Article - The Moral of the Story
Pages
| Author | Topic: Article - The Moral of the Story |
|---|---|
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 22:38
Profile
Homepage
The choice was between good and evil? Did you even notice all the dialogue about the Hill Runners indiscriminately murdering travelling merchants for supplies, and killing the families of Empire collaborators to spread fear? In my opinion, ASR gives you a choice between two very flawed options, and that's precisely why the choice is such a good one. (For the record, I sided with the Empire.) As for Za-Khazi, that didn't really try to touch on moral issues. It's fine to not try; the problem is in trying and failing. Sure, the enemy were Sliths, because warlike bands of Sliths are a convenient enemy that already exists in the Avernum setting, but the scenario would have worked just as well if they were a rival nation of humans. VoDT, on the other hand, would require a major overhaul of its plot to be about anything except pollution. To be honest, though, I think we're mostly criticising VoDT on the grounds that it didn't make sense more than on the grounds that it was preachy. Either way, it's a good cautionary example of something. And morals, if one wishes to put them in, have to make sense within the context of the scenario as well. (Incidentally, though, going through ZKR with a slith in your party leads several people to pontificate about how there are plenty of good sliths around, which, unfortunately, is still a damn sight more moral exploration than VoDT ever bothered to do.) [ Saturday, May 29, 2004 22:48: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 23:04
Profile
Homepage
Edit: Thuryl said it all (and more), and I failed to notice. [ Saturday, May 29, 2004 23:05: Message edited by: Khoth ] -------------------- Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. New Mac BoE Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 23:53
Profile
Homepage
Yeah, Thuryl said it as far as ASR is concerned. I ended up siding with the Hill Runners, but I felt pretty uncomfortable doing so. Like Thuryl, I don't think that ZKR tried to have a moral, although I'm not sure that VoDT really does either. But that's a different question, one that we haven't really discussed yet, whether VoDT attempts to moralize or not. If we assume that it does, a problem with VoDT is that the moral doesn't make sense. I think it's safer to say that VoDT tries to moralize than that ZKR does, because ZKR doesn't really have anything to do with the relationship between sliths and humans, whereas VoDT does have something to do with pollution throughout the whole story. Really, the sliths are completely unnecessary to ZKR (which is probably part of the reason that people dislike it, as the Lyceum's CSR will attest). If I remember the scen correctly, you don't see the sliths at any point in the scenario. Darn. I go to all this effort to write a well thought-out post, and then I read it over, and I realize that all I really want to say that is relevant to the discussion at hand is that I agree with Thuryl. Sometimes I should just keep my mouth shut. :rolleyes: EDIT: Cut out some of the rambling. EDIT 2: And really, the article didn't call VoDT terrible in its heavy-handedness. It says, "Now, VoDT is hardly the worst offender in these cases." It's not really all that excessive with the preachiness; it just probably could've been improved if the characters' motivations had been developed more thoroughly and the morality explored a bit better. Regardless of whether it's a bad scenario, I don't know that anyone would argue that the scenario wouldn't be better if it went into further depth about why the pollution wasn't cleaned up in the first place, even though all the mechanisms were there. Saying as little as, "We didn't have a power source, and one would've cost money, and we figured that the barrels would hold," would be something, at least. [ Sunday, May 30, 2004 00:13: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Sunday, May 30 2004 09:22
Profile
1 - Clan word About clan word, ef explained it right, appart that I'm also really uninterested by a clan post just because experience shows that 99% of the time they don't bring anything to a debate. That said: 1 - There's nothing wrong in a clan post, it's normal human behavior with good aspects. 2 - I saw only his first post as a clan post and in fact only in its first part, I didn't read further before. 2 - Art vs Entertainment and Moral About art vs entertainment, I agree with Qalnor, there's no real links. But there's a link between the two because the capitalism model gradually made evolves art quality on economical criteria. For most type of art, the link of the art with the economical criteria is the entertainment value , that makes the aparent link bewteen art and entertainment. Moreover, mentality are evolving. Many people that will be agree about the difference between art quality and art economical value could have sometimes a first reaction that show the reverse, I constantly see that at TV cultural shows, something that still exists in my country. ;) About moral and art, I don't see more links. My first reaction would be, how about the music? It can be art without any moral. For movies, novels, cartoons, scenario or even games, they all create (or could in case of games) stories. Is that make quite a difference with music? Certainly, but that would be a dogmatic point of view to require a moral in any story that is art. This leads me back to the VoDT example in the article. 3 - Moral in VoDT quote:No, if there's a the 'baddie', it's Vinnia and the scenario is very clear about that. That pollution effects are bad don't make the pollution a "baddie" on a moral point of view. quote:This is an extreme advice I disagree with. Jeff has any rights and particularely not giving any clear moral messages, lessons or thinking material. He is not wrong to use pollution effects in his scenario and not cover at all the pollution moral subject with a modern point of view. You demonstrate that this is a wrong choice through this sentence: quote:I can't agree at least from a player point of view. I strongly enjoyed this scenario and I never wanted that Jeff give me more morale stuff about pollution. Furthermore, there's a strong doubt on the reason that some people didn't like some aspects of the scenario. Did they really get disturbed by a lack of moral development or did they get disturbed by an archeological approach of the story that hapened 130 years ago? 4 - Archeological point of view I'd like that those who, unlike me, get disturbed by this pollution subject, forget it one minute and look at the scenario with a different point of view. One secondary but very important element of the scenario is that beside the main story, the adventurers could find many clues about the story that happened about 130 years ago (about 130 years is the safer guess). This subject is secondary but in term of scenario fun I think it is primary. It gives to this scenario a lot of its mystery. In fact, at the end, this old story keeps some mystery. Is that a wrong choice or not is a difficult debate. Like an archeological approach, we end to not get 100% of the clues that explain 100% of the details with a 100% certitude. I'm not sure that this is that wrong. That's my first feeling and strong disagreement about comments on this scenario. I strongly suspect that some people get disturbed, not by not having a fully explored morale subject, but by not having at the end of the scenario 100% of the past story with a 100% certitude. Perhaps Jeff was stupid enough to not see the holes in this part of the scenario. But the holes are so basic that I'm not sure it's the good guess. Furthermore, there are some details that show that it's a better bet to think it as a deliberate choice. At what date happened the past events? We get at least four different dates (I count one I never found when playing the BoE scenario, but quoted by Kelandon). Almost 100 years for many people living in the valley, more than 100 years but less than 127 years for a dragon, about 130 years for a dated Empire order, 80 years for a source Kelandon didn't explained. I see it not as a Jeff stupidity proof but as a part of creating an "Archeological" approach. Not having 100% of the details with a 100% certitude isn't bad for me. Keeping a part of the mystery is building an "archeology" atmosphere for this part of the scenario. Objectively it's not that bad to let player imagination running freely. That approach is certainly one step further in comparison of giving full explanation of the old story. That doesn't make it bad. Am I alone to have seen this part of the scenario like that? I doubt. 5 - Moral development holes or story holes? quote:No, this scenario use the pollution effects but doesn't make any moral about it, it's hard to make moral about bad effects. They are bad, that's all, there is no moral in that. 130 years ago that's something else but this collide with the archeological approach I explained above. That's my second problem, as I explain above, the archeological approach ends to an explanation of the old story that has unexplained parts. There are two points. No it's not better to develop in any scenario a complex grey moral. No it's not a hole in moral treatment, it's a hole in story and not necessary a wrong thing as I explained about the archeological approach. What surprise me is that "nobody" complain about the holes in the story but see them only as lack of moral development. Only because of the archeological approach in this part of the scenario, it is a wrong example to use it in an article about moral. Worse is that holes in moral development are also holes in the old story, that involves confusion about what is the real problem on this aspect for some people. That's a second reason that makes this scenario a wrong example in an article about moral. To anticipate answers already answered, no, a story can be coherent and good without to have a sophisticated moral development. What could have been the (fully explained) old story is for me a typical example. The story hole about the push button prepared in secret but not used by the 2 good mages has nothing to do with a grey moral development. That's still a hole in a story 100% explained. The reason that Vinnia didn't used the push button has a strong clue, she just never knew anything about that. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, May 30 2004 10:29
Profile
Homepage
Meh, since this conversation is still going, I will in fact read and respond to this post. I was tempted to say, "tl, dr," but I figured that would be out of line. You didn't find the date that I cited in the BoE scenario because it's not there. I cited the text document and state out of the BoA scenario (which apparently was a part of my post you didn't care to read -- I *did* cite my source). However, Jeff changed the dates between Exile and Avernum, so the comparable node in Exile gives the date that you mention. quote:Do you ever fight Vinnia or attempt to dispose of Vinnia? No. But do you ever fight pollution or attempt to dispose of it? Yes. The term was meant in a gameplay sense, that the player spends most of the scenario trying to defeat pollution, not trying to defeat Vinnia. And heck, if anything, Vinnia and pollution are on the same side. quote:That's more agreeing with his point than disagreeing with it. You would've complained about the scenario having a Point To Make and wouldn't have enjoyed the lecture. The idea is to do it in a subtle manner. And to your archeological point of view: while it is reasonable for the scenario not to give us everything, it is not reasonable for the scenario to give us virtually nothing. A scenario that involves some moral is an argument. It cannot make its point well without making points that link together to prove some eventual thesis. If the component threads don't fit together, then it fails in its argument. If VoDT has anything to say about pollution (which I still don't really think that it does, but let's just assume), it says those things poorly because it does not make an analogy to real pollution -- and it does not do so because of the points that you claim are "merely" plot points. It doesn't have an analogy to real pollution because we have to make up the reasons that the pollution is there, perhaps with a buried hint or two that don't even particularly make sense. But again, we're overinterpreting this. VoDT is not necessarily a bad scenario because its moral is not developed. Whether VoDT is good or bad doesn't really have anything to do with it (and I rather liked the scenario, incoherent moral or not). It is just not the scenario that one would want to emulate in order to write a scenario with a well-done moral, which is what the Creator was saying in the article. BoA's ASR handles morality far better, and certain BoE scenarios do it even better than ASR. [ Sunday, May 30, 2004 10:32: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Sunday, May 30 2004 12:58
Profile
Homepage
I agree with Vent. The pollution is not the baddie. During the course of the scenario, I found myself sighing angrily at Vinnia and the politics of the school, not at the pollution, which is just the mess they left behind because of it all. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1249
|
written Sunday, May 30 2004 12:59
Profile
Homepage
In Small Rebellion, the Hill Runners are indeed depicted as Bad. So is the Empire. In fact, I disliked Small Rebellion the most of the three BoE scenarios, because I felt _it_ had a moral lesson - a cynical one: you can't change anything for the better, no matter what you try. Moreover, I've seen that moral so many times, it's become boring. (I would also think that the moral and story in VoDT are not perfect but this didn't bother me as much. EDIT: ...Though I agree with Drakefyre and Vent in that the pollution wasn't the Bad thing. It was more that some things were left irritably unexplained... EDIT2: To clarify a bit: What irritated me slightly was that this "evil mage-woman" theme repeated itself again in yet another J. Vogel's game. Why was Vinnia evil?) [ Sunday, May 30, 2004 13:40: Message edited by: Milu ] Posts: 259 | Registered: Saturday, June 1 2002 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 20
|
written Sunday, May 30 2004 17:41
Profile
Well I guess I'm a little more of a revolutionary than some of you guys, to me there was no moral ambiguity at all about a small rebellion. Apart from that, there's nothing really new for me to add, I think everyone has explained their views well enough, as wrong as some of them are (kidding). Posts: 191 | Registered: Monday, October 1 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Sunday, May 30 2004 21:12
Profile
I believed I had finished with one but the curse continue! :P 1 - Dates About your source for the date, common, yes I read your post but I just saw a technical reference, I don't call that a story reference. I just wanted the quote and when it happens. Are you sure it can happens and that it's not a lost text? 2 - 'Baddie' but on a moral point of view The 'baddie' was from a morale point of view and can't be the pollution effect from any point of view you look at it. It's Vinnia and eventually the Empire. 3 - Hole in the past story and moral I'm not sure to have understand your part about the archeological point of view. If it's about having an unclear moral on this part of the scenario because of a hole in the story, I think this is wrong. If there's a moral there, it is tiny and it's only around Vinnia and the Empire, not at all around Palhatis. There are plenty clues about that. The main hole in this part of the scenario is why Palhatis hadn't push the button after to have set up the clean up mechanism. But there are no big hole around Vinnia and the Empire. Trying to search any moral reason that explains why Palhatis hadn't made it, makes no sense for me because the moral is centered around Vinnia and the Empire. Additionaly, I don't see any moral reason explaining why he didn't push the button. Furthermore he is obviously good and there's not a single clue showing him tortured by his own decision to not doing it. I don't say that the scenario give any direct clue about that, but I can imagine plenty reason not linked with moral: Firslty, you should quote that there's no urge to do the clean up. So there was no reason to sacrify any live. Palhatis could hardly predict his own murder and when he realized that, it was too late. You should quote that Palhatis did plenty things during less than one week. At first he tried to struggle against the closing of the school and then he tried to warn the empire about the future pollution problem. That phase certainly take few days. Then he build a clean up solution. He informed the dragon. He build a shade. And finally he get killed by Vinnia before the school was closed so before the end of the week. You should also quote that during this week, the empire obviously get brutal control of the school, burning places, murdering people. As Palhatis had lost any confidence from the empire, he most certainly had limited action in the school. So some possibilities linked with indirect clues: - Palhatis lost all responsibilities at the very beginning (strong clue about that) and before to have set up the clean up solution. So he could not have been able to go in the waste area anymore and after get killed before to set up a solution for that. - Suicide/teleport problem. If teleport was that easy to build in less than a week, there would have many teleport in the school. He hadn't enough time to build one and pushing the button was a suicide. - There could have been guards there, firstly going there could have been difficult during the evacuation, secondly triggering a brutal reaction could have cause useless death of all people still in the school or at least guards near to the waste. 4 - VoDT and moral When you wrote: "If VoDT has anything to say about pollution (which I still don't really think that it does, but let's just assume)" then I agree with you. And that's all where I was turning the debate after to have play deeply the BoE version: Why reproaching it its moral treatment when this scenario doesn't have a real moral contents? That said, if as you suggest, we assume that the scenario is developing a moral, despite it's not the case, then I agree, it would be much better that the pollution should have been technically much more contemporary and the archeological point of view should has been changed in order to get a detailed moral development... if the scenario had choose that way. My problem is that the scenario hasn't those choices, isn't wrong to not make them and then is a wrong example for this article, ASR would have been a much better example for that subject. [ Sunday, May 30, 2004 21:32: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, May 30 2004 21:27
Profile
Homepage
I'll let someone else handle this one. He's trying to provoke me again. quote: -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Sunday, May 30 2004 21:31
Profile
Ho man I was kidding, well I forgot the smiley but I believed the kidding was very clear. Also, common you was kidding me when you supposed I didn't read your post. Or that was a provoke? :rolleyes: Ok I removed the kidding part. EDIT: Well afterall if just a kidding give me the win, that's not that bad! :D I WIN, I WIN, I WIN! :P [ Sunday, May 30, 2004 21:36: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, May 30 2004 21:36
Profile
Homepage
I'm not going to go into a discussion of VoDT's plot holes again; there's been more than enough said about that and I don't think there's much chance we'll agree. quote:This is one of our major points of disagreement. I guess my viewpoint is that pollution is inherently a moral issue, and thus by including it Jeff was making a moral issue an integral part of his scenario. And if you make a moral issue an integral part of your scenario, you should explore both sides of it in terms of the values of those responsible for the conflict, in order to give depth to the scenario's plot. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, May 30 2004 23:37
Profile
Homepage
Okay, well, I'll assume Vent's post was made in good faith, then. That said, Vent, the piece of text that I quoted is the direct analog to the "about 130 years for a dated Empire order" that you found in BoE. It comes from the exact same order, but in BoA. You could at least give me enough credit to know the difference between "loose text" (of which there is very little in the BoA included scenarios) and real game text. About point 2, um, if you just dismiss what I'm saying without giving reasons, I can't really have a discussion with you. I don't really want to discuss this point, though, so it's fine by me if we just agree to disagree here. quote:In my opinion, the very phrasing of this gives away the problem with it: you're listing possibilities that you came up with based on indirect clues. The central issue of pollution is the reason why people pollute. The way to have a scenario that delved into the pollution therefore would be to have extended reasons for the pollution within the scenario that are described at length. By making the reasons for the pollution be so indirect, VoDT makes its treatment of pollution superficial. quote:Again I say: VoDT is not a terrible scenario for lacking in moral depth. But let's be clear here: are you saying that the scenario would not be better if Vinnia's motives were explored more thoroughly? If it truly is an archeological scenario, then let's do archeology! Lay pieces of evidence all over the deserted school, and let the player piece them all together! That would be really fun, I think. About your edited part: as usual, I have no idea what you're talking about. Or rather, I think I do, but it seems rather childish, and the fact that you're "joking" doesn't make it any better. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 02:52
Profile
I'm suprised that anybody is agree with many things I'm reading here. Ha well, I'll answer another time but before. ***** VoDT STRONG SPOIL FOLLOW ******* ***** VoDT STRONG SPOIL FOLLOW ******* ***** VoDT STRONG SPOIL FOLLOW ******* It's a series of quotes taken from my play of VoDT BoE. I put in bold some parts, are you able to explain all those parts? 1 - The succession of main past events P1: There's nothing but several rows of bare pedestals and this official looking proclamation, pinned to the wall: "BY THE ORDER OF EMPEROR STEWART, MOST HIGH RULER OF THE EMPIRE.It is now officially decreed that the School of Magery, located in Skylark Vale, cease operations immediately. The deadline for ceasing of operations is one week from receipt of this proclamation.The school is to be sealed, and all magical texts returned to Empire custody or destroyed. The School is to be permanently sealed, and all students and faculty are to return to Empire custody. Anyone interfering with the carrying out of this order will be disciplined in the most severe way. A similar fate will await those entering the School later than one week from now. That is all." The proclamation is dated 130 years ago. Emperor Stewart has been dead for a century. P2: The shade: "The leaders of the Empire decided that magical power could only be trusted when centralized under their direct control. The research of the School of Magery was so successful that it was the first to be closed." P3: A quick inspection reveals it to be a page from the journal of someone named Palhatis: "Curse that Vinnia! It is bad enough that we are being shut down. Must she also force us to abdicate all responsibility? I must do all I can to prevent the disaster I expect. If she finds out, though ..." P4: Palhatis journal: "It is clear that she listens to the Empire and no one else. She works against us as well. I know that she speaks against me. I can hear her now. 'Palhatis schemes against us. Palhatis is a traitor. Palhatis spreads rumors.'" P5: Palhatis journal: "I don't know what she plans against me, but my speaking out against the evacuation and what we're leaving behind have only made me enemies. I wonder what is to become of me." That's all that was written on the page. P6: A shade: "I am a magical construct, created to deliver certain programmed messages, I was placed here by the mage Palhatis." P7: The shade: "The School was only given one week to close. For this reason, much virulently poisonous waste was left inside. Any leaks would result in incredible destruction. This upset Palhatis, so he took steps to prevent a disaster." "Although all of the controls and devices in the School were to be deactivated, he made sure that the controls to the waste disposal unit remained. These controls might still be activated.". P8: Wedged between to moldering tomes, you find a note, which seems to have never reached its addressee: "Pergaltho - Vinnia plans something. I know not what. She means us no good, though.""Desperate times, my friend. I have done my best in Master Control to make sure disaster can avoided. We can only hope someone makes it down there, before disaster strikes. - Palhatis." P9: The dragon: "It is strange. Just before the humans left, a lone wizard came to me. He did me a kindness. He told me of the nature of my cell. He said his name was Palhatis, for what little that is worth. The wizard was bothered about my being left here. He said he could not free me, but could tell me how to be freed later. If someone would free me, I would reward them. I can give instructions." P10: Someone has carelessly left a note on top of this desk. It's brittle and yellowed with age, but still readable. "It is time. Get Palhatis and Pergaltho to Visitor's Quarters. I will do the rest. - Vinnia" P11: In Phalathis desk: You search through the ashes and find a scrap of paper which escaped the fire. it reads:"Vinnia wants to meet with us. Does not bode well. Fortunately, the tools are in place. If the disaster does occurs, it will still be possible to undo ..." P12: Two bodies are slumped against the wall of this cavern. They must have been mages. Their traditional robes still bear not only the insignia of Empire mages, but the dark blood stains of their owners. These two were stabbed to death.They've been here for quite some time. Only bones remain, leaving you to wonder: for what offense were these two mages brought here to be murdered? - That's not necessary Palhatis and Pergaltho but that could be. P13: The shade: "The mage Palhatis was one of the administrators for the School of Magery. When the Empire closed the School, he was murdered." P14 - Kobolds inscription: SACRUD HISTRY OF GULZUS TRIBE IN MEMRY OF DEAD AND LOZT WE SEE BAD MAGUZ LEEV CAVES AND GO IN CAVES TO GET NEW GRATE HOME TO LIV IN!DEN WE GO IN BUT GATEZ CLOZ BEHIND US AND WE IS STUCK AND MAGES LAUGH AT US AND SAY PLACE CLOSED FOREVER AND WE STAY HERE AND LIVE AS WELL WE CAN 2 - Empire will and violence P1, P2, P10 E1: The shade: "Many here were killed by Vinnia, on orders from the Empire, when the school was closed. It was thought that they were disloyal." E2: You find the body of a murdered mage. She was barricaded up here behind several force barriers, and left to starve. Ugly business. E3: Many years ago, four mages were brought into this cavern and murdered. Their multiply stabbed bodies are arrayed before you. Whoever closed the School of Magery, they wanted to close it for good. E4: Administration level: At first, it seems that you've found areas that have been struck by the inevitable decay. This floor is in an advanced state of disrepair. The walls have collapsed, the ceiling has caved in in places, and rubble and debris are everywhere.Looking closer, however, you realize that the decay was not natural. The walls and rubble have been scorched by fire, and the structures look less like they've fallen apart and more like they were torn apart. Before the school was closed, someone went to an awful lot of effort to make sure that this level was blown to pieces. E5: About a library: This is very interesting. This room must have contained a number of spell books. Before the School was abandoned, however, someone came here, and, with a few well placed fireballs, burned them all. Considering the amount of ash and charred paper here, it must have been quite a library. You look over the wreckage, stunned by the sheer waste of it, and can only wonder who would do such a thing. E6: Here is yet another area that was blown up before the School was abandoned. You haven't a clue what these rooms were used for. The destroyers were thorough. E7: You find another room which was destroyed before the School was closed. You have little doubt that plenty of invaluable magical texts were destroyed. 3 - Vinnia personality P3, P4, P5, P8, P10, P11, P12, E1 V1: Although the desk is empty, you notice that there's a small piece of paper crumpled underneath it. It reads: "Don't forget. Caretaker key left with Provost. Healing Scepter still with Apothecary. Be sure to recover.""If only we were given more time. Vinnia will have my head if they're left. Be sure not to forget." V2: The shade: "Vinnia was an administrator, and very loyal to the Empire." 4 - Danger of pushing the button B1: If you don't push the button: Probably a wise move. This isn't a suicide mission. B2: If you don't insert the crystal: For all you know, you're about to bring a river of deadly goo pouring in on you. You back away, and the hole disappears. [ Monday, May 31, 2004 02:55: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 03:43
Profile
Homepage
Funny how they had the time to destroy an entire floor of the School, but not to press a button, isn't it? You've made your point, but you've also shown that the scenario still has serious plot holes that it doesn't satisfactorily fill. As for the last two messages, it's clear from the context that they relate to two conditions that didn't apply to the mages closing the School: the party not knowing exactly what all the machinery does, and the defenses having failed over time after the School was closed. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 05:41
Profile
Vent, you have way too much free time. :P For the record, I will not be submitting this article to Spiderweb. It's been the source of too much contention to really be put up as a basis for scenario design. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 08:46
Profile
Homepage
Vent, other than having copied virtually all of the text out of VoDT, I'm not sure what point you were trying to prove. EDIT: Presumably that it was, in fact, a good archeological scenario. If so, you missed my point completely. And yeah, read the Creator's last post again, because I say the same thing. EDIT 2: Now that I have a moment to explain, I will. Every snippet of archeological evidence there answers one question, but raises two more that are never answered. I had not noticed the shade saying, "The School was only given one week to close. For this reason, much virulently poisonous waste was left inside" (and I'm guessing neither had anyone else, because this would be the FIRST bit of evidence that anyone who was making the case that the waste was not cleaned up for lack of time should cite). It convinces me that this was, in fact, the reason in the designer's mind that the School wasn't closed. It still doesn't cohere with the rest of the story, but this was Jeff's reason. Palhatis had time to MAKE AN INTELLIGENT SHADE AND STICK HIM IN THE CONTROL AREA, but he didn't have time to PRESS A BUTTON. And Thuryl's point is correct: pressing the button did NOT release some unknown danger. The mages were familiar with the cleanup system, because THEY BUILT IT. And moreover, the statement, "he made sure that the controls to the waste disposal unit remained. These controls might still be activated," indicates that Palhatis specifically knew what the controls did. The whole time I was reading over those messages, when I played BoE's VoDT, BoA's VoDT, and now, too, I've been thinking, "This is all very interesting, but there is much more to this story." Palhatis's statement, "my speaking out against the evacuation and what we're leaving behind have only made me enemies," seems to indicate that Vinnia hates him and eventually murders him primarily because he wants to clean up the waste. In other words, Palhatis had time to make an entire covert setup for someone else to come along and push a couple of buttons and clean up all of the waste, but there was so little time before the school closed that cleaning up the waste would delay the closing of the school and therefore anger the Empire. This doesn't make sense. Yes, one can make up explanations that turn all of this into reasonable plot material. But a true archeological scenario would not require the player to invent explanations to fill plot holes. The story of what had happened before would become central to gameplay. Having said all of this, I still like VoDT. I don't think these points are critical to the enjoyment of the scenario. I just think it could've been better if more was done with this. [ Monday, May 31, 2004 10:12: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 20
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 10:31
Profile
quote:What exactly is your point, Kelandon? You've come out as supporting Creators article, but at the same time you've come out saying that you aren't sure you really consider VoDT preachy (which to me sounds like a clever way of not admitting to a position on the subject). Well that's fine, but I don't think there's a person in this thread who doesn't agree with the basic idea that a scenario shouldn't be too preachy. The only real point of major contention in this entire thread, that I'm aware of, is on the issue of whether or not VoDT falls into the category of preachy or not. Now there has been a lot of hand waving in this thread saying that nobody ever really meant VoDT was preachy so much as it wasn't the best scenario ever made, but Creator hasn't backed down from his position on VoDT, he has, in fact, affirmed it more than once in the thread: quote:That's an excerpt from his most recent affirmation on his position on VoDT. And there has been further hand waving suggesting that it's not a big deal anyhow, that even if he does think that, the article can simply be boiled down to the idea that nobody wants a preachy game. Well everyone agrees with that, but I can't possibly agree with the suggestion that an example which encompasses scenarios 'as preachy' as VoDT doesn't have a very large influence on the impact of the article. It would be like saying 'I really hate racists.. like Christians' and someone defending that because the person was really only saying that they hated racists, it doesn't really matter what examples he used. Examples DO matter, because they define the scope of the point, and it is the scope of the point which is in debate, not whether or not the point was valid to begin with, which nobody in their right mind can possibly disagree with. Posts: 191 | Registered: Monday, October 1 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 10:51
Profile
Homepage
quote:My main point was the last paragraph of that post, not the preceding ones. I don't think that Jeff attempted to use VoDT to say anything about pollution. I also think that if we assume that VoDT is a statement about pollution, it is a fairly shallow one. Therefore I think it is not the right scenario from which to draw inspiration if one wants to write a successful story with a moral attached to it. My agreement with the article goes exactly that far. You may find my ideas contradictory in places because I have changed my mind a few times in light of the evidence (which I think is a good thing to be able to do). The above paragraph states my position right now. That was not my original position. For example, Vent is clearly right that in Jeff's head, the reason for not cleaning up the waste was lack of time. He has found text (finally) that demonstrates that. EDIT: For clarity. [ Monday, May 31, 2004 10:54: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 20
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 11:28
Profile
quote:And you've done it again, you've avoided stating what you actually think. Do you assume that VoDT is a statement about pollution or do you not. I don't care what you think Jeff intended. I don't care what you think Creator is assuming nor what it would mean if that assumption happened to be true. I don't care what you think Vent thinks. Jeff, Creator, and Vent are all capable of speaking for themselves quite well on the subject, and two have done so. What I want to know, is whether you actually agree with the notion that VoDT contains a lesson about pollution, or not. And let me restate so there is absolutely no confusion, whether intentional or not: do you believe VoDT came off as being preachy? There are only basic choices for answers to this question, 'yes', 'no' and 'I'm not sure'. I've said you're not sure before, but I have trouble believing you managed to say so much on this debate without ultimately forming an opinion on the actual topic, regardless of how firm that opinion is. Posts: 191 | Registered: Monday, October 1 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 12:07
Profile
quote:It didn't make sense to me either, when I played the scenario. Nor did I understand, why speaking up should make Palhatis an enemy, so dangerous that he had to be murdered. And the stone that opened the school, why was it hidden in the vicinity as well as the instructions on how to operate the lower level. Palhatis couldn't have done it. He was dead by then. The only context that brought these puzzling pieces together was for me to imagine that Vinnia never intended to stop the basement activities. Quickfire would have destroyed all, so yes, she'd want to avoid that. And whoever suggested it would endanger her plans and herself. If she thought of secretly returning after a while, then it all made sense. But maybe her own end was closer than she anticipated. In the visitors' section is a throne room. When you sit down on that throne, a spirit appears, and I well remember its first sentence: 'I was Vinnia.'. -------------------- Polaris Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done Rache's A3 Site, original version Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 12:33
Profile
Homepage
Qalnor, calm down. If that's what you wanted, I misunderstood you. I'm not being evasive. I don't think that VoDT was supposed to contain a statement about pollution. I don't know how much clearer I can say that. However, I do think it's possible to assume there's a moral in there and try to find one. If this is the part of my opinion that you're confused about, I'll try to explain further. A few years ago, I wrote a little-known BoE scenario called NK0: Prologue. I didn't intend for it to have any kind of moral. It wasn't supposed to be a statement about anything. However, I imagine that one could poke around in it and find a moral somewhere. For example, it contains an episode in which one person in charge of a ship cheats the other person in charge of the ship. If the party helps out the captain being cheated, completely unasked, then the party gets rewarded. You could argue that the moral to that is, "Good deeds bring rewards." It completely wasn't an intentional statement, but it's there; is it a valid thing to bring up in talking about this scenario? I don't know, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and talk about it. I've said that I don't think that Jeff intended for VoDT to make a statement about pollution, but I don't think I've said that means that VoDT can't contain a statement about pollution at all. So I guess the answer to your question is: I acknowledge the ambiguity. I think that there are two equally valid different readings of VoDT, one of which is that it is a lesson on pollution and the other of which is that it is not. It's not that one is correct and the other isn't. They're both valid readings based on the scenario. I *do* think that VoDT doesn't contain a well-written and convincing statement about pollution, and for me, that's enough for the purposes of this discussion. At this point, I think the Creator's article describes one valid reading of VoDT as if it were the only valid reading, which is a bad idea, but I also think that VoDT is not the right scenario to emulate in order to create an effective scenario with a moral. I'm not on any particular "side," either favoring the Creator's article or opposing it; this isn't a war. I'm just participating in a discussion. No, VoDT didn't come off as preachy to me, but it didn't come off as reasoned or thought-provoking either. I hope that explains my point of view enough that you understand. On another note, ef, that's interesting. I think I'll take a look at that throne room again. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 455
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 12:45
Profile
All right, that is more attention than this thoroughly mediocre, tiresome scenario EVER deserved. Any RPG plot, in so far as it is structured around the quest to defeat a social problem that has been abstracted, externalized and exemplified by some enemy other, is fundamentally ethical in design: we are good because we are us; you are bad because you aren't. Die. Whether or not that mechanism then dispenses a "message" is an academic question. At some point in the most "entertaining," least "preachy" scenario, somebody's gonna commit some suppposed atrocity or do something else that asks a player -- no matter how perfunctory the asking -- to feel the righteous rising of the gorge and, on the strength of that, direct a remorselessly vindicating blade against the inhuman cause, blah blah blah. VoDT is only conspicuous because it tries to use that ethical logic to solve a problem which exceeds the explanatory power of ethical externalization. Thus the clearest, smartest thing said in all this mess: quote:Take a structural problem inextricable from everything valued as human progress and happiness -- and therefore, a problem insoluable without sacrficing or otherwise relinquishing something of value to that happiness. Then lose your nerve in the face of writing a plot adequate to that choice (it would require making players play differently as a result of their decisions). Upon which failure, find the nearest scapegoat: there's one recently escaped from the kitchen -- she can't have gotten far. Those vale-dwellers, let alone the PCs, never gained anything from the cause of the pollution, so as a representation of the question, VoDT is mealy-mouthed, if not basically dishonest (likewise the Geneforges, though that's another story). No matter how well-represented or explained the "sides" of a moral choice are in an RPG, if that choice does not require a player to change the way he or she plays -- not just to kill different arrangements of sprites, but to engage in different forms of action -- it is at best an abstract choice of taste (which flavor do you like best, "individual" or "society"? biotech or nature? guys with blue uniforms or guys with red uniforms? on whose behalf would you like to slaughter, Coke or Pepsi?). At which point, the most complexity you can hope for is ASR-style nihilism, which -- since all sides reduce to the same denominator -- readily converts into a complacent affirmation of whatever prejudices a player brings to the story. How about not scrapping the article but changing its focus? More nuts and bolts: how to make the mechanics of gameplay change as a result of the "moral" decisions you ask a player to make. This might, among other things, involve coming up with plots other than the quest plot. -------------------- Forgive them, for they are young and rich and white. Posts: 265 | Registered: Saturday, December 29 2001 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 20
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 12:50
Profile
I'm calm, for the record. And whether you were being delibrately evasive or not, I don't know, but you weren't really addressing what I consider the point of this discussion. I tried not to accuse you of being evasive by using the word 'avoided' instead of 'evasive' because it leaves open the possibility of non-intent. I agree with your statement that VoDT doesn't contain a well written or convincing statement about pollution. I furthermore can say quite honestly that when I played VoDT, I too did not feel that I was being preached to. Given that, I find Creators original article to be flawed because of an example it gives. It may well be that a very small percentage of players who play VoDT will feel that they are being preached to, but as you aptly demonstrated, you can dig up a moral in just about anything if you try hard enough. And that issue is the only major dispute I see in this thread. People keep talking about whether VoDT had plot holes or not, and I just don't even see how that's the issue. That would be a fine issue if the thread was called 'Try not to have plot holes in your scenario'.. I doubt anyone would have argued about it. But it's not. This is an article about the preachiness of scenarios. Posts: 191 | Registered: Monday, October 1 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 13:19
Profile
Homepage
quote:Maybe not, but I was addressing what I consider to be the point of the discussion. :P quote:I tried (and evidently failed) to make the point that the plot holes were inextricably linked to the success or failure of the moral of the story. I agree with Boots. This has to be a first. If I've learned anything from this thread, it's that we should encourage more people to post over on the Lyceum's CSR. I hadn't read anything that criticized ASR for its handling of morality until now, but now that I read some, I think some of these criticisms are valid. In BoE, ASR scores very high, at about the level of Brett Bixler's best scenarios. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |