Anime, martials, expectations vs reality.

[Nicos]

thejeff wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Then again, being uninformed/uninterested in something... Even disliking it... Is not necessarily bigotry.

It's also not what I'm talking about.

Just because I quote your posts, it doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with you... I might simply be trying to expand on your point.

Your post (in the context of replying to Nicos' post) gives me the impression that you're saying that making false inferences based on <X> is "X-ism". I'm just expanding on that point and saying that's not necessarily the case... The person making the false inferences might be mistaken, uninformed and/or uninterested.

Might be mistaken, uninformed or uninterested, but if they're making false inferences based on <X>, that's still X-ism. Maybe not the most extreme kind, but still...

True, but do we know what the <X> is? If I dislike Hip hop the only possible explanation is that I'm prejudiced against black people?. Sure there will be people that hate hip hop just because they associate it with black people, but that stance don't cover all the bases.

[Talonhawke]

Nicos wrote:

I just would not call racist somebody for refusing to see a new anime based on their previous dislikement of other animes. And do note that we all do that kind of thinking in our lives.

I will refuse to see any Adam sandler movie based on my dislikement of his other movies, and I doubt that that would make me an antisemitic.

Might be apparently not wanting to go see the new Ghostbusters makes me misogynistic even though the reason I'm not seeing it is I have yet to watch a movie from those actors and director I found funny. Same reasoning different results simply based on the target and not the actual reasons.

[Nicos]

Alzrius wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Individual people and not cultures create the art. It's true that people are influenced by the cultures and themes in his surrounding.

But Anime have been in the TVs around the world from a long time now. People that grew up seeing plenty of Anime can take anime as their main inspiration for their own art.

Individual people are the atomic units of their culture. Simply watching "plenty" of works from a culture foreign to your own, even if you find inspiration in that, isn't the same thing as being a member of that culture.

So?, you don't need to be of Japanese culture to create an Anime-style cartoon. Or to be a black guy from brooklyn/harlem to create hip hop.

Alzrius wrote:

Quote:

Though, defining Anime as "works of animation made by and for Japan" is a workable definition I don't find it to be a particularly useful one.

Why not? It strikes me as being better than any alternative offered so far. "Visual style" isn't helpful because there are anime with highly distinctive pictorial elements that look nothing like other anime (e.g. Crayon Shin-chan). "Thematic elements" isn't helpful because there are large numbers of anime for which any particular theme(s) aren't found. If we hold that the term "anime" is describing something specific, then what other definitions could be considered?

Would you insist that only black people from brooklyn or harlem can create hip hop?. Because an statement like that is of the same style as saying that only japanese people can create anime.

[Nicos]

Talonhawke wrote:

Nicos wrote:

I just would not call racist somebody for refusing to see a new anime based on their previous dislikement of other animes. And do note that we all do that kind of thinking in our lives.

I will refuse to see any Adam sandler movie based on my dislikement of his other movies, and I doubt that that would make me an antisemitic.

Might be apparently not wanting to go see the new Ghostbusters makes me misogynistic even though the reason I'm not seeing it is I have yet to watch a movie from those actors and director I found funny. Same reasoning different results simply based on the target and not the actual reasons.

I'm sorry, I don't know if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me or just adding something else. Not native speaker here.

[Talonhawke]

Nicos wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

Nicos wrote:

I just would not call racist somebody for refusing to see a new anime based on their previous dislikement of other animes. And do note that we all do that kind of thinking in our lives.

I will refuse to see any Adam sandler movie based on my dislikement of his other movies, and I doubt that that would make me an antisemitic.

Might be apparently not wanting to go see the new Ghostbusters makes me misogynistic even though the reason I'm not seeing it is I have yet to watch a movie from those actors and director I found funny. Same reasoning different results simply based on the target and not the actual reasons.

I'm sorry, I don't know if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me or just adding something else. Not native speaker here.

I was agreeing with you but pointing out that its possible someone else might not.

[Lemmy]

I think he's agreeing with you...

In any case, I think we now derailed the thread's derail! XD

[Nicos]

Lemmy wrote:

I think he's agreeing with you...

In any case, I think we now derailed the thread's derail! XD

Well, Jiggy basically gave the definite answer to the Op in the first page.

[Talonhawke]

Well back on topic there are plenty of things I am sure we can dig up without touching any media in the last 500 years that would show a non-magical or minimally magical entity doing things far beyond what a 20th level pure martial could accomplish. Which is why so many people get a bit off-put that anything more than human normal is Weaboo badwrongfun. It reminds me of one of the Adamantine threads where any mention of ignoring hardness was met with cries of "It's not a lightsaber".

[Jiggy]

Nicos wrote:

I just would not call racist somebody for refusing to see a new anime based on their previous dislikement of other animes.

I'm not talking about someone who refuses to watch a new anime because they disliked a previous anime.

I'm talking about someone who refuses to watch something that is not an anime because the fact that it features Asians is enough to convince them that it is an anime.

For a different example, consider John Wayne cowboy movies. There were a lot of them, and many of them were very, very alike. Now let's suppose someone's seen a few typical John Wayne movies and dislikes them.

What you're talking about is if we offer them another cowboy movie and they decline because they don't like cowboy movies.

What I'm talking about is if we offer them a James Bond spy movie, but the front of the box shows a picture of James Bond holding a revolver, and the person declines because they don't like cowboy movies.

[Krensky]

Nicos wrote:

I will refuse to see any Adam sandler movie based on my dislikement of his other movies, and I doubt that that would make me an antisemitic.

No it doesn't. But if you you refuse to watch a Mel Brooks movie because you don't like Adam Sandler, well, you might be.

[Lemmy]

Jiggy wrote:

What I'm talking about is if we offer them a James Bond spy movie, but the front of the box shows a picture of James Bond holding a revolver, and the person declines because they don't like cowboy movies.

If the only movies with gun-totting protagonists they've ever seen are John Wayne movies, that's an understandable assumption.

I think a better comparison would be someone who loves 007 movies but preemptively hates another secret agent movie just because the protagonist on the cover is Japanese.

[Lemmy]

Krensky wrote:

Nicos wrote:

I will refuse to see any Adam sandler movie based on my dislikement of his other movies, and I doubt that that would make me an antisemitic.

No it doesn't. But if you you refuse to watch a Mel Brooks movie because you don't like Adam Sandler, well, you might be.

Someone who even dares put Adam Sandler on the same level as Mel Brooks has a far worse problem... They are probably brain-dead. :P

[Jiggy]

Lemmy wrote:

I think a better comparison would be someone who loves 007 movies but preemptively hates another secret agent movie just because the protagonist on the cover is Japanese.

That... might or might not fit what I'm talking about, depending on whether the reason for the dislike ends at "protagonist is Japanese" or also includes "and therefore it's going to be like these other movies I don't like".

The latter is what I'm talking about. Not so much them disliking something for superficially looking different from what they like, but rather disliking something for superficially looking similar to what they already dislike.

[NenkotaMoon]

"Even Speedwagon is afraid!"-Robert E. O. Speedwagon The Meddler

[Lemmy]

Well... That depends on whether or not that person has any information other than "superficial looks" and how many times they gave a chance to material with said "superficial look".

e.g.: I love anime, but I'm not a fan giant robots... So every time I see a movie/anime/whatever with giant robots on the cover, I pretty much lose all interest... There are exceptions, and I'm willing to try something with giant robots if I hear good recommendations from someone I trust... But after watching many, many films and shows with giant robots, as a rule of thumb, I have no interest in watching anything with giant robots on the cover.

Similarly, I dislike hip-hop... I have no interest in listening to hip-hop to see if I finally find a song or artist I like. There might be one, somewhere... But the possibility is small enough that I simply don't bother. And I remain skeptical even when someone suggests a song/artist to me. Because for all my life, I've never seen a hip-hop artist or song I'd describe as anything better than "tolerable". I'm perfectly aware this is just a matter of taste, but it's my taste. i.e.: the only taste that matters when it comes to deciding what I enjoy.

[Alzrius]

Nicos wrote:

So?, you don't need to be of Japanese culture to create an Anime-style cartoon.

This presumes that anime is a "style," which I don't agree with. Just because you create an animated work that bears superficial resemblance to the common perception of the majority of Japanese animation does not, unto itself, make it an anime.

Quote:

Or to be a black guy from brooklyn/harlem to create hip hop.

Would you insist that only black people from brooklyn or harlem can create hip hop?. Because an statement like that is of the same style as saying that only japanese people can create anime.

I'm not sure why you're leaving the Bronx out of this, as hip-hop has very strong roots there, but that aside, I believe that your analogy is fundamentally flawed for the same reasons as I mentioned above. That's because "hip-hop" is a genre - a category of art based on stylistic criteria - whereas "anime" is not. Indeed, the fact that there are so many anime out there of various genres, ranging from action to comedy to horror to erotica and so many others, makes it self-evidently futile to use that as the basis for coming up with an all-encompassing definition of what "anime" is.

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

Nicos wrote:

I just would not call racist somebody for refusing to see a new anime based on their previous dislikement of other animes.

I'm not talking about someone who refuses to watch a new anime because they disliked a previous anime.

I'm talking about someone who refuses to watch something that is not an anime because the fact that it features Asians is enough to convince them that it is an anime.

Maybe I'm just slow, but it took an awful long time to figure out that's what you were talking about.

Possibly because I like anime (at least some anime - to the extent I could say I like American cartoons) and I liked Avatar and I did see a lot of anime influence in Avatar and that's part of what I enjoyed in it, so your whole "The only possible reason any one could think Avatar is anime is because it features Asians" thing made no sense at all to me.

Art style seems to me a far more likely reason to think it's anime than anything else, especially since that's probably the first thing anyone would pick up on.

[HeHateMe]

Jiggy wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

Anyway, I guess the thing I find amusing about these lines of arguments is that Anime is a pretty broad topic covering multiple genres, ranging in tone, target demographic, and subject. It's no more useful than saying they want martials to emulate "TV". Okay, but "TV" covers everything from Gummi Bears to Xena: Warrior Princess to Game of Thrones. Clearly more specific references are needed.

Yeah, generally they mean the type of Japanese action-anime that sometimes gets ported over to America, because they don't really have much of a concept of "anime" beyond their tiny perspective of Japan.

This is, of course, deeply racist.* But as long as the US has more extreme forms of racism against which gamers can contrast their own actions, it largely goes unacknowledged.

*Perfect example: when someone expresses a lack of interest in Avatar: the Last Airbender—a 100% American show with an eastern-flavored setting—because they're "not into anime". A cartoon with Asians? Must be that "anime" stuff from Japan, which of course I already fully understand.

Big Avatar the Last Airbender fan here, and I know the creators are American, but wasn't the animation done by a Korean studio? Still not anime obviously, but I didn't think it was an entirely American show.

[thejeff]

HeHateMe wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

Anyway, I guess the thing I find amusing about these lines of arguments is that Anime is a pretty broad topic covering multiple genres, ranging in tone, target demographic, and subject. It's no more useful than saying they want martials to emulate "TV". Okay, but "TV" covers everything from Gummi Bears to Xena: Warrior Princess to Game of Thrones. Clearly more specific references are needed.

Yeah, generally they mean the type of Japanese action-anime that sometimes gets ported over to America, because they don't really have much of a concept of "anime" beyond their tiny perspective of Japan.

This is, of course, deeply racist.* But as long as the US has more extreme forms of racism against which gamers can contrast their own actions, it largely goes unacknowledged.

*Perfect example: when someone expresses a lack of interest in Avatar: the Last Airbender—a 100% American show with an eastern-flavored setting—because they're "not into anime". A cartoon with Asians? Must be that "anime" stuff from Japan, which of course I already fully understand.

Big Avatar the Last Airbender fan here, and I know the creators are American, but wasn't the animation done by a Korean studio? Still not anime obviously, but I didn't think it was an entirely American show.

That's already been dismissed as "why the animation looks like it was drawn in an Asian style", but having no influence on people thinking it was like anime.

[kyrt-ryder]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Disclaimer: I am a manga/anime fan, currently halfway through Macross Delta and Seven Deadly Sins. So yeah, if you hope for some quality harping on how weaboo wuxia bullcrap killed Gary Gygax, not here.

Anyway. I've noticed a conjecture. Several of the most outspoken "martial-caster disparity/Fighters need to be more awesome/Failzo failed us again by failing" people are big on action anime. Either they profess it openly here, or a cursory glance at the Internet reveals their passionate presence on anime forums or their YouTube channels full of Ninja Scroll clips or their 18+ Sailor Moon tumblrs. Also, Book of Nine Swords was the bestest d20 supplement ever.

This got me thinking. Perhaps, after watching this, this and of course this, their expectations regarding sword-swinging characters are at a level which Pathfinder, a game designed mostly by non-anime-watching folks who apparently envision high level Fighters more something like this, cannot quite satisfy. Which leads to frustrations elaborated in all the locked threads.

Maybe there is a game out there which caters better to running barefoot on clouds, swinging your sword so that mountains are torn assunder, EXCEPT YOUR SWORD DOESN'T EVEN TOUCH THESE MOUNTAINS, IT'S THE SONIC WAVE OF MANA WHICH THE SWING GENERATES THAT TEARS THE WORLD APART?

The Dragonball Z Roleplaying Forum is that way ------->

Or just play an arcane full caster in Pathfinder. You'll reach that point, just with a different flavor.

[kyrt-ryder]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

High level mundanes are plenty epic, they just aren't as powerful as some of these shounen stories. You can do FotNS pretty well with PF out of the box, even if the game isn't designed to do DBZ or Bleach. Most importantly, the game is presented as flashily as lots of manga or anime.

Sure you can artificially do FotNS... if you ignore the action economy, restrict PCs to martial classes and give them way more levels than the enemy.

Quote:

Look at something like Beowulf or Gilgamesh: they did some pretty epic s$#% but it isn't presented blow by blow (and no speedlines or shounen screaming) because merely telling you what they did should be enough to point out how frickin' amazing they were, and their exploits are in almost every respect perfectly doable straight out of core.

Mind showing me where a Fighter is able to hold his breath and swim underwater for several days [or even several hours] without magical bs lighting him up like a christmas tree on a Detect Magic?

Also bear in mind Beowulf is a low to lower-mid-level character.

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

HeHateMe wrote:

Big Avatar the Last Airbender fan here, and I know the creators are American, but wasn't the animation done by a Korean studio? Still not anime obviously, but I didn't think it was an entirely American show.

That's already been dismissed as "why the animation looks like it was drawn in an Asian style", but having no influence on people thinking it was like anime.

What was actually said on the topic wrote:

...that has no influence on the content...

I'm going to move forward with the assumption that the discrepancy here is an honest mistake of some kind, rather than the deliberate misrepresentation that it very much looks like. With that in mind, I would recommend urgency in identifying and dealing with whatever might be blocking you from noticing when someone else's opinion/statement is different from what you assumed it was going to be, lest folks start assuming malice/dishonesty rather than innocent error.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

137ben wrote:

Notably absent from the list are any wizards or clerics. Interesting, don't ya think? Going by the source material, magic-users casting Plane Shift has no place in traditional fantasy. I guess that means Plane Shift (the spell) is too anime!

Generally in traditional fantasy, wizards and evil high priests are the things heroes beat up on... or at most offer sage advice, they generally aren't the central figures themselves. (Even Lord of the Rings removes Gandalf from the Party early on) The only time in classical fantasy and myth you have the equivalent of a party wizard is Medea traveling with Jason... and you know how that turned out.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Jiggy wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

thejeff wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I believe what Jiggy meant was 'I won't watch Avatar because it's Japanese' is wrong-headed.

If so, that's even weirder.

Actually liking Avatar because it's not Japanese while disliking anime because it's Japanese would be blatantly racist.

Have we really started calling people racist based upon the cartoons that they like? >.<

"Started"? Have you seen some of the early Disney films, and others from the same period?

Or for that matter, the first Superman animated shorts? The ones so old that he jumps Hulk-style instead of having the power of flight?

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

HeHateMe wrote:

Big Avatar the Last Airbender fan here, and I know the creators are American, but wasn't the animation done by a Korean studio? Still not anime obviously, but I didn't think it was an entirely American show.

That's already been dismissed as "why the animation looks like it was drawn in an Asian style", but having no influence on people thinking it was like anime.

What was actually said on the topic wrote:

...that has no influence on the content...

I'm going to move forward with the assumption that the discrepancy here is an honest mistake of some kind, rather than the deliberate misrepresentation that it very much looks like. With that in mind, I would recommend urgency in identifying and dealing with whatever might be blocking you from noticing when someone else's opinion/statement is different from what you assumed it was going to be, lest folks start assuming malice/dishonesty rather than innocent error.

As I said earlier, I and apparently some others, seem to have a good deal of trouble figuring out what you mean in this conversation.

It's possible the fault is entirely ours.

You did in fact say it has no influence on the content, but the entire discussion started with someone dismissing Avatar on the grounds they thought it was anime. Perhaps that bit of the discussion was completely unrelated?

[Maneuvermoose]

Man, this thread is disappointing, I made like three aliases on the first page of the thread for the sole purpose of amusing Jiggy, and Jiggy didn't even acknowledge them! This heavy discussion about racism is getting me down...maybe getting me down is TOO ANIME!
Although if I keep making aliases, I might turn into...

[Super Yesterday Man, Captain]

...Captain Yesterday, the Superman of Tomorrow!

Incidentally, Superman is an example of a non-anime character who exhibits many qualities that are frequently decried on this website as being "too anime." Laser vision and the ability to punch planets are both frequently cited as examples of something that would be "too anime." Superman, the Man of Tomorrow, is not anime, though, given his American origin and the fact that he is not (usually) drawn in an anime-esk style.

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

HeHateMe wrote:

Big Avatar the Last Airbender fan here, and I know the creators are American, but wasn't the animation done by a Korean studio? Still not anime obviously, but I didn't think it was an entirely American show.

That's already been dismissed as "why the animation looks like it was drawn in an Asian style", but having no influence on people thinking it was like anime.

What was actually said on the topic wrote:

...that has no influence on the content...

I'm going to move forward with the assumption that the discrepancy here is an honest mistake of some kind, rather than the deliberate misrepresentation that it very much looks like. With that in mind, I would recommend urgency in identifying and dealing with whatever might be blocking you from noticing when someone else's opinion/statement is different from what you assumed it was going to be, lest folks start assuming malice/dishonesty rather than innocent error.

You did in fact say it has no influence on the content, but the entire discussion started with someone dismissing Avatar on the grounds they thought it was anime. Perhaps that bit of the discussion was completely unrelated?

The post of mine that you're quoting wasn't in any way a commentary on or continuation of the anime subject as a whole; it was just addressing a single instance of gross misrepresentation. One poster made one post that directly referenced one other post, but did so inaccurately in such a way as to make it easier to flippantly dismiss.

That one interaction is all my above post was addressing, not any of the other stuff about whether someone might assume Avatar is anime.

Yes, there's been quite a bit of misunderstanding. I did at one point leave out the art style in my non-exhaustive examples of the kinds of superficial details that lead some people to make wrong assumptions about what kind of action/storytelling tropes a work will contain, which seems to have confused some folks greatly. However, every time the art style itself has been discussed, I have very explicitly acknowledged its resemblance to traditional anime drawing styles. But like I said, I'm going forward with the assumption that he honestly mistook "that doesn't affect the content" for "that won't make people think it's anime". I mean, it's a pretty nonsensical error, but you never know when someone's running on 3 hours of sleep, or has had the same conversation so many times that they think they know what everyone else is going to say and fails to notice when the 143rd conversation contains something different. Giving him the benefit of the doubt here.

[Grognardy Dangerfield]

Super Yesterday Man, Captain wrote:

...Captain Yesterday, the Superman of Tomorrow!

Incidentally, Superman is an example of a non-anime character who exhibits many qualities that are frequently decried on this website as being "too anime." Laser vision and the ability to punch planets are both frequently cited as examples of something that would be "too anime." Superman, the Man of Tomorrow, is not anime, though, given his American origin and the fact that he is not (usually) drawn in an anime-esk style.

Superman falls under "too supers"

[HeHateMe]

I'm not sure why only anime is being discussed here in reference to martials. Forget anime for a second, if you watch literally any action movie or tv show ever made, you can see why martials are so disappointing in PF.

The biggest reason is those gamers who persist in the absurd double standard that casters can break reality however they want, but martials can't do anything cool cause they're not magic and it's not realitic. This, in a campaign world that features giant flying, fire breathing lizards. Realistic?? F**k that argument. Earthdawn had a great solution to this issue: ALL character classes had magical powers. Some were more martial in application and others resembled spellcasting, but every class could break reality cause they were all magic. No disparity there.

[Neurophage]

HeHateMe wrote:

I'm not sure why only anime is being discussed here in reference to martials. Forget anime for a second, if you watch literally any action movie or tv show ever made, you can see why martials are so disappointing in PF.

The biggest reason is those gamers who persist in the absurd double standard that casters can break reality however they want, but martials can't do anything cool cause they're not magic and it's not realitic. This, in a campaign world that features giant flying, fire breathing lizards. Realistic?? F**k that argument. Earthdawn had a great solution to this issue: ALL character classes had magical powers. Some were more martial in application and others resembled spellcasting, but every class could break reality cause they were all magic. No disparity there.

The common argument against that is that people have no real world frame of reference for how dragons work, so it's okay if they do impossible things. But they do have a frame of reference for how swordsmen work, so they need to at least be recognizable to the audience or else the work breaks verisimilitude. That said, I have a lot of problems with that argument for a lot of reasons.

In general, though, my preferred high-magic settings take it as a given that magic suffuses everything and therefor everything (and by extension everyone) is magic. Saying that someone in that kind of setting doesn't use magic is like saying that they don't use air (which is to say that the assertion raises some serious questions about how the person in question even exists). How a person uses magical power is entirely dependent on what they're good at. Some people ritualistically shape it into supernatural phenomena through occult rites and ancient pacts, and some people exercise until they can jump over walls and knock down trees with their fists.

[thejeff]

Neurophage wrote:

HeHateMe wrote:

I'm not sure why only anime is being discussed here in reference to martials. Forget anime for a second, if you watch literally any action movie or tv show ever made, you can see why martials are so disappointing in PF.

The biggest reason is those gamers who persist in the absurd double standard that casters can break reality however they want, but martials can't do anything cool cause they're not magic and it's not realitic. This, in a campaign world that features giant flying, fire breathing lizards. Realistic?? F**k that argument. Earthdawn had a great solution to this issue: ALL character classes had magical powers. Some were more martial in application and others resembled spellcasting, but every class could break reality cause they were all magic. No disparity there.

The common argument against that is that people have no real world frame of reference for how dragons work, so it's okay if they do impossible things. But they do have a frame of reference for how swordsmen work, so they need to at least be recognizable to the audience or else the work breaks verisimilitude. That said, I have a lot of problems with that argument for a lot of reasons.

In general, though, my preferred high-magic settings take it as a given that magic suffuses everything and therefor everything (and by extension everyone) is magic. Saying that someone in that kind of setting doesn't use magic is like saying that they don't use air (which is to say that the assertion raises some serious questions about how the person in question even exists). How a person uses magical power is entirely dependent on what they're good at. Some people ritualistically shape it into supernatural phenomena through occult rites and ancient pacts, and some people exercise until they can jump over walls and knock down trees with their fists.

Conceptually, I'm perfectly happy with it either way: anime or other high powered martial stuff where guys with swords can go toe to toe with dragons and perform impossible feats because they're just that skilled or just that badass or worlds where humans are basically realistic and 50' long flying fire breathing reptilian things just eat you for lunch however long you've practiced - SoI&F style.

I'm a little less happy conceptually with PF default where the martial guy can easily survive being chomped on or incinerated by a dragon and can cuisinarte the thing in a dozen seconds, but because of "realism" can't do anything that isn't a matter of basic numbers just getting higher. All that kind of thing is just as much a superpower as flying or throwing lighting around.

[HeHateMe]

Neurophage wrote:

HeHateMe wrote:

I'm not sure why only anime is being discussed here in reference to martials. Forget anime for a second, if you watch literally any action movie or tv show ever made, you can see why martials are so disappointing in PF.

The biggest reason is those gamers who persist in the absurd double standard that casters can break reality however they want, but martials can't do anything cool cause they're not magic and it's not realitic. This, in a campaign world that features giant flying, fire breathing lizards. Realistic?? F**k that argument. Earthdawn had a great solution to this issue: ALL character classes had magical powers. Some were more martial in application and others resembled spellcasting, but every class could break reality cause they were all magic. No disparity there.

The common argument against that is that people have no real world frame of reference for how dragons work, so it's okay if they do impossible things. But they do have a frame of reference for how swordsmen work, so they need to at least be recognizable to the audience or else the work breaks verisimilitude. That said, I have a lot of problems with that argument for a lot of reasons.

In general, though, my preferred high-magic settings take it as a given that magic suffuses everything and therefor everything (and by extension everyone) is magic. Saying that someone in that kind of setting doesn't use magic is like saying that they don't use air (which is to say that the assertion raises some serious questions about how the person in question even exists). How a person uses magical power is entirely dependent on what they're good at. Some people ritualistically shape it into supernatural phenomena through occult rites and ancient pacts, and some people exercise until they can jump over walls and knock down trees with their fists.

That's quite an excellent point, I didn't realize that's where all the "realism" issues that bog down martials come from.

That said, I still would never play a martial character, being stuck in suckland while the casters laugh and solve every problem/destroy every enemy just doesn't seem like fun to me personally.

[Grognardy Dangerfield]

HeHateMe wrote:

That said, I still would never play a martial character, being stuck in suckland while the casters laugh and solve every problem/destroy every enemy just doesn't seem like fun to me personally....

Listen to you kids and your unearned magic. In my day, nobody laughed at the fighting man. Sure magic users had incredible power, but we didnt worry about it because they were always murdered by a mundane fighting men before getting any of it. The fighting man gets no respect I tell ya!

[HeHateMe]

Grognardy Dangerfield wrote:

HeHateMe wrote:

That said, I still would never play a martial character, being stuck in suckland while the casters laugh and solve every problem/destroy every enemy just doesn't seem like fun to me personally....

Listen to you kids and your unearned magic. In my day, nobody laughed at the fighting man. Sure magic users had incredible power, but we didnt worry about it because they were always murdered by a mundane fighting men before getting any of it. The fighting man gets no respect I tell ya!

Lol! Dude your avatar and your screen name are the most perfect match I've ever seen.

[kyrt-ryder]

Neurophage wrote:

HeHateMe wrote:

I'm not sure why only anime is being discussed here in reference to martials. Forget anime for a second, if you watch literally any action movie or tv show ever made, you can see why martials are so disappointing in PF.

The biggest reason is those gamers who persist in the absurd double standard that casters can break reality however they want, but martials can't do anything cool cause they're not magic and it's not realitic. This, in a campaign world that features giant flying, fire breathing lizards. Realistic?? F**k that argument. Earthdawn had a great solution to this issue: ALL character classes had magical powers. Some were more martial in application and others resembled spellcasting, but every class could break reality cause they were all magic. No disparity there.

The common argument against that is that people have no real world frame of reference for how dragons work, so it's okay if they do impossible things. But they do have a frame of reference for how swordsmen work, so they need to at least be recognizable to the audience or else the work breaks verisimilitude.

Clearly we need to educate the gaming population that the last vestiges of realism disappear from the game around level 9, and martial characters have been violating the laws of physics to some extent from very low levels [in some cases as low as level 1.]

Quote:

In general, though, my preferred high-magic settings take it as a given that magic suffuses everything and therefor everything (and by extension everyone) is magic. Saying that someone in that kind of setting doesn't use magic is like saying that they don't use air (which is to say that the assertion raises some serious questions about how the person in question even exists). How a person uses magical power is entirely dependent on what they're good at. Some people ritualistically shape it into supernatural phenomena through occult rites and ancient pacts, and some people exercise until they can jump over walls and knock down trees with their fists.

It works, I prefer a story element where this is a more natural evolution of power that explicitly is not magic, but this does work as well.

[claymade]

Jiggy wrote:

The latter is what I'm talking about. Not so much them disliking something for superficially looking different from what they like, but rather disliking something for superficially looking similar to what they already dislike.

So let's take a different example. Say I'm browsing through the bookstore... and I come across a book with this cover.

Now, I don't know anything about the writer, or the content. I've certainly never read it myself. The actual content could, for all I know, be an amazingly well-crafted story. It could be as different from my mental image of the typical romance novel as Avatar is from Naruto.

And yet I'm almost certainly not going to give it the time of day, based entirely on a brief glance at a couple (superficial) characteristics of its presentation. My reaction would be almost identical to the reaction of the people to Avatar whose motives you so derided. I would, as you said, "express a lack of interest" in the book, because I'm "not into anime that kind of romance novel".

But, but, but! Do I actually know that it's "that kind of romance novel" based on the cover alone? Well, no. I freely admit that. Me thinking that book will be just like my preconception of the kind of books that have "that style" of cover could be exactly as "incorrect" as people thinking Avatar will be just like their preconceptions of what "shows with that anime art style" usually end up being like, in their incomplete experience.

In both cases, it's a judgement based on, exactly as you say, "superficially looking similar to what they already dislike". But... so what? Works of entertainment (whether they "look superficially like anime" on one hand, or "look superficially like romance novels" on the other) are not entitled to the same benefit of the doubt that living, breathing humans are. People have no obligation to be "interested" in a given piece of media, an obligation that can only be discharged if they can come up with some valid reason not to be.

It's certainly wrong to prejudge a person's character based on superficial factors. But when judging whether you're interested in a particular piece of media enough to pursue it further, the judgement the vast majority of the time is going to have to be as superficial as the two described above given the sheer glut of just how freaking much of it there is.

So I guess, in the end, my question would be: exactly how much more in-depth consideration than what is described above are you telling me I'm--apparently--required to give a book that looks (superficially, in mere cover art style) like a romance novel?

[kyrt-ryder]

I guess people really do judge a book by its cover (art.) Myself I prefer to judge by the back cover text.

[thejeff]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I guess people really do judge a book by its cover (art.) Myself I prefer to judge by the back cover text.

I've read enough back cover text to know better than that.

And honestly, both are half way decent guides for the basics. Both are marketing devices intended to attract people who will like that kind of book. They tend to say very little about how good it is, but are a fairly decent guide to the general subject matter or genre. Of course my first criteria is usually even broader: What section is it shelved in?

That way if I'm looking for a fantasy novel, I don't have to waste time weeding through the mysteries and westerns.

[claymade]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I guess people really do judge a book by its cover (art.) Myself I prefer to judge by the back cover text.

Heh heh, if I read the back cover text for every book I glanced across in the bookstore/library when I go on a binge, I would never leave.

Actually... it's kinda funny when I started thinking about it. For all the thematic differences that Jiggy (rightly) notes between Avatar and most anime, that kind of back-cover-blurb, 500-ft view, overall-plot-synopsis of Avatar and Naruto would be amazingly similar.

(Air-wielding kid from a world of element-wielding kung-fu wizards, a world that is structured into elemental nations, is the chosen one destined to bring peace to their war-torn world, aided by his ability to draw on the super-powerful spirit dwelling inside him, but opposed by a fire-wielding sometimes-friend, sometimes-rival of vacillating allegiance.)

[Neurophage]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I guess people really do judge a book by its cover (art.) Myself I prefer to judge by the back cover text.

Alright. Real-talk for a second, because I'm kind of into this. For a moment, I'd like you to imagine your favorite novel. It doesn't really matter what it is. Snow Crash, The Hobbit, Fight Club, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Frankenstein, Little Women, whatever. Imagine all of the text of that novel arranged into a single block of text. No line breaks for dialogue, no paragraph breaks at all, no chapter breaks, no indentation, no nothing. Just a single block of text across a gigantic scroll that's as big as need be to store the entirety of the work. I think we can all agree that text arranged in this way would be rendered almost completely unreadable.

All writers who care about their craft also care about layout. They care about how large their pages are. They care about how their work looks arranged on a page. They care about the differences in layout between standard letter paper and the page sizes of the paperbacks from the bookstore. They care because all of those factors influence the experience of reading the work. They impact the preconceptions a reader has looking at the work. When you end a chapter, do you start the next one on the same page, or do you have a page break to start a new chapter? Are you using long, nearly page-length paragraphs of text, or do you prefer shorter paragraphs that last no more than four or five lines? What if you're publishing the work as a pdf rather than a physical book? How does that affect those decisions? Maybe it's meant to be read on an ebook reader or a cell phone. Maybe it's meant to be read on a webpage. A writer invested in their craft is aware of the visual decisions they're making in regards to the text. Every element of a work can and does influence the audience in some way, including the visual elements. I've met so many writers who think that the visual appearance of their text doesn't mean anything or say anything about the quality of their writing. Cooks care about how their food looks. Blacksmiths care about how their product looks. A writer should care about how their text looks.

So, now that it's been established that visual design is an important factor for the experience of a work of literature, we can move onto cover art. Now, I understand that not all authors are artists. Not everyone can be responsible for their own cover art. I'm sure that a lot of cover art happens without the author ever knowing about it. But in the event that an author has some kind of veto power or any influence in the decision at all, they should still search for the most evocative cover illustration that that they can get. The cover is the first part of a book that you see. You don't want to risk scaring away a reader with an unappealing cover, and you don't want to bait-and-switch them with a cover that establishes something at odds with the work itself. The cover forms our preconceptions about the book itself. You can tell a sci-fi novel at a glance. Most urban fantasy covers have a lot in common. Put a psychological thriller and a historical fiction book in front of me, and I could point out at least five things on the covers that indicate what each one is. Going for no cover illustration at all is a bold choice, but then you're relying on the strength of your title or name recognition. How many thousands of books come out every year? A cover is an immediate communication of something about the content of a book. It's a good filtering tool. All of those are choices. Not all of those choices are under the author's control, but the person who does make those choices should know what they're doing. We all know what it looks like when they don't.

So, the cover is a great place to start judging a book, because a book is a physical object and not a pile of ideas. Evaluating a work in its entirety means evaluating every single part of the work from its cover to its layout to its content. Literature is art, and in art everything matters.

Not accusing you of anything, Kyrt. Just felt like I had to get that off my chest.

[Sundakan]

The problem being that cover art is ALMOST NEVER determined by the author. It is determined by the publisher.

They likely have not read the story. They do not care about the content. They just want something eyecatching.

Here's a page full of examples.

If you've never read the book please, tell me what you think the plot of this one is about.

Because that's what this is about: Your ability to judge the content of the book by one element, not some objective measure of quality based on the single element you have seen.

[Krensky]

I think someone is massively overstating the concern or control most authors have over layout too.

[sisima70]

Sundakan wrote:

If you've never read the book please, tell me what you think the plot of this one is about.

Sailing and, probably, there is a plot-important tornado (the titular "Eye of the World").

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I've decided to give up on martials in Pathfinder. From now on it's all magic all the time.

[Jiggy]

claymade wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

The latter is what I'm talking about. Not so much them disliking something for superficially looking different from what they like, but rather disliking something for superficially looking similar to what they already dislike.

So let's take a different example. Say I'm browsing through the bookstore... and I come across a book with this cover.

Now, I don't know anything about the writer, or the content. I've certainly never read it myself. The actual content could, for all I know, be an amazingly well-crafted story. It could be as different from my mental image of the typical romance novel as Avatar is from Naruto.

And yet I'm almost certainly not going to give it the time of day, based entirely on a brief glance at a couple (superficial) characteristics of its presentation. My reaction would be almost identical to the reaction of the people to Avatar whose motives you so derided. I would, as you said, "express a lack of interest" in the book, because I'm "not into anime that kind of romance novel".

Note: Link is blocked at work, but I get what you're saying.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed (perhaps due to misunderstanding my earlier statements?), so let me see if I can straighten this out.

You're talking about people making assumptions about the content based on the deliberate message of the cover. I'm talking about people not even getting that far because the character on the front is a cartoon Asian instead of a painted American (or whatever), regardless of what the cover is actually saying about the content.

You're talking about the publisher deliberately trying to communicate something about the content (such as "it's a romance" or "it's sci-fi" or "it's action-packed") and somebody correctly identifying that deliberate message. You're talking about a publisher making a major blunder and communicating the wrong message, and the viewer failing to mind-read past the error.

That's not at all what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about when the viewer completely ignores the message that the publisher is trying to communicate with the cover. The exact opposite of what you're talking about. I'm talking about when they don't buy into the cover's message because the characters were hand-drawn Asians instead of photographed Americans (or whatever else).

For example, take this DVD box cover: three teenagers stand in battle-ready poses in the foreground, while the background includes a battleship and a looming, angry face.

What you are talking about is if people absorbed the intended message that this is going to be about three young protagonists an a militaristic antagonist with probably some amount of action/combat; but then they missed out because the content is actually about something else.

What I'm talking about is if the viewer would actually like a story about young protagonists against a militaristic antagonist with a bit of action/combat, and probably would have picked it up based on that, except they noticed that the youths look "eastern" and are drawn in a particular style, causing the viewer to completely disregard the obvious message of the art and instead assume that it's going to be hadokens and sonic sword-slices and over-the-top craziness.

You and I are talking about completely different things. You're talking about correctly assessing the message of the cover/box art when it might be wrong; I'm talking about ignoring that message because it looks eastern.

[Sundakan]

sisima70 wrote:

Sundakan wrote:

If you've never read the book please, tell me what you think the plot of this one is about.

Sailing and, probably, there is a plot-important tornado (the titular "Eye of the World").

This would be a logical assumption, but it's not correct.

Eye of the World:

It is a fantasy story involving a trio of young men and a pair of young women from a small village, and two adults who have taken them due to various events (the women show magical potential, and the boys are special in other ways).

They are attempting to get to the titular Eye of the World, a pool of untainted magic hidden in a blighted desert to destroy an army of monsters.

The trip is primarily overland, and the only boat that is ever involved is a relatively brief (in page count, as I recall they spend nearly a week on it, maybe more) ferry trip across a lake and down a river.

[claymade]

Jiggy wrote:

I'm talking about when the viewer completely ignores the message that the publisher is trying to communicate with the cover. The exact opposite of what you're talking about. I'm talking about when they don't buy into the cover's message because the characters were hand-drawn Asians instead of photographed Americans (or whatever else).

How is the particular art style chosen for the cover not part of "the cover's message"?

You say people are ignoring the supposedly "obvious" message of the cover, because of how the characters are drawn. But "how the characters are drawn" is part of the message, even if it might convey different things to different people who come at it from different experiences.

What I mean is, take the exact example you gave: "three teenagers stand in battle-ready poses in the foreground, while the background includes a battleship and a looming, angry face". But you can't just reduce the "message" to the mere physical elements the way you're doing here.

That exact scene you describe could be drawn using the art syle of Avatar the Last Airbender. Or it could be drawn in the style of the Justice League Unlimited cartoon. Or it could also be drawn in the art style of The Powerpuff Girls. Or it could be drawn in the art style of Rick and Morty. Or (and this was the intended point of the example) it could be drawn in the stereotypical-romance-cover-art-style of the image I linked above.

That choice--even keeping the same basic components of the scene the same--will create VASTLY different impressions in the audience of what the people who see it think the intended "message" of the image is. And those different impressions will be informed, in part, by their prior experience with other media that use a similar art style as well. Cultural context is an intrinsic part of that kind of non-verbal communication, and it absolutely influences the "meaning" that people read into a work or an image.

(For example, doing your example heroes-in-front-of-a-battleship scene in a cutesy style will convey one sort of meaning to a person who grew up watching Powerpuff Girls... but it might not have even remotely the same connotations to someone who grew up watching Happy Tree Friends instead.)

In short, I maintain that choice of art style can (and should) convey meaning. But, since that meaning is imprecise and context-sensitive, I think it's worth giving people the benefit of the doubt in situations like this.

If someone's only experience of that art style is it being used in a certain specific genre, their perspective could be as skewed as the guy who was raised on Happy Tree Friends would be as far as what the choice to use that art style "really" conveys. It doesn't necessarily mean they're racist, or being willfully ignorant. They might just be operating from a smaller reference pool than I am, and thus reading a bit more specificity into the meaning of the art style choice than actually exists. It's not like there's a hard and fast rule to this kind of interpretation, no matter how "obvious" it might seem to fans of the work who are more experienced in these waters.

Anyway, in a situation like this, I prefer giving them the benefit of the doubt, rather than condemning them in absentia.

[Jiggy]

Would you please pay attention to what I actually write? It was like this the first time around with this thread as well; I'd assert N, then had to go through multiple iterations of "No, I don't mean X, I said N; no, I don't mean Y, I said N; no, I don't mean Z, I said N" before one or two people finally recognized that I was saying something different than all the XYZs that they're used to hearing. You're starting that process all over again, and it's getting old.

Now, pay attention. You seem to be under the impression that I think the art style should be ignored, and if you draw any conclusions from it then you're racist/bad/whatever.

I did not say that.

Go back and re-read what I actually wrote. Here, I'll even re-post part of it for your convenience:
"What I'm talking about is if the viewer would actually like a story about young protagonists against a militaristic antagonist with a bit of action/combat, and probably would have picked it up based on that, except they noticed that the youths look "eastern" and are drawn in a particular style, causing the viewer to completely disregard the obvious message of the art and instead assume that it's going to be hadokens and sonic sword-slices and over-the-top craziness."

Here are some key differences between what I actually said and what you somehow managed to absorb:
• I talked about the person's rejection being based in part on the race of the characters, which you completely ignored. (Sure makes it easier to say "That's not racist" when you ignore the part about race, doesn't it?)
• My reference to the art style was not about factoring that into the overall message of the cover, but actually using the art style (and race) to draw conclusions in spite of the rest of the message of the cover. That is, their assumptions based on the art style (and race) contradict and overrule all other data they have about the work.

In short, I'm talking about when "hand-drawn Asians" is basically all they can see on the cover.

Now, can you rephrase back to me what my point is? Because I'm not going to invest in you any further unless you can demonstrate that you really read and absorbed what I wrote. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to demonstrate that whatever you might be about to disagree with is what I actually said.

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

Would you please pay attention to what I actually write? It was like this the first time around with this thread as well; I'd assert N, then had to go through multiple iterations of "No, I don't mean X, I said N; no, I don't mean Y, I said N; no, I don't mean Z, I said N" before one or two people finally recognized that I was saying something different than all the XYZs that they're used to hearing. You're starting that process all over again, and it's getting old.

It's usually a pretty good rule that when multiple people are misunderstanding you, the failure in the conversation might not be completely on their side.