas', like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night using 'loading hallway' areas or a 'connecting secret passage' distinct from both regions? I already hear it in my head as a touch meta-, and it might cause headache to have unassociated rooms, but it's been a past video game solution. I know, crossing media doesn't always translate well, yet as an experiment?

That doesn't seem to in any way address the graphic design problem.

The rooms are gonna be laid out the way they're laid out. Creating chokepoints just to make the transition between sections clear only makes sense in certain kinds of dungeons and this isn't one of them. The next one? It will have all new problems after it is thought up.

QuoteThis'll be associated to my color comment: how "aging eyes" friendly do you work?

Not very. I make things as convenient as possible for me personally and assume somewhere there's other people who want what I want and if they feel like buying it, great. I do assume old people can zoom in on the pdf.

QuoteI'm assuming font limit of 10?

nope

QuoteAt what point do you avoid it overlapping into the art?

never think about it

QuoteDo you find switching font colors accordingly necessary so as the Room Tags stick out?

Depends on the product.

QuoteBasically, what sort of tension is there between on-map room tagging and accessibility?

None. To me on-map tagging is accessibility.

QuoteI dig bulleted If/then statements for room triggers. When you mini-map-excerpt I assume you naturally remove room tagged text within its image, yes.

I don't know what that means. It might be easier just to look at a preview.

Quote"Never let a room description spill past one spread," that means spill-over a page?

No, a spread--a spread is 2 facing pages.

QuoteNow do you find it better to write out and image the product first, then return to spill-over spreads and condense, or try line count limits per described room?

You almost never have to rewrite a room description to fit on a spread--spreads are huge. The only time a room description could go past a spread is the information design or graphic design is lazy. If it came to it, though, I would re-word after the fact.

QuoteAnd to color, again the accessibility issue. As an artist with an eye to referenceable work, what sort of considerations do you make for the color-blind? Anything that people tend to overlook that you found as an obvious solution from your art instruction? (e.g. don't pair yellow-purples, red-greens, etc. when tagging color references, etc.)

None at all. As I said: the primary audience is me. I have no objection to other people making it more accessible (like the graphic designer or publisher), but if it's at the expense of something that makes it useful to me I don't do it.

Quote from: Zak S;979624Irrelevant.

We're not talking about whether lessons can be drawn from D&D. We are addressing whether D&D is by nature intent on teaching them.

If they're part of the system, as you claim, then yes - I'd say it's intent on teaching them. Systems are one of the most analyzed parts of any game.
Opinions on the intent can, however, differ.

QuoteIf you draw lessons that weren't explicit then it is you who are locating the moral, not D&D presenting it--that is, the game isn't moralizing, you are attempting to learn from experience.

Of course I am, who doesn't?
Then again, the game is, to me, comprised of not only system, but also a setting, and specific characters.
And even within the system of D&D, there's a number of mechanics which almost scream "things have meaning".
Like, unless I'm mistaken, four of the "first" core classes had alignment restrictions (Paladin, Druid, Ranger, Cleric - though I admit I'm not sure if the Ranger was Good before 2e, and the Cleric had more of a behavioural restriction to "do what pleases thy deity" that maybe many GMs had neglected). An obvious conclusion might be that following a particular philosophy makes you more powerful.

QuoteAn earthquake is not moralizing--but you can learn from it.

Before you move the goalposts again, I need to know if you grasp the logic of this.

Please answer before I continue.

That logic is something that I pointed out in my previous post. Do you really expect me to disagree:)?

Your mistake, however, is in assuming that the lack of a "divine hand acknowledging a particular philosophy" is to be taken as "your philosophy is assumed to not matter". It, putting it simply, doesn't follow.

QuoteIf you aren't able to grasp this or at least address it, then you aren't intelligent enough to have a conversation with and I will stop talking to you.

Whaddayamean?
Also, if you plan to continue, I'd urge you to start a separate thread - something like "the morality of D&D".

Quote from: estar;979733Unfortunately Nihilistic as an adjective states that it is belief system. One that rejects religious or moral principles.

Yes. The absence of explicit beliefs isn't nihilism;).
Hence my question from the start of the thread, which was "ince when does D&D come pre-packaged with a philosophy?"

Quote from: AsenRG;979954Opinions on the intent can, however, differ.

Only what can be proven matters.

QuoteAnd even within the system of D&D, there's a number of mechanics which almost scream "things have meaning".
Like, unless I'm mistaken, four of the "first" core classes had alignment restrictions (Paladin, Druid, Ranger, Cleric - though I admit I'm not sure if the Ranger was Good before 2e, and the Cleric had more of a behavioural restriction to "do what pleases thy deity" that maybe many GMs had neglected). An obvious conclusion might be that following a particular philosophy makes you more powerful.

So if 2 PCs follow different mutually-exclusive philosophies, which philosophy is D&D "teaching"?

Quote from: Zak S;979958Only what can be proven matters.

So, pretty much nothing matters, at least when it comes to D&D:).

QuoteSo if 2 PCs follow different mutually-exclusive philosophies, which philosophy is D&D "teaching"?

That having a philosophy is more important than what exactly it is;). Call it "the power of will", if you want a fancy name.

P.S.: Indeed, one can speculate that this is what separates PCs from the guys in the Monster Manual, which don't have PC classes, for the most part. A PC is always striving to achieve something, whether this "something" is the PC getting richer, or the PC proving his philosophy by deeds and force of arms.
But if we accept the Fighting Man as the paragon of the "getting richer", and the Paladin as the paragon of "imposing your philosophy", it's obvious which one gets additional powers for following his goals.

Quote from: AsenRG;979959That having a philosophy is more important than what exactly it is;).

So if a PC without a philosophy and one with are both in the party (as is standard), which philosophy is D&D "teaching"?

Quote from: AsenRG;979954Yes. The absence of explicit beliefs isn't nihilism;).

People talking about Nihilism as a doctrine or concept sometime use the word to refer to things that has no inherent belief or philosophy. Reading over your exchanges either you don't know about this or you are deliberately trying keep a intellectual slapping contest going for entertainment.

Unless

Quote from: AsenRG;979954Hence my question from the start of the thread, which was "ince when does D&D come pre-packaged with a philosophy?"

It doesn't. It only has the meaning that a referee and/or a group of players give it. A RPG is just a tool for a referee to use during a campaign. The point of the hobby is to play a RPG campaign. A group may enjoy a campaign better if it uses a specific set of rules, but it doesn't change the point of the exercise.

Nor does a given set of rules predetermine what a given campaign is about. The referee does that when he prepares it before the first session. The rules just makes it easier or harder for the referee to adjudicate things that the players want or not want to do. D&D has a lot of tools to adjudicate a campaign using the fantasy genre with a setting that is a maze with rooms filled with monster and treasure. If you want to use D&D to run a setting about human leaving earth in the 24th century to explore a galaxy dotted with ruins left behind by an extinct advanced dinosaur civilization from 65 million years ago. Then you have way more work to do compared to Traveller.

Quote from: Zak S;979960So if a PC without a philosophy and one with are both in the party (as is standard), which philosophy is D&D "teaching"?

The edit of my previous post should answer that.

Also, you do realize that we've got a countdown until Gronan appears and tells us we're both overthinking it and that D&D is just a silly game, right? And silly games teach neither nihilism nor any beliefs that Gygax, presumable, was holding.

Quote from: AsenRG;979962if we accept the Fighting Man as the paragon of the "getting richer", and the Paladin as the paragon of "imposing your philosophy", it's obvious which one gets additional powers for following his goals.

The paladin is more powerful in AD&D but does not exist in 0D&D or basic and is about the same amount of powerful in post-WOTC D&D so explain how this could be proven for other editions.

Quote from: Zak S;979964The paladin is more powerful in AD&D but does not exist in 0D&D or basic and is about the same amount of powerful in post-WOTC D&D so explain how this could be proven for other editions.

Does too. I added Paladins to my OD&D game more than three decades ago, as well as Anti-Paladins, as well as the Cavalier class from Dragon magazine #72. We write up our own character classes,  as well as variants of existing character classes, and we always have. You really should live to enjoy the wails of anguish from the by-the-book AD&D and edition fanatic GMs when you introduce your homebrew custom characters into a regular game.

Quote from: GameDaddy;979984Does too. I added Paladins to my OD&D game more than three decades ago, as well as Anti-Paladins, as well as the Cavalier class from Dragon magazine #72. We write up our own character classes,  as well as variants of existing character classes, and we always have. You really should live to enjoy the wails of anguish from the by-the-book AD&D and edition fanatic GMs when you introduce your homebrew custom characters into a regular game.

I meant the published LBBs, I assumed that was obvious.

Anyway the point still stands

Paladins don't work the way ASen describes in all editions and they are the only evidence for his POV so  he needs to address that for his point to be true.

Quote from: Zak S;979964The paladin is more powerful in AD&D but does not exist in 0D&D or basic and is about the same amount of powerful in post-WOTC D&D so explain how this could be proven for other editions.

You are not accurate in regards to OD&D. Paladins were added in the Greyhawk supplement page 8.

As a further note  OD&D had this on page 7 of Men & Magic

QuoteNote that Clerics of 7th level and greater are either "Law" or "Chaos," and there is a sharp distinction between them. If a Patriarch receiving the above benefits changes sides, all the benefits will immediately be removed!

Not saying this support any particular argument in this thread. As stated earlier my view that it not the game rules but what the referee and players do with the campaign that infuse any type of larger meaning if it present at all.

The whole Law, Chaos, Neutral thing in OD&D had it roots in Arneson's Blackmoor campaign where there were two broad groups of players who were rivals. One on the side of Law and the other on the side of Chaos. The neutral guys could be wooed to either side throughout the course of the campaign. As the focus shifted more toward individual adventures namely the exploration of the Blackmoor dungeons and other place, it my impression that all the player became Law or Neutral and Chaos the realm of the NPCs. In the Greyhawk campaign players screwed each other over at times but it seemed they were technically all on the same side. This is something Gronan can shed more light on.

Quote from: estar;980001You are not accurate in regards to OD&D. Paladins were added in the Greyhawk supplement page 8.

To repeat myself

"I meant the published LBBs, I assumed that was obvious."

The 3 original books--they had 3 classes: cleric, mu, fighter. Men and Magic page 6.

Meaning: You can play many published versions of D&D without the specific iteration of the paladin that Asen claims supports his argument (and is apparently the only thing that does) including the original one that first existed when the game began, the current one and several in-between.

Like you said, the cleric thing is irrelevant to Asen being wrong.

Quote from: Zak S;980010To repeat myself

"I meant the published LBBs, I assumed that was obvious."

The 3 original books--they had 3 classes: cleric, mu, fighter. Men and Magic page 6.

Meaning: You can play many published versions of D&D without the specific iteration of the paladin that Asen claims supports his argument (and is apparently the only thing that does) including the original one that first existed when the game began, the current one and several in-between.

Like you said, the cleric thing is irrelevant to Asen being wrong.

I mentioned Law, Chaos, and Cleric because that can be considered an assumption of even the core books of OD&D. Unlike the paladin that is something present through all the various classic editions. Just like people assume D&D about dungeon crawling because every classic edition has extensive rule on running dungeons. You say that the rules are not about any type of belief and end it there. But don't address the fact that Gygax did bake in a very loose setting when he wrote the core rules. One that reflects his experience running the Greyhawk campaign. To be complete Gygax did say in several places in the 3LBBs that it is a framework to be used as a foundation for one's own campaign as well including stuff like a Barsoom encounter table.

Asen is wrong because it doesn't matter what the rules try to say or not say. The focus of what we do is to play a RPG campaign not a particular set of RPG rules. What a campaign is about or not about rest solely on the shoulder of the referee and the players. The rules are irrelevant in this regard. At best they make running a certain kind of campaign easier by offering explicit support. But anything that doesn't support the referee's vision can be jettisoned without the thing breaking. That the flaw in Asen argument that even matter that the rules were written with a point of view or not.

Quote from: estar;980014I mentioned Law, Chaos, and Cleric because that can be considered an assumption of even the core books of OD&D. Unlike the paladin that is something present through all the various classic editions. Just like people assume D&D about dungeon crawling because every classic edition has extensive rule on running dungeons. You say that the rules are not about any type of belief and end it there. But don't address the fact that Gygax did bake in a very loose setting when he wrote the core rules. One that reflects his experience running the Greyhawk campaign. To be complete Gygax did say in several places in the 3LBBs that it is a framework to be used as a foundation for one's own campaign as well including stuff like a Barsoom encounter table.

Asen is wrong because it doesn't matter what the rules try to say or not say. The focus of what we do is to play a RPG campaign not a particular set of RPG rules. What a campaign is about or not about rest solely on the shoulder of the referee and the players. The rules are irrelevant in this regard. At best they make running a certain kind of campaign easier by offering explicit support. But anything that doesn't support the referee's vision can be jettisoned without the thing breaking. That the flaw in Asen argument that even matter that the rules were written with a point of view or not.

Either way he's wrong. That's what's important.

So a useful takeaway would be create with your art in mind first, leave graphic design and publishing details to theirs. Thanks! :)

Quote from: Voros;979650I think Zak's point seems simple enough. There's nothing in D&D's mechanics or system that enforces a moral viewpoint and so the system could be considered 'nihilistic.'

Uuummm..... no, sorry. The mechanics of alignment very much enforces a moral viewpoint... So nihilism was deliberately not included as a major choice, at least as an initial choice, in D&D. One is either Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic or some combination thereof, on a sliding scale, of course.

The first time I saw someone trying to measure this "sliding scale" is with the Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets.  In it, they have a Characters Checklist which is actually a character sheet for up to ten characters at once, on one page. Now in addition to having statblocks for ten characters, there is a procedure to roll alignment just like any other attribute because Bob Bledsaw setup his games where you didn't get to pick your alignment, but you had to "roleplay" the alignment of the character that you rolled up.

There is another thread on this board where I included an interview with Bob Bledsaw Jr. recently, and he specifically said that in the early days (that would be 74-76 for the Judges Guild Original Campaign) That Bob, and Gary, and Dave Arneson were pretty much churchgoing people whose goals were always trying to provide moral lessons, in the D&D games they played. One of the interesting things that Bob Bledsaw Jr. mentioned about Bobs early campaign is that Bob had this fearsome Demon that relentlessly hunt players that stole or gained treasure in some evil way (such as backstabbing a fellow player).

Early on, when we played D&D, it didn't occur to us to deliberately test the limits of alignment, and we consciously tried to play our characters as close to the alignment as we could, in the spirit of following the alignment rules of the game. It was only later, in the late 70's that we started pushing the limits where players would test how far their "paladin" could go, before the Paladin would lose Paladinhood status and all the extra benefits and privileges that were conferred to the player playing the Paladin.

The alignment system was defined with the very first commercially published iteration to setup a framework to so that moral viewpoints could be included in the game. This was no accident.

Quote from: GameDaddy;980048The alignment system was defined with the very first commercially published iteration to setup a framework to so that moral viewpoints could be included in the game. This was no accident.

I disagree, it was little more than a faction system.

Quote from: GameDaddy;980048Uuummm..... no, sorry. The mechanics of alignment very much enforces a moral viewpoint... So nihilism was deliberately not included as a major choice, at least as an initial choice, in D&D. One is either Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic or some combination thereof, on a sliding scale, of course.

Except it doesn't really, what is Law? Neutrality? Chaos? The letters pages of early Dragon magazines and onwards are peppered with people disagreeing over their exact meaning. All it meant in OD&D is that Law are the good guys likely to help the PCs, Chaos are the bad guys out to get the PCs and neutral are folk you hope to enlist on your side but they may just work for the other side as well. There no grand statement other than that and can be easily ignored without breaking the game. Then there is the whole alignments as personality trait angle that AD&D has a heavy dose of.

Of course there were campaigns that had strong viewpoints however that because the referee and not the rules made them that way.

Quote from: GameDaddy;980048There is another thread on this board where I included an interview with Bob Bledsaw Jr. recently, and he specifically said that in the early days (that would be 74-76 for the Judges Guild Original Campaign) That Bob, and Gary, and Dave Arneson were pretty much churchgoing people whose goals were always trying to provide moral lessons, in the D&D games they played. One of the interesting things that Bob Bledsaw Jr. mentioned about Bobs early campaign is that Bob had this fearsome Demon that relentlessly hunt players that stole or gained treasure in some evil way (such as backstabbing a fellow player).

Sure but it resulted from how they decided to run their campaign not the rules they used. If a referee wanted to chart alignment drift then Bob Bledsaw had you covered with the Ready Ref sheet as you mentioned.

The rules reflected some of that however the resulting alignment debates, that are still on-going after 40 years, demonstrates that it was written with such a light touch that what it means is up to the referee.

It doesn't matter if characters with beliefs are in the game.

The game doesn't guarantee their beliefs accurately reflect reality by changing their fate to reflect those beliefs.

The law guy can die in a ditch while the chaos guy wins and vice versa or they can both or neither. There is no metaphysical enforcement or simulation thereof.

So: if there's a lesson in any of that, the game does not try to teach it. And, as reiterated, if the argument is paladins get powers for belief, it's not a rational arguments since they are not always (A) part of the game and (b) always more powerful in editions where they do appear.

Quote from: Itachi;978134By the little I've heard of this it sounds terrific in a weird mythic planescapey way.

So tell me more! Anyone played or read it? What your thoughts?

Most D&D modules are embarrassing on nearly every level: lazy art, lazy writing, bad design, bad ideas.

MotBM is not even a little bit lazy or embarrassing. It is a solid, serious attempt at doing something new and interesting with a bigass dungeon. It's extraordinarily useful and usable; it has an aesthetic, and was created with fanatical attention to detail. These are admirable traits, quite distinct from whether you like the book/dungeon itself.

It places Zak and Patrick's preoccupations and tics on display. If you don't respond well to those, you will likely feel irritated by the book, which is long. If you defocus a bit they run together into a 'unique creative vision' which is a rare thing in RPGs.

The book also puts Zak's art front and center, and that works in an odd way: the keyed 'region' maps accentuate the taxonomic/infographic vibe that Zak often goes for, so they come off really well (like exactly what I'd want from a keyed dungeon-area map), but the individual monsters and more abstract single rooms seem less impressive or beautiful out of context, where they can't just suggest a hidden weird order beneath visual chaos but have to be, so to speak, the whole show. So e.g. on pp104-105, the Lampen Proletarian and History Golem are nearly undifferentiated squiggles when removed from the dungeon itself and placed next to the room descriptions, but in the busy regional context they're actually *more* visually distinct. It's a funny old world.

That's not an indictment of their approach; it's good that each room has an individual visual identity or bookmark. Only an observation about the book, and a reminder that you haven't seen the Maze until you've seen a full-size scan (http://satyr.press/motbm.jpg) of the original painting.

Patrick's a funny writer (room 195: 'The Bar. Finally.') and, as he points out, given more to sentimentality than Zak is; there's a sad love story at the center of the dungeon, and a strain of fucked romance woven in. His work seems both lively and lonely; I find it sweet.

The book is a beautiful artifact. The PDF is a good PDF. Few will actually play through the dungeon. You should read the book all the same, and as with Raggi's work, you should support attempts to make RPG art of this scale and commitment.

Quote from: stuffis;980120Most D&D modules are embarrassing on nearly every level: lazy art, lazy writing, bad design, bad ideas.

MotBM is not even a little bit lazy or embarrassing. It is a solid, serious attempt at doing something new and interesting with a bigass dungeon. It's extraordinarily useful and usable; it has an aesthetic, and was created with fanatical attention to detail. These are admirable traits, quite distinct from whether you like the book/dungeon itself.

It places Zak and Patrick's preoccupations and tics on display. If you don't respond well to those, you will likely feel irritated by the book, which is long. If you defocus a bit they run together into a 'unique creative vision' which is a rare thing in RPGs.

The book also puts Zak's art front and center, and that works in an odd way: the keyed 'region' maps accentuate the taxonomic/infographic vibe that Zak often goes for, so they come off really well (like exactly what I'd want from a keyed dungeon-area map), but the individual monsters and more abstract single rooms seem less impressive or beautiful out of context, where they can't just suggest a hidden weird order beneath visual chaos but have to be, so to speak, the whole show. So e.g. on pp104-105, the Lampen Proletarian and History Golem are nearly undifferentiated squiggles when removed from the dungeon itself and placed next to the room descriptions, but in the busy regional context they're actually *more* visually distinct. It's a funny old world.

That's not an indictment of their approach; it's good that each room has an individual visual identity or bookmark. Only an observation about the book, and a reminder that you haven't seen the Maze until you've seen a full-size scan (http://satyr.press/motbm.jpg) of the original painting.

Patrick's a funny writer (room 195: 'The Bar. Finally.') and, as he points out, given more to sentimentality than Zak is; there's a sad love story at the center of the dungeon, and a strain of fucked romance woven in. His work seems both lively and lonely; I find it sweet.

The book is a beautiful artifact. The PDF is a good PDF. Few will actually play through the dungeon. You should read the book all the same, and as with Raggi's work, you should support attempts to make RPG art of this scale and commitment.

Thanks!

QuoteFew will actually play through the dungeon.

Data point: after 8 years, google searching "stonehell""actual play" gets 11,000 hits, that's 1375 per year it's been out.

After 1 year of publication, "actual play""blue medusa" gets 752 hits, so about half the rate of Stonehell so far.

And if you narrow the search to just hits for "actual play""Stonehell" in 'Hell's first year of publication, Blue Medusa has far more hits.

So, y'know, people are playing it. I know because they keep sending me mail.

MotBM question: No normal doors appear to connect rooms (227 Ancient Spell Against Light & Shadow/228 Ghastly Sump) to the rest of the maze. Was the intent to only have character access to these through mishaps like dropping into the darkness from rooms (3 Starlit Stones/245 Vortex)? Thanks!

Quote from: lordmhor;981199MotBM question: No normal doors appear to connect rooms (227 Ancient Spell Against Light & Shadow/228 Ghastly Sump) to the rest of the maze. Was the intent to only have character access to these through mishaps like dropping into the darkness from rooms (3 Starlit Stones/245 Vortex)? Thanks!

From AskFM (https://ask.fm/TheActualZakSmith):

Yeah--there's that plus when the walls start crumbling post-medusa. Also various kinds of magic like passwall and disintegrate.

The room to the northwest is large and circular, so the void should be pretty obvious to careful mappers.

I love Maze of the blue Medusa!
At first, I thought it was pretentious, especially whith all the talk about how it was 'Art'. But indeed, that is exactly what it is: A Megadungeon about art on several layers. That is it is openly about art via the Gallery, then the level of the actual real-world piece of art by Zak, all the references to the faults and fancies of "the" art scene.

So not pretentious, it really is about art and contains actual art.

Now, the question whether it is RPG-art, I have a two-fold answer:

In the case of the actual adventure experience: it is inspiring and solid. Not art, but utilitarian, well thought out dungeon fare. Is the writing, the story high art? No it is not. It is not literature. There are shallow and deep thoughts intermixed haphazardly and not engaging enough to be truly compared to true literary art. Reading it did never tingle my humanity beyond the point of good quality pop-culture.

But.

The way the rooms are composed and written up. That is a new way of expressing adventure gaming content. And it is so well composed that I several times went: "huh, that's what it would look like if you tried to write a dungeon in the way a poem (or bunch of lines in rap music) works!"
And it does that sooo well.
It is groundbreaking for the way Dungeon products can be presented. And by creating a new form, or at least expanding the dungeon writeup to create the Dungeon-Poem it is the most artful writing within the context of RPGs in existence so far. Because it created a new way of things to rhyme.
How can two adjacent rooms rhyme? Well, read the book and you'll see. And I surely have not uncovered all the higher level rhyme patterns across the pages.

And there we have it: for RPG writing, Maze is ART.

...and let me add:

When I realized the Dungeon-Poem thing going on, it DID tingle my human experience in a major way, if only for the fact that our shared activity invites that kind of artistic/linguistic talent and dilligence.

Where reading Gygax and his DMG leaves me astounded at the sheer force that EGGs creativity was and the ASL-rulebook leaves me deeply humbled at the foresight & insight into a developing game the creators had in 1985, Maze is like an intellectual hug for everyone loving D&D in the world.

So here I am trying to give some love back.

THANKS Zak, THANKS Patrick!!!

That's very kind, some clarifications:

-Calling the art in the book "art" isn't a way of suggesting it is special in any way--at least not to me. The map picture of the painting is, in the commercial sense, art. It costs 5 figures to buy, it was hung and sold in an art gallery next to all my other paintings in an art show that was covered in art magazines and was made by an artist. Either it's "art" or the job I do that pays all my bills is mislabeled (which conclusion I will accept without protestation). That's my job: I make paintings, they are art. They may suck and be meaningless but "art" is just what's on my tax forms. It means nothing other than that its an object that can best be sold if I call it "Art" --like every other object called art.

"Art" doesn't mean "good" or "deep" it just means an object sold under certain commercial conditions, lots of things that are definitely art are terrible. I try to make it good, but it's not my call whether it is or not.

-The main other people who referred to it as "art" were the publisher--on the jacket copy, and Vice magazine in its review. The book is no more or less "art" than any other module. I would hope it's good and useful, but I don't think it transcends the language you need to use to talk about any other dungeon.

-The commentary on art and artists in the book and the idea to have a section be a gallery is all Patrick's idea. The Cannibal Critics were Patrick's idea, etc. When it comes to the gallery section I did things mainly concerned with keeping gameplay solid, like making sure the second time you went through the gallery, the cannibal critics had fucked the art up, and creating the time-alteration in the gallery that made the critics into cannibals.

-People sometimes talk about the dungeon like there's some story underneath to be unraveled--there isn't really. Like most megadungeons, it has a history and different parts of it date from parts of that history--but there's no grand story to solve, just lots of little details that all fit in a history.

Yes, that was exactly my point, regarding your painting. Not that it is good or bad or deep (i am the worst person to judge paintings, they do nothing for me, same with sculptures. My visual artists friends gave up on me and said: "if you want XYZ than go fucking read a book!"), just objectively something from the art marketplace. So that's just a fact.

Regarding story to bee unravelled: That was my perception, too. This is why, instead of being a Dungeon Novel I said it is a Dungeon Poem. Interconnections, themes, allusions, but more ephemeral and implied or felt. And I still think in that regard Maze is groundbreaking and widening the form of the medium! Curiously, also bringing outside people in to appreciate the skeleton of the Dungeon Writeup, that is its own in a way poetic form. By heightening and widening the (somebody, Zak? once called it "para-textual") dungeon writeup form, it became more clear, I read other Dungeons with different eyes now**, seeing even more beauty in them than before.*

In comparison, what would a Dungeon Novel look like? Well, we have it in the form of Planescape:Torment.

*But then I am a weird person who sees Greatness in the ASL Rulebook as successful project of the Enlightenment.

**Clarification: I am definitely NOT a recent D&D convert. I think I have been playing AD&D in the dungeon style longer than the authors.

What is ASL?

Advanced Squad Leader

Settembrini, have you played Dark Souls the videogame? Your "dungeon poem" reminds me of that game. It's lore consists of small pieces of description that evoke and hints at bigger ideas and interconnections, but never makes it clear, resulting in something each player will interpret and relate in it's own particular manner. This is purposeful, according to the author.

Anyway, great praise for Medusa, and I agree with all you said.

Quote from: Settembrini;981446*But then I am a weird person who sees Greatness in the ASL Rulebook as successful project of the Enlightenment.

There's something about ASL that is pretty awesome, even if I only played the starter kits.

It may be silly to fret over the price of a couple cups of coffee, but--is there much benefit to the deluxe hyperlinked version at $10 vs the basic $5 one?

I would highly recommend the printed version. It is a well-crafted physical product. I could not see myself reading it a lot on the screen, but then I do not own a tablet, iPad or somesuch.
In early reviews, before the print version came out, people complained about the un-hyperlinked version as "crippleware".

Quote from: Voros;981447What is ASL?

American Sign Language.

Quote from: Arminius;981492It may be silly to fret over the price of a couple cups of coffee, but--is there much benefit to the deluxe hyperlinked version at $10 vs the basic $5 one?

The basic one is "we gave you the finished pdf as soon as we gave it to the printer" so it's just a doc--good for reading.

Tenkar complained, but it's Tenkar who just likes to find excuses to complain. Fuck him.

The hyperlinked version took much longer and is good if you're gonna actually run it because it's 300 rooms and many refer to other rooms and creatures in them. So if the ogre shows up in a paragraph and you're like "who?" (which I am all the time) you can hit the button and go to him.

Quote from: Settembrini;981502I would highly recommend the printed version. It is a well-crafted physical product.

Yes. Easily the most beautiful object in my game collection.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;981543Yes. Easily the most beautiful object in my game collection.

Any problems I may have with the actual contents aside, it -is- an absolutely wonderfully printed and lovely book.

Thanks for the answers, folks!

Edited to add utility: ASL = Advanced Squad Leader.

Quote from: Zak S;980010To repeat myself

"I meant the published LBBs, I assumed that was obvious."

The 3 original books--they had 3 classes: cleric, mu, fighter. Men and Magic page 6.

First: no, you don't get to claim that:). You were replying to my argument, which explicitly mentioned "the 'first' six core classes". "First" here is meant to restrict them to the classes as appearing in OD&D and later TSR editions. I'd never mentioned "the classes from the first corebooks only, excluding supplements";).
Also, in all TSR editions that I'm familiar with, paladins were more powerful than Fighters (and you yourself confirmed it about an edition I'd skipped). In fact, they're also more powerful in 3e, due to getting some spellcasting, but the argument isn't concerned with that.
If you can point me to a TSR edition where paladins are less powerful than fighters, I'd like to know about it.

Quote from: Zak S;980113It doesn't matter if characters with beliefs are in the game.

The game doesn't guarantee their beliefs accurately reflect reality by changing their fate to reflect those beliefs.

The law guy can die in a ditch while the chaos guy wins and vice versa or they can both or neither. There is no metaphysical enforcement or simulation thereof.

So: if there's a lesson in any of that, the game does not try to teach it. And, as reiterated, if the argument is paladins get powers for belief, it's not a rational arguments since they are not always (A) part of the game and (b) always more powerful in editions where they do appear.

And if we agree to that, you're still wrong...because the lack of metaphysical enforcement still proves nothing about rejecting all philosophies (which is what nihilism is about, by your own definition).
Instead, I'd say that by not enforcing a particular ideology in its mechanics, the game takes a step back and allows all philosophies - including nihilism.

Quote from: estar;980014Asen is wrong because it doesn't matter what the rules try to say or not say. The focus of what we do is to play a RPG campaign not a particular set of RPG rules. What a campaign is about or not about rest solely on the shoulder of the referee and the players.

You have mistaken me with Zak S, because the part about "what the rules say" is his argument.
What I was saying was that "what a campaign is about rests solely on the group":D. Go back and you can find my posts.
Furthermore, my argument was that if it rests solely on the group, you can't say the game comes pre-packaged with nihilism, because it's not true for all games;).
I only made a rules argument with the paladins because that's what Zak wanted to discuss.

In short, Zak's argument is that D&D comes necessarily pre-packaged with nihilism if you look at the game itself. My argument is that it doesn't come pre-packaged with anything, except whatever the group puts into it - and the game itself merely allows all those meanings.

QuoteThat the flaw in Asen argument that even matter that the rules were written with a point of view or not.

If it doesn't matter whether the rules were written with a point of view or not, then the rules aren't rejecting all ideologies, either.

Quote from: estar;979961People talking about Nihilism as a doctrine or concept sometime use the word to refer to things that has no inherent belief or philosophy. Reading over your exchanges either you don't know about this or you are deliberately trying keep a intellectual slapping contest going for entertainment.

Yeah, except they're wrong when they do that;). Rejecting all philosophies and religions is, in itself, a philosophy - even if you don't think of it as one.

QuoteIt doesn't. It only has the meaning that a referee and/or a group of players give it.

Which is, surprisingly, exactly my point!
And "only the meaning that a Referee and group give it" also doesn't necessarily mean that "all philosophies and religions are wrong".

Quote from: AsenRG;981897a lot of stupid things.

You still didn't answer my question:

You had the moronic thesis that because the paladin is more powerful than the fighter in one iteration, D&D therefore teaches that "believing in something makes you powerful".

Rather than get in a dumb internet argument about Which Class Is More Powerful in each edition, skip to:

The paladin does not exist in the first Men & Magic book--so explain how this "belief makes you more powerful" idea could be true for people playing the version released in that book.

If your idea is true, it'd have to be true in that version.

Do that now.

Well I liked it.

And oh my isn't Zak unusually saucy with the personal insults. I wonder what he's hoping to achieve with that.

Quote from: san dee jota;978152But honestly, I found it all pretty boring.

For some reason this surprises me.

Quote from: Dumarest;978250What makes Legends of the Flame Princess different from D&D?

#Attitude

Quote from: Voros;978292Ironically the ruleset ended up outselling the adventures by an order of magnitude. Apparently people can't get enough minor variations on B/X instead of useful gameable material?

I know, right?

Quote from: Zak S;978987You can't push views on someone through a game.

Quote from: Zak S;978999Just because there is a view doesn't mean you're pushing it on someone.

Quote from: Zak S;978999D&D is nihilistic precisely because it doesn't push toward a meaning.

And we could've stopped there, but apparently the hole wasn't big enough.

Quote from: Zak S;979002Nihilism--first definition on Google:

"the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless."

The life of a D&D character conforms to no religious or moral principles and their life is meaningless. They exist only to entertain us and do whatever it takes to get that to happen.

The fact it has #Alignments which explicitly define the philosophical coordinates of the setting and have actual languages associated with them says you're wrong.

Quote from: Zak S;979002in PHILOSOPHY

"extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence."

Nothing in D&D has a real existence. It is, by definition, fiction.

Which is so broadly applicable that it renders the word meaningless when it comes to discussions about RPGs.

And yet for some reason you still wasted our time by using it.

Quote from: pjamesstuart;979012I don't think anything I've made is nihilistic and that includes MotBM. Zaks opinions and analysis are his own.

Apparently you are incorrect.

Quote from: AsenRG;979090As one of the Outrage Brigade claimed on RPG.net, "if the designer is making one option easier than others, he should have known you'd pick it - and if that options is to be immoral, you can draw your own conclusions" - I'm quoting by memory, because I can't be bothered to look for the thread, but that was the general gist of it.

My answer was something flippant, but IIRC it amounted to "doing the right thing shouldn't be the easiest thing by the system, or you doing the right thing is meaningless".

That's right. Only in systems that don't incentivize following the moral and/or religious principles can characters actually follow those same priciples. In systems that do so, you're merely playing to the system - even if the characters were basically taking the same actions.

Do they even #StarWars? The fact that doing the right thing isn't easy is what makes good fiction compelling.

I'm growing increasingly concerned about the "Right makes Might' philosophy in gaming which not only states that moral methods must be the most (if not only) effective means to achieve your goals, but that using other methods makes the player themselves immoral.

Quote from: CRKrueger;979260do you know of any RPGs that you'd say do provide mechanical support for philosophies and religious or moral principles?

Vampire: The Masquerade explicitly defines what #Humanity means in its fictional cosm and punishes/rewards characters based on that.

Quote from: Zak S;979349What possible goal could I serve by pretending to not know what this one specific vague guy was talking about while answering everyone else's question you idiot?

Same reason anyone has: To avoid addressing the issue.

Now was that your reason, and did you pretend to not know, I cannot say.

Quote from: Zak S;979351Just because a character or player thinks a deed is righteous doesn't mean the game agrees.

Which is exactly what makes the #Passions in #Pendragon, and #Beliefs in #BurningWheel, so powerful.

Quote from: Zak S;979351It pronounces no judgment, in the vast majority of playstyles anyone honestly attests to, on the righteousness of actions.

This implies that anyone attesting to a divergent playstyle is not being honest.

Quote from: Zak S;979351"I realize I'm asking a classic story games newbie question: "My players keep pushing the game to be about killing monsters and taking their stuff, but I want it to be about philosophy and relationships and the things the Buddha taught! How can I trick them into playing how I want them to play?"

- http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/411962/#Comment_411962

While the idea of subversively using games as a conditioning tool is easily the most toxic thing the #StoryGame culture has ever adopted, #Buddhism does have a rich history of instruction through trickery and misdirection. In fact it may be the only way to point out the illusory nature of reality.

Quote from: Zak S;979373Rats start to look pretty tasty after all your food's been eaten by rats.

This is why we still pay attention to you.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;979381Ask anyone on this forum familiar with my posting history and they can confirm that my immense hatred of all things Goth and Punk is a hatred that knows no limit.

Your entire forum history consists of the same post.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;979375There is a time and a place for nihilism, but it must have some of kind of point or meaning to it.

You're adorable.

Quote from: Zak S;979985I meant the published LBBs, I assumed that was obvious.

Anyway the point still stands

Aaand there go the #Goalposts.

Quote from: Zak S;981441The commentary on art and artists in the book and the idea to have a section be a gallery is all Patrick's idea. The Cannibal Critics were Patrick's idea, etc. When it comes to the gallery section I did things mainly concerned with keeping gameplay solid, like making sure the second time you went through the gallery, the cannibal critics had fucked the art up, and creating the time-alteration in the gallery that made the critics into cannibals.

Huh. Out of all the ideas I though each of you was responsible for, I was pretty sure this was you.

Way to go #Patrick.

I will address your other points in a later post.

Quote from: AsenRG;981897Yeah, except they're wrong when they do that;). Rejecting all philosophies and religions is, in itself, a philosophy - even if you don't think of it as one.

You didn't read what I said. Here I will break it down for you step by step.

QuotePeople talking about Nihilism as a doctrine or concept sometime use the word to refer to things that has no inherent belief or philosophy.

Did you get the sometimes? So we are crystal clear Nihilism as a doctrine or concept has multiple related uses as a word. They are not all the same. One of which is what you referred too, describe a system of belief that rejects all philosophies and religions. Another use of the word is to describe something has no inherent belief or philosophy. You are using the former. Zak seems to be using the latter.

The two of you are not using nihilism in the same way nor each of you are willing to budge in order to have a conversation about it. Hence my crack about the two of you engaging in a intellectual slapping contest.  

And for god sake answer Zak's fucking direct question.

Quote from: estar;982251engaging in a intellectual slapping contest.  

You have to either discuss everything until one person flees or is proven wrong (or both are).

This may not be your idea of fun but there is no other good reason to be on a discussion forum.

You come to talk, don't stop talking until someone has learned something

The only good reason to disengage is if the other persone refuses to answer question or otherwise proves they're dishonest, thus rendering learning impossible.

Otherwise: why come to the place?

QuoteAnd for god sake answer Zak's fucking direct question.

+1

People only evade like this on the internet. irl if you just sat there staring into space when asked a direct question people would just patiently take you to drug treatment.

I don't really get it.

Quote from: Zak S;981441Either it's "art" or the job I do that pays all my bills is mislabeled (which conclusion I will accept without protestation). That's my job: I make paintings, they are art. They may suck and be meaningless but "art" is just what's on my tax forms. It means nothing other than that its an object that can best be sold if I call it "Art" --like every other object called art.

Did you feel this way when you began as a professional artist, or was it something that developed by experiencing the business end of the art world?

Quote from: Spinachcat;982520Did you feel this way when you began as a professional artist, or was it something that developed by experiencing the business end of the art world?

I always knew it. Everyone serious in the art world knows it--you got a kid who knocks himself out doing a wall piece for 8 months and it's "vandalism" and you got this chucklefuck over here who melted a tube of chapstick onto a podium and it's "art".

And, since you went to school with them both, you also know Mr Chapstick and the vandal are equally committed and earnest and believe equally in what they do and both of their audiences get whatever it is out of it that they personally are able to get out of art. I may not agree, but that's like saying mushrooms aren't food because I don't get why you like them.

Unless you go down the path of "What I like is art and what I don't isn't" there's no real honest way to define it other than "This is an object sold in a certain way".

Quote from: Zak S;982523Unless you go down the path of "What I like is art and what I don't isn't" there's no real honest way to define it other than "This is an object sold in a certain way".

Just to back Zak S. up here: What he is saying is exactly what you will hear from most visual artists who do paintings and sculptures, installations etc. In this regard, he is totally NOT being "out there". That's really the most boring consensus that is on this subject matter. I want to underline that point so that nobody confuses "idiosyncratic Zak" with what he is saying here. Whereas his rather wide definition of Nihilism seems to confuse some, his art definition is rock solid.

On a sidenote, it was quite interesting for me to learn that your current value as contemporary artist can be measured by a stat:

$/m² of artwork.  

At least on the European art market that's supposedly how it works, but it sounds like it is the same all over the world. Individual pieces, I am told, only gain their "own price" after the artist has died.

Never pick a fight with Zak unless you are gonna be in it for the long fucking haul.

Keep it going, please, my power is out and I can't read books by the light of my phone so this is my entertainment for the nonce.

Quote from: Dumarest;983546Keep it going, please, my power is out and I can't read books by the light of my phone so this is my entertainment for the nonce.

Play a game instead.