Bad Roleplaying? I blame Tolkien.

[C. Edwards]

The influence of Tolkien's work upon role-playing and subsequent works of fantasy is likely so deep seated and widespread as to be below our casual awareness. Tolkien's work is grafted into the architecture of pop culturedom with far reaching and subtle effects, such that when someone points out the "ripples in the pond" we squint our eyes and insist that the disturbance must stem from some lesser source, and not the aged leviathan coursing beneath the surface.

Had the substance of Ralph's post not violated the sanctity of Tolkien, I doubt that such fervor would have been expended in reply. Personally, I'm mostly in agreement with his observations and conclusions. I'm also of the opinion that should the sacred idol of Tolkien be shattered upon it's gilded altar then perhaps a decent amount of objectivity would eventually take root in discussions of his works.

I love the books (and the movies for that matter), therefore I must accept them for what they are; inspiring yet flawed works that have had far too much influence, much of it unfortunate, on the face of role-playing.

-Chris

[Caldis]

I'll take you at your word when you say my memory may be foggy of certain events in the book, I'll admit it's been awhile since I last read LOTR.  I will say however that the things you are pointing out never struck me as the important things about the books and not something I'd conciously try to emulate, and I dont think many gamers did.  The attention to details like watches and supplies seems much more like the elements from war gaming than anything inspired by Tolkien, ie. unit x cannot attempt to climb the wall because he does not have 50'rope listed as an ability.  

You further say that marching order developed from tracking a party on graph paper.  I believe that's backwards.  Players didn't develop marching orders because they were using graph paper.  Even in the early days one didn't map out marching down a corridor square by square with each figure moving.  Graph paper was used when events when to combat rounds and to draw maps to avoid getting lost.  The need for a mechanism to track marching order came from the players perception of a need to feature marching order.  The mechanism developed to fill the need not the other way around as you suggest.  I believe that need was highly influenced by Tolkien who went to great lengths not only to describe the order the party was in but why.

I was thinking of it more from the GM's perspective.  He's planned out his temple of real bad asses and stocked it full of monsters and traps.  He's drawn it out on graph paper and marked in where he's put all the traps and all the monsters.  When you are doing a dungeon crawl the gm has to know who is in front when you run into the pit trap.  He also needs to know who gets backstabbed when a thief sneaks up behind the party.  A marching order is a necessity in a dungeon crawl that emphasizes tactical/strategic combat and that's how the game started out.  It was needed before it was wanted.

Behavior that is the norm when writing a book, is railroading when applied to RPGs. Yes, many people have noted that my arguements in this thread could be applied to a variety of novels, not just LotR. But I would say 2 things to that 1) LotR is probably the most single influencial work to gaming, both in terms of its impact on gaming directly, and in terms of its impact on the entire genre of fantasy fiction which then gets incorporated into gameing, and 2) LotR makes it pretty easy to see the different hats J.R.R was wearing because he was so explict about every detail of what was happening. Thus, moreso than most other novels, it is much easier to simply divvy up those hats without needing to change much...because they are so well defined.

As to point one above I'll agree that it has had a ton of influence but then so have plenty of other diverse sources like pulp adventure novels, western movie and tv shows, ancient myths, war movies, and the list goes on.  In many of these the elements you seem to oppose have featured prominently in each of these at different times and places.

On point two I'll have to disagree about your hat analogy.  I never found what happens to the hobbits seemed like an attempt by the author to force them into a certain situation or make something in particular happen.  It felt to me fully logical given they were four creatures of leisure rarely given to sleeping outdoors or travelling in strange lands.  They were obviously going to get themselves into trouble and happened to luck out when a friendly figure helps them along.  

I very seriously doubt GM's took old man willow as a blueprint on how to set up encounters.  I'm much more comfortable believing gm's were able to come up with plot lines and npc's that they found interesting and wanted the players to interact with but were simply not technically proficient enough to pull it off without having their npc's seemed forced on the party.

[s3kt0r]

If I understand your point, you're saying that many early GM habits can be directly linked witht the works of Tolkien.  I see your point regarding equipment lists and marching orders, although I'm not fully convinced one way or the other.  What I don't get is Tolkien being blamed for GM's railroading their characters.

Most GMs envision these kewl scenes and kewl NPCs for the players to meet.  The problem is that when characters find a way around these scenes and these NPCs a  "bad" GM doesn't know what to do.  He may even think that  he's cheating the players by not letting them experience the uber-kewl scene he had prepared for them.  So he does what he thinks best.  He railroads them into the scene not realizing he's doing more harm than good.  I personally feel that's the sign of a "bad" and probably inexperienced GM.  I don't see how Tolkien can be blamed for this.  Maybe there were a few sporadic GMs who justified this with Tolkien, but I think most of the blame is with lack of creativity.  I honestly believe that someone who has never heard of Tolkien would have these same tendencies.  

If anything is to blame, it's fictitious media in general, where the paths characters take is always the dramatic one even if it's one we wouldn't choose.  How many of us have thought while watching a movie, "I would not open that door" or "I'd run if I were him."  But, we also know that it wouldn't be a very good movie if they didn't open that door or if they didn't stop and fight.  This works in movies and books where there is one author.  I think "bad" GMs try to force this into RPGs, thinking it worked in the movies, it should work here, hence railroading the PCs.

In short, Tolkien is to "blame" only as much as the majority of other novels and movies out there.  But, it seems to me that ultimately the blame just falls on a "bad" GM.

[apeiron]

He couldn't make up his mind whether he was writing a story or an encyclopedia and it shows. He skims over the climactic moments so he can rush into the next lull where he can present 14 more pages of history lesson, exposition, and bad poetry.

@ Tolk was primarily a historian linguist by education, which shows clearly in his writing.   It seems what he should have done, is build the world and then hand it over to a storyteller who could write action.  If a nympho maniac had written the story, there might have been chapters about orgies instead of chapters about history and the middle earth land scape.

But I digress. It suddenly hit me on one of those long stretches between rest stops that FotR is the source of much of the bad role-playing I'd experienced in my childhood and have since come to loath.

@ i'd say bad DMs are responsible for it.  Has it gotten better?  Are you playing with others your age?

How many campaigns have you played in where there was ostensibly some overall plot (to retrieve the macguffin or what have you) that was interrupted several times by tangential adventures and side plots? The actual story of FotR could have been told in 100 pages or less if you edit out all of the side plots and the like.

@ i went to college to retrieve a degree, and kept getting sidetracked in things like relationships, bills, concerts, family visits and jobs etc.    In WWII all we had to do was get hitler, but we had to make stops in italy, africa and so on.  What if in Dune Paul just said "screw it kill all the worms"?  Or if LotR Gandalf cast a teleport spell in chapter 2, to send the ring into the lava?  Get a video game and enter the cheat code to skip all the levels and watch the final cut scene.  Let me know if that was fun or satisfying.  The game was called dungeons and dragons, not sidewalks and bunnies.

2) second the "GM" makes clear that the road is a Bad Idea in that way all railroading GMs have that suggests dire consequences for defiance...hmmm...a choice that is no choice at all...check...FotR is full of those.

@ To me that all comes across as adversity and fate.  The road to mordor could have been a sunny glade and a days ride, but that wouldn't have been much fun.  The enemy opposed them at every turn, and in some cases nature itself was an obsticle.  The enemy WAS hunting them and WAS turning weather and the environment against them.  Some of those forests were in a sense entities that had good or ill will.  He personnified the forests very clearly as being either for or against them.  These were NOT our forests which didn't take sides in WWII.  The forests in tolk would have taken sides.

@ Frodo and the gang were not PCs, they were NPCs.  They didn't make choices at all, they did whatever the writer made them do.  It was more like a DM wannabe running his module for himself, playing all the characters and fudging any rolls he didn't like.  "Um, that roll doesn't count because the cat batted it" *rolls again* "20! that's more like it!"  

After J.R.R. goes to such absurd lengths to herd the party where he wants, how can any GM not feel the right to do likewise.

@ If you are mad at you high school DM, look him/her up and give them an earful for railroading you.  

4) The hobbits simply fall asleep. The line where J.R.R takes great pains to point out that Merry and Pippin fell asleep with their backs to the tree is almost painful in its heavy handed obviousness. Yup, more GM using the dice to railroad the players. How many Saving Throws vs. Magic, or Petrification Polymorph did the GM call for to ensure that somebody would fall into the trap.

@ Are you suggesting that hobbits don't need sleep?  Was tolkien wrong about the species he invented?  They had to fall asleep eventually.  i suppose they could have fallen asleep by a normal pine tree and that scene could have been left out.  Would you then complain about frodo complaining about having pine needles in his pants?  

@ Why did you keep reading if you hated it so much?  Masochism?  When you ride roller coasters do you critique the curvature being too excessive when everyone else is screaming and having a good time?

?Hey?what about getting an axe and chopping the opening wider??
?Do you have an axe listed as part of your equipment??
?No?but I?m sure my character would have remembered to bring one?
?If its not listed you don?t have one?

@ The inventory in an RPG is a means of accountibility.  That way the player can't say "Um, yeah, so i pull out OTHER rope/wand of orcus/ring of regeneration".  And the DM can't say "Um, no, you don't have any pitons/potion of levitation."  The player can then respond "Um YEAH i do, it is in my inventory and YOU approved it!".  

@ In a story it can be a means of showing practical reality or a plot device.  If you go mountain climbing without a rope, you are in for a tough trip, no matter how epic your goal is.  Sam couldn't just jaunt over to Home Despot and pick up a rope.  If the fellowship had a plane they could have flown to mordor, but the whole series would have been 10 pages.

6) The super-cool-way-more-better-than-you pet NPC. We?ve all seen these. The NPC that is kewler, more powerful, and more effective than the PCs. The pet NPC who is basically the GM?s own personal character that, since he?s the GM, he gets to do whatever he wants with.

@ yeah, i hate this too, DMPCs i call them.  Another term is 'elminster syndrome.'

Oh?and how did they escape from the barrow (which could have actually been a pretty cool encounter)??yeah that?s right?pet NPC Bombadil to the rescue to show-up the PCs yet again. Oh the Humanity.

@ Deus ex Mechina.  Always bad, always the result of poor planning by the DM.  NPCs should be helpful on rare occasions, but the players should be the once to pull of the miracle.  In D&D it gets harder and harder to make challenges without shattering suspension of disbelief.  How do you have a maze when the wizard can cast teleport?  Star Trek abuses this in the other direction.  When transporters / shields / telempathy would solve the problem, guess what isn't working?  Yup, the very thing you need.

Enter Pet NPCs Aragorn and Gandalf who do everything cool there is to do while the PCs cower in fear.

@ Again, i would contend all the characters are NPCs.  However comma it should be noted that Aragorn is a (hu)man, a ranger, and a future king.  He's like a 20th level ranger.  Frodo is a 0th level Nothing.  Sam is a 5th lever gardener.  Merry and Pippen *might* be 1st level thieveses.  Gandalf is not even mortal, his more like an avatar/angel.  The story and the movies for that matter clearly point out that the hobbits are farmers who seldom leave the shire or do anything interesting.  Aragorn, is it quite clear, has been adventuring for a long time.  Gandalf for several life times.  So why involve hobbits at all?

@ Tolk likes the hobbits, he wished that we were all hobbits, living pastoral lives without greed, envy or wrath.   Just happy little farmers.  Frodo was given the ring because he was a hobbit and not as suceptible to the rings corruption.  In the LotR RPG it says that the power of the ring is related to the stature of the wearer.  On frodo it gave invisibility, on aragorn or gandalf it would have made them almost unstoppable.

Where did the GM get such a ridiculous idea??hmmm, upon looking at how foolish J.R.R. made the hobbits look at the beginning and how successful they were at the end?I now know.

@ The hobbits were innocent, not foolish.  PCs are not innocent, and they  are supposed to be trained.  The hobbits are not PCs, they are more like the nameless villager NPCs.  Frodo != Tasselhof.  If we dropped you into a combat zone, you would wet yourself and panic.  Real life soldiers usually panic and look silly when the fur starts to fly, but as they get more experience they learn to control that fear.  Likewise, the Merry and Pippen, by the end find that they can be brave and fight, though they are but small.  In the movies this is crystal clear, you see how small they are.  How they go from overwhelmed to heroic.


1) Getting lost in Moria. A maze of passages, and if Gandalf had chosen wrong they may have wandered aimlessly for weeks. J.R.R. takes great pains to demonstrate how clever Gandalf is at choosing the right path based on the clues. How many GMs took that as permission to leave obscure clues about the right path (if the players remember to ask for them) and then let the party get completely lost if they miss them? Gawd how tedious and boring.

@  Any GM should (by now) know that NPCs should not be that involved.  Advise, yes.  Hand holding, no.  

2) Marching Order. How many different times does Tolkien take great pains to show who followed who and who was guarding the rear. Enough times that GMs started to believe this crap was fun and go to great lengths to get ?marching orders? from players.

@ There is a trip wire across the hallway.  Who is the most likely to trip it?  The guy at the back or the guy at the front?  Think long and hard about that.  If a spinning blade is gonna shoot out of the wall and cause damage, knowing who is going to get hit is going to be important to the players.   How do you determine that if you don't know who is in front to trip the wire?  Roll for it?  "Wait a minute, five other guys walked right over that wire and it hits ME? WtF,O?" Unless of course your contention is that the party should walk abreast....

3) Watches: Oh ye gods. Even more tedious and more futile then marching orders how many hours have been wasted on establishing watches. I definitely blame this bit of nonsense on J.R.R. who took unnatural delight in describing in great detail who was on watch when. Boring to read?boring to play.

@ if an encouter is going to happen at X am, how do you know who is awake at that hour?  Should i as the DM just go "uuhhh, Steve! you were awake when they show up".  If you and a group of friends were travelling through a hostile environment, where there are wolves and worse trying to find and kill you, and you HAVE to sleep, wouldn't you sleep better if you knew someone would wake you if there was trouble?  Let's say we have no watch.  The ring wraiths surround the party and kill you all in your sleep.  Woo hoo!  Having a watch is necessary for survival.  Having alive PCs is necessary to a campaign.  So we have to have someone awake (not snoring and dreaming) to alert the others that they are under attack.  How do you know who will be awake then?  

@ Instead of whining about watch order, try coming up with a solution to the necessity of a watch and knowing WHO is on watch WITHOUT a watch order.  One possibility is that when the night attack comes, make a roll to determine who is up, but then you open yourself up to ppl saying "no i would be asleep then because i need X hours rest for casting spells, so my character would have taken the first watch.  The elf needs less sleep than i do so wouldn't he be awake by then?"  Allowing players to choose is the most logical solution.  Unless you rule out night encounters, by some miracle nocturnal predators and fiends all agree to not attack the sleeping do gooders.  

Bad Role-playing?I blame Tolkien.

@ Blame bad GMs and RPG developers.  Tolk didn't know what was going to happen with his books.  And the things you mention here are storytelling / DM/GMing issues NOT role-playing.

[Caldis]

Had the substance of Ralph's post not violated the sanctity of Tolkien, I doubt that such fervor would have been expended in reply. Personally, I'm mostly in agreement with his observations and conclusions. I'm also of the opinion that should the sacred idol of Tolkien be shattered upon it's gilded altar then perhaps a decent amount of objectivity would eventually take root in discussions of his works.
-Chris

The opposite of this is true as well, spewing overt hatred of a work that many find to be very compelling does not add anything to ones arguement.  Ranting about the lack of quality of one of the most popular books in all of fantasy literature drops ones post to the level of a troll and virtually negates any rational arguements one tries to make in the same post.

Had this thread been started by some other poster I would likely have disregarded it as such, but I recognized Valamir's name and remember his other recent inflammatory threads on RPG.net that did have some value to them so I've stuck it out.  

In truth I do agree to a certain extent with his points however I find them to be lacking, not the full story as it were.  The elements he complains of do not come from Tolkien, they were elements he used that had their roots in ancient places.  

Moses had a nasty GM for example forced him right up against the Red Sea and then made him figure out the right thing to do was pray to god for help, that showed Pharoh.

John Wayne was running out of bullets making the situation tense so he circled the wagons and beat the indians hand to hand.

The problem I see is with poor gm's who would mangle whatever elements they decided to use not on what they lifted from Tolkien and other sources.

[John Kim]

You say "instead they are bad when combined with the D&D rules and early approaches"

I said "by this I mean old school D&D and games of similar ilk"  and

"An entire generation of role-players in the 70s and 80s had modeled their role-playing so perfectly on Tolkien's model that reading Tolkien now seems like a role-playing session itself"  

So what exactly are you opposing.? I find it completely disconcerting that you would paraphrase exactly what I said in the original post but try to frame it as an opposing position.  

As I see it, you are saying that Tolkien is bad storytelling -- and that the influence of this caused bad role-playing practices.  I completely disagree with this.  Tolkien had good storytelling.  Not everyone likes it, but then not everyone likes Herman Melville, R.E. Howard, Dante Alighieri, Stephen King, Marcel Proust, or any other author you care to name.  It is a matter of differing taste.  Some authors are more action-packed like Howard or King, while others are slower and full of details -- like Melville or Proust.  Neither extreme is better than the other.  

Contrary to you, I am claiming that D&D is a reasonably good and fun game within its scope.  I also claim that Tolkien is also a good author.  However, using one to try to emulate the other is like using a hammer to cut onions.  The hammer isn't a bad tool and onions aren't a bad ingredient -- but the result will create a mess that is enough to make you cry.  

As for your Water Uphill campaign.  I'm not sure how that's in the least bit relevant.  First at no time did I suggest having protagonists who where weaker than the NPC was a bad thing.  The point I made pretty stridently was that the GM making the weaker PCs look foolish and incompetant in order to show case the cooler NPCs was a bad thing.  Since I doubt you were doing this in your campaign, your campaign as an example doesn't really apply since its not the situation I was discussing.  

Look at it this way.  There are three things discussed here:
1) Tolkien's LotR, where the hobbits were weak compared to Gandalf and Aragorn
2) An early D&D game, where the DM makes the PCs seem incompetant compared to pet NPCs
3) My Water-Uphill campaign, where the PCs were weak and ignorant compared to the powerful NPCs around the Palace

You apparently want to claim that #1 and #2 are directly linked, but that #3 is totally unrelated.  I claim that #3 (my game) is actually closer to #1 (Tolkien) than #2 is.  I would say that the D&D campaign totally misses the point of Tolkien -- which is that the hobbits are actually more important than Gandalf or Aragorn, and that importance to the story is not a matter of having cool powers.  This is true in #1 and #3, but not true in #2.  In other words, the D&D game is a poor and unsuccessful attempt to emulate Tolkien -- and that is why it is bad.

[Gordon C. Landis]

I'm repeating myself, and John, and others, but - short and sweet (for me):

The problem is not that Tolkien is bad (whether he is or isn't we shouldn't even be talking about here - so let's not.  Really, let's not - Ralph's opening post and many responses need to have that issue stripped right out).  The problem is that Tolkien was applied inappropriately to roleplaying.

And it is interesting how that happened, and still happens.  It looks like taking X, Y and Z from book A will provide a fun game - but it doesn't work that way.  "Some assembly required," and folks from back-in-the-day all through to the present forget to do that assembly.

Gordon

[C. Edwards]

The opposite of this is true as well, spewing overt hatred of a work that many find to be very compelling does not add anything to ones arguement. Ranting about the lack of quality of one of the most popular books in all of fantasy literature drops ones post to the level of a troll and virtually negates any rational arguements one tries to make in the same post.

Well, see, that's kind of my point. Ralph posted some opinion, some observation, and some thoughtful criticism. I certainly wouldn't say he was "spewing overt hatred".

Also, when popularity becomes the true hallmark of quality, I don't want to know. Just slip me some of that special kool-aid.

So, to recap, we are the acolytes of a fat, bloated hobby suckling from the teats of our sacred cows.

-Chris

[Matt Wilson]

Maybe Fellowship is just Frodo's player's 300-page character writeup. Can we blame Tolkien for that? I bet there are character writeups out there somewhere that actually include songs.

On the other hand, what a kicker. "My character has come into possession of the one ring." Play it a little differently and you've got yourself a game of Charnel Gods.

[Ozymandias]

In other words, after re "reading" Tolkien for the first time in well over a decade I was struck point blank with exactly how many features that I grew to loathe and despise in gaming could be traced directly to LotR (and FotR in particular).

While the coincidence is certainly interesting, I would thing that things like marching order and equipment lists find their origin find in the wargames like Chainmail which directly preceded RPGs rather than having any direct descent from Tolkein. This of course isn't some pieces of literature aren't to blame for bad RPGs....

Bad Role-playing...I blame Tolkien.

I would be more prone to blaming those GMs or players who slavishly attempt to recreate any novel, movie, etc in their RPGs. This isn't to say that certain aspects of any of those can't provide inspiration, but different mediums have different requirements. Tolkein created interesting mythology and wrote an epic in the tradition of Beowulf or the Volsung Saga that as an epic is quite good. Peter Jackson took basic story of that epic and created an incredible set of movies by knowing when the medium he was translating it into called for changes and alterations to the original. When taking anything and adapting it into an RPG, both designers and GMs would perform much better if they understood their medium a fraction as well as Tolkein or Jackson and made their adaptations accordingly.

[Caldis]

Well, see, that's kind of my point. Ralph posted some opinion, some observation, and some thoughtful criticism. I certainly wouldn't say he was "spewing overt hatred".

Maybe not but his language was certainly caustic and inflammatory to a degree that seemed intended to cause an emotional rather than an intellectual response from anyone who liked the books.  It reeked of intellectual snobbery and someone trying to claim their taste is superior to anyone else's.

Also, when popularity becomes the true hallmark of quality, I don't want to know. Just slip me some of that special kool-aid.

So, to recap, we are the acolytes of a fat, bloated hobby suckling from the teats of our sacred cows.

-Chris

I didn't say Tolkien's work was above criticism, nor did I say popularity is a mark of quality.  The books have many elements which prove their quality beyond simply their popularity, but that's an irrelevant side discussion.  

The problem with Valamir's post is the way he broached the subject, even the title of the thread suggests that Tolkien is the root of all evil in rpg's.  He immediately goes into a rant about how he was never able to read the books how he doesnt like them and cant stand Tolkien's writing, that Tolkien didn't know whether he was writing a novel or an encyclopedia.  These things do not attract intellectual debate about his point.

It's like someone coming on these boards claiming that GNS is all wrong, he cant stand all the jargon and terms used here, and it's ruined every message board he goes to because now everyone is throwing around weird terms.  Nobody will listen to any rational arguements he tries to make after that, or it will likely come after 3 or 4 pages of arguements about his original inflammatory statements.  You dont spit in your audiences face and then claim the moral high ground when they're not discussing your point.

[greyorm]

The characters stated what they wanted to accomplish, and Tolkien did everything in his power to prevent it from happening...   The lesson...never let the characters get what they want, or go where they want, or do what they want.

And attempting to create stories from any other other book utilizing the D&D rules -- thinly veneered wargaming -- wouldn't cause this same sort of phenomena?

I'm sorry, but I disagree. You're putting a great deal at the feet of a novelist which I don't believe really belongs there, even if there are similarities. I'm not defending Tolkien, BTW, it's been more than fifteen years, probably closer to twenty, since I read LotR, so I barely remember his prose. Good, bad, or mediocre isn't of interest to me.

My disagreement arises solely from the fact that all of what you're stating "this stuff came from" or "gamers emulated his treatment of the Fellowship" seems to be an effect stemming more from the wargaming roots of RPGs than of fiction. Why?

Wargaming is antagonism. Two players compete against one another, one side against the other, going for the win in the scenario.

In D&D, as Gygax himself has repeatedly reinforced in his writing about his old games and play style (heck...for ref. check into recent issues of Dragon magazine), the game was clearly stated to be an up-front tactical exercise of the GM against the players, with some characterization elements thrown in. Early gaming was all about outwitting and surviving the GM's minions, traps, and whatnot -- and gaining the prize (treasure, success against the enemies, etc) despite the GM's adversity.

The rules were there to keep the GM in check, and define the methods by which the players could arrive at solutions to the scenario. It wasn't much more than "Ok, you play the monsters, I'll play the heroes" and off they went, marching miniatures across wargame terrains.

Discussing x as though it were y is often a good way to derive knowledge about both. <snip>

Sean, hrm, interesting argument. Point understood, I still don't think its academically honest to do so, however, regardless of how well it makes for shorthand.

Chris, I'm sorry, but "You're all just disagreeing because he said he doesn't like Tolkien" is really not a valid argument; it does little to discredit the ideas put forth by others, that the influence of Tolkien's style upon gamemastering techniques may be minimal, or more easily attributed to other common factors.

In fact, one could make the reverse argument to the same effect: "I doubt that if Ralph liked Tolkien he would even have blamed him for all these dysfunctions." And where does that leave us?

But hell, it looks like we're not even really discussing a topic anymore, just wildly slinging arguments back and forth in an attempt to be heard/right, and not hearing each other in the process. I say we close this thread now and try to pick up the RPG relevant pieces in another without all the baggage herein. Ralph's thread, his call.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

My disagreement arises solely from the fact that all of what you're stating "this stuff came from" or "gamers emulated his treatment of the Fellowship" ...

I agree with Raven, here. Not that I believe such came from specific other sources nor do I care to name such sources. I do agree that the similarity is striking, but I don't think it's more than that, a striking similarity. Oh there may have been at least one GM conciously attempting to emulate Tolkien in the manner Ralph speaks. We can allow the possibility. But allowing that it's possible does not mean it is probable or even actually happened. I think we should look at it and say, "How odd. Fellowship reads almost like a play log of a D&D game," and move on. What else is there to discuss about the striking similarity?

To put my own crude spin on it, sometimes when I pee it smells strongly of Sugar Smacks. This does not mean that I had been eating Sugar Smacks or that Sugar Smacks are made with pee.

[Taina]

Hi all. I've been reading this forum on and off for some time now, but have never posted before.

Given all this discussion about what influences are responsible for "bad roleplaying", I am wondering what criteria posters here would use to judge whether roleplaying is good or bad. I mean here actual play, not game design.

For instance, some posters have argued that the inclusion of equipment lists (or possibly an unreasonable emphasis on them) is a mark of bad roleplaying. If it is bad roleplaying because of an unreasonable emphasis upon some aspect, how would you judge what is unreasonable?

Is it possible to have objective criteria by which the quality of roleplaying (its goodness or badness) can be judged? I don't believe so, as I believe that people can only apply their own subjective criteria, but I am interested in hearing other viewpoints.

Regards
Taina

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hi all. I've been reading this forum on and off for some time now, but have never posted before.

Interesting that you haven't posted before after joining the Forge over a year ago. We'll send you a belated birthday card.

Is it possible to have objective criteria by which the quality of roleplaying (its goodness or badness) can be judged? I don't believe so, as I believe that people can only apply their own subjective criteria, but I am interested in hearing other viewpoints.

This, I think, falls into the realm of GNS. Good and bad are kind of dodgy terms. I would say it has more to do with appropriateness. That is, for some types of, say, narrativism I can see an emphasis on an equipment list would be counter productive to the goal and, thus, unreasonable.