Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Hook in Mouth

Fascinating.

The recent review of the Creature Generator over at Dragonsfoot has become a battleground over... uh... Carcosa (note all the posts that the moderators have done... all of that had to do with Carcosa, not the Creature Generator). If you're fast you can see Kellri bringing up the Insect Shrine pre-order debacle (which is totally deserved, yes, even if I keep mentioning that they've all received the Creature Generator in the meantime [save one guy whose address changed and email bounces], everyone who's asked for a refund has gotten one, and I'm in constant contact with the current artist on the project and work is ongoing... I even brought it up a few days ago, I'm not pretending it doesn't exist or trying to make it go away... hell, it was part of the first post I made in this blog (still ranks as the third biggest mistake I've made in my life)... it's a stupid mistake I made, and one that even the best and brightest and more productive of us make (not to mention the most historied - can't find the Kuntz links from not so long ago)... but it's not being ignored... hell, even the Creature Generator was originally to be a couple-page section of Insect Shrine before it grew beyond that... but Insect Shrine is a huge deal to me and I want to make sure it doesn't fall victim to any other pitfalls that happen to projects of this type)... here's Kellri's quote (before it gets moderated into oblivion):

In this case, the author has a well-deserved reputation for taking people's money, not publishing the product, diverting attention to another dissimilar product, and taking the side of some of the most puerile, demeaning porn to ever call itself an rpg. Sure, I could take my dissent to his blog, but I don't much care what he thinks and I'm not trying to start a dialogue. I am trying to alert the others in the same community (under the same BIG TENT if you will) what an utter tool that guy is. He made his own reputation and well deserves to hang from that petard in public.

BTW, anybody notice the Christian Children's Fund refused a sizable donation from GenCon this year because of the source? When our communities' distinguishing trait is an inability to hold ourselves to any standard is it any wonder?

All this under a thread dealing with a review of the new version of the Creature Generator (which isn't out yet, which I'm not publishing or selling or handling in any way beyond supplying the text).

You can see some of the deleted bits from one of Kellri's original posts here where I respond to his questions in a manner I'm sure he didn't expect. Semaj had asked whether the Creature Generator had specific charts for all sorts of Carcosa-related shenanigans, trying to be cute... sad thing is, I was intending to do those charts, just for him, when I got home from class yesterday... but... everything had already been moderated away. But I have been made aware that the
City-State of the Invincible Overlord, from 1976, includes tables to determine things like a woman's bust size, passion, and how old she is... which gives possibilities for under-18 results. Not dissimilar to what Semaj was asking for in his now-deleted post. Even if we ignore explicit content in Barker's Book of Ebon Bindings, surely we're not going to say CSotIO is some sort of fringe product with little actual gaming applicability or that Bob Bledsoe isn't a name of great note? Are we?

But this is really weird. I mean, that Veteran of the Psychic Wars post I made a couple months back was inspired by Kellri's own story (quoted there) about D&D-related persecution. As of right now he's still the guy with the last comment on that post, and it's hardly a negative comment.

I've seen actual fucking book burnings that involved my own books. I've been suspended from school for D&D three times, grounded for weeks for D&D, slapped around by parents and teachers for D&D, and undergone one really hostile psych exam. Suffice to say, nearly ALL of those witch-hunt stories were MY stories.

To me, it's very odd that someone that said that not to long ago now says something like (referring to this):

BTW, anybody notice the Christian Children's Fund refused a sizable donation from GenCon this year because of the source? When our communities' distinguishing trait is an inability to hold ourselves to any standard is it any wonder?

What's the lesson here? That the suspensions, groundings, slappings, book burnings, and suspicions of mental illness (that last one has come up quite a bit lately, hasn't it?) were all justified? That the donation refusal was justified? What exactly is Kellri saying? "If you make products I approve of, then the backlash is absolutely terrible and unfounded, but if I don't approve, they were right!" is what it sounds like to me.

Kellri once tasted the (figurative, I hope) lash as a child. But as an adult, instead of remembering it for the injustice that it was, now he holds the whip. And appealing to the feelings of those that don't like our hobby and never will like our hobby as a reason for us to behave a certain way... that's exactly the cowardice I was talking about. Clue... many of us, or our friends, hid our gaming from parents or teachers or other authorities because they had erroneous ideas about what was dangerous and harmful to our young minds. Now... as adults and parents... think... learn... remember... are you inflicting the same harm now onto your kids?

I am trying to alert the others in the same community (under the same BIG TENT if you will) what an utter tool that guy is.

Right here is the problem with "scenes." Once it's established, you need to fit in with the pack, or you're out of the pack. Somewhere, somehow, the "traditional community" became a thing instead of a merely commonality of widely divergent people. Actually... on the web, I think the traditional community became a thing first, thanks to places like Dragonsfoot, and has experienced splintering from there... but in the past year or two, it seemed to coalesce again, in no small part to our interlinked little blogosphere satellite we've got going here, and the common cheerleading for the simulacra like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord and so on, and then got a little tighter again as we weathered the release of 4e and the massive amounts of "This is now the one true way, get on board or get left behind" sentiment that comes along with a new edition of Dungeons and Dragons.

It is sad that some reactions - particularly Melan's review and its being most disappointingly parroted by the otherwise incomparable Grognardia - place the assumed reactions of others, and a fear of others' judgment, as more important than their own opinion. How many supporters have been silenced, or hedged their support and made sure to say the correct things, because of this? How many people now are going to keep quiet because they don't want their threads interrupted by off-topic discussion about how they refuse to condemn the work of certain others?

But I love swimming in this kind of shit. I live for it. Accusers and fingerpointing and fear. People declaring what should not be. This has woken up my brain and given me clarity and direction I haven't had in a couple years now. Maybe this is why Maliszewski gets hate mail concerning his children and I just get snide internet disgressions, despite his rather reasonable delivery and my mad waving of arms and frothing of mouth. I don't pretend to be a reasonable person. Geoffrey McKinney tells me that a number of people that bought Carcosa told him that they found out about it through my blog, which makes me think that my style of writing is accomplishing exactly what I intend it to do. Not be a clubhouse for people to feel great and fuzzy about their hobby, but as a rallying point and energizer. No rest. Action.

But I don't support Geoffrey and Carcosa because of any particular content or "edginess." I support him and it because they have supplied something new, while being firmly based in tradition and loyal to its inspirations, while being masterfully written and immaculately presented.

You see, in a perfect world the leading publications would be those that shake away the complacency of this scene, challenge the assumptions of the readers at every turn, and stay entirely away from "safe places." Then should come the specialized pieces that help recreate specific atmospheres or works of specific authors. Then at the bottom of the barrel should be the TSR clones (in both format and content). Meat-and-potatoes is fine for the game table. It works and is nothing to shy away from. My weekly games are meat-and-potatoes. But nobody should pay a penny for a commercial version of meat-and-potatoes.

People need to decide: Are they playing D&D because it works as a current, modern game? Or is it just nostalgia? I don't care about what games I played when I was 8, or 12, or 16. The game works for me now, at 33, in 2008. You want a time machine to feel the way you did 20 years ago? Fine. But stop polluting my scene with your unimaginative, generic, childish shit. I'm tired of it and I'm tired of you.

It is sad that publishers have been reduced to being "content providers" who need to shut up and pump out what their fans want. Who are not allowed to have an opinion (lest their customers *gasp* disagree and then boycott because the writer is Not Just Like Them) and not allowed to be truly creative. Today's role-player looks to the publisher to supply their creativity and then bitches and whines when it doesn't fit their own (silent) ideas. This "old-school" scene, it's not any different, although some would claim it's the antithesis of that environment. It's not... it's just at a (much) smaller scale. "Here are the tools! Create! Publish! Imagine the hell out of it! Fight on!" But you better be part of the clique, you'd better not rock the boat, and you'd better not deviate from what people remember from Back in the Day. And you'd also better not remember things that they didn't. They'll get you for that too.

This scene, like every other scene, is a joke and eats its own and not a free creative environment. Any individual worth the description will piss on the concept of "scene" from a great height and then proceed to create without care.

Some of the most lauded works to come out of the traditional scene (this notwithstanding) have been mere restatements of 25+ year old works that differ from the originals only because of legal requirements to do so.

What more than that needs to be said?

19 comments:

  1. De-lurking to say "great post." I completely agree with your assessment of the old school "clique," which seemed so vital just a year ago, but which has lately descended into hidebound discussions over what artwork or die type is more "old school." And now that everyone is releasing their own "retro-clone" for every version and variation of OD&D, the little scene is further fragmenting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kellri is the tool here, as proven with those comments. As usual, the ranting holier-than-thou types who wish to police other people's minds and opinions, and apparently live their lives to satisfy ignorant hate groups (that would never touch D&D anyhow), reveal so much more about themselves than about the target of their hate.

    I was surprised to see the hate and blatant trolling appearing in the review of your monster book, Jim, even after that Carcossa nonsense at DF. They just can't get over it, can they?

    As for the Christian Children's Fund or whatever not wanting to be associated with D&D, fuck them as well. D&D should not be sanitized in an attempt to win them over: that isn't going to happen under any circumstances, and is the same as admitting they are right about the game being bad somehow.

    I'm amazed these grognards who lived through the 80's controversy are apparently willing to themselves persecute games of the imagination in exactly the same manner today! This whole "high horse morality movement" (mostly at DF) lately is just fascinating to watch, although also very sad.

    KenHR, I also agree with your observations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "It is sad that some reactions - particularly Melan's review and its being most disappointingly parroted by the otherwise incomparable Grognardia - place the assumed reactions of others, and a fear of others' judgment, as more important than their own opinion."

    You are reading your own hang-ups into my text, as were other commentators on the DF thread. I cannot assume the responsibility for any reading or interpretation other than my own. But one thing is definite: I am not fighting your war, I am not fighting Semaj's war, I am not fighting Kellri's war. I am not fighting any war here.

    That is all. Leave me out of this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BTW, anybody notice the Christian Children's Fund refused a sizable donation from GenCon this year because of the source? When our communities' distinguishing trait is an inability to hold ourselves to any standard is it any wonder?

    Why was anyone shocked by this?

    Why was it even attempted? There are *tons* of charities out there, so *who* chose that one?

    I find this tidbit even more telling than the others you chose to quote.

    Why does D&D need the approval of "Christianity"? Is it the stamp-of-approval that will remove all that pain of childhood bullying?

    There's something deep percolating in the "community" here.

    On other matters, I suspect I'm not alone in finding that the blood-sex-gore products being circulated are not of my personal taste, but find them not in the least in need of censorship.

    Some people like slasher flicks. I don't. There are other movies to watch, no?

    ReplyDelete
  5. >>Why was it even attempted? There are *tons* of charities out there, so *who* chose that one?

    Apparently it was a charity that Gygax liked to contribute to.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think it an impossible task to make D&D be to everyone's liking. Some of those anti-D&D types would be impossible to please:

    1. If you got rid of any graphic sex or violence in the game, they'd complain about the presence of demons and devils.

    2. If you got rid of the demons and devils, they'd complain about polytheistic gods.

    3. If you got rid of the polytheistic gods, they'd complain about the presence of "the occult" (i. e., magic).

    4. If you got rid of all magic, they'd complain about the (non-graphic) violence.

    5. If you got rid of fighters, fighting, the combat system, and forbade all combat, they'd complain about something else.

    In short, until you burn all your D&D books and join their church, they won't be satisfied.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not really sure what the point is of dragging retro-clones into this, at least in terms of Carcosa. Unless I missed something they don't have anything to do with one another. That there is ever more splintering happening, I do agree with.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You know, the whole basis of those people's argument is basically that people are unable to decide for themselves that certain acts are rather anti-social and depraved. I mean, come on, we don't need to be told that pedophilia's bad, right? Why, then, are the moralists being given any credence at all? We don't need them.
    Oh and as for the cries of 'but the children will be corrupted' - well, as adults, we're responsible enough to have plenty of stuff we wouldn't want kids getting at - whether its the 'Videos' folder on your hard drive, or just the bleach under the sink. Just because its there doesn't mean they're allowed to play with it, yes?
    Ultimately, someone should tell these guys to act their damn age, really.

    Anyway, keep stirring the pot - I haven't enjoyed reading anything game related this much since Jack Thomson got disbarred.

    ReplyDelete
  9. >>Not really sure what the point is of dragging retro-clones into this, at least in terms of Carcosa. Unless I missed something they don't have anything to do with one another.

    Of course there's nothing wrong with the simulacra (I use BFRPG in my weekly game!), but it is the very definition of a "safe" product for the traditional scene. It should be the baseline... the start... the inspiration to so much more.

    I think things like Mutant Future and Engines & Empires (both based off of what? :D ) are two positive examples of what I'd like to see more of, except... they aren't relevant to my D&D games. heh. (Although E&E was so disappointing... my mind raced with visions of Verne and Wells and such when I heard the concept... and what I got was leather armor +1 and shriekers dressed up in Victorian drag)

    I don't know. I can't help but think that part of the controversy with Carcosa is that, despite (or maybe really because of) everything within its pages taking inspiration directly from things present in the gaming world in the 70s, it does something different with some base assumptions, and as a result... it's something very close yet very alien...

    Or maybe in my brainstorming for this (you should see my notebook...) I started making associations with ideas that should have been their own article. Maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Have patience, James. I think of the retro-clones as a necessary first step in the battle I've chosen, which is making the systems "alive" and in print so that more people are likely to use them. Labyrinth Lord and Osric, or BFRPG for that matter, were never intended to be "original" games. Not in the sense that thye are trying to do something that has never been done before. We're only getting started. OSRIC has only been out a little over 2 years, Labyrinth Lord for a little over a year. The whole driving force so far is in do-it-yourself projects, so the best way to see products out there you like is to make them yourself. That's my only motivation. I start projects that are fun for me, and if other people dig them then great. This is a hobby for me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I know, I know.

    But... part of this is the frustration of the things I have on my plate and what I want to do with them, and the blocks that occur when trying to make that come *alive* (artists... and gamer friends saying "Yeah I'll do that part of it!" and then never even starting so my big hippie commune game-material-producing machine dies as the people I'm trying to bounce ideas off of cut me short)... and then I see what's coming out and getting the pats on the back, and it's stuff I really don't need or want (but I will say Kellri's netbooks, although not exactly the same thing, and Finch's Eldritch Weirdness and City Encounters are excellent play aids and resources)... then something like Carcosa comes out, something akin to what I want to just get out there (in spirit and... sobriety... yeah, I was way too excited in that original Creature Generator intro but it was my first sign of mental life after my divorce)... and look what happens.

    (Well, yeah, look what happened... it was just like the glory days of D&D, it has that sense of danger to it as a product... but this time the opposition is coming from within, instead of without.)

    Grognardia's posting about Vault of the Drow a couple hours after this blog entry went up underscores the whole thing in my mind... 28 pages and unlimited imagination and evocative writing and epic scope... 30 years ago... where is that in our current crop of creators and publishers in our scene? I have aspirations if I can get my shit together and if (big if) my stuff is what I want it to be...

    (And not that this fits into the above... I know OSRIC as game instead of just publishing aid surprised people (me too), but honestly when I think of "old school publishing aid," I think of 4e's GSL... "Here are the list of terms and things you can use, go go go!")

    And your "first edition feel" post today... I have lots of thoughts on it but it's all conjecture, but aggghhh... between companies releasing "first edition feel" products while declining to actually publish anything first edition, companies releasing 1E things as convention curios but then releasing things of that bent as "generic fantasy" to retail, and the almost-but-not-quite OSRIC Freeport... it feels like there's a vast cosmic conspiracy to keep this whole simulacra, do-it-yourself movement down and out of general gamer consciousness.

    I remember reading Ron Edwards' "Publish it yourself!" appendix in one of the Sorcerer books was quite powerful to me... I wish Labyrinth Lord, and the upcoming release of OSRIC 2, had hit this harder in the books, not only mentioning it, but demonstrating how to do it. As it is I fear instead of empowering D&D publishing (with serial numbers filed off, of course), the situation creates additional splinter brands (this fragmenting of which we speak). That's part of the reason why I released the Creature Generator without a license and without using one of the "established" brands, and why when Insect Shrine comes out, while it will be done using OSRIC, that certainly won't be a "marketing point." It's using OSRIC as a tool to publish an adventure for you-know-what... it's not for the OSRIC game.

    (rambleramblerambleramblewhinewhine)

    ReplyDelete
  12. ... it feels like there's a vast cosmic conspiracy to keep this whole simulacra, do-it-yourself movement down and out of general gamer consciousness.

    I think there is one small circle of people who actually are like that, but I won't point fingers just now. We have to be realistic though; "larger" publishers are not going to waste their time until it is financially worth their while, and the only way to do that is to get the core books out there and build a market. I'm trying to do that by getting LL in hobby stores. So far it's going a ok. Half the print run is sold (and it has only been available to distributors since Oct. 1st), mostly to the distributor Alliance so far (but also some smaller distros), so we should see it in stores soon. Will that make a difference? I don't know, but it is the best thing I know to try. I would like to see something similar happen with OSRIC but it is yet to be seen if that will happen.

    I understand fully what you mean with trying to get friends or volunteers to help with projects. In my experience (and I'm mostly talking from back when I was a majot AFMBE fanboy) you can get people excited about a project and maybe they'll follow through one time, maybe a second, but after a while it peters out. It's just the nature of hobby projects. It's also a constraint to me because my solution is to pay artists, and you'd be amazed how fast art ends up in your in box when money is involved, but right now the only way not to go broke doing that is to start to develop a line of products that can at least earn money for an art budget, which I am finally starting to do. I've been doing this "Goblinoid Games" thing for two years this month, and have only recently broke even on the money I've spent out of pocket for all these things. So yeah it's a rough road, and it just depends what you can/want to do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. >>We have to be realistic though; "larger" publishers are not going to waste their time until it is financially worth their while, and the only way to do that is to get the core books out there and build a market.

    But these companies think the market is already there... else there's no reason to reference the feel of older editions, or play on how dungeons "used" to be.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I support him and it because they have supplied something new, while being firmly based in tradition and loyal to its inspirations, while being masterfully written and immaculately presented.

    And this is the best reason, and why I support him and it as well. This sort of thing enriches everybody's game and tears us, or so I naively hope, away from receiving only what publishers put out. I don't think one can really be creative if one views it as 'product' or a way to make a living. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to survive and pay my bills via D&D, but I doubt that's going to work. Mainly because one of the things that I'd have to do is make sure that the largest amount of people buy whatever I pump out and that means not being "offensive" or "controversial" and very often means being as bland as possible.

    We have to be realistic though; "larger" publishers are not going to waste their time until it is financially worth their while, and the only way to do that is to get the core books out there and build a market.

    That's true, but why should we care? If we all create (and most of us do) and use the tools we now have (i.e.: das intarwub and all its related technologies) to share those creations, the 'larger' publishers can go whistle. If this hobby remains fixated on being a business, then it will always be stuck with the urge to "upgrade" and pimp out marginally different "core books" (i.e. 3.5 syndrome) rather than focusing on creative work and not worrying if it makes a buck.

    Carcosa, to me, was something of an eye-opener. One guy, with his own work, not really caring whether it 'made it big', but offering it out anyway. Sure, I have no doubt he's made some cash, enough to live on, I doubt.

    I've touched on this in my own (far inferior) blog, but wouldn't it be great if we all made our version of Supplement V?

    ReplyDelete
  15. >>I've touched on this in my own (far inferior) blog, but wouldn't it be great if we all made our version of Supplement V?

    It would be best if people came up with their own numbering conventions, or at least didn't duplicate what somebody else did.

    Let me see your Supplement VI, VII, VIII... or MMVIII or MMIX...

    ReplyDelete
  16. While CARCOSA is selling well, it's certainly not making anywhere near enough to live on! How much am I making on CARCOSA? Enough to justify to my wife the time I spent working on it, and to justify the time I'm going to spend working on other Carcosa projects.

    I agree with James that I'd like to see future OD&D Supplements numbered VI, VII, VIII, IX, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It would be best if people came up with their own numbering conventions, or at least didn't duplicate what somebody else did.

    Let me see your Supplement VI, VII, VIII... or MMVIII or MMIX...

    I agree with James that I'd like to see future OD&D Supplements numbered VI, VII, VIII, IX, etc.


    To be honest, I don't really care what nomenclature is used. However, "Supplement V" does have the advantage of being the "supplement that never was", so to speak. (Definitely not intending to trivialize or diminish Geoffrey's work, with that said, I think you can understand my point) And, as such, it allows people to create what they will (or simply codify their house-rules) and "publish" under a known banner.

    Also, no one gets into a tizzy if they use the same number... (though, for what it's worth, my initial thought was to keep going on from Carcosa, and then I thought of the arguments that might occur...)

    Again, the point is to create something awesome and put it forth, it's not really important what you call it (or for what game you intend it for).

    ReplyDelete
  18. All of what follows is IMHO of course.

    But these companies think the market is already there... else there's no reason to reference the feel of older editions, or play on how dungeons "used" to be.

    While the "first edition feel" has become a selling point, it also bears the connotation that the "feel" is the only thing worth preserving, not the old-school systems themselves. At least I think that is what happened initially, but now with 4e I think more people are starting to wonder if 1e might actually be a viable game.

    That's true, but why should we care? If we all create (and most of us do) and use the tools we now have (i.e.: das intarwub and all its related technologies) to share those creations, the 'larger' publishers can go whistle.

    I don't know why you should care, because I don't know what matters to you. Instead I'll tell you why I care. The essential reason is because I'm not content with having 1e or Basic D&D only played by a small incestuous group of people on the internet. I've used this term before, and I don't want anyone to take offense at it, because all I mean by that is that I don't want to see just a bunch of small niche groups that are totally unheard of off the internet. I want 1e and Basic to be played by a wider audience, and seen as a living game and played by a wider group of people. I want larger publishers supporting because they will have resources we don't have, and more material, no matter what the source, is a good thing. Variety is a good thing.

    I grant that my desire may be completely irrelevant to many people, nut nonetheless that's what I'm aiming for.

    ReplyDelete
  19. >>To be honest, I don't really care what nomenclature is used. However, "Supplement V" does have the advantage of being the "supplement that never was", so to speak.

    My concern isn't so much for any "lineage" as to practicality. If we end up with half a dozen Supplement V versions running around out there, somebody's going to order the wrong one, and that is a problem that gets worse with every new Supplement V to come down the pike.

    ReplyDelete