Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2016 23:37:42 GMT -8
Besides it was an article by John Wicks putting forward his version of a disagreement between him and EGG. Basically his perspective of events written to defend his position. What really happened? Dunno, as we don't have an independent citation to draw on. Did EGG cast gamer slurs? Or did John Wicks perceive EGG's comments that way in the greater context of having a difference of opinion? The thing with Internet and librarys etc is that you can always find an opinion and opinions will always be diverse. Your archery instructor may have his knowledge informed by references that you haven't researched yet, references that may already critique the research you cited - thus he may not have felt the need to go back to the research you were citing. In psychology people often cite the Berkley Prision Experiment, very few actually read the research paper itself . . . Even less are aware that this 'forbidden experiment' has been repeated recently with a different outcome. There are a host of opinions sourced from the original experiments and how one interprets the variant outcomes of the two actual experiments is informed as much by actual data as it is by simple choice (preference nee opinion). Research is a learned skill as it requires the ability to disentangle opinions from facts and to collate those facts fairly across the broader sweep of all the opinions. It's unfair to say you 'know more now than your instructor', it just that you 'know different' and that's not the same. Aaron The archery industry is not great at providing good information. Their sales rely on the new product of the week, which is not always better than various tried and true ones. While innovation does occur, more often it is the economy driving the creation of new products than an actual need or idea. While it often looks like a better mousetrap, it's often just a gimmick. Much like with cars, people buy high numbers. It's no different from horsepower to IBO or ATA (these are bow speeds taken via a set of standards). The part that confuses people is kinetic energy (which is used widely by the firearm industry). Kinetic energy uses the square of the speed where as momentum does not. So high speed via light arrows can yield high kinetic energy, but not look so sterling when you look at the numbers for momentum. All in all they create a culture of information that can be misleading in order to drive up sales. By comparison there are guys like Dr. Ed Ashby who have and do actual science and research. His research tells a very different tale than the sales pitch of the industry at large. I'm sure that the industry is making products that work, but they are less interested in making a better mousetrap than marketing and convincing the public that they have done so. Thus when I see someone towing the industry line without knowledge of the people putting out actual useful information I have no other recourse than to question their insights.
|
|
|
Post by ilina on Mar 21, 2016 0:58:21 GMT -8
Gary Gygax produced many classes because he was a sore loser with a Vindictive personality. the Majority of TSR content was designed for one of 3 or 4 reasons.
1. Gary was a player, salty about his character's death and designed a whole revenge class as a reaction
2. Gygax had a new flavor of the month empowerment fantasy he wanted to wreck somebody's game with
3. Gary was DMing. and he knew he needed to counter his revenge class or his flavor of the month empowerment fantasy
4. Gary wanted to violate his own rules, and because he wanted specific multiclass combos as a human, he created whole new classes
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 21, 2016 3:40:47 GMT -8
Actually it wasn't Gary that invented the Cleric - it was one of his players that invented a Vampire Hunter which became the cleric class. The tale is well documented in 'Of Dice and Men' Aaron
|
|
|
Post by mook on Mar 21, 2016 5:14:20 GMT -8
Gary Con's slogan is "Celebrating a life well played." Ooh, I like that. Gygax? Fuck that piece of shit My quote is an example of typical Internet research standards. ?
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on Mar 27, 2016 7:30:55 GMT -8
Here's the original article for the lazy or googlephobic: johnwickpresents.com/updates/the-worst-adventure-of-all-times/There was a bit of a hullabaloo over this the other day among my group of friends. There's quite a bit to be said about Wick's ability to make wonderful games, but there was additional opinion that he hadn't been entirely honest in his evaluation. To wit, one friend offered this article: thealexandrian.net/wordpress/38212/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-john-wick-lies-about-the-tomb-of-horrorsI've got no horse in the race about whether or not Wick is a nice guy, so given a choice to believe he's actively slandering Gygax work, or just misremembering the content through nostalgic lenses, I prefer to believe it's the latter. The story about sitting back and letting the other players' characters die, then retiring on their leftover goods is pretty hilarious, as long as I wasn't one of the players.
|
|
|
Post by mook on Mar 27, 2016 10:24:08 GMT -8
Eww. I never bothered reading Wick's piece from the OP until the link was right there in front of me (damn you, chronovore ). I shouldn't have, because now I have a different impression of the man behind the words. It took a little of the shine off. But rather than let loose a good ol' fashioned diatribe, just some random thoughts... - I know not everyone (anyone?) else gives a shit, so I'll get it out of the way -- I found the typos and errors distracting. I mean, this isn't YouTube comments, it's the personal blog of a fairly well known professional. Take the extra 10 minutes?
- But beyond that nit, I wish I had read the second link before I dug out my old module to check, because I knew he was clearly misremembering a lot of the things railed against. People misremember things all the time, especially from when they were 12, but if you're going to complain about something publicly, maybe confirm what it is you're actually complaining about? ("Ugh, I hate the taste of that new locust-flavored Pepsi!")
- It seems pretty clear he kind of missed the entire point of the module. It was written for a very specific style of play (multi-table tournament), with a very specific goal (deadliest dungeon ever made), for a very specific audience (grognards who want to somehow "beat" the dungeon). It's like people pointing to GURPS 3rd Edition "Vehicles," one book out of literally hundreds, to 'prove' that "See? GURPS has all the math!"
I mean, I get it. He ran a wildly inappropriate adventure as a kid and his friends kicked his ass. I can see why a 12-year-old would be pissed about that, and not yet be sophisticated enough to understand what the problem was. But to still be holding on to that same view after all these years seems... odd.
For the record, I don't remember ever DMing "Tomb of Horrors" (though I have read it). But I have played it three times. Once when I was around 14 (total TPK a little beyond halfway through, but we had a great time and no one felt the urge to pound on the DM), again the summer after high school (two out of six PCs made it out alive and with a bit of booty. I wasn't one of them, but it was an epic tale), and once just a year or two ago at Strategicon (which admittedly wasn't much fun, but that had everything to do with the GM and I having mismatched styles and nothing to do with the adventure).
Holding it up as "the worst, shittiest, most disgusting piece of pig vomit ever published" strikes me as ridiculous.
Quite as it should, YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on Mar 27, 2016 15:46:11 GMT -8
(snip) I mean, I get it. He ran a wildly inappropriate adventure as a kid and his friends kicked his ass. I can see why a 12-year-old would be pissed about that, and not yet be sophisticated enough to understand what the problem was. But to still be holding on to that same view after all these years seems... odd. (snip) Yeah, this is the key pivot for me: 12-year-old does something socially difficult for his friends to deal with? There's no news there. But going back and milking it for the story in his proffered coda? That's just, well, sad.
|
|
|
Post by stork on Mar 27, 2016 17:38:02 GMT -8
I dunno......I laughed at the story. I took it for what is was worth. A well told tale of a Dungeon raid gone wrong. Miss-remembered, probably, full of hyperbola? Definitely. A good read none the less? I thought so.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Mar 27, 2016 18:57:20 GMT -8
But beyond that nit, I wish I had read the second link before I dug out my old module to check, because I knew he was clearly misremembering a lot of the things railed against. People misremember things all the time, especially from when they were 12, but if you're going to complain about something publicly, maybe confirm what it is you're actually complaining about? ("Ugh, I hate the taste of that new locust-flavored Pepsi!") I have the same reaction whenever Stork brings up Stu's 4e game. He starts describing how his character totally changed and how he had to choose all new powers while he lost the old ones, and I'm thinking the whole time "Umm.... There isn't a point in your leveling where that happens." If your goal is just to amuse, then yeah, there's no harm, no foul on misremembering, hyperbole, and the like. When you're critiquing something and trying to be taken at least a little seriously, not so much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2016 22:20:14 GMT -8
Finding out that Wick lied is greatly disappointing. I did not read the module myself (I'm not shelling out money for something I have no interest in running) and only had his word to go on. That said I read the Alexandrian article and I'm not sure how I feel about the module now. The idea that it was a response to GMs whining about his modules being too easy makes me wonder if GMs of the time were dicks who wanted to kill their groups or if indeed the modules were child's play. Either way, Gary's response was a vindictive one. Instead of making a dungeon that was harder, he jumped straight to 'screw you all, killer module!'
I wouldn't suggest that making something so bad that people remember it is something to be proud of. As a kid I used to go to plays with my grandmother. The only one I explicitly remember is Alice in Wonderland. It was so bad that we nearly cheered as one of the actors was drug off stage to be jailed (presumably by the queen of hearts, I don't remember). A performance so bad that we wanted to cheer it's ending is not something you are proud of. I would not laud the director for its genius.
Tomb of Horrors seems more like fighting in Nam to me: You'll never forget how awful it was. That said, some people are masochists and wanted to pit themselves against it. Nothing wrong with that. I certainly wouldn't laud someone for creating the hardest dungeon ever to be made. I could do it in my sleep. Rocks fall and kill 1d6-1 party members every X feet. You could survive it, but you probably won't. Thus it's the hardest (and stupidest) adventure ever! I could even put in the work and make clues that the players could find, but make them all some kind of obscure hint no one is likely to get. It would be solvable 100% of the time... and solved less than 1%. Is any of this fun (for anyone but the maker)? I'm sure someone will love it, but it sure as hell wouldn't be me.
|
|
|
Post by mook on Mar 28, 2016 5:07:20 GMT -8
I dunno......I laughed at the story. I took it for what is was worth. A well told tale of a Dungeon raid gone wrong. Miss-remembered, probably, full of hyperbola? Definitely. A good read none the less? I thought so. Sure, the story buried in there was amusing, and reminded me of many of my own silly exploits when I was just a wee lad. But I found the framing device of "Tomb of Horrors is the worst module ever made, for all of these reasons that I got wrong" annoying. I suppose it depends on if the reader takes it to be a nostalgic anecdote of youth that includes jabs at a module he disliked, or a poorly executed hatchet job that includes a nostalgic anecdote. The title alone makes me think the latter, but alas, we'll ever know. Either way, Gary's response was a vindictive one. Instead of making a dungeon that was harder, he jumped straight to 'screw you all, killer module!' Apart from Wick's assertion, I have never encountered the thought that "Tomb of Horrors" was a response to anything. Who exactly would he be responding to? It was a tournament module designed around a specific conceit, like "Hey, how about an adventure where the only foes are various kinds of plant monsters," or "In this dungeon, each wing represents one of the four elements." I'm not sure where the idea that it was supposedly sending some kind of message comes from.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 28, 2016 5:26:02 GMT -8
The thing that everyone misses about ToH, and it's already been said in this thread: It was never meant to be a campaign module It was specifically a convention tournament module It was specifically a tournament module for COMPETITIVE MULTI-TABLE play Multi-Table play was GROUP (Players) vs GROUP (the other players 'sat at that table over there') The DM's were impartial arbiters, basically umpires, who then had to then grade the 'success' of each group against an independent set of measures. The DM's would get together after the round and submit the scores to the final judges There could only be one winning group at any given tournament and, yeah, it mattered because the prize was often cold hard cash (a precursor to the computer gaming tournaments we see today and 'played' just as seriously) To get an idea of how they worked look at original printings of The Slaver's and Ghost Tower of Inverness. They reprint the DM's score sheet etc and explain how to rank a group in a Multi-Table TOURNAMENT (I believe the intention was for local groups to come together and thus create local Conventions, which would in turn promote the hobby: again look at competitive computer game play,the industry successfully used exactly this model: first there were Lan Parties and over time they grew to become multi-millon dollar Events) The 'too easy' criticism relates specifically to EEG's own group . . . he knew his players and they knew him and all too often his 'challenges' went south because of it. The people who said his 'modules' were 'too easy' were his own players, but in the context of 'come on Gary, we've been playing this game since before it was a thing, take the kid gloves of and show us what you can do - be a bastard for once because a change of pace is good sometimes'. That's no different than any other hobby when you decide to 'up the ante' and test your limits just for the hell of it . . . TSR printed this because they needed to generate capital and EEG had already formatted it for distribution at Convention play. It was formatted for Convention Play because TSR needed to run something at Gen Con for their Tournament and it was what it was: 'a killer one-shot' (sourced from EGG's personal campaign and originally designed BY REQUEST OF HIS PLAYERS) Given that that is what ToH's was/is I think I can understand why EGG was so touchy on the subject. A module plucked, by necessity, from his personal game to fill a void while (a still developing) TSR struggled to adapt to it's own unprecedented success and demand for product Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kenigma23 on Mar 28, 2016 7:08:53 GMT -8
My two gold pieces…for what it’s worth…
I played ToH back in the day and it was fun if you went in with the right attitude: “how far can I get?”
I actually like the module for what it is, but in any reasonable campaign it would just snuff out the players… which is bad (or so I’m told).
BUT I figured out a way that it CAN work in a campaign: Set up a “Groundhog Day” scenario.
The players get locked in a time loop that take them back to the beginning of the map each time they all die (this will happen often). The only way to break the loop is to get to the end and kill the demi-lich… so I kind of turns it into a comedy routine of death…
I would recommend a lot of drinking should you go this route…
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 0:32:25 GMT -8
Perhaps my assessment is wrong in that I come at it from a more modern perspective. I've played computer games competitively (never at a large level, just among my own community) and it isn't something I do with friends. When I'm there to win I'm an asshole, and so is everyone else. This isn't how I am around people who I care about. Serious competition saps the fun out of what you do. It's like watching parents who are more into their kids playing sports than the kids are. Very cringe worthy and sad.
When I play a role playing game I am with my friends or at least people who I don't want to alienate right away. I'm there to have fun, not to win. So the idea of playing a rpg to win is one where I do a double take and go, "Huh?". Winning and having fun are often at odds. Do we rush to finish the module on time so we aren't docked points or do we have that in character roleplay scene? You can't have both, now pick. At most table the people aren't there for the same reason. Getting competitive means all those people who wanted the role playing will be at odds or excluded by the people who wanted to finish on time. My goal is for everyone to have a good time, not pit the good time of one group against another. To me the competitive style is to be avoided unless everyone is on board.
The sad part is that in most groups there are people who will be against that type of play but will not voice their concerns for any number of reasons, so even when you think you have a consensus there is likely to be fallout. Unlike a board game that you finish in a single sitting, most rpg's play over the course of weeks or months. Thus being on the short end of the chosen game stick means putting up with it for a long time. Worse yet is when that short stick interjects itself into your regular game. You play till level 10, have a great time. GM runs tomb of horrors even though you aren't into it and kills the character you have been playing for months.
You see, a module is not a game. It is something that gets run in a game. The danger is that tomb of horrors shows up in a regular game instead of a convention one shot. What was fun in its specific little niche is a group destroyer when it gets out into the gaming wild. It's tagline is tantalizing for an adventure. Most dangerous tomb ever! or whatever it actually was, not looking it up. It sounds like an adventure hook you'd pick up in a tavern. By the time you find out that no, it really is a meat grinder it's too late. The GM wasted his money or god forbid ran it and pissed off his group.
In a way the ToH are like cigarettes. You buy them because you want to be cool. Then you smoke them and find out its awful. Even worse if you pick up the habit and end up with cancer. You buy the module and check it out (your first smoke) and hate it, you've wasted some money. You run it (smoke for a long time) and it can destroy your gaming life. Your buddies are pissed at you, etc.
While John Wick may have lied about what the book actually says, I think i'm still with him on this one. As far as the general public (not gary's home group or a specific convention event) goes, this game is toxic trash that should have to have the equivalent of a smoking warning on the cover.
|
|
|
Post by mook on Mar 29, 2016 2:03:31 GMT -8
Perhaps my assessment is wrong in that I come at it from a more modern perspective. Well, yes, right? For the same reason a critique like "Omg, 'Tarzan' is so racist!" doesn't bring much to the table. No shit it's racist, it's 100 years old. Assessing decades-old works through a modern lens is bound to end in tears. I will note that a quick glance at Wikipedia shows the adventure seems to be held in fairly high regard by folks in the industry. Anecdotally for myself, I've literally never heard anyone (in person) talk about ToH other than as a "classic" and a romping good time (admittedly, it's not like I've had 100 conversations about it -- but when it does come up, it's invariably as a nostalgic touchstone to the "old days"). While John Wick may have lied about what the book actually says, I think i'm still with him on this one. As far as the general public (not gary's home group or a specific convention event) goes, this game is toxic trash that should have to have the equivalent of a smoking warning on the cover. Clearly this is an "agree to disagree" issue. It basically sounds like you're saying "I'm judging a 40-year-old adventure by modern sensibilities, and holding a competitive tournament module to the standards of cooperative friendly play, and Wick lied/misrepresented everything about ToH... but it's still 'toxic trash.'" It does absolutely sound like a bad fit for you and your group, but it doesn't exactly sound like you plan to run it anytime soon. The fortunate thing is that, apart from Wick's single post, it isn't like ToH is some kind of problem, the scourge of modern gaming just chewing it's way through the hobby. It's a product written before many players were born, very specific to its time and place, a relic of the hobby's roots. I don't see why it has to be more than that.
|
|