I am seeing a growing trend on the various villain threads for folks to "justify" the villains as written by adding all the stuff they are guessing was meant or they would add to make the villain work in their own campaign.
And while I find the comments interesting and instructive, I also find it off-putting, since they are NOT the author of the villain, and I am looking at what the author wrote, not what someone guesses he might or might not do.
I, like others, have my favorites, and can see lots of things to do with them, how to tweak them, or add bits to make them more "mine" ... but that's not what I thought this was about. The ones I chose are usable _as is_ without the layers of additions or rewrites from other folks ...
All the gilding of a fan of a villain is not going to change how it was originally written. That is what I'm voting on, the contestant's entry, not all the comments and add ons and wish they'd done and he meant to dos.
Just my thoughts.
|
I am seeing a growing trend on the various villain threads for folks to "justify" the villains as written by adding all the stuff they are guessing was meant or they would add to make the villain work in their own campaign.
And while I find the comments interesting and instructive, I also find it off-putting, since they are NOT the author of the villain, and I am looking at what the author wrote, not what someone guesses he might or might not do.
A valid point. Having another reader attempt to 'correct' one's view of something by making up all sorts of ways that the villain could be used isn't convincing me that the *writer* sold the villain, only that the defender is creative.
I didn't vote for Clinton Boomer last year because he had so many rabid screaming fans telling me how awesome he was. When I did vote for him, it was because *his* idea worked for me. I actually had to force myself not to knee-jerk in the other direction and *not* vote for him because of my deep-seated dislike of being told by others what I'm supposed to like and to whom I'm supposed to 'give a chance.'
This sort of thing just reinforces my come up with my own thoughts on a submission before reading what everyone else has to say (especially the judges, who 'feel' more authoritative to me, and I don't want to be swayed by what Wolfgang or Clark or Sean thinks about something, because I'm not Wolfgang or Clark or Sean and am perfectly willing to disagree with them*).
*Or, in the case of Sean, flat-out argue with him, on his own message boards. :)
*Or, in the case of Sean, flat-out argue with him, on his own message boards. :)
You too?! Wow. Small world.
I'm not seeing people claiming to vote for things based on what they wish it was, myself. Perhaps you could provide a link to where this is happening? And is it the presumed voting or the comments at all that are bothering you?
As for the comments, I think there's at least three legitimate reasons why you're seeing this:
1. They're offering advice to the OP. Saying this is what's worked for me or this is how I'd use it at my table gives anecdotal information to the OP that might be useful. There are three parts of any act of communication: a sender, a text, and a receiver. The sender's intent is really the least important in media, compared to the actual text and what the customer gets from it.
2. They're using their own experience to argue for or against a particular submission. Informed debate makes for the best decision-making process and there's always going to be some part of that process that's adversarial in nature.
3. They're extrapolating from teasers, like the use of cinnamon for Varrush. That's legitimate for two reasons. A) The judges said to tease things in last year's comments and in this year's. B) Cultural associations are an efficient way to show, not tell.
If this isn't what you mean, GamerGirrl, could you clarify?
*Or, in the case of Sean, flat-out argue with him, on his own message boards. :)
Editors, publishers, and designers have made mea culpas on these boards in the past, so I don't really see a problem with that. I agree with you that it's amusing, however.*
*...especially since that particular argument could go either way, despite Sean's home field advantage, as you put it.
This sort of thing just reinforces my come up with my own thoughts on a submission before reading what everyone else has to say (especially the judges, who 'feel' more authoritative to me, and I don't want to be swayed by what Wolfgang or Clark or Sean thinks about something, because I'm not Wolfgang or Clark or Sean and am perfectly willing to disagree with them*).
I have no problem reading their thoughts and coming up with my own opinion afterward. What's the big deal?
I mean I get what you are saying; I am (err, was) a teacher, took assessment, and understand bias in all its glory from many sources, but still, reading other people's thoughts isn't what stops you from having an opinion, it's laziness or lack of time....
So while I really dig your assertion of independent thinking, I think the trick is to still be able to do it after you hear someone else's great idea.
And in reference to the OP. Who cares if people are pondering the potential for the submissions? That's what imagination is for.
If this isn't what you mean, GamerGirrl, could you clarify?
I don't want to get into a long harangue or specifically point fingers at any post or poster, as this contest is about the contestants. If there was private tells and such, I might be willing to be more explicit, but I have seen long lists and total rewrites with "this is how I would have done it" or "this is how it should have been done" and then comments about how that is cool, folks didn't see that before ...
There's a lot of posts to go through to come up with specific examples, and as I said, I don't want to get into that. I was and am annoyed when I see someone telling me or anyone else that we're wrong, that's not how the author meant it, and then tells me how it was meant -- those aren't the author's words, if you see what I mean.
I was and am annoyed when I see someone telling me or anyone else that we're wrong...
Heck, I though that's what the internet is for.
P.S. If I were you I'd stay away from Sam Weiss.
|
I agree to a point. Each entry should be judged on what is actually in the entry and what the entry gives the DM to work with. However, I see a lot of cases where people are saying that there's some kind of weakness in the entry, or making statements that an entry doesn't provide for such-and-such a circumstance. Sometimes that's totally true, and I have no problem with that. Other times, I don't feel it's true at all, and I have this ingrained OCD about people not giving others a fair shake, which tends to make me come off as rather argumentative. It's hard for me to not point out where I feel that other people have missed something in an entry or not made allowances for reasonable DM usage. Especially for entries that I like.
That said, I try not to supply anything that isn't already present in the entry, because that's not my place. I attempt to limit myself to pointing out weaknesses in other peoples' arguments (such as pointing out just how possible it is for a sorcerer to wear armor without sacrificing effectiveness ;)), rather than building on what the entry lists. I don't know that I always succeed, and I do know that I frequently come off as being ... undiplomatic. I joke that my Diplomacy score is about a -10.
Anyway, there's definitely some truth to what you're saying, but there's definitely a lot of valid commentary and debate to be had about the entries. The OP almost reads like they'd prefer everyone be limited from commenting on the entry aside from "I voted for it" or suchlike, and I can't for a moment agree with that.
I attempt to limit myself to pointing out weaknesses in other peoples' arguments (such as pointing out just how possible it is for a sorcerer to wear armor without sacrificing effectiveness ;)), rather than building on what the entry lists. I don't know that I always succeed, and I do know that I frequently come off as being ... undiplomatic. I joke that my Diplomacy score is about a -10.
Don't worry about it. You were fine. And, in fact, right.
I partly agree, partly disagree.
If the entry does spark my imagination enough for me to play further with it, come up with maybe different interpretations etc. it shows that the concept is interesting. That is a good thing.
If I am required to ignore large chunks of the actual entry for me to use it or do other massive rewriting then the execution either was not suitable for me or just poorly done. A bad thing.
Then it is just a matter of balancing the two. Immediately usable but a tad boring villain is a problem entry, as is great concept handled poorly.
I should however point out that I am a bit of a magpie in these things, I do take things and the put them in different contexts, sometimes reworked, so use-exactly-as-written is not a big selling attribute for me...
I think the ideas being tossed around, be they good or bad, are inspiring. The entries are sparking my imagination and will liven up my campaigns for a long time.
Let everybody speak their minds.