tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311060361308252769.post8099394403198788987..comments2024-03-01T03:36:45.772-05:00Comments on THE WHEEL OF SAMSARA: H. P. Lovecraft Did Not Write AdventuresMatthew Slepinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04056247825064943944noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311060361308252769.post-59225332089052104792009-08-10T15:19:00.832-04:002009-08-10T15:19:00.832-04:00Well, look at Frodo in LotR or Bilbo in The Hobbit...Well, look at Frodo in LotR or Bilbo in <i>The Hobbit</i> (both of whom, I'd contend, are the actual progatonists). Both seem to "level up", going from semi-useless gentlemen to wilderness adventurers.<br /><br />Of ocurse, I'm not saying that "levelling up" is neccesarily part of any fantasy. The point of the original post was that literature is different than gaming. But I think that the storyline of bold/foolish nobodies becoming Heroes (or dying in the attempt) is particurly ill-suited to S&S.Matthew Slepinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04056247825064943944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311060361308252769.post-68046424810400599282009-08-09T23:11:56.820-04:002009-08-09T23:11:56.820-04:00"he is super-competent in his very first outi..."<i>he is super-competent in his very first outing</i>"<br /><br />I don't think that Conan being 'super-competent' throughout all of his stories rules out his learning from experience and becoming 'more competent' over time. At least that's my impression reading the Conan stories.<br /><br />At the very least, I don't think that this marks a difference between S&S stories and High Fantasy stories. Both Aragorn and Gandalf seem to be 'super-competent' from the very beginning.<br /><br />Perhaps the phenomenon of 'leveling up' simply is not reflected obviously in most fiction, whether S&S or High Fantasy.Akrasiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08734103159691571156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311060361308252769.post-84070983417197854142009-08-07T15:45:57.351-04:002009-08-07T15:45:57.351-04:00One of my more contentious views, it seems. Conan...One of my more contentious views, it seems. Conan, to me, is actually, perfectly representative: his circumstances change throughout the stories, but he is super-competent in his very first outing--he defeats two Frost Giants and nearly rapes the Frost Giant's Daughter, something which clearly didn't happen every day.<br /><br />Elric may not have his magic penis in his first outing, but he still demonstrates to be the powerful sonuvabitch in the Young Kingdoms. He acquires a dubious patron and a wicked sword--doesn't get new powers.<br /><br />Is Kane any less a masterful, immortal psychopath in early tales than later?<br /><br />Leiber's duo presents an interesting case. They are both surely less competent in thier respective origin stories. But those stories were written way out of sequence. And once we get past those, I really don't see a difference between the Mouser of, say, <i>Two Sought Adventure</i> and that of <i>Rime Isle</i>.<br /><br />And that brings up a significant aspect: sequence. High Fantasy stories tell one extended tale from beginning to end. But S&S series don't. They hop around in time with geenraly little real connection between the stories. "Leveling up" is a sequence that S&S heroes don't experience.<br /><br />IMO and all that.Matthew Slepinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04056247825064943944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311060361308252769.post-33453056173815618202009-08-07T02:41:03.940-04:002009-08-07T02:41:03.940-04:00Interesting post, and one with which I broadly agr...Interesting post, and one with which I broadly agree.<br /><br />One thing that I disagree with, though, is this claim about S&S heroes: "<i>They do not "level-up"</i>".<br /><br />Really? It seems that 'Conan, King of Aquilonia' is much more experienced than the relatively young and inexperienced Conan of the 'Frost Giant's Daughter'. The same seems true of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, and other S&S heroes (at least those with tales describing different stages in their lives).Akrasiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08734103159691571156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311060361308252769.post-65299905744482625792009-06-09T18:35:08.883-04:002009-06-09T18:35:08.883-04:00One way you could argue that the Tower is railroad...One way you could argue that the Tower is railroading is maybe to say that there is usually one one way to go, and that it makes it linear.AndreasDavourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17170806742393291962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311060361308252769.post-5947256156845135432009-06-09T06:40:49.356-04:002009-06-09T06:40:49.356-04:00>>You say that this needn't be the Story...>>You say that this needn't be the Story, but in the piece, you talk about denying the PC's equipment and say something explicit (I don't have it in front of me at the moment) about them dying.<br /><br />You are correct about what I wrote, but that outcome is entirely dependent on characters willingly dropping their gear and marching upstairs alone. Nobody forces them to do so. They don't get charmed, there is no magic doorway that zaps them or their gear to another location.<br /><br />And the penalty for characters not following the given instructions is merely that the guards will attack. That's very reasonable I think.<br /><br />The Tower specifically mentions what happens if its inhabitants are defeated/destroyed, which does prove that I had other possibilities in mind than "enter the tower, all die."JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311060361308252769.post-10632185649745282352009-06-09T02:26:13.929-04:002009-06-09T02:26:13.929-04:00Thanks for taking my comment in the spirit it was ...Thanks for taking my comment in the spirit it was meant.<br /><br />You are probably correct that "rail-roading" is not precisely correct in re the Tower. As I noted in the following sentence, I get that the players aren't forced to enter the Tower or do anything particular once they get in there. Except, probably, to die horribly. There just isn't much meaningful choice available to them once they are in. If there is a term here that's more accurate, that's the one I meant to use.<br /><br />Nor do I have any problem with back-story. The story that I was talking about, and what I think the Story of the Tower is is this: PC's enter Tower and die horribly. All sorts of S&S precedent for that. But the story really ought to be : PC's enter the Tower and...well, we'll have to see what happens next. They could come out on top or do so-so or die nobly or die horribly or...<br /><br />You say that this needn't be the Story, but in the piece, you talk about denying the PC's equipment and say something explicit (I don't have it in front of me at the moment) about them dying.Matthew Slepinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04056247825064943944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311060361308252769.post-49228767422070437382009-06-09T02:13:46.998-04:002009-06-09T02:13:46.998-04:00>>First, because in trying to evoke a certai...>>First, because in trying to evoke a certain style of fiction, this piece descends into blatant rail-roading.<br /><br />Thanks for the critique. It's the most extensive I've received on the piece, and I do appreciate such an even-handed analysis.<br /><br />I both agree and disagree (of course!). I think you covered the most important element about The Tower: It really shouldn't be considered a proper adventure, but rather an elaborate trap.<br /><br />(Spoilers from this point on for anyone that might care...)<br /><br />I do take exception to the "railroading" accusation. The piece does not assume the PCs go along with the setup, it does not assume the PCs go into the Tower, it does not assume they follow the rituals described.<br /><br />At no point is a character required to do anything - it's just that characters can be in a spot of bother when they go beyond a certain point and the jaws of the trap clamp shut. Even then the danger involved is directly related to the characters' choice of whether to follow the suggested ritual. A party of second level characters (within the suggested level range) charging up the Tower in full gear is not going to be slaughtered. If the party is third or greater level this very well may be nothing more than a minor encounter.<br /><br />Yet a single character fooled into dumping all of his gear and going up is in very serious trouble. I'm not sure a single player out there, except maybe a complete rookie, would ever put themselves in such a vulnerable position anyway. And the adventure doesn't assume that anyone would - it just describes what happens if there is some fool gullible enough to do so.<br /><br />As to the "story" of The Tower, I don't think that having a story in games is bad... as long as that story stops when the PCs are introduced. The backstory and setup of The Tower is merely bait for the trap. Addleton has his own story and will tell it. His story and his following of his own quest does not lock the PCs into any course of action that they must take. There are a million things the PCs may do that disrupt Addleton's story (kill him, take his stuff, visit the Tower by themselves comes to mind), and none of them ruin The Tower.<br /><br />Story is only bad when players are *forced* into one.JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.com