Qalnor

I'm calm, for the record. And whether you were being delibrately evasive or not, I don't know, but you weren't really addressing what I consider the point of this discussion. I tried not to accuse you of being evasive by using the word 'avoided' instead of 'evasive' because it leaves open the possibility of non-intent. I agree with your statement that VoDT doesn't contain a well written or convincing statement about pollution. I furthermore can say quite honestly that when I played VoDT, I too did not feel that I was being preached to. Given that, I find Creators original article to be flawed because of an example it gives. It may well be that a very small percentage of players who play VoDT will feel that they are being preached to, but as you aptly demonstrated, you can dig up a moral in just about anything if you try hard enough. And that issue is the only major dispute I see in this thread. People keep talking about whether VoDT had plot holes or not, and I just don't even see how that's the issue. That would be a fine issue if the thread was called 'Try not to have plot holes in your scenario'.. I doubt anyone would have argued about it. But it's not. This is an article about the preachiness of scenarios.

Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: I also think that if we assume that VoDT is a statement about pollution, it is a fairly shallow one. And you've done it again, you've avoided stating what you actually think. Do you assume that VoDT is a statement about pollution or do you not. I don't care what you think Jeff intended. I don't care what you think Creator is assuming nor what it would mean if that assumption happened to be true. I don't care what you think Vent thinks. Jeff, Creator, and Vent are all capable of speaking for themselves quite well on the subject, and two have done so. What I want to know, is whether you actually agree with the notion that VoDT contains a lesson about pollution, or not. And let me restate so there is absolutely no confusion, whether intentional or not: do you believe VoDT came off as being preachy? There are only basic choices for answers to this question, 'yes', 'no' and 'I'm not sure'. I've said you're not sure before, but I have trouble believing you managed to say so much on this debate without ultimately forming an opinion on the actual topic, regardless of how firm that opinion is.

Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: EDIT: Presumably that it was, in fact, a good archeological scenario. If so, you missed my point completely. And yeah, read the Creator's last post again, because I say the same thing. What exactly is your point, Kelandon? You've come out as supporting Creators article, but at the same time you've come out saying that you aren't sure you really consider VoDT preachy (which to me sounds like a clever way of not admitting to a position on the subject). Well that's fine, but I don't think there's a person in this thread who doesn't agree with the basic idea that a scenario shouldn't be too preachy. The only real point of major contention in this entire thread, that I'm aware of, is on the issue of whether or not VoDT falls into the category of preachy or not. Now there has been a lot of hand waving in this thread saying that nobody ever really meant VoDT was preachy so much as it wasn't the best scenario ever made, but Creator hasn't backed down from his position on VoDT, he has, in fact, affirmed it more than once in the thread: Quote: The 'message' of the scenario is pretty simple. "If you pollute, bad stuff happens." That's an excerpt from his most recent affirmation on his position on VoDT. And there has been further hand waving suggesting that it's not a big deal anyhow, that even if he does think that, the article can simply be boiled down to the idea that nobody wants a preachy game. Well everyone agrees with that, but I can't possibly agree with the suggestion that an example which encompasses scenarios 'as preachy' as VoDT doesn't have a very large influence on the impact of the article. It would be like saying 'I really hate racists.. like Christians' and someone defending that because the person was really only saying that they hated racists, it doesn't really matter what examples he used. Examples DO matter, because they define the scope of the point, and it is the scope of the point which is in debate, not whether or not the point was valid to begin with, which nobody in their right mind can possibly disagree with.

Well I guess I'm a little more of a revolutionary than some of you guys, to me there was no moral ambiguity at all about a small rebellion. Apart from that, there's nothing really new for me to add, I think everyone has explained their views well enough, as wrong as some of them are (kidding).

I mean no offense by it, but the belief that art and entertainment are the same thing is a common view among artists. And though I enjoy art and have a creative streak myself, it is not a view I share. You give the example of 'A Small Rebellion' as something treated with a great deal of depth, but I cannot say I agree with you overmuch. Although it was technically a choice, I felt no desire to choose to side with the empire, and could not imagine myself doing so unless I was exceptionally bored. Indeed, I was so quickly disintereted in the empire side of things that the plot of the game didn't make sense in parts because it assumed I had done things which I had not prior to deciding to join the rebels. Was there a choice? You could say so, but it was a choice between good and evil, not various shades of grey. But I don't want to turn this into a debate about that scenario as well, let's turn our attention to another scenario, say the third one, the time limited Zharazi Run one. There were different ways of getting where you were going in this one, and I didn't do everything there was to do, so I can't say for sure, but I never saw how the villains in this one were treated with any great deal of depth. Indeed, if you properly won the scenario you never met your enemy the entire time (at least by the paths I followed). Now maybe you will say that this means it lacks art and depth, fine, I disagree, but fine. But are you going to turn around and tell me that Jeff was trying to tell us that people who look different are evil and that racial differences will ultimately end in war? I don't know about you, but I'm reluctant to call Jeff a racist because his lizardpeople lacked proper moral dimension. And that's the equivalent of what you're suggesting here, that Jeff is trying to (or worse you accuse him of being stupid, and not realizing what he's doing) preach the evils of pollution simply because magical pollution played an insidious role in one of his games. When you put it in the context of preaching racial war it sounds silly. But though it may sound less silly, it is no less silly than the suggestion that VoDT is preaching treehugging hippery.

Well let me say again, what I wrote was assuming that people felt VoDT was a good example of what is being discussed. I'm not claiming that the original posters points were invalid -- they were valid -- but I dispute VoDT as an example. I stick by what I said with regard to anyone who believes VoDT was 'preachy' because it dealt with magical pollution and a dead villianess who had been responsible for said pollution. And truthfully few people fall cleanly into one category or another. We are not caricatures playing out our part in an avernum scenario, and one simple classification does not suit us. But we do have influences. And some people are more concerned with what they believe 'quality' is than they are about how much fun it is. And some people are so concerned about 'fun' that they forget quality entirely and in the process either make their scenarios lose their fun because they lack spirit or perhaps become pornography if they take things too far along that track. Most people take influence from both sides of things, but some people take too much from one or the other, and I have to believe that anyone who takes VoDT seriously has forgotten about the 'fun' side.

Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: I'd rather that you judge me by what I say in, for example, the Avernum Trilogy or Exile Trilogy forums, where I help people out by pointing them in the right direction. I don't read those forums any more, but I have no doubt that you are a capital fellow. I certainly have not judged you poorly, especially since your only crime so far as I can see was not being in perfect accord with me, a folly that I find most humans live quite well and happily with. If you think I might judge you because you exchanged mild rudenesses with that foreign chap, then you have an overabundance of dignity, I never fault a man for giving as much as he takes so long as he never stops smiling. And at the end of the day, how could I ever think ill of a man who can appreciate a joke about baby-eating?

Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: It might be more merciful if you just EAT the babies, Mr. Power. I don't much agree with you on that other thread, but I am profoundly delighted to discover that I am not the only one who opened this thread hoping for something amusing.

I forgot about this interesting discussion for the past few days, and based on the past half dozen posts, it seems that this discussion has forgotten itself, as well. So if we can move beyond accusations and insults -- bidirectional arrogance, clannish behavior, and the relative temperment of the others posting, I'd like to share a thought on the subject. It seems to me that both sides of this debate seem to be making essentially the same point but they're concluding two different things about it. Let's assume the example of VoDT.. Because this scenario seems to be the focus on disagreement. There may be other scenarios which people disagree on, but there are also probably scenarios that one side or the other agree are good because they satisfy both sides in one way or another. The people who are saying VODT is a bad scenario are suggesting that it is indeed because the issue is not handled in a serious and logical fashion that it becomes another tedious mindless moral to file next to 'don't set your sisters cat on fire' and that the scenario has no real business talking about morality if it can't be bothered to treat it seriously. But on the other hand, the side that argues that VODT is a perfectly fine scenario is basically arguing that because the issue is NOT being tackled with a great deal of seriousness, it can't be considered preachy. This side is suggesting that the scenario is not really suggesting you file the lesson away next to any rules about burning animals, but rather that you should just take the scenario at face value and play. But what I essentially see here is a pattern that is true in all forms of creative expression. There are snobs and slobs (and remember what I called your other before you get angry with what I called you, if you see the truth of it in them, see it in yourself as well). Creative snobs believe that there is more value in art than entertainment, and creative slobs believe that there is more value in entertainment than art. In this: snobs believe that if a story touches morality, it should explore it fully and eloquently, and the slobs don't really care how intelligently it is explored, as long as the story is enjoyable. To someone on the snob side, the fact that they don't explore a moral issue completely means that they're obviously missing a lot of very good points.. And to them, this makes it seem preachy. They see the moral but they don't understand why it's there. To someone on the slob side, the fact that the moral issue is not fully explored is not especially pertinent. The only way to offend a slob with preachiness is by bashing them over the head with it. And I have to say, I favor the slob side of things. Not because I don't think the other side has the right to their opinion, nor even because I don't enjoy the higher forms of creativity, but simply because the snobs almost by definition always seem to complain the most about the things the other side enjoys. And I'm not trying to be critical of all criticism. I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a crappy scenario.. and I'm not even saying that a scenario that is well put together is immune from any criticism. It may be boring, cliche, TRULY overbearing in its moralisms, or the author may have truly not accomplished what they set out to accomplish.

I agree with 1, 2 and 3 certainly.. I'm just not sure about 4. A storyteller is not required to ignore his or her own beliefs in telling a story. Should they harp on them heavily and slap you in the face with them? No. But does every story with moral implications need to describe the opposing viewpoint with equal attention to detail? I don't really think so, as long as you never get the sense that the storyteller is trying to prove something to you, he has no motive much less responsibility to be fair to all sides of an issue. If someone wanted to make a scenario that was deeply exploring issues.. then I would agree with you, because if we're seriously exploring something and trying to come to some real and honest conclusions about something, it's not all about what moves the story anymore, it's about the underlying truths. And in the end when it's all fleshed out it can be a good story too, but it isn't the only way to make a good story. I guess my reaction to your post was based on you pointing your finger at VODT as an example of what you considered preachy and over the top. I don't specifically disagree with anything you said on the subject, really, it's just that your example of VODT to me indicates that your standard is much different than I think is reasonable. And why? Because I don't think VODT seriously explores the issue of pollution. I don't think the scenario has an axe to grind with pollution, and I don't think it's trying to convince anyone that the analogue of magic, science, is some great evil in society because it pollutes up the world. Maybe I'm being naive, but I really never felt like the scenario was trying to tell me ANYTHING about pollution. Was pollution a part of the story? Yes, but did it take on a character, did it have good or evil firmly attached to it? No I don't really think so. To be honest, if I had one complaint about VODT, it would be the lack of a villain or foe. It was a mystery story and in the end the responsible parties were all long dead and their motives were sketchy at best. So at the end of the day, I agree with your thesis, I just don't see how it applies to the example you listed.

I disagree with the article in just about every way except of course the core spirit of it. Nobody wants to be preached to, and when things are too preachy people turn away from them. Now I haven't played the Karl Marx scenarios, so I can't say for sure that it doesn't go too far. But you brought up VoTD as an example as well. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that VoTD's plot is sheer genius, but if it is your idea of preachy then your idea of preachy is too extreme. Every story must be told in a moral context. You seem to forget that in your comments.. oh you pay lip service to it by saying that in theory it can add a lot of depth to a story if carefully done, but even this betrays the logical flaw of what you're saying. I would rather a story with a little preachiness than no moral context at all.. adds depth? A story is barely two-dimensional without presenting some ideas as good and others as bad. I'll agree that a story is even stronger yet when the morality of it becomes confused by the complexities of 'reality', but at the very core of a story there are heroes and villains. But you seem to want all villains to be insane; murderers, rapists or otherwise so far outside of social norms that you don't feel guilty considering them the bad guy. Well those romantic notions are fine for a childrens story, but if you want anyone over 12 to take something you create seriously, the villains need motives apart from being kill crazy warlords. I agree with you that sometimes it's possible for an author's voice to become too apparent, but your expectations as described in this article are quite honestly ridiculous and anyone trying to follow the guidelines would almost certainly create a very very boring scenario.