Theme Wars!

[CYMRO]

Actually with Div-set... [t]he DM has many paths prepared, the party choses the  path. depending on which stimulus they react to.

From my own. vantage point, a high level of preparation in necessary for me to run any adventure, creating as many options as possible, because players rarely do what is expected.
It is a mistake, in my opinion, to think of a world in an ethocentric way.  It is a world, variety is its life spice.

You are thinking too much in terms of fitting large concepts into narrow definitions.
I create, as far as is possible, a living world in all its varied thematic splendor for the players to find the adventure that suits their mood best.  it is impossible to fit Altvogge into "theme" or an "ethos" because it hass the potential to encompass all themes.  Why would my players or I want it any other way?  Why be limiting to the players?  It is all well and good to say you are creating a horror themed CS, but what if your players are ready for a political intrigue game?  Or a war campaign?  Is the single themed campaign setting going to maintain interest?  If the DM is not prepared for a player aboot face, will the game suffer?
Hence, the need, in my opinion, for a campaign world, ready to drop the party into whatever sort of crap they are itching for.

[Epic Meepo]

From my own. vantage point, a high level of preparation in necessary for me to run any adventure, creating as many options as possible, because players rarely do what is expected.
It is a mistake, in my opinion, to think of a world in an ethocentric way.  It is a world, variety is its life spice.

You are thinking too much in terms of fitting large concepts into narrow definitions.
I create, as far as is possible, a living world in all its varied thematic splendor for the players to find the adventure that suits their mood best.  it is impossible to fit Altvogge into "theme" or an "ethos" because it hass the potential to encompass all themes.  Why would my players or I want it any other way?  Why be limiting to the players?  It is all well and good to say you are creating a horror themed CS, but what if your players are ready for a political intrigue game?  Or a war campaign?  Is the single themed campaign setting going to maintain interest?  If the DM is not prepared for a player aboot face, will the game suffer?
Hence, the need, in my opinion, for a campaign world, ready to drop the party into whatever sort of crap they are itching for.

My latest point had nothing to do with what should be done or what works well. My latest point was that if you create a world that has no theme and then hand it to a random DM, the ack of theme does not guarantee that the random DM will take advantage of the options available in that world.

Whether a world is Ethocentric or DivSet in construction, any specific campaign set in that world will depend entirely upon the abilities of the DM. A bad DM is a bad one, even if you hand him a versatile and realistic world on a platter. Likewise, a good DM is a good DM, even if you stick him with the driest and/or most unrealistic world you can conceive. If a designer hands his world to a random DM he has never met, his own strengths and weaknesses as a DM do not tranfer to the random DM, no matter how well designed the campaign world.

[Túrin]

You guys-- on all sides and viewpoints of this issue-- are simply amazing.

:stupid:

I felt like commenting on this discussion in a way similar to LC a couple of times already, but now he made it really easy on me: I just needed to quote him and use the appropriate smiley. :D

Anyways, I just really felt like saying I have been following this discussion from the start, and this discussion has turned into a massive collection of amazing insight in campaign world creation.

I might be more contributive later, but for now: thank you all, I'm learning a lot from this thread.

Túrin

[Numinous]

You guys-- on all sides and viewpoints of this issue-- are simply amazing.

:stupid:

What both of them said :D

[Ishmayl-Retired]

Yeah, since it seems to be the appropriate time, I would just like to thank you guys for this discussion; though I don't feel as though I can contribute in the amazing way you guys, it has easily been the best read on this site in quite some time (discounting campaign settings, of course ;)).  Hopefully it lasts forever :)

[the_taken]

Yeah, since it seems to be the appropriate time, I would just like to thank you guys for this discussion; though I don't feel as though I can contribute in the amazing way you guys, it has easily been the best read on this site in quite some time (discounting campaign settings, of course ;)).  Hopefully it lasts forever :)

[CYMRO]

My latest point had nothing to do with what should be done or what works well. My latest point was that if you create a world that has no theme and then hand it to a random DM, the lack of theme does not guarantee that the random DM will take advantage of the options available in that world.

Hand a random DM a complete world (one not trapped in a single theme) and he will probably never take advantage of all it has to offer, but at least it is there for his group, if and when...

Whether a world is Ethocentric or DivSet in construction, any specific campaign set in that world will depend entirely upon the abilities of the DM. A bad DM is a bad one, even if you hand him a versatile and realistic world on a platter. Likewise, a good DM is a good DM, even if you stick him with the driest and/or most unrealistic world you can conceive. If a designer hands his world to a random DM he has never met, his own strengths and weaknesses as a DM do not tranfer to the random DM, no matter how well designed the campaign world.

True, but the broader the scope, the easier for any DM to find inspiration appropriate to their desires and skills.


[tangent]
I remember, back in the bad ol' days, when Greyhawk was new, and we all thought, "Gee, is that all there is?"  
It said it was the World of Greyahwk, but the map clearly was only part of a world.  Where was the rest?  
So, after running a few Greyhawk adventures, I endeavored to create not a Tolkienesque region, but a world.  If memory serves, it sucked pretty bad.  But I got better with time...
[/tangent]

[beejazz]

Warning: I was too lazy to proof-read this post. I may contain ramblings and/or rants.  :soap:

-----------------------------------------------------

@Meepo: Heh, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to add an "n" to Ethocentric. X-) Signal and Ground might actually be better names, but I wanted to produce something that is easily identified out of context.

Nice setting btw. It gave me a chuckle.

@CYMRO: No, sorry. I was actually talking about art. I'll get to that in a sec.

@Beejazz:

On to literature... literature takes time and meaning into account, but in ways campaign building does NOT. A campaign must take into account not only the secrets to be revealed about the world as part of the general plot resolution, but the posible changes the world might undergo as the results of a character's actions.

I'm going to skip drama (a small facet of the DM's job... which the campaign builder may facilitate at his/her liesure) and dance (likewise small scope...the PCs handling of roleplaying) and music (...) and just say that campaign building is closer to the preparations for a semi-improv comedy sketch (in that you have to take into account both premise and possibility) and cooking (in that it is a mix between a science and and art... and you need to allow some room for guests at your table to do as they will, be it salting their food or mixing their peas and potatoes).

That said, there are four pillars of campaign design, each with its oposite, which you must keep balanced. These are meat and spice (your content and theme, respectively) and method and madness (your premise and possibility, respectively). They are all well and good individually, but one must take ALL into account for a campaign setting that is to house a good campaign... sometimes we forget that that's what a campaign setting is for. PLAYING. If you can't play in it and have fun, who the hell cares if it's consistent or thematic or how you built it, right?

Being an artist, and a rather obsessive one at that, I highly doubt if your accusation that I misunderstand the creative process is true *grits teeth*. What I meant to point out is that campaign building is far more technical, a little less aesthetic, and (by necessity) should be more adaptable than the majority of the arts. Also, anyone who builds a campaign setting while failing to account for a possible campaign is failing at his post, in any sense. To whoever said that art was supposed to be evocative of emotion, I have three words: no it isn't. I'm just not going to dignify the statement with a counterpoint.And to say that art cannot be functional, again, just plain wrong. The defining value of art is the aesthetic. A functional object which is aesthetically pleasing is still art. An aesthetically pleasing object which does not evoke emotion is still art. The second defining trait of art is that it is manufactured or artificial. The third (and possibly most dubious) trait is that it is original or intentional. I'm not going to get into a debate about that last, as what is "original" can be called into question (the upside-down urinal titled "fountain" springs to mind) as can "intentional" (the drip paintings of... of... well this is one hell of a time to forget names, now isn't it?).

My point in saying all of this is not to call into question whether campaign building is an art, but to point out what is and is not necessary in terms of the creative process. So long as you (originality) made (manufactured) something that looks good (aesthetics), that is art. After the piece is made, the importance of every brush and paint and stroke can be analyzed and rehashed, but these are only means to an ends. Because you make an excellent watercolor does nothing to disparage oil painting or sculpture or differrently sized canvas.

My second point in saying all of this is to point out that campaign building is unique among creative processes. Every art preforms a different function and produces a different finished work. A visual artist puts out a painting or a sculpture, while an actors (together with a good tech crew, scriptwriter, director, etc) put on a play, which is an entirely different variety of work.

My third point is that means aside, campaign building does have a goal in mind: not only to create a setting, but to create a CAMPAIGN setting- a setting wherein one might run a campaign. If an enjoyable campaign can be run in a setting, I honestly don't care where the writer of that setting started.

I go on to point out a few areas of importance to that purpose (chiefly flexibility), but even there, my point remains a simple one: Art's principle purpose is entertainment, and can find all kinds of ways to go about it... none of which are inherently better than all the others.

[Raelifin]

Being an artist, and a rather obsessive one at that, I highly doubt if your accusation that I misunderstand the creative process is true *grits teeth*.

What I meant to point out is that campaign building is far more technical, a little less aesthetic, and (by necessity) should be more adaptable than the majority of the arts. [/blockquote]

I agree on all points.

Also, anyone who builds a campaign setting while failing to account for a possible campaign is failing at his post, in any sense.

I agree with the exception of building a setting for another purpose, such as for a book or simply a world/setting as an entity in itself.

To whoever said that art was supposed to be evocative of emotion, I have three words: no it isn't. I'm just not going to dignify the statement with a counterpoint.

As much as I loathe the idea of not supporting your statement, I do agree that art does not have the intention of evoking emotion by definition. I do think that all art communicates an idea (the word â,¬Å"ideaâ,¬Â doesnâ,¬,,¢t quite fit, but Iâ,¬,,¢ll use it anyway.) This idea may be an emotion or a concept or whatever, but it is still there. See previous posts for supporting argument.

And to say that art cannot be functional, again, just plain wrong. The defining value of art is the aesthetic.

I never said that art cannot be functional. In fact, if you read my posts youâ,¬,,¢ll find the exact opposite. However, I disagree with the statement that art is defined by looking nice. Iâ,¬,,¢m sure youâ,¬,,¢ll find plenty of art that is not â,¬Å"aesthetically pleasing.â,¬Â Thus you cannot define art based on aesthetics.

A functional object which is aesthetically pleasing is still art. An aesthetically pleasing object which does not evoke emotion is still art.

I think youâ,¬,,¢re confusing art with entertainment or beauty (Iâ,¬,,¢m not sure which). Something that is beautiful (read: â,¬Å"aesthetically pleasing â,¬Å") is not art by definition. Iâ,¬,,¢ve already argued on why art must be defined by the intentions of the artist, not on the ideas or reactions of the beholder.

The second defining trait of art is that it is manufactured or artificial.

I agree. I have stated that art must be a creation, and that seems to mesh quite well with your ideas.

The third (and possibly most dubious) trait is that it is original or intentional. I'm not going to get into a debate about that last, as what is "original" can be called into question (the upside-down urinal titled "fountain" springs to mind) as can "intentional" (the drip paintings of... of... well this is one hell of a time to forget names, now isn't it?).

Iâ,¬,,¢m not so sure about original (it feels right, though), but I do agree that art must be intentional. Beauty found in accidents is no more art than beauty found in nature.

My point in saying all of this is not to call into question whether campaign building is an art, but to point out what is and is not necessary in terms of the creative process. So long as you (originality) made (manufactured) something that looks good (aesthetics), that is art.

I believe that you must have a vision in mind when creating artwork. This falls in with â,¬Å"intentionalâ,¬Â as stated earlier. Closing your eyes and throwing paint on a canvas is nothing more than hoping you get a pretty picture; it is not art. I think that intentional creations always have â,¬Å"visionsâ,¬Â or â,¬Å"inspirationâ,¬Â behind them, whether conscious or subconscious. Now that I think of it, youâ,¬,,¢re right; originality is a key factor in art. Putting together a doll via a blueprint is not art.

After the piece is made, the importance of every brush and paint and stroke can be analyzed and rehashed, but these are only means to an ends.

A means to what ends? Iâ,¬,,¢m not saying that themes are found after creation, Iâ,¬,,¢m saying they are inherent in all artwork. Iâ,¬,,¢ve already spoken on this point and would rather not reiterate myself. 

Because you make an excellent watercolor does nothing to disparage oil painting or sculpture or differently sized canvas.

What does this have to do with anything? I never said that one type of art is better than another! >_>

My second point in saying all of this is to point out that campaign building is unique among creative processes. Every art performs a different function and produces a different finished work. A visual artist puts out a painting or a sculpture, while an actorâ,¬,,¢s (together with a good tech crew, scriptwriter, director, etc) put on a play, which is an entirely different variety of work.

Yes, campaign building is a unique form of art. Itâ,¬,,¢s still art, but it is closest to the art of description, which is a very unexplored avenue of the artistic field.

My third point is that means aside, campaign building does have a goal in mind: not only to create a setting, but to create a CAMPAIGN setting- a setting wherein one might run a campaign. If an enjoyable campaign can be run in a setting, I honestly don't care where the writer of that setting started.

I think what CYMRO said about gaming as leisure, not art has hit me the hardest of anything in this thread. I need to re-think my ideas on gaming and the creative process for a while. ;)

I go on to point out a few areas of importance to that purpose (chiefly flexibility), but even there, my point remains a simple one: Art's principle purpose is entertainment, and can find all kinds of ways to go about it... none of which are inherently better than all the others.

â,¬Å"Art's principle purpose is entertainmentâ,¬Â
Hmmâ,¬Â¦ I would have said â,¬Å"Art's principle purpose is communication.â,¬Â
I mean, we have entertainment and we have art. Art can be entertaining, but entertainment canâ,¬,,¢t be art. Iâ,¬,,¢m sure youâ,¬,,¢ll disagree with me there but consider: If art is defined by the intentions of the artist, wouldnâ,¬,,¢t a creation be art before itâ,¬,,¢s entertainment?

[Epic Meepo]

An aesthetically pleasing object which does not evoke emotion is still art.

From dict.org:

  AEsthetic \[AE]s*thet"ic\, AEsthetical \[AE]s*thet"ic*al\, a.
     Of or Pertaining to [ae]sthetics; versed in [ae]sthetics; as,
     [ae]sthetic studies, emotions, ideas, persons, etc.
     [1913 Webster] -- [AE]s*thet"ic*al*ly, adv.


  AEsthetics \[AE]s*thet"ics\, Esthetics \Es*thet"ics\ (?; 277),
     n. [Gr. ? perceptive, esp. by feeling, fr. ? to perceive,
     feel: cf. G. [aum]sthetik, F. esth['e]tique.]
     The theory or philosophy of taste; the science of the
     beautiful in nature and art; esp. that which treats of the
     expression and embodiment of beauty by art.
     [1913 Webster]

  Pleasing \Pleas"ing\, a.
     Giving pleasure or satisfaction; causing agreeable emotion;
     agreeable; delightful
     [1913 Webster]

An aethetically pleasing object must necessarily evoke emotions; without emotional content, an object fails to meet the definition of "pleasing." Otherwise it is merely aesthetics which, as can be seen above, relates to beauty and taste, but pertains to art only as a special instance.

[Raelifin]

He has a point.

[CYMRO]

He has a point.

I think what beejazz might have meant was that a piece of art "accepted" as being "aesthetically pleasing" by The Art World might be looked at as unevocative by the individual.
Case in point:  The Mona Lisa.  Art critics and historians rave about it.  I see nothing there but an old painting.  I do not like it.  I do not dislike it. I do not care.  It is, though, by the accepted definition, still art, no matter what I think.

[beejazz]

He has a point.

I think what beejazz might have meant was that a piece of art "accepted" as being "aesthetically pleasing" by The Art World might be looked at as unevocative by the individual.
Case in point:  The Mona Lisa.  Art critics and historians rave about it.  I see nothing there but an old painting.  I do not like it.  I do not dislike it. I do not care.  It is, though, by the accepted definition, still art, no matter what I think.

What I mean is that you go into painting (and I speak from personal experience) without a specific feeling in mind.

Lets say I paint an expansive landscape... lets say it's a lagoon of incredible depth (I'm talking about perspective, not water depth). One person sees it and feels liberated by the very largeness of it. Another sees it and feels a lonely emptiness. Hence the emotion is attributed post-creation. The important things in terms of the painting (from the painter's perspective) are light, line, color, shape, volume, etc. Not "liberation" or "loneliness".

[Epic Meepo]

*shrug* It seems we go about creating art in different ways, then. When I create something artistic, I always choose a subject that has meaning to me; otherwise, I'd lack the motivation to paint it (or whatever), no matter how technically accurate my representation of it could be.

[CYMRO]

When I create something artistic, I always choose a subject that has meaning to me; otherwise, I'd lack the motivation to paint it (or whatever), no matter how technically accurate my representation of it could be.

I am reminded of all of those bowls of fruit I sketched and painted in art class that did nothing emotionally for me, yet made my instructor cry tears of frustration and rage...