|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 6, 2008 15:06:27 GMT -6
I have just read Part 3 of 4 of the review, found no handy link to post a comment, and am not the sharpest (or at least Web-savviest) tool in the shed, so ...
I think James offered an incisive point concerning the addition of the Sorcerer character class. What if there were but one "character class" in Carcosa?
Mention of the "ick factor" that apparently underlies the work's controversial nature reminded me of mention of Hargrave's "critical hits" in an old magazine feature on the hobby. That treatment in New West is in my memory among the best of such pieces from the "mainstream media" back in the day, but I no longer have a copy.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Nov 6, 2008 15:32:30 GMT -6
I have just read Part 3 of 4 of the review, found no handy link to post a comment, and am not the sharpest (or at least Web-savviest) tool in the shed, so ... I had to turn off comments for the review posts, unfortunately, because I quickly found a number of people who were unable to discuss them rationally or without resorting to personal attacks against the author. I simply won't tolerate that kind of idiocy on my blog, so no comments are possible. It's a pity, because one of the reasons I decided to write the review and do so at length was to engender thoughtful discussion of the book and the issues it raises. I personally have some concerns about it, but I nonetheless think it ought to be discussed on its own merits and not based on innuendo and misinformation. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Nov 6, 2008 15:43:52 GMT -6
Hear, hear! I agree totally.
I'm still glad I bought a copy, even though I know I'll never use much more than the robot tables. The sorcery isn't the kind of thing I want in any game I ever run, and the entire tone of the thing is way to d**n depressing for me. But if Geoffrey and his players like it, that's just fine. There's room for all in this hobby of ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 6, 2008 16:35:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 6, 2008 16:41:32 GMT -6
I think James offered an incisive point concerning the addition of the Sorcerer character class. What if there were but one "character class" in Carcosa? It would be easy to do. Instead of having only sorcerers able to work sorcery, have every human being (with the proper preparation) able to perform sorcerous rituals. That's one of the things I love about OD&D: It's easy to change things.  Personally, I would not like to lose the sorcerer class. Having sorcerous rituals open to all feels too like the Call of Cthulhu RPG to me. I know that James and many others love the CoC game, but it's never been my cup of tea. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 6, 2008 16:45:05 GMT -6
Hear, hear! I agree totally. I'm still glad I bought a copy, even though I know I'll never use much more than the robot tables. The sorcery isn't the kind of thing I want in any game I ever run, and the entire tone of the thing is way to d**n depressing for me. But if Geoffrey and his players like it, that's just fine. There's room for all in this hobby of ours. I'm sorry to hear that more wasn't to your taste, but I'm happy to know that you are still glad you purchased it. Perhaps when your players next read a cursed scroll, the PCs could all be magically transported to Carcosa for a few days. That way the "depression factor" would be strictly limited. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 6, 2008 18:10:51 GMT -6
I reckon the critiques are worth digesting to inform future offerings, but perhaps the rough spots themselves are part of the work's charm. I think it was splendid (and an example perhaps of the greater flexibility available to a self-publisher) so quickly to offer a redacted edition as an option.
|
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Nov 6, 2008 19:26:33 GMT -6
I have a scan of that New West article, Dwayanu, if you wanted to see it again. It's a great window into the closing days of the era we celebrate, from a non-FRP author who nonetheless sort of 'got it'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Nov 7, 2008 3:19:57 GMT -6
It is endlessly disappointing that some people seem hell bent to destroy any discussion outside screaming indignation and outrage. If James has a very strong aversion to commodification, my pet gripe is related to the spreading of aggressive non-communication to drown out those who aren't prepared to yell at the top of their voices, as well as the effectiveness of argumentum ad nauseam tactics. It is, I think, a central problem of the post-modern world, one which we haven't developed a remedy for except self-segregation - which has its own serious drawbacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Nov 7, 2008 7:41:11 GMT -6
It is endlessly disappointing that some people seem hell bent to destroy any discussion outside screaming indignation and outrage. If James has a very strong aversion to commodification, my pet gripe is related to the spreading of aggressive non-communication to drown out those who aren't prepared to yell at the top of their voices, as well as the effectiveness of argumentum ad nauseam tactics. It is, I think, a central problem of the post-modern world, one which we haven't developed a remedy for except self-segregation - which has its own serious drawbacks. Obviously I agree wholeheartedly. I dislike the way that rational discourse has given way to what you rightly call "aggressive non-communication." I regret that I had to close off comments on my Carcosa review, but I simply don't have the time to police the zealots on both sides of this issue and, honestly, I don't see why I should have to. If we've reached the point where even ideas cannot be discussed without resorting to hyperbolic invective, then I weep for the future. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Nov 7, 2008 14:04:21 GMT -6
We haven't just "reached the point", we have always been at this point, as humans. The Internet just allows for a wide sampling of us to be at any given site online, so naturally these disruptive types exist in our community as well.
I also think it's a shame this small, vocal number of people keep ruining any attempt to discuss Carcosa, but it's the sad reality. They know they are in the right, and see themselves as defending decency. You can't combat that kind of attitude, only ignore it when possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 8, 2008 7:14:49 GMT -6
I also think it's a shame this small, vocal number of people keep ruining any attempt to discuss Carcosa, but it's the sad reality. They know they are in the right, and see themselves as defending decency. You can't combat that kind of attitude, only ignore it when possible. This does seem to be a distressing pattern in all avenues of life. People insist on discussing politics and/or religion, but only to try to convert someone else to their side rather than to actually talk about issues. It's a shame that this kind of thing has permiated into the gaming world. In the good old days we all just liked to play, and the game or edition didn't really matter. When outsiders bashed gamers as being Satanists or some such, we all rallied together to defend our hobby. I think that the acquisition of D&D from WotC and the creation of 3E broke the community into fragments, and I'm not entirely certain why. Somewhere around the year 2000 people started bashing each other's preferences, so now if I want to play Carcosa and you don't like it then suddenly you need to try to convince me of the error in my ways. What happened to mutual support? What happened to "I'll play my way and you play yours"? Now it's all "I don't like CCGs, or LARPs, or Playstation, or Diceless RPGs, or Indie RPGs, or 3E and therefore you shouldn't either." Why can't we all say "hey, we're gamers and we're united!" One thing I like about OD&D players in general (and most of the posters on this board, by the way) is that their philosophy is more "live and let live" because the rules encouraged everyone to find a style and play it. Rules are supposed to be a guideline, a skeleton on which the body is built, and not THE WAY TO PLAY. Just my two cents. Exalt me if you like.  |
|
|
|
Post by jcstephens on Nov 8, 2008 13:36:55 GMT -6
This does seem to be a distressing pattern in all avenues of life. People insist on discussing politics and/or religion, but only to try to convert someone else to their side rather than to actually talk about issues." It's worse than that. They're not looking for unbelievers to convert, they're looking for heretics to burn. ADMIN EDIT: Adjusted format for the quote. |
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Nov 10, 2008 0:53:37 GMT -6
I think Geoffrey is making very valid points, in my opinion, with his response to the review. When I read the review at grognadia there was so much I did not agree on. I think Geoffrey said most of what I wanted to say, more or less.
I think it might be the first grognardia post I could not agree with. That blog is superb.
Anyway, let us keep this very very calm and civilized.
ZULGYAN
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 10, 2008 4:03:21 GMT -6
I would not have phrased the question just so, and Geoffrey's replies to Part 3 ("Is Carcosa really a D&D supplement?") certainly seem hard to fault in their particulars. When it comes to a more general impression, though, I have some sympathy for the critique.
I think it comes down to a sense that Carcosa's default assumption is more of a departure than, e.g., Blackmoor. One could mix Carcosa with character types, magic, and so on offered in earlier volumes -- but is that in keeping with the main thrust of the presentation?
Does Carcosa on balance come off more like The Arduin Grimoire, or more like Empire of the Petal Throne and Metamorphosis Alpha?
The "moral structure" and "darkness" issues on their own strike me as less germane (perhaps anachronistically AD&Dish), and well enough disposed of by Mr. McKinney.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 10, 2008 5:07:34 GMT -6
On "Is D&D really only a game?":
Like Geoffrey, I find some apparently common assumptions a bit odd -- at least, foreign to my own approach to the game. Therein may lie the root of much misunderstanding.
I put a premium on role-playing in a sense I think corresponds to what "simulation" means in Forge-speak, and what AxeMental at Knights & Knaves means by "immersion." Folks so inclined can easily confuse that with something psychologically more deeply involved, but what really concerns me is the limited intelligence and open possibility aspects of the game. I don't want artificial rules to occupy too much more of my attention than the information available to my characters and the "in-world" consequences of the actions I choose for them.
That is perhaps especially true in OD&D, which offers so little in the way of purely mechanical complexity relative to some other games.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Nov 10, 2008 6:24:26 GMT -6
Does Carcosa on balance come off more like The Arduin Grimoire, or more like Empire of the Petal Throne and Metamorphosis Alpha? I think that's a key issue, not just for any discussion of Carcosa, but for any discussion related to the question of "What is OD&D?" I, for example, don't see Arduin (even the early books) as being OD&D at all so much as "OD&D-derived." A subtle distinction perhaps but a real and important one. Others, even on these boards, think so subtle a distinction balderdash and gladly consider Arduin OD&D. So it is too with Carcosa, I suspect. |
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Nov 10, 2008 9:31:38 GMT -6
James, I think you've hit the nail on its head. I was trying to figure out why Carcosa seemed both highly imaginative and at the same time, not quite "D&D" - and the analogy to Arduin fits. Arduin never struck me as anything more than source material to mine for ideas; trying to run it seemed to be a recipe for a game different from what I thought of as D&D. Carcosa strikes me the same way - fascinating ideas, but I doubt I would run it as "D&D."
Some of the reaction to Carcosa is similar to initial reaction to Arduin - "how could he do that?? He's immoral!" (BTW, I think you were right to ban comments on Grognardia if people kept acting out over the entire thing. It's sad.)
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Nov 10, 2008 9:42:25 GMT -6
(BTW, I think you were right to ban comments on Grognardia if people kept acting out over the entire thing. It's sad.) It's a pity really, because it's so rare that we get opportunities to discuss some of the issues Carcosa raises outside of a theoretical context. That's why, despite my misgivings, I think Carcosa is an important piece of work. When was the last time a product of the old school community engendered so much debate? If the debate was universally rational, we might actually come to some conclusions, or at least better understand where some of the fault lines lay in the hobby. |
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Nov 10, 2008 11:11:04 GMT -6
I think it might be the first grognardia post I could not agree with. That blog is superb. I'm with you, Z-man. It has been hard to reconcile my previous consistent agreements with James with my near-total disagreement with his analysis on this one. You know... you wonder if you've been missing something all along or something like that. However, I've come to the provisional conclusion that the Carcosa issue is an anomaly stemming from the very dark and serious subject with which it deals. One thing that occurs to me is this: a strong subjective stimulus (which is no fault of our own) can impede our ability to concentrate on objective factors. For example, I was attacked by a Doberman Pinscher when I was a little child. Even to this day I find those dogs very unpleasant... I don't even like to look at pictures of them if I can avoid it (I'm not afraid of them, but I find them disturbing). This means I could never be a dog show judge (at least, not for the working group or overall) because I know that I could never give a win to a Doberman... I just couldn't do it (payback's a xxxxx!). If the subjective is strong enough, it can present an impediment to the objective. Likewise, and maybe* this is what was going on, I would find it hard to discuss Plato's Republic after being punched in the face. Unrelated subjective impressions can eclipse analytical ability. * - Of course, it's also possible that James' review was right on target and I'm the person who's missing the point. Unless I dissect James' review fairly and comprehensively I cannot claim to have shown that one of us is right and the other wrong. I'm just explaining one thing I thought of that might explain how James and I might diverge so sharply within a context where we have hitherto consistently agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Nov 10, 2008 11:28:38 GMT -6
It has been hard to reconcile my previous consistent agreements with James with my near-total disagreement with his analysis on this one. "Only" batting .900 doesn't make me a bad slugger, does it? I'm fine with people disagreeing, even strongly, with my review of Carcosa. I certainly recognize that many of my objections to it are not ones that some people will share. Likewise, I have a highly idiosyncratic approach to most things; it's frankly amazing that as many people agree with as much of what I write as they do! That said, I think it's important to remember that there have always been products that divide the hobby community. Arduin was one, back in the day, and many people who otherwise shared a lot interest-wise were divided over just what to make of the Grimoires. I expect that Carcosa is going to be one of those products that doesn't admit much middle ground. Of course, I tend to think of my review as being very very guardedly favorable, so it's always intriguing to me to see when people see it as being much more negative than I'd intended it. By the same token, I know -- based on various deleted comments -- that there are some people who think I wasn't hard enough on it. You can't win |
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Nov 10, 2008 11:54:06 GMT -6
"Only" batting .900 doesn't make me a bad slugger, does it? Well, it's only an "A-". You can't win Truth! |
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Nov 11, 2008 1:23:49 GMT -6
Keeping with the nice and peaceful discussion we are having here, I'd like to quote and comment some of the passages of the grognardia review I agree the least (or simply don't agree with). What I don't like about this is that the reviewer is basically saying that there is no room for innovation in old-school D&D. It looks like if there is very little room for new things in oldschool D&D. An opinion I found strange and contradictory with other reviews and comments on other products reviewed by grognadia. It really surpriced me that the reviewer felt that new stuff had to keep close to the original and that new stuff could not be too different from OD&D. That everything must be within and seemingly narrow scope of the originals. Maybe I'm not reading him correctly. I was also surpriced because james had been long posting about a more a pulpy, swords&sorcery D&D and also proposing radical innovations and changes for it like ditching the cleric, incorporating "aspects" from spirit of the centery and reworking wiz magic, among others. The questions are: How ample is the space for innovation in the OD&D framework? How bad are new things and changes for the original books? Is it too narrow the way we can go? I mean, I see the OD&D supplements and I see very significant innovations and profound changes to the original booklets. I see buffed up attributes in Greyhawk, that also creates the feeling that stats are important (something james critiques in Carcosa and that is far less radical than what it is in greyhawk). I see a thief class and the introduction of a skill system to back it up. I see hit locations in Blackmoor (very un-OD&D most would say) I see spells going up to level 9, radically changing the power level of magic and the world where it works. I see AC reaching negative values, which I'm sure it must have sounded really odd when first introduced. I see a psionic system many would consider alien to the fantasy genre (I don't). I see lots crazy stuff in First Fantasy Campaign. A mean, the OD&D supplements introduced lots of really new, departing, innovative, different stuff that went far away from the original books. I see Carcosa even more compatible system and powerlevel wise with OD&D than all the rest of the supplements that introduce coherency-breaking (systemwise) subsystems and a significant power inflation, while Carcosa does not. Most of the pieces of Carcosa works much better within the OD&D design philosophy when compared to stuff like thieves and exceptional strenght. No room for innovation for old-school D&D authors? Ok, that was my main problem with the review. initiativeone.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-vancian-magic.html - check the 5th comment. That's why I'm so surpriced about your review. Peace and love for all, I hope james you read this in a positive way. I gotta say I love your blog. I check it almost everyday. I did not post there because it no longer allows annonimus comments (which I always sign at the end) and I'm to lazy to make a user account |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 11, 2008 3:18:47 GMT -6
My own answer to the contrast I posed earlier is that Carcosa seems to me more like EPT and MA than like Arduin. That is, it's compatible enough with the D&D canon to make mixing feasible -- but it's a work of too much originality and holistic integrity quite to fit the bill as a mere "supplement."
That to me is not a bad thing; indeed, it's just the sort of thing I'm gladder to see than another retread of old standards. It's not "Retro-Clone #9" ... and "Supplement V" is also awkward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Nov 11, 2008 3:53:04 GMT -6
*gasp*
why is the naming thing so important?
I don't see it as bragging or a profanation of the "sacred TSR corpus".
I see it as quite cool, fun, inspiring (to do my own supp.) and definetely a homage to D&D and it's creators. A show of respect, appreciation and love!
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 11, 2008 4:09:11 GMT -6
Why is it important enough to you to defend it against perceived attack? (I don't see it as "bragging" or "profanation" -- just as a bit awkward, much considered.) It touches something in us, I think not necessarily in a bad way even if in different ways. By intent or not, it's provocative. Another dozen "Supplement Vs" can't have quite the same effect. How dependent, really, is Carcosa on D&D? Could it be about as well grafted onto the bones of Arduin or EPT or S&W? (I see a problem in MA's lack of the class and level referents, and a lesser one in the AC scale). How much is "old-school style" bound up in reference to particular old rulesbooks and imitation of their trade dress and formatting? Might that fetish itself be a significant departure from actual practice in the pioneering era, more a fin de siecle sensibility? Such an ethos might well be appropriate to planet Carcosa's atmosphere of decadence! Injecting allegory, I sometimes see WotC's reign over D&D-Land in slightly Cthulhoid terms ... |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Nov 11, 2008 6:24:39 GMT -6
No room for innovation for old-school D&D author? I think it depends on what one considers "innovation." My feeling is and remains that Carcosa makes too many changes, both mechanically and thematically, to be in the same category as Greyhawk, Blackmoor, or even Eldritch Wizardry. Carcosa reads more like EPT or (especially) Arduin -- OD&D-derived rather than being properly OD&D. I understand some people disagree and that's fine. However, it's not as if my evaluation is an outlier; others, even on these boards, hold the same view. Likewise, I don't think my evaluation is at all inconsistent with anything I've written before. All my discussions of the "toolkit" nature of OD&D are predicated on the notion that you can only go so far in making changes to the game before it becomes unrecognizable and something else. I believe " Dungeons & Dragons" isn't just a brand name or vague thing without specific meaning. That applies equally to things like Arduin and 4e. Remove/change certain things, both mechanical and thematic, and you've innovated yourself out of being D&D. Carcosa does just that in my opinion. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it's a bit misleading to claim that Carcosa is no different than any of the previous supplements. I doubt there'd have been an uproar at all if it had been. You're welcome to take my position as not being in favor of innovation or fetishizing the TSR canon of OD&D books; you wouldn't be the first to argue such. For myself, though, I think " D&D" has both a specific mechanical foundation and a thematic core that, if deviated from, puts one's ideas outside its bounds. That's only a problem if you want to claim connection with D&D, as both Carcosa and 4e do. If that connection doesn't matter, feel free to go as crazy as you want; I doubt anyone will be bothered by it. |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Nov 11, 2008 6:37:12 GMT -6
I was also surpriced because james had been long posting about a more a pulpy, swords&sorcery D&D and also proposing radical innovations and changes for it like ditching the cleric, incorporating "aspects" from spirit of the centery and reworking wiz magic, among others. If I had included any of these ideas in a book I called "Supplement V" or a "Book of Rules Options for the Original Fantasy Role-Playing Game Published in 1974," you would have good reason to be surprised. However, I make no such claim on any of my ideas, many of which I acknowledge would take the game too far away from anything I could reasonably called " Dungeons & Dragons." Could I still make an old school OD&D-derived game that incorporated those ideas? Of course! But it wouldn't be D&D. In my opinion, Carcosa simply isn't D&D anymore, but something else. I reiterate that that's only a negative comment if you take "being D&D" as the primary criterion of goodness. If that is the case, it's not I who's overvaluing the "sacred TSR corpus." |
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Nov 11, 2008 11:11:50 GMT -6
I'm sorry but I don't see any possible way in which Carcosa can be compared to 4E, or called "not D&D". That's going beyond not liking it to actually exiling it!
I'm just not seeing how Carcosa becomes "not D&D". Robots, other planets, protoplasmic monsters? It's all in there. So where, precisely, is the line across which something switches from "D&D" to "not D&D"?
Whatever happened to "Imagine the heck out of it?"
I know the question of character morality came up... but I never saw anywhere in OD&D where it says that if you do something evil you're now at -1 to hit or something. There was never anything stopping you from playing somebody evil.
And while we're on the subject of evil... James, I took it that you're an admirer of Vance. But some of the stuff in Vance sickens me. He even makes a joke out of rape, and rape comes up quite a bit in his stories... but not in a clinical way. I find it a bit leering, actually. I bring this up not to impugn your tastes, but to point out that you seem to accept as "D&Dish" something that I find vastly more offensive than anything in Carcosa.
Also... you're familiar with Smith's Zothique, right? I find that at least as dark and depressing as Carcosa, if not moreso. Would an OD&D game set in Zothique be "not D&D" for some reason?
Anyway, I hope you don't take my questions as overly feisty, as I submit them with respect... but I do mean them to be "pointed", I suppose. It just seems strange to say that I could play OD&D in Barsoom, or OD&D in a world where rape is played for laughs, or OD&D at the end of the world wherein humankind is constantly being torturously slaughtered... but not in Carcosa. It sounds a bit like a "just because" argument to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Nov 11, 2008 12:05:39 GMT -6
I'm sorry but I don't see any possible way in which Carcosa can be compared to 4E, or called "not D&D". That's going beyond not liking it to actually exiling it! I see similar degrees of divergence from the history and traditions of D&D in both cases. There are two ways something can cease to be " D&D." One is mechanical: deviate too much from the rules laid down in OD&D and you've crossed the line. The other is thematic: deviate too much from the example of OD&D when it comes to what the game is about and you've crossed the line. I feel Carcosa crossed the line in both places, but it's in the area of theme that I see the biggest divergence. You will note that I don't doubt the imagination or creativity behind Carcosa. Indeed, I've praised it in many places. I simply feel that Geoffrey imagined it the heck outside of what I see as D&D. I feel the same way about Arduin, so it's nothing personal. People keep fixating on this point and you'll again note that I never said all D&D characters must be good or even non-evil. What I have repeatedly said is that D&D, even in its OD&D form, but particularly from Greyhawk onward, has an implicit moral structure that suggests certain actions are evil. The game itself does nothing to prevent PCs from behaving evilly or being evilly aligned, but neither does it present evil actions as simply being one option among many. Leaving aside the fact that there's a vast difference between " D&D-ish" and " D&D," I agree that Vance's treatment of rape is offensive. And if I ever argued that playing out that particular aspect of his stories made for a good D&D game, you'd have a point. Alas, I never have. Very likely so. |
|
