All y'all motherfuggers better listen up! : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
| 14 |
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
And this is my point. I'm going to need you to prove to me that the Quest of the One Ring is inherently more satisfying than the quest Tolkein could have written about the crusades against the Hillmen.
I mean, you're basically presenting this idea that if Tolkein had written an epic quest, beginning with the heroic destruction of the ring, about some heroic group's struggle to destroy the raging hordes now unleased upon the world with the death of their leader. I think that could be a great, epic story. Are you saying that it couldn't? If you are then I need you to help me figure out what's inherently less good about it. If you're not saying that then it doesn't matter if they blow the One Ring up at the beginning or the end.
Thomas
(no subject)
I'd say the empirical evidence shows that the most Narratively Satisfying tale Tolkein, the worldbuilder, could come up with was the Lord of the Rings.
You'll note that he didn't write anything interesting about the Fourth Age, despite having plenty of time to do so.
I mean, you're basically presenting this idea that if Tolkein had written an epic quest, beginning with the heroic destruction of the ring, about some heroic group's struggle to destroy the raging hordes now unleased upon the world with the death of their leader.
Well, see, that breaks the World. In Tolkein's internally-consistent worldview, the forces of Evil were empowered and driven by Sauron. With the destruction of the Ring, his hold over them was broken and they were either destroyed or faded. That's why the Ring was so freakin' important!
If you are then I need you to help me figure out what's inherently less good about it.
I think we're getting nowhere with this. It's clear we have wildly different subjective opinions on what makes a good story.
(no subject)
I mean, I don't want to sound like an ingrate, but my mind boggles at the idea that Tolkein couldn't have written a better story. That somehow he achieved the perfect narrative and didn't feel the need to write anymore. Firther, the Silmarillion makes it pretty clear that in the Third Age, the forces of evil were unified by Sauron, but evil wasn't defeated with his destruction. Well, that was my read, but it's still beside the point.
The real point here is that in an RPG you are the authors. If you were planning on Sauron's fall being the end of all evil (or whatever), but you want to change things up so that it's no longer true, you can do that and still be consistent. This would be exactly the same as if Tolkein had written some other story. That story would be consistent because he, as the author and creator of the imagined world, says so.
We could just "agree to disagree", but I think that's a cop out. I mean, I don't even understand what your position is, and I'd like to continue this discussion until I do. Contact me if you are interested. Otherwise, it's been fun :)
Thomas
Thomas
(no subject)
(no subject)
But I've never run a totally-cooperative game: they've always had the GM as final arbiter of what does, or does not, work, and I've never adhered 100% to a system chosen before play begins.