# Disdain for new fantasy



## AllisterH (Aug 26, 2007)

Can anyone explain why if anything is derived from anime/WoW (even if it has a non-existent connection) it seems like there is opposition not based on the concept itself but from where it comes from?


----------



## Seeten (Aug 26, 2007)

Old style grognards.

I am growing to like anime influences more and more. ToB: Bo9S was the best thing to ever happen to 3e imo. The more anime influence 4e has, the happier I will be, assuming it still is identifiable as D&D.

Oh, and I started in 1977 with AD&D, and I'm 36.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Aug 26, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain why if anything is derived from anime/WoW (even if it has a non-existent connection) it seems like there is opposition not based on the concept itself but from where it comes from?




WoW: In many gamers' minds, WoW represents the epitome of what D&D must not become: a mindless hack n' slash computer game.  

anime: Have you seen the kind of people that are huge into anime? Scary . . .


----------



## EyeontheMountain (Aug 26, 2007)

WOW: I agree with the above poster, D&D should be primarily role-playing, but with lots of adventure, not an endless series of killings, and gathering stuff.

Anime: I just have never liked Anime. The stories, the character attitudes, the way they use magic in thier worlds. It is just no D&D to me. Should be a seperate game.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 26, 2007)

Prejudice is neither pretty nor rational.
-blarg


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 26, 2007)

I don't see much difference. D&D was originally inspired by pop culture trash - fantasy pulps, space opera, Hammer horror, David Carradine's Kung Fu, 70s Marvel comics, and even bizarre kids' toys. Now it's still being inspired by pop culture trash.

Okay, some D&D is derived from ancient myth and folklore but it's not a deep reading thereof. It's myth as cheap thrill, being mined solely for weird-shaped monsters for the PCs to murder.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Aug 26, 2007)

Personal preference style: And not, this doesn't make it wrong, just a preference.

For example: I hate the anime that have characters weilding swords with the itty bitty thin handles and the bigger-than-life-taller-than-the-character blades.  I just don't like it.  It bends realism in a way that I don't appreciate it being bent.  Bad for me, but not wrong.

For another example: I also don't want _Matrix_ or _Crouch Tiger Hidden Dragon_ stlye cinematics (which are also typical of some anime) as a part of my game.  I love them as a part of the movies, and the Matrix trilogy is one of my favorites. But I don't want them in my game.  Again, bad for me, but not wrong.

None of this makes me a grognard.  It does make me have a personal style for enjoyment.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

What Nonlethal Force said. Much anime and "modern" fantasy contains aesthetics and ideas that I don't care for.

That said, I don't have the knee-jerk reaction some people do. That is, if I see something I don't like, I don't like it no matter where it's from. If I see something I like, I don't care if it comes from anime, WoW, or some other source.

It's just that, _more often than not_, there's more overlap in my personal taste with the older fantasy tropes than the newer ones.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 26, 2007)

deleted


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 26, 2007)

I just re-read the thread and realized that what I said sounds more inflammatory than I intended.  There's a world of difference between knee-jerk prejudice and considered personal preference.
-blarg


----------



## Shadeydm (Aug 26, 2007)

I loved Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, wonderful movie, but I don't need it in my DnD any more than I need the Transformers movie in it.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 26, 2007)

anime has 
Intriguing stories
Fantasy Action
Compelling Heroes

D and D should have
Intriguing stories
Fantasy Action
Comeplling stories

Anime also embraces a lot of differnet styles. To say i hate d andd becomes its becoming anime is like saying i hate ps3 because they make action games. Well if you dont like one style of action you don't have to play that style. There are plenty of traditional fantasy anime "slayers, Lodoss wars"


----------



## Shadeydm (Aug 26, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> There are plenty of traditional fantasy anime "slayers, Lodoss wars"




I saw this it and enjoyed it for the most part. Those elf ears needed some trimming imo.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 26, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain why if anything is derived from anime/WoW (even if it has a non-existent connection) it seems like there is opposition not based on the concept itself but from where it comes from?




Um, honestly?  Because all too often with such derivative work, where it is derived from is a majority of the concept.  When a genre has a strong following, the genre itself is a selling point.

When I'm a fan of the genre, this is less of a problem, but when I'm not a fan it becomes a barrier.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Aug 26, 2007)

Think of an "updated" version of Monopoly that changed all the properties, utilities and tokens. 

Some people will like the new, different version -- case in point, all the College-opoly versions.

But some people enjoy the history and experience of playing Monopoly with the classically defined elements. I would daresay that most people enjoy this, as the (almost) original version of Monopoly is still sold and bought more often than any of the "updated" official or clone versions.

D&D has always been inclusive of new ideas in fantasy (even when those "new" ideas come from people inspired by older editions of D&D!), but I think we are now reaching a breaking point between personal preferences. 

Starting with 3.0, the grumbling began about the anime and video game influences on the game. With 4.0, it seems that even more of those elements will become core for the game. 



Personally, I don't mind new fantasy. However, I think new fantasy needs its own RPG. I prefer my D&D with classic tone and fluff.


----------



## Goblyn (Aug 26, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I loved Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, wonderful movie, but I don't need it in my DnD any more than I need the Transformers movie in it.




I find it an interesting exercise to see if these things CAN be modeled in Dnd; but I prefer to use pre-establisehed rules, as close to core as I can get. But I guess that's neither here nor there.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 26, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> But I don't want them in my game.  Again, bad for me, but not wrong.
> 
> None of this makes me a grognard.  It does make me have a personal style for enjoyment.



True. A grognard is one who considers his personal preference for the older style to be inherently superior.

On ENWorld I find that responses to reasoned, sensible posts are generally quite reasoned and sensible themselves. There are some crackpots, but they're pretty rare here compared to other boards.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Aug 26, 2007)

If D&D is going to maintain it's everything-and-the-kitchen-sink mentality, it's going to need to include anime.
Like cthulhu,
and aliens,
and robots,
and...


----------



## Seeten (Aug 26, 2007)

We have Aliens, we have cthulhu, we have robots in our current D&D.

So, I guess, check?


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Aug 26, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> Think of an "updated" version of Monopoly that changed all the properties, utilities and tokens.




Or like Lord of the Rings Monopoly. 

Good points all around. I like the anime style of action in games. More and more. Not the art so much.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 26, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> Think of an "updated" version of Monopoly that changed all the properties, utilities and tokens.
> 
> Some people will like the new, different version -- case in point, all the College-opoly versions.
> 
> ...




I"m curious as to what do you define the differences between anime and dungeons and dragons. 

Isn't fantasy just fantasy?  Hasn't d and d action always been as over the top as it is in anime fantasy.  The naming of spells, living weapons, legendary quests,


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Aug 26, 2007)

when I dm, If i can make the players feel the same things I felt when watching record of Lodoss war (ova) when i was 16, (especially the first adventure in that subterranean city) then I have done something right (and incredibly awesome) as a dm.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 26, 2007)

I'm considering starting up a game heavily influenced by Berserk (probably Iron Heroes, though). If I can find the time for it, I think it'll be an amazing game.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 26, 2007)

I have been playing rpgs since 1978 or there abouts and there have always been people complainging that no-one really roleplays anymore and it is all degenerating in to mindless hack 'n' Slash. It is just that WoW has given a focus for this. 

As for the anime bashing, well it is a handy label to toss about, and there are anime shows that are very much not D&D, but that in its self means very little. There are people that are convinced that D&D should be various things, Medieval European Courtly romance, swords and sorcerery, Toklinesque high fantasy and so forth and they feel obliged to make disparaging remarks about anything that takes it further from what they think is the true and proper path. 

It is all meaningless nonsense. At the end of the day a good D&D campaign is not obtained by mindless application of rules but be a judicious excerise in imagination between the DM and the players.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 26, 2007)

ardoughter said:
			
		

> I have been playing rpgs since 1978 or there abouts and there have always been people complainging that no-one really roleplays anymore and it is all degenerating in to mindless hack 'n' Slash.



Man, you should have been playing back in '77. You missed some good times back then. We'd crank up the Bay City Rollers and roleplay ALL NIGHT LONG.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 26, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> For another example: I also don't want _Matrix_ or _Crouch Tiger Hidden Dragon_ stlye cinematics (which are also typical of some anime) as a part of my game.  I love them as a part of the movies, and the Matrix trilogy is one of my favorites. But I don't want them in my game.  Again, bad for me, but not wrong.



I feel this way about steampunk and gunpowder in my D&D. some superb settings have them (Iron Kingdoms), but it violates my mental set for "acceptable anachronisms" in a way that's hard to describe. Spelljammer was the same way, totally trashing my suspension of disbelief.

I like the cinematic combat of high-magic, high-lvl D&D. But I understand how some people wouldn't.


----------



## Hairfoot (Aug 26, 2007)

When I describe D&D as "anime", I'm generally referring to:

Quasi-furry half-something template races
Ridiculous, over-sized weapons (like the spiked chain)
Super-heroic characters, able to leap buildings and throw boulders around

I've always preferred the default D&D PC to be an Indiana Jones.  In 3E they became X-men, and "anime" describes a character of similar abilities.

My complaint is that gamers should be able to scale a game up to that type of theme, but I dislike a system that makes it the standard.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 26, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> I've always preferred the default D&D PC to be an Indiana Jones.  In 3E they became X-men, and "anime" describes a character of similar abilities.



This works if you mean a fighter or rogue to a be a "default D&D PC". Methinks mages and clerics routinely do things that Indy could not. Throw fireballs around, for instance. Or heal wounds with a word and a touch (Indy needed the Holy Grail for that).



			
				Hairfoot said:
			
		

> My complaint is that gamers should be able to scale a game up to that type of theme, but I dislike a system that makes it the standard.



Well, just scale it down then. If a low-powered standard can up scaled up, then a high-powered standard can be scaled down.


----------



## Von Ether (Aug 26, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> My complaint is that gamers should be able to scale a game up to that type of theme, but I dislike a system that makes it the standard.




Here comes the rub, as far as my style goes. I'd rather have a "higher standard" (as in octane rating) and then scale back if I want a more realistic game than try to add on bits later. Some GMs are the polar opposite. 

The deal breaker though, is that many player who want access to those banned abilites will always harp as if they are being denied their birthright when a GM scales back like that. You have to not a care when you say "no."


----------



## Hairfoot (Aug 26, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Well, just scale it down then. If a low-powered standard can up scaled up, then a high-powered standard can be scaled down.



I disagree.  When a system (such as 3E) presumes fast levelling, a high saturation of magic items, and piles of gold at every level, it's difficult to tone that down and still remain consistent with all the rules, as well as materials like modules and third-party publications.  Add to that the expectation of many players that they will be playing at the level prescribed by the core rules, and you usually get power creep.

As a chef would say, you can always add salt to a dish, but it's almost impossible to take it out.


----------



## Dykstrav (Aug 26, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> "slayers, Lodoss wars"




Somebody has probably already discussed this on another thread, but for the sake of completeness... _Record of Lodoss War_ was based on a D&D campaign, and it clearly shows. I found it reasonably interesting. I feel that Ghim's storyline (about personal redemption in the context of a heroic quest) is a particularly apropros model for a heroic D&D character. All the major elements of both the classic heroic journey and a classic D&D campaign are there.

Still, I don't think that there's anything "wrong" with D&D if it doesn't incorporate anime conventions. I know players who want their fantasy to be _Vampire Hunter D_ and _Dragon Ball Z_, but I still like my _Conan_ and _Illiad/Odyssey_ inspired games. There's room for many styles of play within D&D.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 26, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> I disagree.  When a system (such as 3E) presumes fast levelling, a high saturation of magic items, and piles of gold at every level, it's difficult to tone that down and still remain consistent with all the rules, as well as materials like modules and third-party publications.  Add to that the expectation of many players that they will be playing at the level prescribed by the core rules, and you usually get power creep.



The same could be said about scaling up a low-powered standard. It goes both ways. Adding a bunch of magic items to a low-powered standard, for instance, will throw off the "core" balance.



			
				Hairfoot said:
			
		

> As a chef would say, you can always add salt to a dish, but it's almost impossible to take it out.



He might say that, but he would be talking about food, not D&D.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 26, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> When I describe D&D as "anime", I'm generally referring to:
> 
> Quasi-furry half-something template races
> Ridiculous, over-sized weapons (like the spiked chain)
> ...



That statement is pretty much an insult to comic books?  When did mutant become a class in 3e? 

But d and d has had these types of characters for decades well before the anime became pop culture.  If you were looking for indiana jones you've been playing the wrong game for decades.  Every sys;tem, from 1 e on up, has been geared to make heroes well above the normal human.   Then again, no ones asking you to run your games any differently. D and D is just a system, what you are describinb as "the problem" are setting issues and as a dm you make up the setting so if you don't want it to be anime you don't have to have it like that.  

From your statements it doesnt sound like you know much about anime nor do you know much about comics. I"d leave the anaologies alone.  Perhaps it is best to say that dungeons and dragons is a bit too much fantasy for you and you prefer more realistic settings. 

Don't liked spiked chain, don't put it in your game (though i've never seen a spiked chain as an oversized weapon in any anime


----------



## Nifft (Aug 26, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> There are some crackpots, but they're pretty rare here compared to other boards.



 EN World is the one true board. All other boards are a pale imitation of the real thing.

, -- N


----------



## Henry (Aug 26, 2007)

For me, many Asian-imported anime/manga/fantasy stories contain names, storylines, body language, and visual styles are are just plain silly. By the same token, I know it's not necessarily any sillier than the Gnarley Forest, the Duchy of Geoff, or the House Orien  Express, but the tropes just keep me from enjoying them.

The storylines, however, when boiled down to their essentials, are quite well done and adult in content. Consider a boy with a cursed destiny, shunned by many, who desires to become the heroic guardian of his people; one who takes that curse, and transforms it into something Good, not evil, and along his journey discovers what it takes to really be a hero, in real life rather than in stories. From what I can gather, that's the storyline of Naruto (from a friend of mine), but the actual on-screen look of the characters, the way the characters act, their power effects, and the unrealistic aesthetic, just puts me off. I had to have someone boil it down to appreciate the story, and I still can't bring myself to watch the darn thing more than a few minutes at a time.

About the only anime I liked was Cowboy Bebop, but mainly because it RARELY showed the kinds of elements that other Asian anime shows. It was grittier in tone (thanks to the gumshoe film-noir emulations), and I "got" the storyline. And not one person showed up with a 7-foot sword.  This coming from a guy who watched Ultraman and Space Giants as a kid - I just dislike the aesthetic, and when many of its elements show up in other things I enjoy, like D&D and Star Wars, it tunes me out immediately to even the good parts. Heck, to this day I still can't watch those Tartakovsky Clone Wars cartoons, because the style reminds me too much of it, for some inexplicable reason.


----------



## breschau (Aug 26, 2007)

EyeontheMountain said:
			
		

> WOW: I agree with the above poster, D&D should be primarily role-playing, but with lots of adventure, not an endless series of killings, and gathering stuff.
> 
> Anime: I just have never liked Anime. The stories, the character attitudes, the way they use magic in thier worlds. It is just no D&D to me. Should be a seperate game.




The amount of role-playing involved in any game is entirely determined by those at the table during the game. The system has nothing to do with it. As far back as OD&D (back when Dwarf was a class) there was role-playing, yet, magically there were no rules (crunchy bits) covering how to role-play.

No matter the system you role-play as much as you choose to. 

Don't hate the game, hate the player.

I've played since '84, when my older brother and his friend needed an extra man to fill out the party. I've loved it ever since. This is _fantasy_ role-playing, not _Medieval European Chivalric_ role-playing. Think bigger. I've played knights and kobolds for 20+ years. I love the system, I'm chomping at the bit to play something with more scope and inspiration. I'm ecstatic about the inclusion of anime influenced rules and settings into D&D. (I loved Dark Sun, Al-Qadim, and Planescape. Anything to expand the boundaries.) Tome of Battle was spectacular for me. That bit at the start about this not being your father's D&D, and the D&D presented therein as the most culture blind, that was priceless. I hope they include that bit of text at the start of every 4th Edition book ever printed.

"More than any other, this book represents "culture-blind" D&D: fantasy gaming in a world where silent ninjas and wandering kung-fu master live side by side with noble paladins and fearsome monsters. Tome of Battle isn't your parents' D&D--it's bigger, bolder, and even more fantastic than ever before."

Thank the gods. That bit's gold. Just like that and keep 'em coming.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Aug 26, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> The same could be said about scaling up a low-powered standard. It goes both ways. Adding a bunch of magic items to a low-powered standard, for instance, will throw off the "core" balance.




If the world and the adventures were solely PC/NPC builds, I would agree completely.  Scaling up and down would be a matter of adjusting wealth and xp given out per challenge - and things like this.

However, monsters do not scale so easily.  Some monsters in the monster manuals just down't scalle down easy.  Forgive me if this is a crude comparison, but with some creatures it is hard to defang them a little without outright neutering them.  It can be done, but it is a ton of work to scale monsters down.  Scaling them up, however, is usually much easier!



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> I feel this way about steampunk and gunpowder in my D&D. some superb settings have them (Iron Kingdoms), but it violates my mental set for "acceptable anachronisms" in a way that's hard to describe. Spelljammer was the same way, totally trashing my suspension of disbelief.




I hear you on the whole gunpowder thing!  In _Into the Moral Darkness_, my latest story hour, I've just had to think through the naval aspects of my campaign world.  My wife had bought me a book on pirates and I was looking forward to using it in the story hour (and if you remember Pirate Day from last year you know there is more to the story than I'm telling!).  But, I suddenly realized that my campaign world didn't have gunpowder.  So, that meant that ships like frigates and galleons would need to be seriously revised to make a more trireme "ramming" style.

Decisions we make can be difficult, and when it comes to decisions like gunpowder and even cinematic maneuvers ... I find those kind of decisions are seldom made lightly.  And if they are made lightly, I often regret the decision I made!


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 26, 2007)

First, notice that World of Warcraft is basically a repetitive combat game.  A lot of people don't like this, or at least think this would be bad in D&D, so saying that "D&D is becoming too much like World of Warcraft" is an effective insult.

Second, notice that there are a lot of whiny grognards out there.  They toss the "D&D is becoming too much like World of Warcraft" whine at things that, while like World of Warcraft, have absolutely nothing to do with the way World of Warcraft is repetitive and combat oriented.  For example, World of Warcraft has a class who's primary feature is that it has a pet monster.  If D&D were to create a class in which the character's primary feature were a pet monster, these grognards would start whining about how D&D was copying WoW, becoming too like WoW, next thing you know they'll have thrown out roleplaying completely, blah, blah, blah.  Even though the pet class aspect of WoW has nothing to do with its undesirable characteristics.  See?

As for the anime thing, I don't know.  There's a legitimate stylistic difference between western fantasy and anime fantasy, in that anime fantasy usually allows incredible feats of agility and speed, whereas western fantasy usually just has incredible feats of physical strength.  But honestly, most of the people who complain about D&D becoming "too anime" are perfectly ok with the exact same things happening as long as you put a gloss on it by casting a spell first.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 26, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> First, notice that World of Warcraft is basically a repetitive combat game.  A lot of people don't like this, or at least think this would be bad in D&D, so saying that "D&D is becoming too much like World of Warcraft" is an effective insult.
> 
> Second, notice that there are a lot of whiny grognards out there.  They toss the "D&D is becoming too much like World of Warcraft" whine at things that, while like World of Warcraft, have absolutely nothing to do with the way World of Warcraft is repetitive and combat oriented.  For example, World of Warcraft has a class who's primary feature is that it has a pet monster.  If D&D were to create a class in which the character's primary feature were a pet monster, these grognards would start whining about how D&D was copying WoW, becoming too like WoW, next thing you know they'll have thrown out roleplaying completely, blah, blah, blah.  Even though the pet class aspect of WoW has nothing to do with its undesirable characteristics.  See?
> 
> As for the anime thing, I don't know.  There's a legitimate stylistic difference between western fantasy and anime fantasy, in that anime fantasy usually allows incredible feats of agility and speed, whereas western fantasy usually just has incredible feats of physical strength.  But honestly, most of the people who complain about D&D becoming "too anime" are perfectly ok with the exact same things happening as long as you put a gloss on it by casting a spell first.



Fully agree. People are tossing around warcraft having never played it nor not knowing any elements of the game.  Same with anime.  Heck, Lodoss Wars was what encouraged me to start d and d.  Anyone who hasn't seen it watch it, it is as close as you will get to a real dungeons and dragons show. 

Saying i hate anime is like saying i hate american cartoons.  There's just too many variety to really hate them all. 

Heck, wow isn't even the most popular MMORPG out there EQ2 is.


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 26, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I loved Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, wonderful movie, but I don't need it in my DnD any more than I need the Transformers movie in it.




The 3E Psionics handbook came out shortly after CT,HD and I felt that was exactly what monks should have always been, but the Psi Warriors didn't have enough of a blend w/normal monks to make it feel right to me.  If I'm gonna have monks in my game, I wanna see crazy wall runs and the kinda crazy stuff ya see in that movie


----------



## Delta (Aug 26, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Well, just scale it down then. If a low-powered standard can up scaled up, then a high-powered standard can be scaled down.




I don't think so. Consider this proposed scale: Level (1) Normal human, Level (4) Champion hero, Level (8) Superhero. Then it's intrinsically easy for players to scale up or down by choosing to start playing at level 1, 4, or 8; whatever they desire. 

For example, Mutants & Masterminds does this. Power levels 1-20, with recommendation to start to play at Level 10, but optionally scaled wherever you prefer. I don't hear too much complaint about that system.

But alternatively, consider this scale: Level (1) Champion hero, Level (4) Superhero, Level (8) Mega-awesome superhero. Now you can't scale below "champion hero" by just selecting a level, you need to institute a whole series of unique house rules to modify the whole system from ground up. Why bother? Unfortunately (to me), it just so happens that it sounds like 4E is specifically using this latter scaling system.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 26, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain why if anything is derived from anime/WoW (even if it has a non-existent connection) it seems like there is opposition not based on the concept itself but from where it comes from?



I think it would be fair to say that many people [who perceive themselves to be] over a certain [mental] age (16? 18?) believe anime, WoW and such to not only be part of the same general [backward] trend in culture/society, but also to be something designed primarily for the youth of today, and thus a thing likely to be entirely irrelevant and useless to themselves.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 26, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Heck, wow isn't even the most popular MMORPG out there EQ2 is.






Um... no?  EQ2 has fewer players than EQ1, about a quarter the players of FF XI, and approximately 2% as many as World of Warcraft.  It barely even rates.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 26, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> When I describe D&D as "anime", I'm generally referring to:
> 
> Quasi-furry half-something template races
> Ridiculous, over-sized weapons (like the spiked chain)
> ...




Agreed.  Anime generally seems to me to be like a comic book: everything is super fast, super strong, super in your face super super.  Everybody runs like a cheetah, jumps like a jackrabbit on the moon, 14-year old girls punch down bank vaults, etc.  It is, in a word, "cartoonish".

Obviously I'm talking about what I perceive as most anime, which is more like Dirty Pair than it is like Grave of the Fireflies.

That's not to say that there is anything wrong with liking anime.  I just don't want it in my D&D.  I can relate to a wizard or a dwarf far more than I can to a mecha-piloting catgirl ninja or even characters like Cyclops and Wolverine.  YMMV.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

I cannot honestly say that all anime is the same.

I _can_ say that all anime _I have seen_ contains elements I strongly dislike. It's something about a combination of the pacing the characterization that I just really can't get into. And yes, that includes _Lodoss Wars_, as well as _Vampire Hunter D_, _Ninja Scroll_, Princess Mononoke[/i], and half a dozen others.

I am not exaggerating when I say I have never watched an anime I truly liked. There are some I've liked more than others, but none that I'd watch a second time.

Does that mean they're bad? No, not at all. It's purely a taste thing.

But it does mean that when people say "Anime isn't a genre," I have to quirk an eyebrow, because--in my own experience, at least--it _does_ have enough traits in common across the board to qualify as one.


----------



## jasin (Aug 26, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I loved Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, wonderful movie, but I don't need it in my DnD any more than I need the Transformers movie in it.



If I had to list 5 things that made me switch to 3E, one of them would probably be that hong's martial artist let me play people from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. 

That said, I want that as an option, not the default. I wouldn't want crazy wuxia jumping/flying be built into the rules like in Dragon Fist so that everyone did it.

Except as an option.  For a completely wuxia campaign, where even wizards jump good.

Actually, that might be a neat thing to have in the DMG: some sort of "campaign templates" that would change some of the rules all the better to create a certain atmosphere: a wuxia game, a Viking game...


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I cannot honestly say that all anime is the same.
> 
> I _can_ say that all anime _I have seen_ contains elements I strongly dislike. It's something about a combination of the pacing the characterization that I just really can't get into. And yes, that includes _Lodoss Wars_, as well as _Vampire Hunter D_, _Ninja Scroll_, Princess Mononoke[/i], and half a dozen others.
> 
> ...



As someone who watches a lot more anime than you claim to watch, I have to seriously disagree with the idea that anime has enough common traits to call it a genre. There is an incredibly wide variety of stuff out there, and while there are distinct genres in anime, there are many anime with such incredibly different qualities that you can't claim they are in the same genre.

Try comparing the original _Transformers_ (yes, it is an anime) to other mecha anime, like _Infinite Ryvius_ (_Lord of the Flies_ meets outer space and fantastic giant robots) or _Patlabor_ (which takes the route of reducing humanoid robots to the completly mundane). These series are very different in many ways, and this is just a relatively small amount of variation within the very distinct "mecha" genre.

If you compare a fairly down to earth romance story like _His and Her Circumstances_ to an gory and fantastic action anime like _Ninja Scroll_, I think you would be hard-pressed to say they were the same genre. The same can be said for the intense pacing differences between contemplative anime like _.hack//SIGN_ and mind-blowing fast-paced and surreal anime like _FLCL_.

I think to make the claim that "all anime falls under the same genre," you are going to need to be far more specific about what are the qualities which _all_ anime share. Even among the things you list as what you have seen, I struggle to see how _Ninja Scroll_, _Lodoss War_, and _Princess Mononoke_ all fall under the same genre.

Ninja Scroll is primarily an action film focused on the cliche badass hero. It is gory, extremely violent, and features the cliche romance subplot of the hero rescuing the girl who is unable to pretect herself. As a whole, it isn't very different than a Hollywood action film or Hong Kong martial arts film.

Princess Mononoke is not an action film, but is instead a typical Hayao Miyazaki production, with a lot in common with morality fables and fairy tales. Romance sub-plot is an alegory for humans coming to understand nature.

I am not sure which Lodoss War series you are referring to of the two, but I assume the OVA. That is essentially a classic hero's journey story, featuring an inexperienced youth struggling to grow into a man in the midst of conflict. The romance sub-plot here is a product of this growth of this hero as he trasforms from a person who the elf-girl looks down upon, into being someone who is her equal and who can protect her.

So, I hope you don't mind if I fail to see the similarity between these three anime.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Aug 26, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I"m curious as to what do you define the differences between anime and dungeons and dragons.
> 
> Isn't fantasy just fantasy?  Hasn't d and d action always been as over the top as it is in anime fantasy.  The naming of spells, living weapons, legendary quests,




D&D was based on the fantasy/sci-fi stories of of Fritz Leiber, Robert E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft, Jack Vance and J.R.R. Tolkien as well as the old E.C. Comics (non superhero) and various mythologies.

Over the past 30 years, D&D has been very inclusive of new fantasy ideas, even if those ideas sometimes didn't fit in very well with the original D&D core. 

D&D used to be a game for readers of science fiction and fantasy, casual or dedicated. 

It would seem that the current design direction is a game for players of fantasy MMORPGs and fans of anime (a VERY broad category, I know). It's not a bad idea, just something I'm not interested in playing.

It's the "New D&D" version of new coke. 

Actually -- that's an unfair comparison. The new style is more like Red Bull, while the original style is Coca-Cola. 

I guess that would make 1st edition the original Coca-Cola with the extra ingredient, and 2nd edition Coca-Cola from Mexico.


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 26, 2007)

I don't think that a slightly different art style means a dramatic shift has happened in the game.  The artists had a certain style that had been decided on or maybe someone just drew a really cool picture and someone said "That's it!  Lots of that please!" to the artists.  The art from 1E to 2E was pretty different (dunno about skills and powers, I hated those books and never bought them) and the art in 3E was different again.  I LIKE that the game changes in all aspects.  I know some people would prefer that Erol Otus had never stopping doing D&D art, but if the game doesn't change it stagnates and people lose interest.  The game also stops expanding.

This game is over 30 years old people, in that time, some things have been found which are maybe not as fun as they could be and things will change.  Art is just a part of all of it.

w_earle>Maybe OD&D being coca-cola explains a few things, what w/the cocaine in the mix to explain the addictiveness to folks like Diaglo heh


----------



## Branduil (Aug 26, 2007)

The Lodoss OVA is a better D&D movie than the actual D&D movies.

More accurate too.


----------



## Arkhandus (Aug 26, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> When I describe D&D as "anime", I'm generally referring to:
> 
> Quasi-furry half-something template races
> Ridiculous, over-sized weapons (like the spiked chain)
> ...



_(just to note, not trying to single you out, but responding to these kinds of points)_

I don't think D&D has _ever_ been at a point where the default PC was like Indiana Jones.  I'm pretty sure that early fighting-men and dwarves and elves and magic-users could both dish out and endure more punishment than Indy ever did.

I also distinctly remember characters with high Strength (like 18/00 or whatnot) having a chance in older editions of bending iron bars or performing similar feats of strength.  It isn't exactly a new option in D&D.

And of course, there's _magic_ in D&D; a high-level fighter may be using an oversized weapon or throwing boulders precisely because the party's magic-user greatly augmented his Strength well beyond normal human limits.

Lycanthropes and similar man-beast hybrids have been a part of legends/mythology/fiction for a _very long time_, so I don't see how races like Shifters or similar (Vanara, Nezumi, Hengeyokai...._centaurs, minotaurs, gnolls_, orcs, mongrelfolk, aaracokras, alaghi, etc.) should be any kind of problem in D&D.


And I feel I should point out that hardly any D&D character, barring giantish creatures, can throw boulders or leap buildings.  A very jumping-optimized Monk or Psychic Warrior (using much multi-classing and _spells/powers and magic/psionic_ items....) of high levels can jump small buildings, but that's rather rare (it's not something they're going to be doing just by chance from having monkish or psionic abilities, it's something they have to grab up _magic/psionic_ boosts for specifically; and it's likely to be more difficult than simply getting a magic/psionic spell/power/item of flight).

Notice the significance of _magic_ and other supernatural powers involved in such efforts; a magic-user can already *fly* about with a 3rd-level spell, a potion, some magic boots, a magic 'cape', a magic carpet, or a magic broom......


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 26, 2007)

WoW isn't any more monolithic than anime.  I think there are a lot of WoW naysayers that don't realize that it offers more variety of gameplay experience than just the monster grind.  The high level raids and PvP are seriously interesting games - it's just unfortunate that you have to slog through a lot of repetitive tasks to get to the good stuff.
-blarg


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 26, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Man, you should have been playing back in '77. You missed some good times back then. We'd crank up the Bay City Rollers and roleplay ALL NIGHT LONG.




I have roleplayed all night long but fortunately I have managed to supress all memories of the Bay City Rollers


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 26, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> WoW isn't any more monolithic than anime.  I think there are a lot of WoW naysayers that don't realize that it offers more variety of gameplay experience than just the monster grind.  The high level raids and PvP are seriously interesting games - it's just unfortunate that you have to slog through a lot of repetitive tasks to get to the good stuff.
> -blarg




After all the game really starts at 60 70 (soon) 80.


----------



## pogre (Aug 26, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Saying i hate anime is like saying i hate american cartoons.  There's just too many variety to really hate them all.




I thought anime was the style of art used in these cartoons. I do not prefer that style of art - so I say I dislike anime all the time. Am I missing the boat? I concede I may be.

For me, D&D was largely derived from older fantasy ideas especially Tolkien. It is game that primarily uses pseudo medieval Europe as an assumed background. I'm not suggesting it falls apart when other cultural elements are thrown in, but that background assumption appeals to me.



			
				w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't mind new fantasy. However, I think new fantasy needs its own RPG. I prefer my D&D with classic tone and fluff.




That's close to my sentiments. The only difference is I would say personally I do not know new fantasy...


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 26, 2007)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> After all the game really starts at 60 70 (soon) 80.



*sad laugh*
It's really too bad that they hide the best parts of the game behind days and days of lackluster gameplay.  I had to quit from sheer boredom around level 45.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 26, 2007)

Here's my problem with the opposition to the more "flashy" anime. I'll use Slayers as an example. Slayers, like Record of Lodoss Wars, is heavily D&D inspired. IIRC, Slayers was originally a RPG-novel (basically, in japan, people published their campaign as novels) and it doesn't have any of the visual clues people in this thread are equating with anime. No sword bigger than the swordsman, no changing of the hair colour...

Here's what I wrote on the WOTC boards about Conan/Aragorn/Arthur vs Anime


> If you read a lot of Western fantasy with Conan and King Arthur and even Aragorn, at the basis it still is mundane. Basically, you're still a mortal character. Really, there's nothing in the live-action movie that Aragorn did (in fact any of the melee characters) which couldn't be at the least IMAGINED by afficiandos of Western fighters.
> 
> Compare this with say Gourry Gabriev (a fighter in the Slayers anime/novels/manga). Gourry is literally inhuman in the novels. He moves fast enough that Lina Inverse can't even see his movements (and she's a better than average swordsman). Strong enough that in the manga he can casually slice through an anvil with a NORMAL sword and in the anime, he's presented as strong enough that with his pinky finger he can take out a beastman creature that would make Conan sweat his loincloth. His senses are so highly tuned that Lina thinks he's part bloodhound/owl/bat. All in all, he's so far above human physically that Lina at times doesn't think he is HUMAN.
> 
> ...




Even using OD&D or 1E/2E as a standard of the magic user, by 7th level or 8th, how many of those famous challenges in Western fantasy would get completely obliterated by a wizard? Magic in D&D has ALWAYS been powerful and this hasn't changed at all in 3.x just a matter of how (in previous editions, that 3rd level fireball was good all the way up to 20th level whereas in 3.x you actually have to use the higher level spell to take out equivalent levelled foes)

Sure, its nice to think of the characters as being equivalent to say Indiana Jones but this has never been true in D&D....


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 26, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't mind new fantasy. However, I think new fantasy needs its own RPG. I prefer my D&D with classic tone and fluff.




Good summary


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 26, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Here's my problem with the opposition to the more "flashy" anime. I'll use Slayers as an example. Slayers, like Record of Lodoss Wars, is heavily D&D inspired. IIRC,
> 
> snip
> 
> ...




You may be right about literary fantasy but if you go back to the myths it is a different matter. Now I am most familar with hte Celtic stuff  and there are several accounts of Chucullan or Con Cearnach, Fionn and others taking out serveral warriors with a single spear cast. When Chucullan forced Fergus to yield due to a promise made years before Feargus in his fury at his twarted shot at revenging an insult made by the Ulster King attacked a near by hill and sawed the top off with his sword. 

I seem to remember Hector killing multiple enemies with a stoke and Achilles likewise. The 'realistic' style of Tolkien or Leiber is they are writing for an audience that is not familar with the original myths and not inclinded to believe that someone could stall an army for a month or two or that a hunter could pursue a deer for 300 miles or so in a day.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I think to make the claim that "all anime falls under the same genre," you are going to need to be far more specific about what are the qualities which _all_ anime share. Even among the things you list as what you have seen, I struggle to see how _Ninja Scroll_, _Lodoss War_, and _Princess Mononoke_ all fall under the same genre.




If I could be more specific, I would've been. I can't, because I can't entirely put my finger on it.

As I said, it's partly just a difference in cultural storytelling styles. There's something about the _pacing_ of all anime I've seen that throws off my enjoyment of it. I also dislike much of the dialog (dubbed is worse than subtitles, but I have a problem with the subtitled ones, too), though I'm willing to chalk that one up to translation issues.

But, beyond that... I dunno. There's something else that rubbed me the wrong way about every anime I've seen, but I honestly can't tell you what it is.  :\


----------



## delericho (Aug 26, 2007)

For me, it's about an uncomfortable admixture of styles and expectations. I actually like a lot of the anime I've seen, and I like much of the wuxia I've seen, and so on and so forth. However, I don't really want those elements in default D&D, because they just don't fit what I want in the game.

(I do think that, just as much of D&D comes from blending Lord of the Rings, Elric, Conan, Newhon, and so forth, so to could a _great_ game be created by blending Pokemon, Harry Potter, Eragon, and similar modern fantasies.)

I can't really comment on WoW - I gave up computer games after Civilisation II, when I realised I'd just lost a full fortnight when I should have been studying. However, I am _absolutely certain_ that it would be a bad idea for D&D to try to emulate WoW, because the things that that game does it does far better than D&D can hope to. Instead, D&D really needs to focus on its strengths, notably the social benefits of a group gathering in the same place, and in particular the ability of the DM to adapt to a changing situation. In that regard, I agree with Ryan Dancey's recent blog entries, although I disagree with a great many of his proposed solutions.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 26, 2007)

Something that can include

Grave of the Fireflies...

...Cowboy Bebop...

...FLCL...

...Berserk...

...and Pokemon...

Is at least as diverse a genre as "American Animation" 

And it's quite a bit more diverse than "Action Movies" or "Dramas"

Yeah, there are stylistic similarities between them, but they're as distinct as country music, bluegrass, and jazz, the blues, and rap.  

I think videogames and anime are mostly grognard-speak for bad wrong fun. The D&D game and the fantasy genre as a whole have come a long way from the Grey Mouser, Conan, and Lord of the Rings, though plenty of people would be very happy if D&D were to basically keep playing in those same realms. I can't say I would be, but I'm hardly a grognard.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 26, 2007)

Damn it, I really wanted BESM 3e... Can we please have a second print run, somebody?


----------



## thedungeondelver (Aug 26, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> I guess that would make 1st edition the original Coca-Cola with the extra ingredient, and 2nd edition Coca-Cola from Mexico.





That is PRICELESS dude.

2e is coca-cola from Mexico.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Aug 26, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> The Lodoss OVA is a better D&D movie than the actual D&D movies.
> 
> More accurate too.





Would that be the part where the party thief throws a dagger into the eye of an henceforth-untouched dragon and kills it with that single shot, at the beginning of the first episode?



No, seriously, I have much love for *RECORD OF LODOSS WAR* if for no other reason that because it was from *DUNGEONS & DRAGONS*.

(and you're right - they're better *D&D* movies than WotC's offerings!)


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Aug 26, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I think it would be fair to say that many people [who perceive themselves to be] over a certain [mental] age (16? 18?) believe anime, WoW and such to not only be part of the same general [backward] trend in culture/society, but also to be something designed primarily for the youth of today, and thus a thing likely to be entirely irrelevant and useless to themselves.




There's a famous quote from C.S. Lewis that seems very appropriate, in regard of that mindset: 


			
				C.S. Lewis said:
			
		

> When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 26, 2007)

Anime...

People who lump anime into one thing have no idea what they're talking about. Anime is a medium.

For example, Berserk, either the anime or the manga, would be far more at home in 'standard' D&D and perhaps more prototyped for older versions due to the lack of magic within it. Others, despite being a little... silly, like Slayers, do a good job of showcasing high fantasy. Still others are based on D&D in many ways like Record of the Lodoss War.

But you'd probably want to stay away from things that didn't fit the genre of D&D like Dragonball Z, Last Exile, Ghost in the Shell or Gungrave, not because they're not entertaining, but because they're not appropriate to the genre.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 26, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> Damn it, I really wanted BESM 3e... Can we please have a second print run, somebody?




I'll sell ya mine for $40 including s & h if in America.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Aug 26, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> For me, it's about an uncomfortable admixture of styles and expectations. I actually like a lot of the anime I've seen, and I like much of the wuxia I've seen, and so on and so forth. However, I don't really want those elements in default D&D, because they just don't fit what I want in the game.




Yes, I really like wuxia... it just doesn't fit in D&D.

Now, as far as anime goes, when I watched Princess Mononoke, I remember thinking "this is pretty cool, he's fighting a huge dire warthog!"

But when I saw "aura" like abilities for clerics and paladins in a D&D splatbook, I thought, "this is kinda lame -- they're just trying to emulate Diablo 2 and it isn't working."


----------



## Kesh (Aug 26, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> When I describe D&D as "anime", I'm generally referring to:
> 
> Quasi-furry half-something template races




a-HEM, sir!


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 26, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Anime...
> 
> People who lump anime into one thing have no idea what they're talking about. Anime is a medium.
> 
> For example, Berserk, either the anime or the manga, would be far more at home in 'standard' D&D and perhaps more prototyped for older versions due to the lack of magic within it..




Berserk really is what most people that love "old-school" D&D probqably think D&D should be. Other than the big problem that Guts is the prototypical swordsman who wields a sword bigger than himself.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 26, 2007)

Huh.  I wouldn't have thought that Mouseferatu would be on the anti-anime-in-my-D&D side, given that he wrote the Shadowcaster.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Huh.  I wouldn't have thought that Mouseferatu would be on the anti-anime-in-my-D&D side, given that he wrote the Shadowcaster.




Well, as I said, it's mostly just that I've never yet seen an anime I truly liked. I'm not averse to the notion of anime-inspired concepts in D&D _in concept_, though, and I'm certainly not claiming that I've never seen _anything_ worth borrowing in anime. 

That said, how does the shadowcaster tie into anime? I'm honestly curious, since nothing I've personally seen suggests that connection to me.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 27, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, as I said, it's mostly just that I've never yet seen an anime I truly liked. I'm not averse to the notion of anime-inspired concepts in D&D _in concept_, though, and I'm certainly not claiming that I've never seen _anything_ worth borrowing in anime.
> 
> That said, how does the shadowcaster tie into anime? I'm honestly curious, since nothing I've personally seen suggests that connection to me.



 See, that's the thing about calling things 'anime', ESPECIALLY when you aren't talking about an art style.

No one can agree on what it is, because its a MEDIUM for various genre within.

Its like saying "That game smacks of Baroque". What does that MEAN? There are Baroque paintings, buildings, etc...and yet there are difference in specifics within it all. 

It feels to me, and many others from what I've seen, that its just a buzz word to mean "I don't like it" with no real connection to...well...reality.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 27, 2007)

ardoughter said:
			
		

> I have been playing rpgs since 1978 or there abouts and there have always been people complainging that no-one really roleplays anymore and it is all degenerating in to mindless hack 'n' Slash. It is just that WoW has given a focus for this.
> 
> As for the anime bashing, well it is a handy label to toss about, and there are anime shows that are very much not D&D, but that in its self means very little. There are people that are convinced that D&D should be various things, Medieval European Courtly romance, swords and sorcerery, Toklinesque high fantasy and so forth and they feel obliged to make disparaging remarks about anything that takes it further from what they think is the true and proper path.
> 
> It is all meaningless nonsense. At the end of the day a good D&D campaign is not obtained by mindless application of rules but be a judicious excerise in imagination between the DM and the players.





Your comment is made from pure undistilled AWESOME.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 27, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> See, that's the thing about calling things 'anime', ESPECIALLY when you aren't talking about an art style.
> 
> No one can agree on what it is, because its a MEDIUM for various genre within.



There do seem to be certain elements that are more commonly found in anime than elsewhere. For example mecha, schoolkids who have to juggle normal life with having superpowers, dweebs pursued by several incredibly exotic girlfriends, elves with big ears, girls with blue hair, catgirls and naughty tentacles.

That said, none of the above are ever what people mean when they describe D&D as being too similar to anime.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 27, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I'll sell ya mine for $40 including s & h if in America.




I can't really afford to buy anything I don't need at the moment, because I'm going off to university, otherwise I might have taken you up on that offer. If you're still willing to sell come Christmas though, maybe I can get my parents or sister to help out.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 27, 2007)

90% of Anime is crap.
Also, 90% of video games are crap.
Likewise, 90% of classical music is crap.
(This is all because about 90% of pretty much anything is crap.)

Just like last season's battle cry ("like a videogame"), this season's battle cry ("too anime") simply indicates a general dislike for perceived youthfulness. In this case, it's particularly blatant, because there's nothing in concrete form to actually point at and dislike. All we're really arguing about is marketing.

Cheers, -- N

PS: In unrelated news, I use about 10% of the rules produced by WotC.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 27, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> If the world and the adventures were solely PC/NPC builds, I would agree completely.  Scaling up and down would be a matter of adjusting wealth and xp given out per challenge - and things like this.
> 
> However, monsters do not scale so easily.  Some monsters in the monster manuals just down't scalle down easy.  Forgive me if this is a crude comparison, but with some creatures it is hard to defang them a little without outright neutering them.  It can be done, but it is a ton of work to scale monsters down.  Scaling them up, however, is usually much easier!




Scaling down is super easy. Pick a different monster appropriate to the power level of the PCs.

Done.

Next.

It's whats done already with the default power / magic items levels.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 27, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But, beyond that... I dunno. There's something else that rubbed me the wrong way about every anime I've seen, but I honestly can't tell you what it is.  :\




For me, it's the anime in the anime that rubs me the wrong way.

That's not DND. It's anime. It belongs where it is. It does not belong in DND. IMO.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 27, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> 90% of Anime is crap.
> Also, 90% of video games are crap.
> Likewise, 90% of classical music is crap.
> (This is all because about 90% of pretty much anything is crap.)
> ...



QFT, as usual for Nifft. Well put.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Aug 27, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Scaling down is super easy. Pick a different monster appropriate to the power level of the PCs.




What you suggest isn't scaling down, it's changing the adventure completely.  It's like someone saying that in order to scale the cleric down everyone who wants to play a cleric should really change their idea completely and play a fighter instead.  It really makes no sense.

[To use 3.x lingo in a 4e thread...] The conversation wasn't about how easy is it to make a CR 5 encounter for a party level 7 characters who are equipment/wealth/magic deprived enough to make them actually closer to an ECL 5.  Any fool can make a CR 5 encounter a number of different ways.

What the conversation was actually about is how easy it is to scale the power level down for a character.  There are many approaches to raising/lowering the power level for npcs based on class levels and all of them are rather easy: money changes, speed of acquisition of feats, point buy, etc.  But when it comes to a monster, many of them are difficult to scale back.  Sure, any idiot can simply replace the creature with a completely different and weaker one.  But it takes time to be able to use the monster you want while trimming it's power level back.  It isn't hard in all cases, but it is hard in many cases.


----------



## Henry (Aug 27, 2007)

This kind of topic discussion is REALLY hard to pull off without unintentionally insulting someone, but I find it fascinating enough to try. 

The kinds of stylistic elements that immediately send me thinking "anime" are things like:

 Enlarging one facial feature MUCH proportionally larger than the rest of the facial features to express emotion (huge smiles but small eyes in one shot, or huge eyes, but slit-like mouths in another shot on the same character)
Character shots that either linger over one facial expression for many seconds, or repeatedly revisit that expression in cut scenes back and forth
Action shots that are repeated several times to enhance the effect
character names that refer to actions, or common words ("Guts" in berserk, Cloud Strife in FF7, Alucard in Hellsing) 
hair represented by "spikes" in differing patterns, usually to represent the "tousled hair" look
strong references to specific martial arts styles or "secrets" that one character knows but others don't.
characters, even the protagonists, whose motives are inscrutable to the viewer (namely me), but often have to do with an unspoken code of honor or rules that they are loath to break, and when they do they seem far more upset about it than the situation would seem to warrant. Even Star Wars kind of borrows this meme when describing why anger is so inimical to the Jedi... it's only through further movies and writings where this is better explained.

Caveat: not all japanese anime has each of these elements, and some shows that are mroe "western animation" has some of these elements. However, these are all elements that most anime I have seen share. There are some, doing a little poking around, that don't seem to have these elements (Sorcerer Hunter, Witch Hunter Robin, Monster), but these seem to be the least referred to anime, more often hearing of Lodoss War, InuYasha, Naruto, Escaflowne, etc. which seem to share many of these traits, and unfortunately most of these traits, especially together, turn me off to that style. I'm not looking to be convinced, but trying to clarify the whole, _"you don't like anime? You don't know what you're talking about"_ thing.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 27, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> For me, it's the anime in the anime that rubs me the wrong way.
> 
> That's not DND. It's anime. It belongs where it is. It does not belong in DND. IMO.



I can't follow you argument, other than it being a retread of "I hate anime" with no meaningful explanation of what it is about anime that you hate, or why it does not belong in D&D.

As it stands, you comment is not constructive to a discussion, since it can be interpeted in a nearly infinte number of ways, an thus says nothing for certain.

What _specifically_ is it that you don't want, and why?

I mean, I really like anime (I probably spend more money on anime than D&D), and watch a wide variety of it, but I certainly agree with the idea that there are things in anime which don't fit in D&D. Saiyans, Super Robots, magical girls, geeky high-school boys who are surrounded by a harem of alien women, etc... These things are completely outside the genre D&D describes, and have no place in D&D. I don't think I have _ever_ seen someone argue that they do.

There are also other things seen in anime that would be very interesting when brought into D&D. For example, I would love to see a good version of the _Hanju_ race from the fantasy anime _The Twelve Kingdoms_ in D&D. While I would not argue it should be core, I like the idea of running an Escaflowne-style giant robot campaign set in Eberron. There are many fantastic settings and places that would be interesting in D&D. There are all kinds of magical systems, wierd races, monsters, and variations of Eastern Mythology and culture that can add new ideas and flavors to D&D.

Finally, there are a lot of interesting _characters_ and character types in anime that would make great PCs, NPCs, or BBEGs in D&D.

As a whole, saying that anime does not belong in D&D seems empty to me, since it denies the incredible variety of things in anime that could inspire players and designers to make something new and fun.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 27, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Ummm, no.  Next?
> 
> What you suggest isn't scaling down, it's changing the adventure completely.
> 
> ...




Ummm, no.  Next?

The conversation was not about scaling down a specific adventure.

It was scaling down a campaign for play style.

That’s super simple to do.

A DM creating a scaled back campaign would not necessarily use the same monster or the same number of monsters that a DM creating a non-scaled back campaign would use.

And, he would not be an idiot for doing so.


If one were talking about a specific adventure, that’s not too difficult to do either. Drop a hit dice or two of the creatures, or drop the number of creatures from 5 to 4 or whatever. Or, are you incapable of doing that? The Monster Manual explains exactly how monsters are created. The scale goes both ways. Adding hit dice or dropping hit dice. Adding numbers or dropping numbers. Adding magic items / loot or dropping magic items / loot. That's not difficult. It's easy.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 27, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I can't really afford to buy anything I don't need at the moment, because I'm going off to university, otherwise I might have taken you up on that offer. If you're still willing to sell come Christmas though, maybe I can get my parents or sister to help out.




Just give me a shout. I like it but it's just talking up space.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 27, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Ummm, no.  Next?



With this one line, you turn a really good post into a rude one. Please -- at a time when tempers are high, consideration for other folks is greatly appreciated by everyone.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 27, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Just like last season's battle cry ("like a videogame"), this season's battle cry ("too anime") simply indicates a general dislike for perceived youthfulness.



I want to create my own battlecry for 4e. "It's too blickish!" Sounds great, means nothing, makes me feel better when I yell it!


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril (Aug 27, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I feel this way about steampunk and gunpowder in my D&D. some superb settings have them (Iron Kingdoms), but it violates my mental set for "acceptable anachronisms" in a way that's hard to describe. Spelljammer was the same way, totally trashing my suspension of disbelief.
> 
> I like the cinematic combat of high-magic, high-lvl D&D. But I understand how some people wouldn't.




Speaking of Spelljammer, I almost bought the boxed set in a garage (actually a school) sale back in '93, but someone told me it was bad, and tried to shoehorn science fiction into D&D, so I didn't.

I've regretted it ever since, as I was never able to find another Spelljammer boxed set, and reading about it on the web, I've become intrigued by the mix of high fantasy and Pythagorean celestial mechanics.  Teaches me to take other people's advice at face value.

Similarly, lots of concepts found in today's anime is very similar to old Sword and Sorcery nonsense; the difference is mostly aesthetic, rather than substantial.  In this case, pick up the concept from your anime of choice, change the Japanese name to an English one (for instance, _Sharingan_ become _Eyes of the Doppelgänger_) and change the description a bit (the seven-foot sword becomes four-and-a-half, but still just as heavy) and frankly no one will be able to tell your source of inspiration is Anime and not Red Sonja.  After all, few can still spot Disney's influence in anime aesthetics...


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 27, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> The kinds of stylistic elements that immediately send me thinking "anime" are things like:
> Enlarging one facial feature MUCH proportionally larger than the rest of the facial features to express emotion (huge smiles but small eyes in one shot, or huge eyes, but slit-like mouths in another shot on the same character)



Yeah, this is very much a stylistic quality of anime. Shows up in comedy anime more than in serious anime, but it is there. This is most likely a result of how every anime draws its roots from the work of Osamu Tezuka (which very much has these aspects), which in turn is directly inspired by Disney animation.


> Character shots that either linger over one facial expression for many seconds, or repeatedly revisit that expression in cut scenes back and forth



Can't say that I know what you are talking about... Maybe you are refering to anime that is cheaply made? Reusing animation and overly long static images are hallmarks of a low-budget production.


> Action shots that are repeated several times to enhance the effect



Yeah, this happens. It annoys me, too, but it is a trope seen in some anime. I wouldn't call it one of the stylistic elements that define anime, though...


> character names that refer to actions, or common words ("Guts" in berserk, Cloud Strife in FF7, Alucard in Hellsing)



 Keep in mind, these are names where the creators use the English words even in the Japanese version, so it is intended to have a slightly different effect for Japanese audiences. It is also important to remember that actual Japanese names are not terribly different. For example, a common Japanese name is "Yuuki", which literaly means "courage".


> hair represented by "spikes" in differing patterns, usually to represent the "tousled hair" look



True, especially in works originating from a manga. This is an artifact of drawing styles, as well as a general way of creating interesting visual effect in an easy to draw manner (since animation needs as many shortcuts as possible in order to remain under budget). Not universal, though.


> strong references to specific martial arts styles or "secrets" that one character knows but others don't.



This is only an aspect of particular genres of anime (martial arts/shonen anime, mostly), and is not at all different from how things in equivalent genres of other styles (Hong Kong martial arts films) work. Arguably, this is actually based in how martial arts historically functioned.


> characters, even the protagonists, whose motives are inscrutable to the viewer (namely me), but often have to do with an unspoken code of honor or rules that they are loath to break, and when they do they seem far more upset about it than the situation would seem to warrant. Even Star Wars kind of borrows this meme when describing why anger is so inimical to the Jedi... it's only through further movies and writings where this is better explained.



I don't think I have seen anything that fits this description, really... Any specific examples to help me out?



> Caveat: not all japanese anime has each of these elements, and some shows that are mroe "western animation" has some of these elements. However, these are all elements that most anime I have seen share. There are some, doing a little poking around, that don't seem to have these elements (Sorcerer Hunter, Witch Hunter Robin, Monster), but these seem to be the least referred to anime, more often hearing of Lodoss War, InuYasha, Naruto, Escaflowne, etc. which seem to share many of these traits, and unfortunately most of these traits, especially together, turn me off to that style. I'm not looking to be convinced, but trying to clarify the whole, _"you don't like anime? You don't know what you're talking about"_ thing.



Ah, I see what is going on...

Keep in mind, only a small fraction of anime is talked about very heavily. There are two distinct subsets which get talked about the most: the mainstream and currently popular anime (which tends to fall into a very narrow realm of genre), and the older anime from before it became relatively mainstream, which has somehow establsihed a wierd anime "canon" taken from the 80's to early 90's.

The former category comprises Dragonball, Bleach, Naruto, One Piece, Inuyasha, etc. Of what I just said, all but Inuyasha were all published in the same magazine in their original manga form, a genre publication called Shonen Jump. You practically have to follow a certain formula of characters, plot, and ideology to get published in Shonen Jump. Inuyasha was published in Shonen Sunday, a magazine targetting the same audience and general genre as Shonen Jump.

The latter category, the anime "canon", is mostly stuff that is fairly popular and is consdiered iconic, but I hate a lot of it... Ninja Scroll is in this list, but I can't stand that movie.

As a whole, a lot of the anime that would appeal to a broader variety of tastes is the stuff that is _not_ talked about a lot.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2007)

I think a lot of posts are somewhat ignoring the OP's point though.

That you or I don't like anime isn't the point.  Not liking something is perfectly fine.  However, why do people insist on tossing the baby out with the bathwater?  Just because I don't like anime doesn't mean that I cannot draw any ideas from anime.  Anime is a huge genre, encompassing a wide range of different styles and whatnot.  Heck, there's sports anime like Slam Dunk without any magic or swords or anything like that.  It is anime, but, it shares pretty much nothing with say, Pokemon, other than perhaps an artistic aesthetic.

OTOH, I cannot be the only person who has seen an anime and thought, wow, there's a cool monster.  

Why is it that something that is inspired by anime cannot be judged separate from its inspiration?  Not liking a concept is fine.  Not liking anime is fine.  But, not liking a concept because it's inspired by anime seems a bit strange.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 27, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I want to create my own battlecry for 4e. "It's too blickish!" Sounds great, means nothing, makes me feel better when I yell it!



 Hey! You get that blick the hell off my lawn! (_mumble:_ darn kids)

MWND*, -- N

*) That there's a new word. It's a conflation of PWND and "mowed". It means "removed from my lawn with violent efficacy".


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 27, 2007)

Here's the thing...anime is not a genre. Again, its a medium with countless genres.

So, you can discuss the art style and whether you like it or not and that's all well and good. If you don't like that, that's fine. But the thing is, that's not really the point here...the point is OTHER things being taken from anime to make D&D 'anime'...which doesn't make sense, because anime is a, again, not a genre of its own.

You can talk about not liking the style all you want, but there are very, very few things specific that make something 'anime' beyond that. Themes, stories, etc are pretty much the same kind of things we find in Western media even if its told from a slighty different angle.

So D&D can't become an 'anime' game. Its not possible because that doesn't make sense. D&D is not an art style. It cannot be 'anime' anymore than it can be 'Impressionist' or 'Baroque'.


----------



## KarinsDad (Aug 27, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I can't follow you argument, other than it being a retread of "I hate anime" with no meaningful explanation of what it is about anime that you hate, or why it does not belong in D&D.
> 
> As it stands, you comment is not constructive to a discussion, since it can be interpeted in a nearly infinte number of ways, an thus says nothing for certain.




It was totally constructive. It was an opinion, not an argument. As an opinion, it is fine. I was not trying to argue anything, hence, your interpretation of it as an argument made no sense to you.



			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> What _specifically_ is it that you don't want, and why?
> 
> I mean, I really like anime (I probably spend more money on anime than D&D), and watch a wide variety of it, but I certainly agree with the idea that there are things in anime which don't fit in D&D. Saiyans, Super Robots, magical girls, geeky high-school boys who are surrounded by a harem of alien women, etc... These things are completely outside the genre D&D describes, and have no place in D&D. I don't think I have _ever_ seen someone argue that they do.
> 
> ...




For you.

Not necessarily for myself and some others.

My concept of DND genre is Roman/Barbarian through Medieval Europe flavored with magic thrown in. Hand held weapons, armor, castles, wands, rings of power, etc. Not gunpowder. Not Asian. Not Aliens.

A lot of Anime draws heavily from sources that are not relevant to the more traditional DND genre. Hence, most of it does not belong. IMO.

I even find Eberron to be too modern for DND. Androids, trains, planes, etc. Not much difference between a warforged and an anime robot when it comes down to it. But, WotC is trying to enlarge its genre into other areas and still follow the core rules somewhat.

Sure, there are probably good ideas that come out of anime that could be incorporated into DND, but I suspect that it would be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

As an example, although Wuxia is not really my cup of tea, I went with some friends to see Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon when it came out. As we left the theater, one of my friends said: "I didn't know they filmed that on the moon.". The flying around stuff was so heavy in that movie that it went beyond his suspension of disbelief, even considering that it was an Asian martial arts film. That happens a lot in action films these days, even American ones.

Ditto for many elements of Anime for me in DND. Some of the ideas are ok, but many are not (as you yourself pointed out).

Fighter types that can punch through a stone wall or worse yet, punch the top off a mountain is super heroes to me, not DND. It does not belong in DND shy of real high level magic.

JMO. Not neccessarily yours.

If the DND Fighter types start jumping from one end of a room to the other and bounce off the ceiling in 4E, I'll probably puke and not buy it. Some non-magical abilities are too fantastical and supernatural for feats or talents in DND. Again, IMO.


----------



## ShadowX (Aug 27, 2007)

Does anyone play D&D past level 8 on these boards because I fail to see how you can decry some of the wonky stuff in anime and not see the parallels in high-level D&D.

When I saw FF7: Advent Children while I overall found it mediocre, I could not help but think that the battle scenes were exactly how I imagined high level D&D combat.  Well how I imagine it without things like Full Attacks and AoOs.  As someone said, with spellcasters flexing the very order of the universe how can you relegate melee combatants to realistic capabilities?  So in my mind, a lot of anime is really just high-level D&D, as is much mythology.  Finally, some of the stuff in anime is actually pretty cool.  I don't think you would have seen a Bo9S without the upsurge in anime popularity.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 27, 2007)

re: Alucard (er, that's Dracula spelled backwards....Kind of appropriate given the subject matter)

re: Guts (You do know he's based on a real person and said person was the guy who  "originated" the term, "He can kiss my ass")

re: Source matter
I like some of the source matter in some of the anime and videogames currently ion popular culture. I like the fact that Slayers seems to understand D&D better than most D&D writers (if the travelling companion is making reality twitch casually, the other people in his group better be pulling off their own amazing feats)

As an aside, this is conversely why I liked Conan d20. Conan d20 understood that the current D&D magic system was never suited for a Conan style world and toned it WAY DOWN.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 27, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I cannot honestly say that all anime is the same.
> 
> I _can_ say that all anime _I have seen_ contains elements I strongly dislike. It's something about a combination of the pacing the characterization that I just really can't get into. And yes, that includes _Lodoss Wars_, as well as _Vampire Hunter D_, _Ninja Scroll_, Princess Mononoke[/i], and half a dozen others.
> 
> ...



I notice that all the titles you mention are essentially action flicks.  Perhaps if you watched anime that wasn't all the same genre, you wouldn't think that it comprised a genre.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 27, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I notice that all the titles you mention are essentially action flicks.  Perhaps if you watched anime that wasn't all the same genre, you wouldn't think that it comprised a genre.




Well, those are just the ones I remember. You could add the first few episodes of Cowboy Bepop to the list, as well as... Um...

I still can't remember.   But there were a few others.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 27, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> MWND*, -- N
> 
> *) That there's a new word. It's a conflation of PWND and "mowed". It means "removed from my lawn with violent efficacy".



Dude, don't you get tired of winning threads all the time?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 27, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, those are just the ones I remember. You could add the first few episodes of Cowboy Bepop to the list, as well as... Um...
> 
> I still can't remember.   But there were a few others.



Well, Cowboy Bebob is essentially an action flick too.  It borrows a bit more from cop and spy movies, but it's about bounty hunters in space, so it's inescapably going to be a series of set-ups for cool action sequences on- and off-planet.

Now, given, action flicks are where you're going to get material that is really relevant to a discussion about D&D, since it's an action game.  And since anime is Asian, it's going to draw from Asian movie conventions rather than American movie conventions.  It'll look like Asian cop films, Asian crime films, Asian fantasy films, Asian sci-fi films, Asian historical warfare films, etc.  I can see how someone might not really get into the conventions of a foreign cinematic traditon.  However, saying that D&D is "too anime" because it borrows from these Asian themes a little, is essentially the same as saying that The Magnificent Seven is too anime, because it was a remake of Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai.  You can borrow from another culture's fictional conventions without having to start thinking of your own fiction as a mash-up of cultures.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 27, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I can see how someone might not really get into the conventions of a foreign cinematic traditon.




And indeed, I find that many of my problems with anime--not all of them, but many of them--carry over to other Asian movies as well. There's just a different sense of pacing, and it's not one I personally like as much. There's nothing _wrong_ with it; it's just not for me.

And again, I'm speaking in generalities. There are certainly exceptions.



> However, saying that D&D is "too anime" because it borrows from these Asian themes a little, is essentially the same as saying that The Magnificent Seven is too anime, because it was a remake of Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai.  You can borrow from another culture's fictional conventions without having to start thinking of your own fiction as a mash-up of cultures.




Well, sure. I wasn't one of the ones saying "D&D is too anime."  I was just saying that I've, personally, never met an anime I really liked.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 27, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And indeed, I find that many of my problems with anime--not all of them, but many of them--carry over to other Asian movies as well. There's just a different sense of pacing, and it's not one I personally like as much. There's nothing _wrong_ with it; it's just not for me.
> 
> And again, I'm speaking in generalities. There are certainly exceptions.
> 
> ...



Well, you could try something completely different.  Look up Haibane Renmei (in English: Charcoal Feather Federation), and watch the first couple of episodes of it.  I guarantee that there will be no asian action movie cliches.

edit: I'm not really attempting to suggest that if you don't like anime, you just haven't watched enough, or the right ones.  I just feel like I have a duty to point out when an entire culture's worth of art and literature is being mischaracterized because the representative works aren't really representative of anything but a particular genre.  It's like fantasy novels.  If all you've read is Terry Brooks, you're not going to imagine China Meiville is sitting on the shelf further down.


----------



## Arkhandus (Aug 27, 2007)

Right.  If high-level spellcasters can bend reality to their will with the right spells, and can lay waste to entire armies by themselves in moments, why would you want high-level warriors to be relegated to purely realistic physical feats (except of course, the fact that they can single-handedly overcome a small regiment of enemy soldiers, though probably with terrible wounds)?

Why should the warriors be kept to realistic physical feats, when they've already got the abstraction of hit points (and no real fatigue mechanic for fighting their way through a horde of foes), and are supposed to be the equivalents of mythical/legendary heroes?

These guys fight alongside priests who make the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch look like an apprentice's cantrip, and mages who make freakin' *Gandalf* and *Merlin* look like cheap _charlatans_!

You would be doing a grave disservice to the Conan-equivalents and Aragorn-equivalents by insisting that they remain on the same level of ordinary (though impressive) physical power as their literary counterparts, when the Gandalf-equivalents in D&D make _their_ literary counterparts look like cheap knock-offs.


Conan and Aragon were chumps, by D&D standards.  Conan's _maybe_ a Barbarian 1/Rogue 1/Fighter 4, or Brb1/Rog3/Ftr4.  Aragorn's a Ranger 4/Fighter 4, maybe.  Gandalf's a Cleric 5/Wizard 3/Fighter 2 with the Ring of Fire and maybe a few celestial hit dice.

*D&D* Fighters above 6th or 8th level are the Sigurds, Hectors, Achilleses, Herculeses, Jasons, Gilgameshes, and such of their world.  Or even Dar the Beastmaster, He-Man, Duke, Snake Eyes, Storm Shadow, Shredder, Link, Turok, Sagat, Zangief, Johnny Cage, Liu Kang, Iron Monkey, Li Mu Bai, Guts, Cloud Strife, Auron, Dart, Haschel, Vash the Stampede, Kenshin Himoura, or Gene Starwind.  Etc.


----------



## LawfulGoodThief (Aug 27, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> That is PRICELESS dude.
> 
> 2e is coca-cola from Mexico.




Actually, Coca-Cola from Central and South America is sweetened with real sugar as opposed to corn syrup used in the US. It does have a different taste that some people prefer.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 27, 2007)

I think you are pretty much right, Arkhandus.

Literary figures like Aragorn are not the best standard to compare D&D fighters to.

I mean, you are quite right about D&D Wizards making wizards like Merlin look fairly weak in comaprison, but at the same time, people forget how powerful the fighters of Arthurian myth were. While Merlin sat back and did fairly little, acting wise and not using much magic, Arthur was going off and killing dragons and giants right and left. According to _The Death of King Arthur_, he was still a great warrior in his prime, casually fending off an attack by the Roman Empire as if it were unimportant, when he was in his 90's.

In other myths, Cuchulainn from the Celtic Ulster cycle once took down hundreds of warriors in a single day, by throwing pebbles at them from miles away.

Or there is Indian mythology, in which two warriors fight by sending millions of arrows at each other from their flying chariots. In the words of my twin brother (who seriously studies this stuff): "You have not seen an epic-level jump check until you have seen a guy jump from Sri Lanka to a mystic mountain in Northern India, and then leap back, carrying the mountain with him."

Conan barely qualifies as 4th level compared to these guys.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 27, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Or there is Indian mythology, in which two warriors fight by sending millions of arrows at each other from their flying chariots. In the words of my twin brother (who seriously studies this stuff): "You have not seen an epic-level jump check until you have seen a guy jump from Sri Lanka to a mystic mountain in Northern India, and then leap back, carrying the mountain with him."
> 
> Conan barely qualifies as 4th level compared to these guys.




That's only because those two munchkins are either playing in a Monty Haul game, or in Exalted.    

Really, what you described may be a fun game for some people (though absolutely not for me), but I don't think it has anything to do with the particular game called D&D.

I suppose I could write up some house rules where all the characters are actually sentient shades of the color blue that argue with one another about differential equations by excreting armored Pilates balls and waging arena battles of spherical collision, the owner of the winning ball being allowed to present his opinion about the given equation, and my resolution mechanic requiring the players to compose 3-hour Carnatic concerts using traditional ragas (see, I kept this whole thing in India for you!).  I could then assert that the game we're playing is D&D.  Would that be a fair assertion?


----------



## ruleslawyer (Aug 27, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> That's only because those two munchkins are either playing in a Monty Haul game, or in Exalted.
> 
> Really, what you described may be a fun game for some people (though absolutely not for me), but I don't think it has anything to do with the particular game called D&D.



What? You mean the game in which people can stop time, summon gods to their aid, transport themselves to the furthest corners of the world, and do a thousand other similar tasks in an eyeblink? Please. 

TwinBahamut's point has been legit from Day One of D&D. High-level PCs outdo their literary counterparts in all sorts of ways. The real difference between OD&D and 3e is that now the fighters have some chance to do so, though still not as much as the casters.


> _I suppose I could write up some house rules where all the characters are actually sentientshades of the color blue that argue with one another about differential equations by excreting armored Pilates balls and waging arena battles of spherical collision, the owner of the winning ball being allowed to present his opinion about the given equation, and my resolution mechanic requiring the players to compose 3-hour Carnatic concerts using traditional ragas (see, I kept this whole thing in India for you!).  I could then assert that the game we're playing is D&D.  Would that be a fair assertion?_



You really are fond of inapposite discussion, aren't you?


----------



## FireLance (Aug 27, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> My concept of DND genre is Roman/Barbarian through Medieval Europe flavored with magic thrown in. Hand held weapons, armor, castles, wands, rings of power, etc. Not gunpowder. Not Asian. Not Aliens.
> 
> A lot of Anime draws heavily from sources that are not relevant to the more traditional DND genre. Hence, most of it does not belong. IMO.



To me, a lot of the things you mention are qualities of the setting, not qualities of the game. I personally think that the game has to be broad enough to encompass several different settings and styles. Naturally, since I am Asian (Singaporean Chinese, to be exact), I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Asian elements and influences in my D&D.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 27, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I suppose I could write up some house rules where all the characters are actually sentient shades of the color blue that argue with one another about differential equations by excreting armored Pilates balls and waging arena battles of spherical collision, the owner of the winning ball being allowed to present his opinion about the given equation, and my resolution mechanic requiring the players to compose 3-hour Carnatic concerts using traditional ragas (see, I kept this whole thing in India for you!).  I could then assert that the game we're playing is D&D.  Would that be a fair assertion?



No, because they aren't killing things and taking their stuff.


----------



## Dalamar (Aug 27, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If the DND Fighter types start jumping from one end of a room to the other and bounce off the ceiling in 4E, I'll probably puke and not buy it. Some non-magical abilities are too fantastical and supernatural for feats or talents in DND. Again, IMO.



I don't know exactly how big rooms you're thinking of, but a 20th level 3E fighter can easily jump 15ft as a standing long jump without magic. That's enough to clear my studio apartment from one end to the other. With a focus on jumping (Skill focus, Athletic and a decent strength), a 20ft standing long jump becomes routine. A raging 20th level barbarian can jump, from standing, close to the world record for long jump.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 27, 2007)

I like some anime.  I dislike most of it.

However, I won't be the one who says something like "Keep your Anime/Video Game out of my D&D!" as long as D&D is capable of modelling more than just the anime version of swords & sorcery or videogame style fantasy combat.

Why?  Because if you look at the roots of the game, there are influences from all over genre fiction (pulp, sci-fi, fantasy, horror), pop culture (of many nations) and even RW modern religion (remember the 1Ed spell Sticks to Snakes?  Where _did _that come from?  Moses, I'm looking at you!).

The game is broad and deep, and there is plenty of room for anime & video game tropes.

That said, don't expect me to include many of those tropes in my campaigns.  Bo9S, which many point out as being an "anime" inspired product, I rated a solid "Meh."

OTOH, I'm still perfectly willing to play in _yours_ if those elments are included.  It would take more than a warforged with spikey violet hair (OK, a wig) wielding a sword bigger than his body to scare me away from a good gaming session.


----------



## Sound of Azure (Aug 27, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> ... I could write up some house rules where all the characters are actually sentient shades of the color blue...




ZOMG!!!


----------



## Henry (Aug 27, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I suppose I could write up some house rules where all the characters are actually sentient shades of the color blue that argue with<SNIP>




Korgoth, you just blew my mind more than a Tek Jansen novel, and I didn't think that was possible!


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 27, 2007)

How about hyperintelligent shades of the color blue?

"Hooloovoo: The Blueining"...

-The Gneech


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 27, 2007)

I enjoy a great deal of anime and have for...almost 30 years now (yikes).  I can easily understand why some folks don't like it's aesthetics.  I don't find it problematic that people ask for anime to be kept out of D&D...I do find it problematic that they often claim something is 'anime' without any clear explanation of what element they're referring to in that context.  Many of the stylistic elements of anime have no grounding in an RPG either way.  Speed lines?  Big Eyes? Lingering pan shots?  Thrice repeated visual attacks?   These are all visual and stylistic elements, which don't really translate into a rulebook.  Anime is, of course, a hybrid of the Asian cinematic tradition and the American one.  Just as some folks don't like noir movies or the French New Wave, they won't like anime.  Nor should they be expected to.

When many non-anime fans refer to elements they don't like of anime, such as many of the elements Henry mentions, they usually apply to 'Shonen' or 'young boys' anime.  Shonen anime is extremely popular in the US (as in Japan, of course)...and many of the elements that many find confounding (ridiculous weapons, overpowered heroes, young protagonists, free mixing of comedy/tragedy/action) are endemic to that genre of anime.  There is, of course, a much wider selection available...but I don't expect people to go seeking them out.  It's not their responsibility to do so; I do wish they'd recognize, however, that there ARE other genres to anime that don't feature these elements.  This is why many anime fans (and video game fans, for that matter) bristle somewhat at the claim.  I do believe it's a fair cop to same there are some folks, such as Mousferatu, who just don't like it.  I don't think that he 'doesn't get it' or 'just needs to see the right thing'.  It's a taste issue and a valid choice.

For myself, any medium that can feature a show like "Master Keaton", about a former SAS Master-Sergeant turned insurance investigator for Sothebys at the same time as shows like Naruto, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, Berserk, Doreamon, Claymore and The Skull Man...well, I'm in.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 27, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> That said, how does the shadowcaster tie into anime? I'm honestly curious, since nothing I've personally seen suggests that connection to me.




1) Look at the (as far as I can tell) Matrix inspired artwork.  Matrix in turn took its inspiration from anime stylization in _its_ character design.

You can't fight the anime.  It will find its way in.

2) The shadowcaster also tends to resemble a certain character archetype that shows up in anime a lot- the non main character male designed to appeal to female viewers.  He's generally an anti hero, mysterious and secretive, has powers that seem similar to the main character but which are slightly sinister, physically not that buff, but highly attractive and intelligent, and generally has much cooler clothes.  Usually a dark trench coat kind of wardrobe.

There are a couple of other character classes that approach this archetype, but few realize it the way the shadowcaster does.  The hexblade could have done it, if its character design had looked more like this: http://www.coolminiornot.com/160770


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 2) The shadowcaster also tends to resemble a certain character archetype that shows up in anime a lot- the non main character male designed to appeal to female viewers.  He's generally an anti hero, mysterious and secretive, has powers that seem similar to the main character but which are slightly sinister, physically not that buff, but highly attractive and intelligent, and generally has much cooler clothes.  Usually a dark trench coat kind of wardrobe.




How is that a specifically 'anime' archetype?  Sounds a lot like Wolverine in the X-men or any brooding loner in a superhero group, for example.  Could you cite a couple of examples?  Because none are really coming to mind, though I'm sure there are some...I just don't think it's as prevalent in anime as you do.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 27, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, why do people insist on tossing the baby out with the bathwater?



Because they're people, and that's what people do.  We see the same thing whenever anyone suggests a neat idea from another game.  Very few people say, _Yes, that is an interesting idea from GURPS that would work in D&D_; they say, _If I wanted to play GURPS, I'd play GURPS!_  People take sides, then make wild proclamations in favor of what they already like, _in toto_, and against what they dislike, happily throwing out baby after baby, because they dislike the dirty bathwater.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 27, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> How is that a specifically 'anime' archetype?  Sounds a lot like Wolverine in the X-men or any brooding loner in a superhero group, for example.



It sounds like the Byronic hero even more than it sounds like Wolverine (not that he doesn't have some of those elements).


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 27, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> It sounds like the Byronic hero even more than it sounds like Wolverine (not that he doesn't have some of those elements).




Curse you and your literary contraption, mmadsen!  We shall meet again...but next time, _the advantage shall be MINE!_


----------



## Nifft (Aug 27, 2007)

Anime already has *Record of Lodoss War* and *Slayers*.

Surrender, D&D. You're surrounded.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 27, 2007)

> Could you cite a couple of examples? Because none are really coming to mind, though I'm sure there are some...I just don't think it's as prevalent in anime as you do.




In general, when you've got a group of heroic characters in shonen anime, the standard cast looks like this- main male lead, male second, female love interest.

The main male lead is ridiculously powerful but naive and untrained.  Over the course of the show he will come of age and become the best combatant in the show, eventually defeating the arch nemesis.  His tactics include charging head on, and charging head on.

The female love interest will fall in love with the main male lead, primarily due to his naive idealism.  She may or may not kick ass herself.  If she does not, her powers will support the male lead.  If she does, she will stop kicking ass whenever the male lead is around.  This will cause female viewers to roll their eyes.

The male second is the guy I'm describing.  At the beginning of the show he is more powerful than the male lead, mostly due to his knowledge and experience.  His powers and his personality will be more aloof and sinister than the main lead.  He will treat the male lead with disdain, his interests will probably diverge from the male lead, and he will end up in violent conflict with the male lead multiple times.  Eventually the male lead will defeat him and earn his respect.  He will be a bit of a cynical anti hero, in contrast to the naive idealism of the male lead.  And in terms of character design, he will look ever so slightly like he wandered in from a Shoujo anime.

This was more a feature in 80s and 90s anime, and has gone slightly out of style.  Its considered a bit cliche these days.  This dynamic was mocked in Slayers by "Xelos, the Mysterious Priest."  Ryuho Tairen from Scryed is a good example of the more modern incarnation of this character archetype.


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 27, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> When I describe D&D as "anime", I'm generally referring to:
> 
> Quasi-furry half-something template races
> Ridiculous, over-sized weapons (like the spiked chain)
> ...



This is a weird thing I keep noticing: Gamers using the term "anime" to describe things from the American comicbook culture.  I'm failing to see anything especially Japanese about spiked chains or superheroes.

The only reason I can see for this is that "anime" has connotations of being new and foreign, so it works better as a pejorative generalization than, say, "comicbookish", which doesn't sound like such a harsh judgement in a geek community.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 27, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> This kind of topic discussion is REALLY hard to pull off without unintentionally insulting someone, but I find it fascinating enough to try.
> 
> The kinds of stylistic elements that immediately send me thinking "anime" are things like:
> 
> ...




That's pretty accurate for me, too.

I don't dislike these things because because they come from anime.  I dislike anime because it makes frequent use of styles/memes I dislike.  When I see a similar grouping of styles invoked in a game, I tend to say that it feels anime-influenced.  It's a lot quicker to say that something reminds me of anime and that I don't like the styles used in anime than it is to list them all every time.

As far as D&D goes, I like pseudo-Medieval fantasy.  I think Wuxia and wirework clashes pretty strongly with that genre.  That isn't to say I don't understand the draw.  I just don't want that in my D&D games.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 27, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> This is a weird thing I keep noticing: Gamers using the term "anime" to describe things from the American comicbook culture.  I'm failing to see anything especially Japanese about spiked chains or superheroes.



American comics don't generally place their superheroic characters in a fantasy setting, whereas Japanese manga, anime, and video games often do -- and that Eastern style of fantasy is influencing western fantasy games.  _Exalted_ is explicit about this, _D&D_ less so.


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 27, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> How is that a specifically 'anime' archetype?  Sounds a lot like Wolverine in the X-men or any brooding loner in a superhero group, for example.  Could you cite a couple of examples?  Because none are really coming to mind, though I'm sure there are some...I just don't think it's as prevalent in anime as you do.



Oh, man, believe me: What's he's describing is _extremely_ anime.  This character type (or character _role_, maybe) is almost ubiquitous in action/fantasy anime.  Wherever you've got one big-eyes, spiky-haired, boisterous dude, there's always got to be his rival/antagonist with narrow eyes, long hair, and a calm (often standoffish) demeanor.

Hell, let me go look up some shows known in the U.S. and see if I can point out the applicable characters...  The most obvious one would be Sasuke from Naruto.  I think Vegeta from Dragonball Z probably fits (I've noticed he's got a weird and completely inexplicable female fanbase).  Damn, what else would people recognize?  I guess Wolfwood takes this role on Trigun, but I don't think I've ever seen an episode with that character...  Oh, and what's-his-name from Berserk, the guy who later turned into a demon and primary antagonist, he's definitely that type.  Oh, and Jin on Samurai Champloo.

I haven't been watching much anime, lately, and any time I _have_ it's generally been pirated stuff, so I have pretty much no idea what's actually making it to American TV (and the stuff that makes it to American TV is almost always stuff I'd never watch).


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 27, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> American comics don't generally place their superheroic characters in a fantasy setting, whereas Japanese manga, anime, and video games often do -- and that Eastern style of fantasy is influencing western fantasy games.  _Exalted_ is explicit about this, _D&D_ less so.



Ah, okay.  That's a valid point, one I hadn't thought of.  I still think some of the things I see categorized as "anime" are extremely bizarre (_piercings???_), but this does begin to make more sense.


----------



## Sunderstone (Aug 27, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> WoW: In many gamers' minds, WoW represents the epitome of what D&D must not become: a mindless hack n' slash computer game.





agree and to add to that....
Unlimited spellcasting is certainly video-gamey. Mana bars are next?

Bo9S, Incarnum, etc have gone a long way from the traditional D&D that Im into. So Id avoid anime-like moves and combos as well.

Im 38 (DMming like 26 years) and have been playing since Basic. Ill stick with 3.5.


P.S. Save the Gnome.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 27, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> I still think some of the things I see categorized as "anime" are extremely bizarre (_piercings???_), but this does begin to make more sense.



I think the Japanese works are far more likely to embrace an anachronistic mix of aesthetics, with "hip" modern hair, etc., so any image of a young, slim hero with a "fashion conscious" look conjures thoughts of anime rather than Tolkien -- even if anime isn't known for tattoos and piercings.


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 27, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I think the Japanese works are far more likely to embrace an anachronistic mix of aesthetics, with "hip" modern hair, etc., so any image of a young, slim hero with a "fashion conscious" look conjures thoughts of anime rather than Tolkien -- even if anime isn't known for tattoos and piercings.



I understand that that's the general thinking behind the claim, but it's just so technically, factually wrong on so many levels...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 27, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> I understand that that's the general thinking behind the claim, but it's just so technically, factually wrong on so many levels...



 Exactly.


----------



## Kesh (Aug 27, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> American comics don't generally place their superheroic characters in a fantasy setting, whereas Japanese manga, anime, and video games often do -- and that Eastern style of fantasy is influencing western fantasy games.  _Exalted_ is explicit about this, _D&D_ less so.




You've obviously never read any _X-Men_ or _Fantastic Four_. Hell, the _Avengers_ have had *Thor* on their team forever, and fought other Asgardian gods! Visiting fantasy (and fantastic) locales happens all the time in American superhero comics.


----------



## Kesh (Aug 27, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Oh, man, believe me: What's he's describing is _extremely_ anime.  This character type (or character _role_, maybe) is almost ubiquitous in action/fantasy anime.  Wherever you've got one big-eyes, spiky-haired, boisterous dude, there's always got to be his rival/antagonist with narrow eyes, long hair, and a calm (often standoffish) demeanor.
> 
> Hell, let me go look up some shows known in the U.S. and see if I can point out the applicable characters...  The most obvious one would be Sasuke from Naruto.  I think Vegeta from Dragonball Z probably fits (I've noticed he's got a weird and completely inexplicable female fanbase).  Damn, what else would people recognize?  I guess Wolfwood takes this role on Trigun, but I don't think I've ever seen an episode with that character...  Oh, and what's-his-name from Berserk, the guy who later turned into a demon and primary antagonist, he's definitely that type.  Oh, and Jin on Samurai Champloo.
> 
> I haven't been watching much anime, lately, and any time I _have_ it's generally been pirated stuff, so I have pretty much no idea what's actually making it to American TV (and the stuff that makes it to American TV is almost always stuff I'd never watch).




I haven't seen Naruto, Berserk or Samurai Champloo, so I can't comment there. Vegeta? Eh, not really. Vegeta was an antagonist for most of DBZ, and only fell into the "secondary hero" role around the Cell Saga storyline. There really wasn't anything mysterious or Shoujo about him at all, he was just an anti-hero at that point.

Wolfwood... maybe. I can see how he sort-of fits the role. He's certainly not more powerful than Vash, nor does he defeat him in battle. And he's anything but shoujo! He's a slick ladies-man with a mysterious past.

Generally, I don't see the stereotype in the anime I've watched. Not as described, anyway. The closest I could associate with that is Sesshomaru from _Inu Yasha_, and he's an outright villain rather than a secondary character.


----------



## DarkKestral (Aug 27, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> OTOH, I'm still perfectly willing to play in _yours_ if those elments are included.  It would take more than a warforged with spikey violet hair (OK, a wig) wielding a sword bigger than his body to scare me away from a good gaming session.




I'm getting the image of a warforged clown who weilds the sword as part of his act...

Don't ask why. Maybe he's a juggler?


----------



## Mercule (Aug 27, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> You've obviously never read any _X-Men_ or _Fantastic Four_. Hell, the _Avengers_ have had *Thor* on their team forever, and fought other Asgardian gods! Visiting fantasy (and fantastic) locales happens all the time in American superhero comics.




I don't read American comics that involved aliens or fantastic places like Asgard.  Which means I pretty much don't read comics anymore.

Even then, there is something about the presentation of anime that makes it less palatable.  I tend to believe it's the root in Japanese mythos and culture, but I could be wrong.  It something close to camp, even in the anime that I've been told is supposed to be serious.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 27, 2007)

The anime I usually watch has fascinatingly involved multi-episodic story lines.  Maybe that's what some people object to.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 27, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Hell, let me go look up some shows known in the U.S. and see if I can point out the applicable characters...  The most obvious one would be Sasuke from Naruto.  I think Vegeta from Dragonball Z probably fits (I've noticed he's got a weird and completely inexplicable female fanbase).  Damn, what else would people recognize?  I guess Wolfwood takes this role on Trigun, but I don't think I've ever seen an episode with that character...  Oh, and what's-his-name from Berserk, the guy who later turned into a demon and primary antagonist, he's definitely that type.  Oh, and Jin on Samurai Champloo.




Ah, OK.  You're describing a much different archetype than what specifically described. 


> He's generally an anti hero, mysterious and secretive, has powers that seem similar to the main character but which are slightly sinister, physically not that buff, but highly attractive and intelligent, and generally has much cooler clothes. Usually a dark trench coat kind of wardrobe.



 Although again, that's not a uniquely anime archetype.  Heck, the characters you just described don't fit his description.  Sasuke doesn't wear trenchcoats and dress in black (he wears shorts, for heaven's sake), but he certainly does fit into the 'brooding, aloof loner' category.  Vegeta isn't a brooder, he's just a villain who ends up working with the good guys, not unlike Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and there's several such characters in DBZ).  Wolfwood spends half of his time as comic relief...he has a tragic past, but he's another archetype entirely: the-joker-who's-crying-on-the-inside.  He does wear black, but he's hardly brooding.  None of them sound at all like the Shadowcaster.  Heck, the only character who really fits the description I can think of is either from the live-action Sentai show, Kamen Rider or Condor Joe from Gatchaman....circa the 70s.  

Now, what I think you're describing is the hero-rival archetype....and he appears a good number of times in anime, to be sure...but I wasn't arguing that.  Sasuke and Vegeta certainly are arch-rival characters during their initial appearances; Wolfwood isn't.  I can name a LOT of anime where there is a teammate/good-guy who starts off as a rival.  Heck, we could start as far back as Racer X from Speed Racer (aka Mach Go! Go! Go!).  But none of them say 'Shadowcaster', to me.

(As for tailoring the characters to appeal to female readers....well, not so much.  While a lot of girls read Shonen Jump (it's actually the most popular manga book for girls, despite it's name), the titles they read are NOT the ones we're discussing.  The most popular series for female readers are not fighting action stories like Naruto or DBZ, but comedy or suspense like Prince of Tennis or Death Note.)


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 27, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I don't read American comics that involved aliens or fantastic places like Asgard.  Which means I pretty much don't read comics anymore.




Heh.  With that qualifier, it's pretty much a sure bet that you haven't read any American comics in decades, unless you were reading Millie the Model or Hot Rod Racers.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 27, 2007)

I've tried over and over again to give anime a fair shake, and I'm finally forced to conclude that I simply must not like it.  Even the fairly serious stuff that includes elements that are near and dear to my heart are at best, "yeah, that's OK, I guess," but I'm left thinking of how it could have been executed so much better.

That said, I'm not against "new fantasy" being injected into D&D.  For that matter, a lot of "new fantasy" isn't really new.  There seems to be a big upsurge in pulp elements across the board in gaming, not just in D&D, in recent years.  A lot of this so called "new fantasy" would have been right at home as a Weird tale in the 30s or 40s.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 27, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I've tried over and over again to give anime a fair shake, and I'm finally forced to conclude that I simply must not like it.



 It's not for everyone.

I guess a lot of people get defensive about Anime because the new accusation ("This thing in D&D is bad because it's too Anime!") isn't fair to either the D&D mechanic in question or to Anime.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 27, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Oh, man, believe me: What's he's describing is _extremely_ anime.  This character type (or character _role_, maybe) is almost ubiquitous in action/fantasy anime.  Wherever you've got one big-eyes, spiky-haired, boisterous dude, there's always got to be his rival/antagonist with narrow eyes, long hair, and a calm (often standoffish) demeanor.




GreatLemur knows what he is talking about.  The Shadowcaster screams this to me because its a dark, silent, negative, fashion-conscious version of a popular archetype.

If you watch 1) more recent 2) higher quality anime, you won't see as many of these pairings.  Or at least they won't be quite as obvious as they used to be.  But if you watch classic anime, this pairing is so constant that it is quite predictable.  You recognize the characters the moment they walk on stage.  If you've got a noisy, super powered hero, the moment a character walks on who doesn't like the hero and who, for just a moment, you think might be a girl dressed up as a guy, that's the rival.  You can set your watch by him.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 27, 2007)

Wolverine almost fills this role in the X-Men.  There you've got Cyclops, the heroic one, who's in love with Jean Grey.  Then you've got Wolverine, the negative dark rival of Cyclops, who doesn't like him personally and is also in love with Jean.

Now, if this were a boys anime, there'd be a few small changes.  Cyclops would fight in physical combat, be highly impulsive, and a poor planner.  He'd continue to be leader even though totally unsuited for the job, because in boys anime enthusiasm is better than tactics.  He would also be the strongest combat X-Man hands down.  Jean would love him for his idealism, not his sense of responsibility.  

Meanwhile Wolverine would be replaced by Gambit.


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 27, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> I haven't seen Naruto, Berserk or Samurai Champloo, so I can't comment there. Vegeta? Eh, not really. Vegeta was an antagonist for most of DBZ, and only fell into the "secondary hero" role around the Cell Saga storyline. There really wasn't anything mysterious or Shoujo about him at all, he was just an anti-hero at that point.
> 
> Wolfwood... maybe. I can see how he sort-of fits the role. He's certainly not more powerful than Vash, nor does he defeat him in battle. And he's anything but shoujo! He's a slick ladies-man with a mysterious past.
> 
> Generally, I don't see the stereotype in the anime I've watched. Not as described, anyway. The closest I could associate with that is Sesshomaru from _Inu Yasha_, and he's an outright villain rather than a secondary character.



Aw, Sesshomaru is a perfect example.  This role--I swear it's so common, it's gotta have a name, but I don't know it--isn't really specific to "main character's best friend" guys; it definitely encompasses mentors, rivals, and outright enemies.  I think it's more about the intended audience response than the character's actual relationship to the protagonist.

Vegeta is admittedly a long shot, because his character design is miles away from what we usually expect in this character type, and I have trouble imagining that he was created with a female audience in mind, but he seems to have turned into the type we're discussing, or something like it.  He's got the whole "Initially more powerful than the cheerful hero guy and outright antagonistic to him, later beaten by the hero and becomes an ally, but still acts like a jerk" character arc, and also the female fans (however accidentally).

Good Christ, I cannot believe I'm discussing Dragonball Z.



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> Although again, that's not a uniquely anime archetype.  Heck, the characters you just described don't fit his description.  Sasuke doesn't wear trenchcoats and dress in black (he wears shorts, for heaven's sake),



Oh, I wouldn't say there's anything like a checklist of character personality or design traits to fit into the phenomenon I'm talking about.  It's more of a general character tone, and a vague cluster of character elements that tend to occur alongside other character elements.



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> None of them sound at all like the Shadowcaster.



Well, that angle was Cadfan's thing.  I can't really say for sure, but I don't think he meant that shadow-based powers were a major component of this character type.  Maybe they often show up on characters with cold, aloof personalities in anime, and that'd be a reasonable connection.  I won't try to make a case for it.



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> (As for tailoring the characters to appeal to female readers....well, not so much.  While a lot of girls read Shonen Jump (it's actually the most popular manga book for girls, despite it's name), the titles they read are NOT the ones we're discussing.  The most popular series for female readers are not fighting action stories like Naruto or DBZ, but comedy or suspense like Prince of Tennis or Death Note.)



I'm mostly bringing up fighting anime because that's the only stuff I've seen that's likely to have made it to American TV.  And the _size_ of a given show's female audience isn't really the issue, so much as the fact of certain characters being intended to appeal to certain tastes.  You can look at a very male-oriented show like Naruto, Scryed or Flame of Recca; or a harem-anime-for-chicks like--Jesus, what was that thing--Fushigi Yuugi (only in shoujo stuff, it's the loud, hot-headed guy who sticks out, as opposed to the aloof one, and obviously the rival-to-ally character arc isn't there).

If you haven't already noticed the phenomenon, and you try to go looking for it based on a specific set of criteria, you'll probably never find it.  It's not really a formula, just a general sort of stereotype, which shows up best when you hit a really clear cool guy / crazy guy pair.


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> If you watch 1) more recent 2) higher quality anime, you won't see as many of these pairings.



Yeah, that's why it's so difficult to give decent examples.  I've watched the first episode of a whole lot of completely random anime series, and recognizing this bit is one of the many reasons I generally don't watch any further than that.  I'll never remember the _names_ of all these miscellaneous formulaic shows I only saw one episode of, just the various forumlas I began to notice while watching them.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Aug 27, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Heh.  With that qualifier, it's pretty much a sure bet that you haven't read any American comics in decades, unless you were reading Millie the Model or Hot Rod Racers.




He could've read G.I. Joe!

Wait...they did cross over with the Transformers in continuity*, which means aliens.

* - COBRA built Megatron a tank body.  Somehow.

Brad


----------



## RFisher (Aug 29, 2007)

Please forgive me for not reading the whole thread.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain why if anything is derived from anime/WoW (even if it has a non-existent connection) it seems like there is opposition not based on the concept itself but from where it comes from?




Consider that it may be because they don't like the concept itself, but that they mistakenly expressed that as opposition to the source.

Though I generally ignore it when someone uses "anime" as a criticism. "Anime" covers so much ground it's about as useful a distinction as "cinema". I usually suspect that they mean something much narrower.


----------



## Meems (Aug 29, 2007)

As an anime fan (and proud of it!) I feel I need to point out that a lot of the things people associate with anime--spiky hair, big eyes, 7-foot swords--are common to the anime shows that have become popular in the west, but don't come up in all anime shows. This goes for storyline conventions like the rival-of-hero arc mentioned earlier.

Anime is an art style, not a genre.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 29, 2007)

And always remember, if you really hate the anime artistic style, blame Walt Disney, hehehe...


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 29, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Though I generally ignore it when someone uses "anime" as a criticism. "Anime" covers so much ground it's about as useful a distinction as "cinema". I usually suspect that they mean something much narrower.




Just so.  Most people who use 'anime' as a derogatory term traditionally are referring to 'shonen' series, such as Dragonball Z, Naruto or Inu Yasha.  I'm pretty sure none of them are referring to Master Keaton, Wind of the Bodyguard, Egg of the Angel, Darker than Black, Junkers Come Home, Death Note, The Skull Man, Michael or a host of shows and styles that don't fit that mold.  Which is effectively like saying that you don't like movies because you didn't enjoy "Terminator 2" or "Die Hard".  It's a valid opinion to have, but it raises eyebrows from folks who know there's more out there than that.

That many anime series begin as manga first, where there's an even greater variety of material, only makes things seem a little more disjointed.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 29, 2007)

That's crazy, WizarDru.  Who wouldn't like Terminator or Die Hard?!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 29, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> That's crazy, WizarDru.  Who wouldn't like Terminator or Die Hard?!



Well, they're so anime...


----------



## Henry (Aug 29, 2007)

Meems said:
			
		

> Anime is an art style, not a genre.




And it's an art style that doesn't grab everyone. As noted, most of my dislikes of it actually stem from the art style as much as the plot elements. It's like if 4th Edition were to use Salvador Dali surrealist pieces as their main source of art, I'd probably be turned off to the rules in the book, even if they were good. Art (or lack of it) can heavily influence ones' impressions of the rest of a work.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> It's a valid opinion to have, but it raises eyebrows from folks who know there's more out there than that.




Well, it isn't like having differences in terminology is new - diehard fans of something will always have a more discerning eye for differences than the more casual observer.  Consider the bookstores that don't differentiate between sci-fi and fantasy books, where a fan of either generally would.


----------



## Rykion (Aug 29, 2007)

I like some Anime, but dislike a lot of Anime.  I wouldn't want to see D&D with a lot of Anime inspired art.  I like Anime RPGs such as BESM, but I would prefer D&D to maintain mostly European fantasy elements for its base setting.


			
				Meems said:
			
		

> Anime is an art style, not a genre.



I do not think it is just the physical art, but also the tropes/worldview imbued by its creators.  Many cartoons have North American/European writers, but art created in Japan or Asia.  Even when this art is Anime inspired, I do not think of the show as Anime.  I would not characterize the original _Transformers_ cartoon as Anime as it had western writers and directors.  _Avatar the Last Airbender_ is Anime in style, and heavily Asian in influence, but having American writers makes it feel noticeably different to anyone who watches Anime.


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 29, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> anime: Have you seen the kind of people that are huge into anime? Scary . . .




Have you seen the kind of people who are into RPGs?


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 29, 2007)

What I disliked the most in 3e new style was not stuff I perceived as "anime" (or rather "manga") but comics... From my point of view, comics art style is as "alien" as manga art style. And both of them seems related.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 29, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Have you seen the kind of people who are into RPGs?



I hear they have beards and relate more easily to wizards than giant robot pilots.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Aug 29, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Have you seen the kind of people who are into RPGs?



At the anime con I went to this year, I noticed one major element of anime fans- they're young.  Anime fans used to fit the SF/gamer/Geek stereotype, but over the last few years, as its gotten more popular, the fans look more like a skatepunk/rave/hip teen crowd.  As for the gamer crowd at the local game con..."Middle-aged Linux Guru" seemed to decscribe most of them.

Wich may be one of the big understated reasons people are complaining about anime- its popular.  If D&D attracts too much of that crowd, it might- heaven forbid- become popular too.  And no D&D TrueFan actually wants young people involved in the hobby.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 29, 2007)

Another big difference is the sheer number of girls interested in anime compared to tabletop RPGs


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Aug 29, 2007)

My personal preferences generally cause me to ignore anything that appears to be striving for coolness for coolness sake alone. Perhaps unfairly, anime strikes me that way (as do a lot of other popular things).  Steam punk annoys me more, though.  I can live with a certain amout of both, as long as they don't intrude too much.  A characteristic art style does tend to cause such things to demand consideration, when I'd really rather simply ignore them.

Really, I'm fine with any influence, as long as the influence is about something other than being cool.


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 29, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> And it's an art style that doesn't grab everyone. As noted, most of my dislikes of it actually stem from the art style as much as the plot elements. It's like if 4th Edition were to use Salvador Dali surrealist pieces as their main source of art, I'd probably be turned off to the rules in the book, even if they were good. Art (or lack of it) can heavily influence ones' impressions of the rest of a work.



Anime is not a "consistant" art style.  And outside of the ethnic heritage of the characters shares the same plot lines and stories you find in regular fiction. I fail to see any real "anime" qualities in any of the 4e artwork I have seen.  You show me an overboobed girl and I"ll believe u. 

Other than that, I hardly see the supposed "hatred" of anime, other than false blame because 4e, as 3.5 did, is modernizing their artwork.  It's not anime style, its how fantasy is pretty much drawn these days.  Sure, we can dig up some 70s and 80s artists but the newer fantasy lovers would hate it and the old ones would still stay away because they love their 1e.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 29, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Have you seen the kind of people who are into RPGs?



 Let's just say the Internet is a wonderful invention, because it allows intelligent communication between geeks of all body types and odors. 

Off to shower (again), -- N


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 29, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Anime is not a "consistant" art style.



And the claim that anime styles are too broad and diverse to define is somewhat disingenious, IMO.  If I say, "I don't like that piece of art; it's too anime-looking" then everyone will know what I mean, but a handful of anime fans will attempt to dogpile me with pedantry regardless, citing obscure titles that no one else recognizes.

I mean, I see your point, but at the same time, if you can't see his, IMO, you're purposefully trying not to.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 30, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> What I disliked the most in 3e new style was not stuff I perceived as "anime" (or rather "manga") but comics... From my point of view, comics art style is as "alien" as manga art style. And both of them seems related.




Some of my favorite D&D art is the Bill Willingham stuff from the old Basic & Expert sets. Not only was it very comic-book style, he's since become an honest-to-goodness comic-book artist. Those books also had lots of Jeff "Villians & Vigilantes" Dee stuff, some of which I like just as much as Willingham's stuff.

Perhaps it's the influence of pulp fiction on both the adventure comic & D&D that makes them seem like a natural fit to me.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 30, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> And the claim that anime styles are too broad and diverse to define is somewhat disingenious, IMO.  If I say, "I don't like that piece of art; it's too anime-looking" then everyone will know what I mean




You don't suppose that they'll know what you mean because most people have the same limited experience with anime, and so when they say "anime," what they mean is "the anime that people who don't watch anime are likely to have been tangentially exposed to"?  In that case, it's not much of an argument against DonTadow's pont.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> edit: I'm not really attempting to suggest that if you don't like anime, you just haven't watched enough, or the right ones.  I just feel like I have a duty to point out when an entire culture's worth of art and literature is being mischaracterized because the representative works aren't really representative of anything but a particular genre.  It's like fantasy novels.  If all you've read is Terry Brooks, you're not going to imagine China Meiville is sitting on the shelf further down.




I think that's a very good way of putting it. Usually when people say 'I despise anime' they go on to mention the cheaper early anime that hit the American shores, usually on network television; almost all of it was heavily, heavily edited for violence and more adult themes (if you ever watch Science Ninja Team Gatchaman and compare it to the American showings of 'Battle of the Planets' or 'G Force' you'll think you're watching two utterly seperate shows and in a sense you'd be correct). If all you're exposed to is the cheap edited stuff, then no wonder some people have such a terrible adverse reaction to it.


----------



## Hairfoot (Aug 30, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> if you ever watch Science Ninja Team Gatchaman...



No.  You _must _ be making that up.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You don't suppose that they'll know what you mean because most people have the same limited experience with anime, and so when they say "anime," what they mean is "the anime that people who don't watch anime are likely to have been tangentially exposed to"?  In that case, it's not much of an argument against DonTadow's pont.




Well, I never assumed that people who don't watch anime have all been exposed to roughly the same subset of it. I don't think that's generally been my experience.

But then, it used to be that you pretty much had to go out of your way to see _any_ anime. Perhaps these days there is such a common subset.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 30, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> No.  You _must _ be making that up.



Science Ninja Team Gatchaman... The origin of all _sentai_ (read: Power Rangers) series ever. I saw one of the edited versions as a kid (G-Force, I think), but never got a chance to see the real thing. I should look into fixing that.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 30, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> No.  You _must _ be making that up.




Proper nouns translate really, really badly.

Think of it this way.  Whenever japanese people watch an american movie that has, maybe, a mystical sword with a japanese name that americans think sounds really cool, they're rolling in their seats laughing: "They named the sword The Pointy Poker of Mustard Yellow Demon-Pigs?  Are they insane???"


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 30, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Well, I never assumed that people who don't watch anime have all been exposed to roughly the same subset of it. I don't think that's generally been my experience.
> 
> But then, it used to be that you pretty much had to go out of your way to see _any_ anime. Perhaps these days there is such a common subset.




I think in most people's eyes anime = Toonami (and maybe some Adult Swim)


----------



## Maggan (Aug 30, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> If I say, "I don't like that piece of art; it's too anime-looking" then everyone will know what I mean




Not necessarily, since "anime" has become a catch-phrase for "I don't like this so I'll call it anime".

This renders the use of the word null and void, because all it becomes is an empty container for people to fill in their own dislikes of the art, conveniently categorising this as "anime".

And so, there will be situations where someone says "ugh, this is so anime" and another will go "yeah, I hate it", and they will be talking about two completely different things they object to, while at the same time thinking to themselves "yeah, he agrees with me".

/M


----------



## Mallus (Aug 30, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> No.  You _must _ be making that up.



It aired in the U.S. as "Battle of the Planets".


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 30, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Science Ninja Team Gatchaman... The origin of all _sentai_ (read: Power Rangers) series ever. I saw one of the edited versions as a kid (G-Force, I think), but never got a chance to see the real thing. I should look into fixing that.




Yeah, it sounds a little cooler in the original japanese, Kagaku Ninja Tai Gatchaman.
ADV actually released the entire first series on DVD, all 115 episodes I think. I hadnt seen it since I got rid of my 80's VHS bootlegs a couple of years ago. It's dated and it shows in the styles of dress and the animation but it's still a damn fun show.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 30, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Science Ninja Team Gatchaman... The origin of all _sentai_ (read: Power Rangers) series ever. I saw one of the edited versions as a kid (G-Force, I think), but never got a chance to see the real thing. I should look into fixing that.




Cyborg 009 and Shotaro Ishinomori are holding on line one; they'd like a word with you....from 1963.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 30, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Well, I never assumed that people who don't watch anime have all been exposed to roughly the same subset of it. I don't think that's generally been my experience.
> 
> But then, it used to be that you pretty much had to go out of your way to see _any_ anime. Perhaps these days there is such a common subset.



I think it's a safe assumption that the anime that most people have seen is the stuff that's been translated and put on American cable TV.  You don't have to go looking for that.  You just have to be channel surfing.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 30, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Science Ninja Team Gatchaman... The origin of all _sentai_ (read: Power Rangers) series ever. I saw one of the edited versions as a kid (G-Force, I think), but never got a chance to see the real thing. I should look into fixing that.




Actually, it was only HALF of the influence for shows like Power Rangers. Would you believe that the other half was Spiderman?


----------



## Nifft (Aug 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I think it's a safe assumption that the anime that most people have seen is the stuff that's been translated and put on American cable TV.  You don't have to go looking for that.  You just have to be channel surfing.



 Ah, well. No TV for me this year. 

Has it been good stuff? (I don't expect that it has.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 30, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> No.  You _must _ be making that up.




What? No, the name is what it is  Lots of anime you see here has an abbreviated title. 'Sailor Moon' is actually 'Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon'. My favorite wacky title so far is 'All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku'.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 30, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> What? No, the name is what it is  Lots of anime you see here has an abbreviated title. 'Sailor Moon' is actually 'Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon'. My favorite wacky title so far is 'All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku'.




Don't forget All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku DASH! 
Because it needed the extra word (and the exclamation point is part of the title). 

And: Raimuiro Senkitan: The South Island Dream Romantic Adventure
For its great Engrish-y title. I think that's the longest titled anime I've ever watched (and _possibly_ the second worst I've ever seen).

So, to everyone who hates anime, I bet I could show you stuff 10x worse than what you've seen. Just imagine that!!


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 30, 2007)

Sigh.    I still think that this is less a stupid name issue, than a translation awkwardness issue.

Japanese has different grammatical structure than english, and different norms about phrasing and the acceptability of appending multiple adjectives.

I understand why people laugh, but its not really an intrinsic part of anime anymore than lips not matching mouths is an intrinsic part of movies filmed in Tokyo.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 30, 2007)

*Disclaimer One:* I like anime.

*Disclaimer Two:* I am pretty old (38).

*Disclaimer Three:* I didn't get into anime until my late teens, which was also when I began playing D&D (aside from shows like Speed Racer and Star Blazers, which were readily available on US TV when I was an actual child).

The thing that really baffles me about this whole discussion is that I've always found D&D and anime to be strikingly similar. Kinda like long-lost, virtually identical cousins (queue the _Patty Duke Show_ theme...).

Both genres, and I use this term loosely, usually feature over-the-top heroic action, general silliness, a mishmash blend of different fantasy (and SF) sub-genres, wild shifts in tone, with most anime I've seen going from brutal to maudlin to slapstick over the course of a single episode, and most D&D campaigns I've participated in occupying the unlikely middle ground between Tolkien, Howard, Monty Python, the Three Stooges and a Tom Clancy novel, both have long serial storylines that don't make a lick of sense, and include the ever-popular violence of truly comic book proportions which leads to the protagonists gaining superhuman power.

If D&D resembles anything other than itself, it's anime (well, the shonen stuff, at any rate). 

And while I can understand not liking the particular aesthetics found in anime, but how coudl you possibly bring that into a D&D game? Do you know anyone who can actually _do_ a face fault IRL? Or screech like an anime schoolgirl?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 30, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> <snip>




It's funny because its true!


----------



## kibbitz (Aug 30, 2007)

I can understand people not liking certain elements commonly associated with anime in their game. I can understand that it may get them unhappy and result in them expressing their distaste of anime. However, the way it comes over is depressing (well, not that much, but I'm not sure what else to use. Annoying?)

Instead of the expected "nah, it's not my cup of tea", it usually seems more like "ugh, take your anime and get out of our sight". What just makes this even more depressing is some of it isn't even accurate, IMO. I don't remember much specific, but for one, there was a recent thread concerning art in D&D products. There was some art brought up which got tagged by some people as anime horsecrud. I disliked those pieces as well. Now I love collecting anime/video game artwork (wallpapers, promotional pics, etc), so while I don't claim to be an authority, I'd assume that it'd be reasonable enough that I would like said anime horsecrud since it's anime. Well, it's horsecrud alright (IMO), but it isn't anime (again, IMO). Go figure...

Sigh. Really, all I'd just want is for some tolerance, or possibly just indifference. But I suppose that is quite an impossible request, even on Enworld...


----------



## jasin (Aug 30, 2007)

Nice, Mallus.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 30, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> If you ever watch Science Ninja Team Gatchaman and compare it to the American showings of 'Battle of the Planets' or 'G Force' you'll think you're watching two utterly seperate shows and in a sense you'd be correct.



Three separate shows.  The two US shows were, remarkably, totally different from one another.

By the way, I just about died when I first learned the original (translated) Japanese name of the show.  "Science Ninja Team" is awesomely funny -- but then you add "Gatchaman" at the end?  I couldn't make that up...


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 30, 2007)

Spot on, Mallus.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Aug 30, 2007)

"Anime" is simply a more derogatory replacement for the term "cinematic", which thought he meaning is vague, seems to boil down to "characters are running around and doing stuff all wild like, not spending two hours planning how to take down a kobold like in the good old days." Running and jumping to get at the monsters is "anime/cinematic". Slowly and methodically clearing out an underground complex with the tactical caution of a special forces team is "old school".

As far as escalation goes, I realized things had gone too far when I talked to the guy who's character was personal friends with Thor, had a crapload of magical artifacts, and who had survived a point-blank nuclear explosion...because he had made his saving throw. It was all very "anime" and a perfect illustration of the problems with later editions of the game, except well, this was back in 1983, with 1st. edition AD&D, and nobody in the area had even heard of anime.

So I can't really take complaints about escalation of power too seriously. It's always been a silly game.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 30, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Cyborg 009 and Shotaro Ishinomori are holding on line one; they'd like a word with you....from 1963.



No color coded teamates, no distinct transmormations into a more powerful costumed mode, etc. Undoubtably Cyborg 009 is major predecesor to sentai, but I am pretty sure Gatchaman was the first place all the modern elements first came together.

It is kinda like how Tetsujin28 is technically the first giant robot, but it didn't _really_ start until Mazinger Z first put a _pilot_ into the giant robot that the modern Super Robot genre got started. Or how it wasn't until Mobile Suit Gundam put a giant robot into a military framework as a replacement for tanks and fighter jets that the Real Robot genre got started.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 30, 2007)

Well, this thread went other places, but I still feel a small need to address this, as design principles are an important consideration:



			
				Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> WoW: In many gamers' minds, WoW represents the epitome of what D&D must not become: a mindless hack n' slash computer game.



You should try playing the game before you make these kind of comments.  The current crop of dungeons are actually more tactically interesting than most D&D adventures I've seen for a while.  Despite some holes, the fluffy bits are about on a par for writing with the average d20 stuff.



			
				blargney the second said:
			
		

> WoW isn't any more monolithic than anime.  I think there are a lot of WoW naysayers that don't realize that it offers more variety of gameplay experience than just the monster grind.  The high level raids and PvP are seriously interesting games - it's just unfortunate that you have to slog through a lot of repetitive tasks to get to the good stuff.



Bingo.



			
				blargney the second said:
			
		

> *sad laugh*
> It's really too bad that they hide the best parts of the game behind days and days of lackluster gameplay.  I had to quit from sheer boredom around level 45.



Interesting thing about WoW that is VERY relevant to tabletop game design...  The designers had NO idea what they were doing initially.  But they have learned FAST.  Each new content patch puts in some very impressive refinements, and the dungeons past level 60 get better and better.  There are more interesting tactical elements.  More classes can contribute meaningfully in more situations.  Even the grinding elements have acquired meaningful and exciting rewards

The point of all this..... WoW designers are advancing their craft.  Rapidly.  Alas that they are not applying this experience to refining the mid-level content   When they start from scratch with WoW 2 or some other IP, it's going to be a far more interesting experience all-around.  So, if people think it's stealing players from D&D _now_..... you ain't seen nothing yet.

Solution: The D&D game needs to be allowed to change and become a better, more accessible game.  WoW has the "getting better" part down, and with their next reboot I bet the accessibility part will improve, too.  D&D designers, however, are shackled by their audience (i.e. something like 60% of this board) in ways that prevent real advancement in gameplay.  The more threads I read about 4e, the more obvious this becomes.  Lots of people who they need to count on for sales are dead set against any meaningful form of change.


----------



## trollwad (Aug 30, 2007)

*An Analogy - culture and reality*

I've been playing since about 1978 and I'm glad a few posters have explained what anime was, since I'm not sure I ever had a name for the freaky cartoon kids with spiky hair carrying spiked chains jumping over trees on late night tv for a millisecond before I flip the channel.  I thought I'd try to use an analogy and an understanding of the history of wargaming/fantasy gaming to illustrate the lack of appeal of anime to many grognards.

Why does anime seem silly (for lack of a better word) even to someone who'll grant the premise that dragons and magic exist in a fantasy world?  Consider this analogy:  there are people who probably enjoy WCW, crouching tiger, hidden dragon or many of the kung fu movies but then there are many people who'd rather watch boxing, wrestling, thai boxing, judo, kendo, k-1 or the ultimate fighting championship.  The latter group of events have specific cultural references in the West and varying degrees of freedom around a "real fight."  Western forms of semi-combat were created to imitate or practice REAL FIGHTING.  Consider the history of ultimate fighting for example, where alleged kung fu practioners have basically never won a match against representatives of "real" disciplines, and consider that anyone who wrestled in high school can vouch that much of what one sees on WCW in the ring is pure nonsense.  

Then, looking at the nature of the genres, it is clear that 'anime' used a huge number of degrees of freedom around the asian martial arts like kung fu that were basically worthless to begin with (from a combative perspective) and that the realistic genres of combat used fewer degrees of freedom around  a real fight.

Of course I am not saying that either kung fu movies or semi-real fighting is an intrinsically superior form of entertainment (at least if you live in the coddled parts of our world where you've  never actually had to fight anyone) but the two tend to attract different audiences that generally don't mix well because they audiences expect different things and the two groups have a very different relationship to to "real fighting."

To apply this analogy, I'm not saying that anything about d&d with magic, dragons and 100 hp is truly 'realistic.'  But consider the history of D&D.  Much like how boxing and UFC-type fighting (greek pancration) grew out of efforts to train for or practice REAL fighting in a simulated environment, so too did wargaming grow out of a serious or lighthearted effort to "practice" for real war (the prussian general staff were huge wargamers).  Look at old gygaxian stories, D&D clearly grew out of wargaming and then incorporated 'fantasy' cultural norms of western myth (beowulf, the ring cycle, tolkien, arthurian legends, conan) from cultures which knew a lot about war (to wit the anglo-saxon in.vaders, the german tribes, tolkien fought in the brutal trenches of WWI, the gentry of england, and a rough-and-ready author from small town Texas writing to eat during the Great Depression).  Anime has a totally different pedigree.

To someone who understands that D&D is a bastard lighthearted vision of 'real' fighting from cultures that knew how to fight, Anime appears to be utter whimsy.  Consider today that if you talk to any of the Paizo guys they'll tell you that they have a huge number of military subscribers.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 30, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> To someone who understands that D&D is a bastard lighthearted vision of 'real' fighting from cultures that knew how to fight, Anime appears to be utter whimsy.



Can you explain to me the practical, not-whimsical part of fighting a giant floating eyeball that can shoot a variety of laser death beams out of its multitude of smaller eyeballs?

Is it good practice for storming a machine-gun nest?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 30, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> To someone who understands that D&D is a bastard lighthearted vision of 'real' fighting from cultures that knew how to fight




I wonder if you might want to revise that comment.

I'm certainly not Japanese, but that's treading pretty close to blatantly offensive, even to me.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 30, 2007)

. . .


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 30, 2007)

> Western forms of semi-combat were created to imitate or practice REAL FIGHTING.




Yeah, the Marquess of Queensbury was a real street fighter, wasn't he.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 30, 2007)

> You show me an overboobed girl and I"ll believe u.




I don't know the name of the show- I was channel surfing- but on one of the networks that shows anime (Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, G4, whatever), there was a show in which mixed-gender teams were competing against each other in some kind of downhill race on a wierdo rollercoaster.

Not a girl on the show had a bra size under "Beachball."


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 31, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Solution: The D&D game needs to be allowed to change and become a better, more accessible game.



Very true.  I want WotC to change lots of stuff for purely financial reasons: 3.5 is a fully functional game, and if I'm going to buy a new version I want there to be as many upgrades as possible included in what I purchase.  I don't want to shell out a hundred clams on something that's essentially the same thing slightly reworded.


----------



## hong (Aug 31, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> To apply this analogy, I'm not saying that anything about d&d with magic, dragons and 100 hp is truly 'realistic.'  But consider the history of D&D.  Much like how boxing and UFC-type fighting (greek pancration) grew out of efforts to train for or practice REAL fighting in a simulated environment, so too did wargaming grow out of a serious or lighthearted effort to "practice" for real war (the prussian general staff were huge wargamers).  Look at old gygaxian stories, D&D clearly grew out of wargaming and then incorporated 'fantasy' cultural norms of western myth (beowulf, the ring cycle, tolkien, arthurian legends, conan) from cultures which knew a lot about war (to wit the anglo-saxon in.vaders, the german tribes, tolkien fought in the brutal trenches of WWI, the gentry of england, and a rough-and-ready author from small town Texas writing to eat during the Great Depression).




I think you left out the Cheetos.


Hong "prefers Doritos" Ooi


----------



## Arkhandus (Aug 31, 2007)

....yeah, trollwad's post comes off as rather offensive. :\ 

Like it or not, trollwad, but plenty of Eastern martial arts were developed by soldiers for real battlefield use.  The flashy crud is more an exaggeration in moviemaking than anything else.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 31, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Ah, well. No TV for me this year.
> 
> Has it been good stuff? (I don't expect that it has.)
> 
> Cheers, -- N



Well, I don't have cable, so I can't say for sure, but from what I've picked up here and there, the verdict is: C+.  Naruto was a pretty good ninja supers series, when it was a manga, but the TV series has a lot of very boring filler.  This seems to be the fate of any action series that can fill a week's worth of pages with shots of a fighting scene: you can get about two minutes of footage out of it when you translate to video.

Everything else I've seen has made me throw up a bit in my mouth, and I can't remember what those shows actually were.  Of course, part of that reaction has to do with the way I can't stand about 90% of the overdubs that these translation studios crank out.  Some are great--professional, even.  Most sound like what would happen if they hired my gaming group to do the voice-overs.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 31, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> I've been playing since about 1978 and I'm glad a few posters have explained what anime was, since I'm not sure I ever had a name for the freaky cartoon kids with spiky hair carrying spiked chains jumping over trees on late night tv for a millisecond before I flip the channel.  I thought I'd try to use an analogy and an understanding of the history of wargaming/fantasy gaming to illustrate the lack of appeal of anime to many grognards.



Spiked chains now... give me a break... Spiked chains are a D&Dism. They don't exist anywhere else, and certainly not in anime. Anime has cool hsitorical weapons like the Kusari-gama, they don't need spiked chains.

I don't think that I want to respond to the rest of your post. All I can say is that you are bringing all kinds of things into this discussion that are not related to D&D, fantasy, or anime.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 31, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I don't think that I want to respond to the rest of your post.



 Even if given nothing but the poster's chosen screen name, I'd say that might be a wise choice. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Campbell (Aug 31, 2007)

Silly me. I never realized that thai boxing, kendo, and judo were western martial arts.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 31, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> Consider the history of ultimate fighting for example, where alleged kung fu practioners have basically never won a match against representatives of "real" disciplines




I've seen a few fights by Gung-fu practitioners against more traditional MMA fighters and the results have been mixed: some do well, some don't. There aren't a lot of fighters who use it as a basis so I'd say it is hard to really say how well it applies to MMA.



			
				trollwad said:
			
		

> Much like how boxing and UFC-type fighting (greek pancration) grew out of efforts to train for or practice REAL fighting in a simulated environment...




I was under the impression that the UFC started so the Gracies could show how Gracie BJJ could allow a person with a modest physique (Royce, one of the smaller Gracies) to defeat larger opponents. Considering BJJ was developed from Judo and Jiu-jitsu -- both Japanese martial-arts -- I'd say that eastern disciplines are hardly useless. Further, Dana White calls Bruce Lee the father of modern MMA, and many consider his knowledge of Wing Chun Gung Fu to be the basis of his solid stance and balance. While Gung-fu may have become glamorized and exaggerated in its effectiveness, its origins are likely in the forms practiced by soldiers and at its heart can be very practical. 

It just seems silly to me to be so dismissive of any martial-art when modern hand-to-hand combat has evolved to be inclusive rather than exclusive. 

However, ignoring the more derogatory aspects of your post, I can see your point and perhaps agree to a degree (considering I am a fan of both anime and MMA and tend to lean away from anime-style action in my D&D).


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 31, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> No color coded teamates, no distinct transmormations into a more powerful costumed mode, etc. Undoubtably Cyborg 009 is major predecesor to sentai, but I am pretty sure Gatchaman was the first place all the modern elements first came together.




Good point.  It's a liner progression.  Cyborg 009 was the first team superhero show.  Kamen Rider set the world on fire in 1971, and Gatchaman took that ball and ran with it in 1972, directly influenced by KR.  Goranger, the first Super Sentai show, was directly influenced by Gatchman when it came out in 1975.  Gatchman, in turn, reflected some of that when IT returned in 1978....which ironically was the same year that the second Cyborg 009 series came out.  The worm eats it's tail, I tell you!

Say, did you know that a feature film version is due in 2008?  Interesting.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 31, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Considering BJJ was developed from Judo and Jiu-jitsu -- both Japanese martial-arts -- I'd say that eastern disciplines are hardly useless.



I don't know if I really want to add to this tangent, but...

Jigaro Kano developed judo from the many disparate styles of jujutsu by applying a modern, western, empirical philosophy to what had been traditional arts.  That is, he took out the "dangerous" moves that couldn't be practiced, and he created an art much more like western wrestling, in that it could and would be trained full-speed against a resisting opponent.  This emphasis on live sparring, or _randori_, was a clear break with tradition, and it's what led to judo "wiping the mat" with the other styles in the late 1800s.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu kept that emphasis on live sparring but considered its roots still grounded in the combative mission of traditional jujutsu; it was about winning a fight, not "mutual welfare and benefit" (the stated goal of judo).


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 31, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I don't know the name of the show- I was channel surfing- but on one of the networks that shows anime (Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, G4, whatever), there was a show in which mixed-gender teams were competing against each other in some kind of downhill race on a wierdo rollercoaster.
> 
> Not a girl on the show had a bra size under "Beachball."



Er...  I _think_ he meant "Point out the excessive breasts in D&D 4E's art", not "Point out the excessive breasts in anime."  No one on earth could be so foolish as to claim that there aren't any anime shows with great big retarded milksacks.  Not even people who type "u" instead of "you".


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 31, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> To someone who understands that D&D is a bastard lighthearted vision of 'real' fighting from cultures that knew how to fight, Anime appears to be utter whimsy.



Ha ha.  Oh, wow.  "I don't like Asian influences in D&D because Asian cultures don't know how to fight."  Diplomacy check: FAILED.


----------



## Henry (Aug 31, 2007)

First of all, ladies and gents, let's please tone down the rhetoric and try to respect opinions. Over exaggerating isn't going to help anyone.

Second, I have to take issue, trollwad, with calling Asian combat forms "ineffective." Both Asian, Western, and other forms are pretty darned effective, especially against the opponents in their respective areas. If you accept the original western influences in D&D as "bastardized" versions of a real form, why not that Wuxia and other anime conventions are "fantastic" versions of a real form, too? I'm no combatant, but I know enough of practitioners to know that masters of any martial art are more than capable of putting an opponent down when needed.

It's fine to dislike the style elements, but I can't accept that they stem from some difference of "real" vs. "play."


----------



## kibbitz (Aug 31, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Good point.  It's a liner progression.  Cyborg 009 was the first team superhero show.  Kamen Rider set the world on fire in 1971, and Gatchaman took that ball and ran with it in 1972, directly influenced by KR.  Goranger, the first Super Sentai show, was directly influenced by Gatchman when it came out in 1975.  Gatchman, in turn, reflected some of that when IT returned in 1978....which ironically was the same year that the second Cyborg 009 series came out.  The worm eats it's tail, I tell you!
> 
> Say, did you know that a feature film version is due in 2008?  Interesting.




Wait a minute... you mean a feature film version of Gatchaman or Cyborg 009? Though honestly, if this is true, regardless of whichever the actual one is, I would really like to watch them. Though speaking of Sentai and Gatchaman, Choujin Sentai Jetman is very reminiscent of Gatchaman. Possibly some sort of homage? I'd comment further but I'm not sure how to do the spoiler tag bits...


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 31, 2007)

kibbitz said:
			
		

> Wait a minute... you mean a feature film version of Gatchaman or Cyborg 009? Though honestly, if this is true, regardless of whichever the actual one is, I would really like to watch them. Though speaking of Sentai and Gatchaman, Choujin Sentai Jetman is very reminiscent of Gatchaman. Possibly some sort of homage? I'd comment further but I'm not sure how to do the spoiler tag bits...




Jetman is widely considered to be an homage to Gatchaman.

And as to the other question:


----------



## trollwad (Aug 31, 2007)

*Anime, Degrees of Freedom, Warrior Culture Legacy*

Another poster commented that I was off topic.  Judge for yourself, but I don't think so.  I believe the topic is something like why do grognards have a bias against anime?  

First, I point out that anime has many degrees of freedom (a lot of creative license) around an art form (kung fu) that was not realistic (in the sense of actually being useful in a fight).  

Second, I point out that many other martial arts and wargaming have less creative license around real fighting or war and I noted how much the Prussian general staff loved to war game.  

Third, I point out that D&D clearly grew out of wargaming.  Note Gygax has designed a number of war games apart from D&D and is clearly fairly knowledgeable about the history of real warfare.  The original d&d was an effort to import fantasy archetypes from a warrior western culture into traditional war gaming.  Perhaps a stereotypical grognard understands that at a psychological level even if he doesn't remember the facts.  This may explain why he is opposed to anime rather than mere accusations of "prejudice."

Fourth, I point out that D&D is clearly not realistic (with dragons and magic etc), but a grognard often revels in the mythological outgrowth of a western warrior culture (tolkien knew horrible real war, the ring saga and beowulf are outgrowths of germanic culture that reveled in war, howard grew up in small town great depression oil boom and bust texas reading classic pulp archetypes) that is utterly apart from anime.  This grognard may shake his head at the very elements of modern d&d that are like anime - i.e. how many times have you heard grognards complain that it is too hard to die in 3.5 as opposed to old d&d?  This doesn't mean that 3.5e is bad (I play it as well as older forms) but it is an effort to analyze why different generations of gamers feel what they do when they look at a game.  Why did Gygax name his primary character Mordenkainen instead of some anime name?  Thats because the name is obviously Finnish (ask Gygax), and Gygax knows his fantasy; the Finns preserved their western cultural warrior legacy in the Kalevala as well as anyone in the West.  Tolkein obviously drew on this western warrior legacy as well.

Thus, I believe that many grognards will often (but certainly not always) look at anime and shake their heads much like a gracie or a serious wrestler will look at kung fu and shake his head and chuckle.  It simply is alien to the warrior culture ideal that you read in Beowulf and the Kalevala and it has too many degrees of freedom even in the aerial kung fu that it purports to represent to be interesting to some.  Note I am NOT trying to put down anime (watch whatever you enjoy, why would anyone's viewing preferences matter to me!).  I am just trying to verbalize why at the subconscious level anime may seem offputting or silly to grognards (this is the topic of the thread after all) without simply using the easy politically correct phrases that westerners often use like "trope" or  "prejudice" to avoid actually analyzing things.

One military scholar referred to war as the continuation of culture.  I consider games to be a continuation of culture and they are often a "practice" or more often a lighter-hearted "release" of aggressive impulses - whether an intentional preparation for such like the Prussian General Staff or something as simple as releasing aggressive impulses in a closely controlled environment (Bob in the KODT comics slicing up orcs or charging a swack iron dragon with his hackmaster +5).  

Henry the moderator, please reread my original post, I absolutely never called ALL ASIAN Martial Arts ineffective - far from it, since I've spent years in Judo and Brazilian Jiujitsu.  I called the martial arts from which anime seems to spring (aerial kung fu I guess) ineffective.  From the bit Ive seen of anime and a fair amount of kung fu movies in my youth, the characters don't throw someone to the ground and break their arm (judo, jiujitsu), they leap hundreds of feet in their air and spring around in battle with androgynous foes and wield weapons that look nothing like real versions of the practical but painful-looking sticks and rubber knives I've seen practicioners of filipino martial arts use.  Again, Henry please note that in my original post, I put Judo, Jiujitsu, Kendo in the category of more realistic martial arts with the western martial arts (wrestling, boxing, pancration) and if I was being more detailed, I'd put Escrima, pencak silat and other se asian forms in there as well.  These martial arts are various degrees of refinement for warrior cultures (I mean my god the samurai are the archetypal warrior aristocrats and they refined kendo and jiujitsu and their imperial japanese progeny later codified a more practiceable form of jiujitsu into judo).  

1950s japanese filmmaking produced Kurasawa and the Seven Samurai.  Modern Japan by contrast is possibly the most pacifistic society on earth (this isn't to denigrate it since I generally love Japan and have visited numerous times).  It should be no surprise that a culture that is 70 years removed from real conflict with a constitution that bans war and whose last war ended in an epic disaster is starting to tend towards art forms (anime) that are utterly unrelated to real fighting.  War (and art) are cultural expressions based on what people know.  Most Japanese (who I guess produce most of the anime) don't know war anymore -- though there are exceptions and some of the combative sports (judo and PRIDE/SHOOTO) are still quite popular.  Seriously, I challenge anyone on this list to watch Kurasawa and anime back to back and not get an inkling of my point of the cultural difference between 1950s or 1960s Japan (people with a live memory of a proud warrior culture) and 2007 Japan (people who haven't known war in 70 years).  A grognard can watch Kurasawa - it isn't simple cultural "bias" against Asia.

Someone else posted something to the effect of them seeing kung fu fighters win some, lose some -- this is patently absurd.  Look at the record of the UFC, which is certainly NOT real combat (it has some rules, referees, etc), but its as close to combat as I know and we've seen perhaps a thousand individual matches so there is a ton of data.  To the best of my knowledge, no karate or kung fu practicioner ever beat anyone who was not a karate or kung fu practioner.  Virtually all of the early matches were won by grappling/submission types and lately boxer/thai boxers who can wrestle defensively have done well also.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 31, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> First, I point out that anime has many degrees of freedom (a lot of creative license) around an art form (kung fu) that was not realistic (in the sense of actually being useful in a fight).



 Your argument completely breaks down, right here in the beginning. You make two major implicit claims here, which are both essential to your argument as a whole (at least, from what I can follow of your argument. I admit that I can't seem to follow it clearly). These claims are that all anime is based on fighting, and that the martial art form that they use in anime is kung fu. Both claims are completely false.

I don't even see why you are making the claim based on _kung fu_ at all. Kung fu is a _Chinese_ (or at least general mainland Asian) set of martial art forms, and anime is exclusively Japanese in origin. Obviously enough, Japanese anime is as much influenced by its own native forms (Kendo, Kenjutsu, Japaense-style archery, Ninjutsu, Aikido, Karate, etc)  as it is by other forms like Kung fu, and thus your argument associating it primarily with Kung fu is flawed.

Your claim that anime is exclusively non-realistic is also flawed. There are a number of anime which take a realistic (or very near realistic) look at people participating in competitive sports like Boxing, Tennis, Basketball, etc, or at boardgames like Go.

The idea that anime is based on combat is also false, and more blatantly so.

As for the rest of your argument, it assumes certain mentalities and ideals I _still_ don't want to touch, and your statement which imply you think the term "pacifist" is an insult just reinforces that idea for me.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Aug 31, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> You should try playing the game before you make these kind of comments.  The current crop of dungeons are actually more tactically interesting than most D&D adventures I've seen for a while.  Despite some holes, the fluffy bits are about on a par for writing with the average d20 stuff.



Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that *I* believe WoW is mindless hack 'n slash (I haven't played it, as you mentioned).  I stated that "in many gamers' minds", it is thus.  Which I think is a fair statement (albeit rather vague).


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Aug 31, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Er...  I _think_ he meant "Point out the excessive breasts in D&D 4E's art", not "Point out the excessive breasts in anime."  No one on earth could be so foolish as to claim that there aren't any anime shows with great big retarded milksacks.  Not even people who type "u" instead of "you".




Took me all of six seconds to find this at random:

http://www.cgmill.com/ss/3d/20051001_anime_girl.jpg

This is the kind of rubbish I think of when I think of anime.

WARNING: Rated PG-13, but probably not worksafe.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 31, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> These claims are that all anime is based on fighting, and that the martial art form that they use in anime is kung fu. Both claims are completely false.



I think this counter-argument is an example of why we're never going to get anywhere discussing anime -- because one side, the non-fan side, talks about _typical_ anime, and the other, the fan side, wants to speak in _absolutes_, which means they can always point to exceptions.

A non-fan mentions _anime_, then the fans dismiss all his points as not true of _all anime_.  Then the discussion continues, and the educated anime fans say, oh, no, no, that's just a small fraction of anime you're talking about, what is known as _shonen_ anime.  The non-fan says, OK, all I know is, I see bits of anime on TV, and I don't like it.  The fan sighs and concludes, these non-fans just don't know anything about true anime.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 31, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I think this counter-argument is an example of why we're never going to get anywhere discussing anime -- because one side, the non-fan side, talks about _typical_ anime, and the other, the fan side, wants to speak in _absolutes_, which means they can always point to exceptions.
> 
> A non-fan mentions _anime_, then the fans dismiss all his points as not true of _all anime_.  Then the discussion continues, and the educated anime fans say, oh, no, no, that's just a small fraction of anime you're talking about, what is known as _shonen_ anime.  The non-fan says, OK, all I know is, I see bits of anime on TV, and I don't like it.  The fan sighs and concludes, these non-fans just don't know anything about true anime.



How are you defining "typical anime" here, since I think we are having a serious miscommunication. Some of the very easy to see anime in the US is not "typical anime" by your standards. Two of the shows I mentioned in what you quote are called Prince of Tennis and Hikaru no Go. Prince of Tennis was shown on Toonami (the main mainstream source of anime these days), and both shows are shown on the successful Toonami Jetstream web-streaming service. Neither are obscure.

Also, I can easily find romantic comedy anime on various channels that show anime. While it is not anime, the manga _Fruits Basket_ is absurdly popular in the US, especially among girls, and hits the top-selling books charts just as much, if not more, than the manga for "typical" anime series like Naruto or Bleach. Fruits Basket is a romantic comedy about a girl who deals with a family of guys who turn into animals when she hugs them. Is this "typical" or not?

I mean, if you are talking about people using the term "anime" when _they have never sat down and watched an episode of an anime series, ever_, I might understand what you mean, but such people are not qualified to say _anything_ about anime in the first place. It would be like someone complaining about the overly complex quadratic functions in the PHB, and the way it promotes aggression and antisocial behaviour, having never read the PHB or playing D&D. No one should be expected to take such a person seriously.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Aug 31, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Took me all of six seconds to find this at random:
> 
> http://www.cgmill.com/ss/3d/20051001_anime_girl.jpg
> 
> ...





No one is arguing that anime only contains women that have realistic proportions and no where in the medium are there women that will develop severe back problems in the future.

I hazard a guess that anime fans would be the first to point to examples where females have half of their body weight in the chest area.  (Just so everyone knows where I fall - I like some anime and hate others.)

They were asking for this occuance in D&D art, not in anime.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 1, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I think this counter-argument is an example of why we're never going to get anywhere discussing anime -- because one side, the non-fan side, talks about _typical_ anime, and the other, the fan side, wants to speak in _absolutes_, which means they can always point to exceptions.




Your point is taken, but I think both sides are talking in absolutes.  The disconnect occurs in that _some_ non-fans represent anime as being one way, while _some_ fans disagree.  The issue you're sidestepping isn't that anime doesn't have those tropes...they have them in spades; the argument that a fan can always find an exception makes the implicit assumption that the exception is the rarity, when in some of these it's clearly not.  Non-fans shouldn't be expected to know all about something they don't like, but they shouldn't bristle when fans point out that there's more to it, if they're going to use it as the basis for a negative influence on something like D&D.

The whole issue of 'anime-style' being introduced into D&D is an argument that seems to be based on attributes that aren't universal or exclusive to anime.  I can dig if you say that D&D has too much 'superhero' elements in it or you don't like the various elements present, but I've yet to see a convincing argument of what those anime elements actually are.  Like the idea of fantasy women with ridiculously large breasts.  I mean, I have one word for you: Avalanche.




For extra credit, Richard Corben, Julie Bell and Boris Vallejo. etc.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 1, 2007)

WizarDru, you just explained that in a more reasonable and eloquent manner than I was able to. Thank you.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 1, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that *I* believe WoW is mindless hack 'n slash (I haven't played it, as you mentioned).  I stated that "in many gamers' minds", it is thus.  Which I think is a fair statement (albeit rather vague).



Fair enough.

It's an idiotic stereotype.  But the 4e threads seem to engender that sort of thing.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 1, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> From the bit Ive seen of anime and a fair amount of kung fu movies in my youth...




Are you basing your judgement of the effectiveness of Kung-fu from watching movies and anime? Isn't that like judging the merits of boxing by watching Rocky?



			
				trollwad said:
			
		

> ...the characters don't throw someone to the ground and break their arm (judo, jiujitsu)...




Here's a quote from Bob Wall on a recounting of Bruce Lee fighting an extra on set that was aggressively challenging his martial-arts skills:

    "This kid was good. He was no punk. He was strong and fast, and he was really trying to punch Bruce's brains in. But Bruce just methodically took him apart."

    "I mean Bruce kept moving so well, this kid couldn't touch him...Then all of a sudden, Bruce got him and rammed his ass into the wall and *swept him, he proceeded to drop his knee into his opponent's chest,locked his arm out straight, and nailed him in the face repeatedly*."

(emphasis mine)

While some anime may not portray combat realistically, I don't think that speaks much to the effectiveness of Kung-fu.




			
				trollwad said:
			
		

> Someone else posted something to the effect of them seeing kung fu fighters win some, lose some -- this is patently absurd.  Look at the record of the UFC, which is certainly NOT real combat (it has some rules, referees, etc), but its as close to combat as I know and we've seen perhaps a thousand individual matches so there is a ton of data.  To the best of my knowledge, no karate or kung fu practicioner ever beat anyone who was not a karate or kung fu practioner.  Virtually all of the early matches were won by grappling/submission types and lately boxer/thai boxers who can wrestle defensively have done well also.




That would be me, and I said that there are very few MMA fighters that use Kung-fu as a basis (for whatever reason -- I'm not claiming it is the ultimate martial-art or anything). However, from some of the (real) fight videos I've seen, Kung-fu practitioners do seem to be hit-and miss: some win, some lose, some lose badly (again, I hardly see this as me claiming it to be the perfect art or anything).

As for karate practitioners in MMA, I can think of two that have beaten traditional MMA fighters: Georges St. Pierre (he started as a Kyokushin karate fighter) and Ryoto Machida.

Again, I'd like to stress that I don't consider any martial-art superior; rather, I think they should be examined practically and used for what works. I'd also like to apologize for further derailing this thread.


----------



## Hairfoot (Sep 2, 2007)

It's not really accurate to compare refereed, rule-based UFC with a theoretical kung-fu fight (or krav magar et al), because gouging eyes, punching throats, and biting are prohibited in the ring.  Horses for courses.

Personally, I come down heavily on the side of boxing/wrestling/MMA over kung-fu, but there's no way of finding out for sure without having an all-in grand tournament on an arch-tyrant's deserted island somewhere in international waters.  Like this bloke: www.theonion.com/content/node/30496

In any event, the axiom is true: when a good big guy fights a good little guy, the big guy always wins.

What? ENworld?  I thought I was at Sherdog!


----------



## hong (Sep 2, 2007)

I am "embracing" my "warrior culture ideal" RIGHT NOW, IYKTIMAIYTD.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I am "embracing" my "warrior culture ideal" RIGHT NOW, IYKTIMAIYTD.




Just as long as you keep your "Dim Mak" to yourself it's all good.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2007)

So far, we've been talking about anime in D&D in pretty general terms.  But, the problem is when you start looking at specific instances, the anime comparisons fall all to pieces with even the most cursory of investigation.

Take the whole "3e art looks like anime" bit.  It's now moving into 4e already.  Yet, despite repeated calls, not one single person has been able to produce a single WOTC pic in a D&D book that looks remotely "anime".  Not once.  Ever.  I've seen thread after thread whinging about 3e art and comparing it to anime, but, whenever someone asks for concrete examples, everyone shuffles their feet and hems and haws.

For another example, look at the Pokemount.  Comparing the paladin's mount to Pokemon to show how bad the mechanics are.  It doesn't really work though since a paladin's mount and a Pokemon share no real points of comparison other than they can both be summoned.  A Pokemon is a small magical animal that pops out to fight with magical energy attacks on behalf of its summoner.  A paladin's mount is a large creature that rarely fights and is mostly only there as background fluff.

A better comparison is a Baq of Tricks.  That's pretty much Pokemon to a "T".  Only problem is, it predates Pokemon by a couple of decades.  Pretty hard to say that it's inspired by anime.    A druid's summoning ability is far closer to Pokemon than a Paladin's mount, yet, we rarely see thread after thread whining about how the Pokedruid is ruining the game.  Of course, it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that a nature based character summoning nature spirits to defend the land is pretty solidly entrenched in Western fantasy as well.  Sure, a Druid's summoning can be compared to Pokemon, but, it can also be equally compared to a host of myth and fantasy as well.

When you boil it down, anime comparisons are simply an alpha geek's way of trying to tell people that his fantasy is better than yours.


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 2, 2007)

Don't druids get anime companions?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Don't druids get anime companions?






I know this was tongue in cheek (or I think it was) but, I think you really hit the nail on the head Blargney.  The idea of the character wandering around with some sort of pet does appear in a lot of anime.  

Then again, it appears in all sorts of forms that predate anime as well.  Is an animal companion anime inspired or Beastmaster?  Or myth based as in The Wild Hunt?  

People will tend to pick the inspiration that makes their point most of the time.  If a gamer doesn't like animal companions, he'll likely point to anime.  If he does like it, he'll point to myth and legend.  

Me, I look at all the fantasy novels I've read for decades and figure that there's loads of inspiration for an animal companion that anime doesn't play a whole lot into it.  YMMV obviously.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 2, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain why if anything is derived from anime/WoW (even if it has a non-existent connection) it seems like there is opposition not based on the concept itself but from where it comes from?





  You might want to inject a little context here. I assume what you are talking about is things incorporated into D&D that seem to have an influence from WOW or Anime, but your post does not make that clear. 


  Mostly it has to do with the fact that people tend to see D&D as its own genre, and don't want it changed by outside influences. They tend to see those particular influences as being especially oposed to the nature of the D&D genre, at least as they see it. 

  And of course, in some cases its pure snobbery, especially as far as the Anime part. Many people arent aware of anime as anything beyond Dragon Ball Z. And as far as WoW, many understand that WOW and other MMOs are not really role playing games in any sense of the word, and are afraid that its influence will tend to lessen the roleplay aspects of D&D. I can understand this and even feel that way myself about some things, but some take it to extremes.

  Now I have a couple of questions. Why are you directly associating World of Warcraft and Anime? The two have basically nothing to do with each other, aside from the fact that WOW Elves look a good bit like the elves in some anime.

  Next, you do realize that much of anime is not "new" fantasy right?


----------



## Merlion (Sep 2, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> WoW: In many gamers' minds, WoW represents the epitome of what D&D must not become: a mindless hack n' slash computer game.
> 
> anime: Have you seen the kind of people that are huge into anime? Scary . . .





  Um....you DO realize that a lot of people who play RPGS are "huge into anime", right?

I happen to be one of them. 

  And you do realize that anyone can have an unhealthy obessesion with anything right? And that most people make similar ill informed and somewhat offensive statements to yours above about people who play D&D.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 2, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Took me all of six seconds to find this at random:
> 
> http://www.cgmill.com/ss/3d/20051001_anime_girl.jpg
> 
> ...





  Then you don't know very much about anime. Not to say that sort of thing isnt part of a lot of it. And even a big part of some of it. But it has no part at all in some, and only a small part in others.


----------



## hopeless (Sep 2, 2007)

*anime & d&d*



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> anime has
> Intriguing stories
> Fantasy Action
> Compelling Heroes
> ...




Louie the Rune Soldier... well except for that bit where if they break their wands they can't cast magic... but after that debacle called Blackmoor I think its an apt addition albeit I plan on using that for an eberron campaign and no the lead character of that anime series isn't a wizard or a sorceror I was kind of leaning towards a Brelish Aristocrat but haven't decided whether the character would be best becoming a rogue or a bard...


----------



## hopeless (Sep 2, 2007)

*Oh yes*



			
				Branduil said:
			
		

> The Lodoss OVA is a better D&D movie than the actual D&D movies.
> 
> More accurate too.




And the dragons in that series make those in the movies look remarkably limp.

The way they demonstrated their reactions and the difference between the dwarf and the elf spoke volumes of the background.

I believe Louie the rune soldier was based on the continent North of the accursed isle although the crsytannia series is set later its also in the same camapign world...

And that one has shifters, check it out for yourselves!


----------



## InVinoVeritas (Sep 2, 2007)

Plenty of fans and non-fans are able to correctly tell the difference between anime and non-anime when it is presented to them, typically within the first minute (second?). This indicates that there is in fact a dimension to the artistic style of anime that is consistent across the entire collection of works. This artistic dimension, whether in pacing, character design, set design, artwork, sound, plot, characterization, or animation does exist, whether or not individuals can identify or agree on what the elements are. 

That said, I do not believe that D&D contains these elements. Certainly some elements, such as animation, can't possibly be included in the game. Most of the other elements, though, are artistic in nature, and not codified in the ruleset, or even codifiable. It is possible for the artwork in D&D to contain a number of anime elements, but I haven't seen any evidence that WOTC has included them in artwork. Indeed, it appears that WOTC has deliberately made sure that official D&D art does not contain these elements, keeping it artistically distinct and non-anime in style.

So, I don't think that D&D is anime-influenced.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 3, 2007)

> They were asking for this occuance in D&D art, not in anime.




Well, "juggy" art has been a staple of Western fantasy for some time, both in the source literature and the FRPG products.

Its gotten less prevalent, however.

Most of what I've seen in the RPG market of the last few years has been niche 3rd party publishers' materials, not WotC or the major 3rd party publishers.  There was a series of supplements my FLGS used to carry in which every cover featured some woman who looked like she was employed in a job that required daily use of a large brass pole...and I don't mean "firefighter."

However, there are still the occasional flashes of boobicular art- mostly with unearthly beings with an artful concealing wisp of hair, singing arm or flashing weapon- but the Wilder in the XPH is fairly chesty.


----------



## RFisher (Sep 7, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> It aired in the U.S. as "Battle of the Planets".




Loved that show.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> For another example, look at the Pokemount.




I don't think anyone who uses the term "Pokémount" means, "They stole the idea from Pokémon." Rather, they mean, "I find this mechanic so silly--especially in the context of D&D as I play it--that I'm going to express that through a nickname."

It's just that Pokémon is a well known (& in certain circle, well ridiculed) entity that is superficially similar & has a name that it was easy to adapt to the derrogatory nickname.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 7, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> Why did Gygax name his primary character Mordenkainen instead of some anime name?  Thats because the name is obviously Finnish (ask Gygax), and Gygax knows his fantasy




Probably because in the 70's, the only places you could have ever seen anime might have been at some of the larger fan conventions if you managed to find it on the track, or the few shows other than Astroboy that ever made it to US TV. For a good chunk of the 80's, you'd have had to seek it out specifically.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Sep 7, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Personal preference style: And not, this doesn't make it wrong, just a preference.
> 
> For example: I hate the anime that have characters weilding swords with the itty bitty thin handles and the bigger-than-life-taller-than-the-character blades.  I just don't like it.  It bends realism in a way that I don't appreciate it being bent.  Bad for me, but not wrong.
> 
> ...




Perfectly said, my thoughts exactly.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 7, 2007)

I'd rather have an inclusive system that accomodates all styles of fantasy than an exclusive system that is built off of what fantasy was 40 years ago.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 7, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Probably because in the 70's, the only places you could have ever seen anime might have been at some of the larger fan conventions if you managed to find it on the track, or the few shows other than Astroboy that ever made it to US TV.



What if Gary and Co. _were_ old-school anime fans! Mordenkainen might have been "Kimba the White Lion Mage", creator of "Kimba's Verdant Veldt", a spell that conjures an extra-dimensional grassland full of tasty gazelle.

I now have my next character. Thanks!


----------



## Nifft (Sep 7, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I'd rather have an inclusive system that accomodates all styles of fantasy than an exclusive system that is built off of what fantasy was 40 years ago.



 Me, too. Especially since it's so easy to take good mechanics and re-flavor them. For example:

*Li Mu Bai -- Conan*
Swooping Crane Strike -- "DEATH FROM ABOVE!"
Moment of Perfect Mind -- "YOUR PUNY MAGIC FAILS!"
Iron Heart Surge -- "GRRRRAAAAAAAH!"

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 7, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Me, too. Especially since it's so easy to take good mechanics and re-flavor them. For example:
> 
> *Li Mu Bai -- Conan*
> Swooping Crane Strike -- "DEATH FROM ABOVE!"
> ...




Win.


----------



## breschau (Sep 7, 2007)

I am an old timer grognard. I loved AD&D, I loved 2nd Edition, I loved 3rd Edition, I loved 3.5 Edition, and from what I'm hearing I'll love 4th Edition.

As an added bonus, I love anime.

I think the "grognards hate anime" argument is like so many others, it is a generalization that happens to fit enough grognards to become a generalization, but not enough to be used as a sweeping statement meant to include all grognards.

This coupled with the "4th Edition is anime" argument is a bit screwed. I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe 4th Edition is now BESM. Sure, fighters gain maneuvers and casters are toned down, that doesn't make it anime, that makes it balanced.

But, even if 4th Edition becomes more anime, I say finally... just check the sig.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 7, 2007)

Of course, if D&D incorperates too much anime influence it would lose all its female players. 

After all, their characters would constantly get raped by demons with multiple penis-shaped tentacles. And then they'd be ready to make love to the hero right afterwards.

Or maybe I'm just watching different anime...


----------



## Nifft (Sep 7, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Or maybe I'm just watching different anime...



 Valar Project might be able to help with that?

C, -- N


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Sep 7, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Or maybe I'm just watching different anime...




Evard's Black Tentacles suddenly become even more horrific...


----------



## breschau (Sep 7, 2007)

Yeah, Legend of the Overfiend is an f'ed up anime. It's also gross negligence on your part to assume that a sinlge pron anime is a decent stand in for all anime. Try watching anime without penises.

Record of Lodoss War. Berserk. Rune Soldier. Legend of Crystania. Bastard! El-Hazard. InuYasha. Any fantasy anime really. Not just the X-rated stuff.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 7, 2007)

breschau said:
			
		

> Yeah, Legend of the Overfiend is an f'ed up anime. It's also gross negligence on your part to assume that a sinlge pron anime is a decent stand in for all anime. Try watching anime without penises.
> 
> Record of Lodoss War. Berserk. Rune Soldier. Legend of Crystania. Bastard! El-Hazard. InuYasha. Any fantasy anime really. Not just the X-rated stuff.



Are???

But I wouldn't classify Legend of the overfiend as anime. It is light Hentai at best, which is far different than anime.  

Now bastard is a bit perverted but one of the best anime/fantasy cartoons of all time.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 7, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> Evard's Black Tentacles suddenly become even more horrific...




Also makes ya wonder about those so-called "Mind-flayers"...

"Brain-sucking" tentacles indeed...


----------



## Merlion (Sep 7, 2007)

On that note, an observation.


D&D is far closer to being "Call of Cthulhu" than "Big Eyes Small Mouth." 

  The Lovecraft influence is very strong, especially as far as monsters, whereas I dont see much direct anime influence at all.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 7, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> On that note, an observation.
> 
> 
> D&D is far closer to being "Call of Cthulhu" than "Big Eyes Small Mouth."
> ...




That's a fact that is often ignored.

The funny thing is, D&D often has more in common with what Lovecraft actually wrote than the Call of Cthulu game often does. CoC promulgates the idea that all Lovecraft stories ended in utter madness with almost everybody dead, but that's distortion of the actual works. Much of Lovecraft's work is actually fantastical dark fantasy, and a man like Randolph Carter can face down eldritch horrors again and again. If you want to see a great example of a story that reads like a D&D adventure, read "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath". Carter wanders through subterranean vaults, battles on the moon, allies with an army of ghouls, and faces Nyarlothotep himself at the end!


----------



## Nifft (Sep 7, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath". Carter wanders through subterranean vaults, battles on the moon, allies with an army of ghouls, and faces Nyarlothotep himself at the end!



 Make a module of this NOW!

Thanks, -- N


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Sep 7, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> If you want to see a great example of a story that reads like a D&D adventure, read "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath". Carter wanders through subterranean vaults, battles on the moon, allies with an army of ghouls, and faces Nyarlothotep himself at the end!




So very true!

Also, the "Carter" of Kadath could easily be switched out with Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars, another huge influence on D&D.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 7, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> That's a fact that is often ignored.
> 
> The funny thing is, D&D often has more in common with what Lovecraft actually wrote than the Call of Cthulu game often does. CoC promulgates the idea that all Lovecraft stories ended in utter madness with almost everybody dead, but that's distortion of the actual works. Much of Lovecraft's work is actually fantastical dark fantasy, and a man like Randolph Carter can face down eldritch horrors again and again. If you want to see a great example of a story that reads like a D&D adventure, read "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath". Carter wanders through subterranean vaults, battles on the moon, allies with an army of ghouls, and faces Nyarlothotep himself at the end!





I've read Dream-Quest, and though I never thought about it much that way, I can certainly see what you mean.


I think the big difference is that in D&D characters can face Lovecraftian beings on somewhat more even terms, and defeat them through direct might.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 7, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I've read Dream-Quest, and though I never thought about it much that way, I can certainly see what you mean.
> 
> 
> I think the big difference is that in D&D characters can face Lovecraftian beings on somewhat more even terms, and defeat them through direct might.




True. Carter did need space-faring housecats to help him against the lunar squid-things.

Yes, for the benefit of those who have never read Lovecraft, or who only know him as the creator of dread Cthulu, he also wrote about space-faring housecats. Not cat-like humanoids. Housecats. And you thought the Giant Space Hamsters were silly....


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 7, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> On that note, an observation.
> 
> 
> D&D is far closer to being "Call of Cthulhu" than "Big Eyes Small Mouth."
> ...



Amusingly enough, I _really_ dislike Lovecraftian elements, and avoid them as much as possible in D&D. I don't even like Mind Flayers at all, and never use the Far Realms or ancient horrors. I probably dislike Lovecraftian stuff as much as some people hate anime. I would rather play anime/videogame-style D&D than Lovecraft-style D&D by a considerable degree. Of course, the thing I really like about D&D is that it is flexible enough to do both.

As an aside, I dislike Big Eyes, Small Mouth, but that is for different reasons, more related to implementation than source material.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 7, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> he also wrote about space-faring housecats. Not cat-like humanoids. Housecats. And you thought the Giant Space Hamsters were silly....



 Be careful, Commoner. Housecats are deadly.

"Not a cat penguin", -- N


----------



## SavageRobby (Sep 8, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Personal preference style: And not, this doesn't make it wrong, just a preference.
> 
> For example: I hate the anime that have characters weilding swords with the itty bitty thin handles and the bigger-than-life-taller-than-the-character blades.  I just don't like it.  It bends realism in a way that I don't appreciate it being bent.  Bad for me, but not wrong.
> 
> ...





Exactly. Only, I am a grognard. But otherwise, spot on.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Sep 8, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> True. Carter did need space-faring housecats to help him against the lunar squid-things.
> 
> Yes, for the benefit of those who have never read Lovecraft, or who only know him as the creator of dread Cthulu, he also wrote about space-faring housecats. Not cat-like humanoids. Housecats. And you thought the Giant Space Hamsters were silly....




Also, the Ghouls in Kadath made a cute "meeping" noise. That was really weird.

On a side-side note, I recently finished _Swords of Lankhmar_ by Leiber which also featured alternative ghouls and heroic house cats.

We can forgive Carter seeking the assistance of other beings, as he was obviously on a solo quest.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 8, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> We can forgive Carter seeking the assistance of other beings, as he was obviously on a solo quest.




And without his Silver Key no less...
What a cruel DM to make him adventure without his kewlest magic item.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 8, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Be careful, Commoner. Housecats are deadly.
> 
> "Not a cat penguin", -- N




What, you aren't charmed by creatures who enjoy tormenting their prey before killing it?
What's not to love?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I'd rather have an inclusive system that accomodates all styles of fantasy than an exclusive system that is built off of what fantasy was 40 years ago.




Wow, just for the novelty of it:

I agree 100% with DonTadow.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 8, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> What, you aren't charmed by creatures who enjoy tormenting their prey before killing it?
> What's not to love?



 3 attacks + Pounce vs. my 1d4 HP. Housecats are frikkin' scary. 

Not sharing my herring, -- N


----------



## psionotic (Sep 8, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I'd rather have an inclusive system that accomodates all styles of fantasy than an exclusive system that is built off of what fantasy was 40 years ago.




Spot-on here.  The better a ruleset is, the more it will allow vastly different campaign styles and character choices, I says.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 9, 2007)

psionotic said:
			
		

> Spot-on here.  The better a ruleset is, the more it will allow vastly different campaign styles and character choices, I says.




Surprisingly, I also agree. I think the best way to accomplish that is to make the ruleset as generic and modular as possible. The core rules should be very simple, with everything else (such as skills, feats, and attacks of opportunity) representing optional levels of complexity that are not required to for the game to work. Unfortunately, I do not think WOTC shares my philosophy.

Also, if WOTC is really interested in attracting the next generation of fantasy fans, they'll look to the Harry Potter books for influences, even more so than things like World of Warcraft. However, since I see WOTC going the same way as TSR did after Gygax was forced out, I think they'll make the wrong choice and wind up driving the game into the ground once again.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Surprisingly, I also agree. I think the best way to accomplish that is to make the ruleset as generic and modular as possible. The core rules should be very simple, with everything else (such as skills, feats, and attacks of opportunity) representing optional levels of complexity that are not required to for the game to work. Unfortunately, I do not think WOTC shares my philosophy.
> 
> Also, if WOTC is really interested in attracting the next generation of fantasy fans, they'll look to the Harry Potter books for influences, even more so than things like World of Warcraft. However, since I see WOTC going the same way as TSR did after Gygax was forced out, I think they'll make the wrong choice and wind up driving the game into the ground once again.




Ok, I'll bite.  How so?  In what way is WOTC acting like TSR under the Blumes?

On another note, the idea of wizards having per round and per combat abilities is pretty much lifted straight from Harry Potter.  As is the idea of functioning wizard societies.  (Not that Rowlings made these ideas up, but, both feature considerably in her books.)


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 9, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Spiked chains now... give me a break... Spiked chains are a D&Dism. They don't exist anywhere else, and certainly not in anime. Anime has cool hsitorical weapons like the Kusari-gama, they don't need spiked chains.




Now, I am not sure I get this anime definition that floats around (since lot of people dont seem to agree.), however, would a cartoon with teenagers with supermartial and supernatural abilities, magical armors and spiked hair qualify for anime?

If so, the spiked chain existed 20+ years ago, when i saw the cartoon. It was called "Les Chevaliers du Zodiaque" in french, but it was a asian cartoon.

EDIT: There we go, its called Saint Seiya, from 86 IMDB LINK


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 9, 2007)

breschau said:
			
		

> Record of Lodoss War. Berserk. Rune Soldier. Legend of Crystania. Bastard! El-Hazard. InuYasha. Any fantasy anime really. Not just the X-rated stuff.




Thanks, I have been looking for a list of good animated fantasy cartoons. Wanna add any more to it?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2007)

Google imaged the Saint Seiya.  I see a chain, but no spikes.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 9, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll bite.  How so?  In what way is WOTC acting like TSR under the Blumes?




From David Noonan:
"So you've got time. We're going to reveal more and more of the game as time goes on, both here on the wizards site, in the preview books, and at D&D Experience (Feb. 28 to March 3 in DC). But all those individual "reveals" are clouds in the sky. You can admire the clouds' beauty or shake your fists at them, but they're just going to keep moving across the sky anyway.

There's nothing wrong with cloud-watching. If you're a farmer, you need to watch the clouds at least a little. (Maybe DMs are like farmers, but that might be straining the metaphor.) But farmers know that no amount of cloudwatching will bring the rain. (And don't mention cloud-seeding; it messes up the metaphor.)

You can shake your fists at the sky. You can do a rain dance. You can ignore the clouds completely. Given the circumstance you're in as a D&D player right now, those responses are all valid. But none of them move the clouds."

There is a real lack of respect for D&D players that is being evinced by WOTC, similar to the later TSR. The problem with TSR started with the release of the 2nd edition rules themselves, when TSR decided for everybody that they didn't need Half-Orcs, Assassins, Demons or Devils because those things were for naughty children.  In the mid-90s, TSR began releasing endless supplements that "empowered" players. However, even though the supplements were supposed to be optional, they tended to become core and expected parts of the game. This was a deliberate attempt to increase sales of game materials. Soon everybody needed a PC with a kit, skills and powers, and gaming material was written with the assumption you were using that nonsense. Examples of top-down decisions from TSR include the massive crap they took on Greyhawk (for example: "From Their A$$es", I mean "From The Ashes") just to spite Gygax.

Some parallel actions from WOTC include: 

Creating combat rules that REQUIRE the use of miniatures. An additional expense, that WOTC will be happy to provide you with. How swell of them.

The ever-expanding rule-set, all of which has official sanction. Try to tell some players that they can't play a Thri-Kreen Duskblade/Warlock/Psion with two +6 double-bladed swords, and and they will throw a fit.

The totally unnecessary changes to Halflings and the silly changes to Gnomes (Bards?), both completely top-down and unasked for.

The whole silly 3.5 edition thing. A .5 edition? I still can't understand it except as a way to make people buy their rule books all over again.

The apparently massive 4th edition re-working of the game, that promises to be compatible with NO previous edition. This way, you'll have to re-purchase ALL of your books. Once again. Just what everybody never asked for. Oh, and lets not forget the fervent denials that 4th edition was anywhere on the horizon.

The destruction of Dragon magazine, with the rise of the Digital Initiative. One wonders to what extent 4th edition will be "crippleware" that requires the monthly subscription to be usable.

Just some examples.

Funny thing is, I really believe that WOTC started out with the best of intentions towards D&D. But you know what they say about the road to gaming hell...


----------



## Jackelope King (Sep 9, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Creating combat rules that REQUIRE the use of miniatures. An additional expense, that WOTC will be happy to provide you with. How swell of them.



I'll have to tell the guys I know at UMBC that they're required to use minis. They've gone a year without them, and I imagine they'll be shocked.



> The ever-expanding rule-set, all of which has official sanction. Try to tell some players that they can't play a Thri-Kreen Duskblade/Warlock/Psion with two +6 double-bladed swords, and and they will throw a fit.



The most bizarre character I ever said "no" to was a dragonrider class a friend found online. Someone homebrewed a broken class where you start with a large dragon companion at first level. It reminded me of those broken alternate classes I found when I perused 2e sites in the late 90s.



> The totally unnecessary changes to Halflings and the silly changes to Gnomes (Bards?), both completely top-down and unasked for.



Thank _God_. I _loathed_ "David the Gnome" gnomes and hobbits. Halflings as gypsy thieves and gnomes as wisecracking woodland tinkerers was a wonderful change.



> The whole silly 3.5 edition thing. A .5 edition? I still can't understand it except as a way to make people buy their rule books all over again.



The only thing that'll make me madder is if they ever release a basic and an expert and an advanced game. That'll really make my blood boil.



> The apparently massive 4th edition re-working of the game, that promises to be compatible with NO previous edition. This way, you'll have to re-purchase ALL of your books. Once again. Just what everybody never asked for. Oh, and lets not forget the fervent denials that 4th edition was anywhere on the horizon.



Well, agreed on that point.



> The destruction of Dragon magazine, with the rise of the Digital Initiative. One wonders to what extent 4th edition will be "crippleware" that requires the monthly subscription to be usable.



Eh, I survived just fine without the magazines, and I'm sure I'll be fine without the DI subscription, unless the price is less than or comparable to the costs for the magazine subscriptions.



> Just some examples.
> 
> Funny thing is, I really believe that WOTC started out with the best of intentions towards D&D. But you know what they say about the road to gaming hell...



It's paved with d4s ?


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Sep 9, 2007)

Ignoring the cloudwatching quote, except to say "it doesn't mean what you think it means; it's just a bad wording"...



			
				Clavis said:
			
		

> Examples of top-down decisions from TSR include the massive crap they took on Greyhawk (for example: "From Their A$$es", I mean "From The Ashes") just to spite Gygax.



Cites, please?



> Creating combat rules that REQUIRE the use of miniatures. An additional expense, that WOTC will be happy to provide you with. How swell of them.



What combat rules? 3.* edition works with no miniatures at all; I should know, having gamed for several years wo. using them. Now, counters or miniatures do enhance and clarify the combat, I think, but they're hardly required.



> The ever-expanding rule-set, all of which has official sanction. Try to tell some players that they can't play a Thri-Kreen Duskblade/Warlock/Psion with two +6 double-bladed swords, and and they will throw a fit.



How on Earth is this WotC's fault? This is purely a player-DM problem.



> The totally unnecessary changes to Halflings and the silly changes to Gnomes (Bards?), both completely top-down and unasked for.



By the "unnecessary" changes to halflings, I take you refer to their changed appearance and society? (Because, crunch-wise, they aren't that much different from what's gone before.) A lot of people, myself included, found those changes quite welcome; Tolkien's hobbits make lousy adventurers (Bilbo, Frodo & co. being very much the exception from the norm), and it's a bother to keep figuring why all these pudgy homebodies are going out to risk life and limb as rogues. 

Gnomes, I can sympathize with you (insofar as I care about them  ). IMO, Wizard would be a better favored class for gnomes, with bard or sorcerer fitting the elves nicely.



> The whole silly 3.5 edition thing. A .5 edition? I still can't understand it except as a way to make people buy their rule books all over again.



It was a bit clumsily handled, but IMO a good thing. 3.5 fixed some clear problems and generally improved the game.



> The apparently massive 4th edition re-working of the game, that promises to be compatible with NO previous edition. This way, you'll have to re-purchase ALL of your books. Once again. Just what everybody never asked for.



With the information we have at this point, it's impossible to tell with any certainty how easy or hard it is to convert material and characters from previous editions into the 4th ed. As for "having to re-purchase your books", nobody is coming to your house, burning down your gaming library, smashing your dice and forcing you, at gunpoint, to buy 4th edition. And no matter what you think, WotC has to address the new gamers as well, who are going to need all the stuff you already have, and more.



> Oh, and lets not forget the fervent denials that 4th edition was anywhere on the horizon.



The "fervent denials" thing has been addressed elsewhere, several times by now.



> The destruction of Dragon magazine, with the rise of the Digital Initiative. One wonders to what extent 4th edition will be "crippleware" that requires the monthly subscription to be usable.



To the best of my knowledge, the extent will be zero. DI is intended to enhance your game; it's not required. As for the "destruction" of _Dragon_, it's going to be available online.



> Funny thing is, I really believe that WOTC started out with the best of intentions towards D&D. But you know what they say about the road to gaming hell...



And I really believe you believe that. But that doesn't necessarily make your opinion correct, or well-informed.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 9, 2007)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> It's paved with d4s ?




And the old-school sharp-edged ones too!


----------



## Clavis (Sep 9, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> And I really believe you believe that. But that doesn't necessarily make your opinion correct, or well-informed.




Of course not. It's my opinion. I don't have access to the mind of any WOTC employee, any of the company's internal memos, or the company balance sheets. All I can do is observe from the outside. Doubtless, at least of some what I now believe about any subject will be proven wrong. With regard to the future of D&D, I HOPE I'm wrong.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 9, 2007)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Now, I am not sure I get this anime definition that floats around (since lot of people dont seem to agree.), however, would a cartoon with teenagers with supermartial and supernatural abilities, magical armors and spiked hair qualify for anime?
> 
> If so, the spiked chain existed 20+ years ago, when i saw the cartoon. It was called "Les Chevaliers du Zodiaque" in french, but it was a asian cartoon.
> 
> EDIT: There we go, its called Saint Seiya, from 86 IMDB LINK



Oh, Saint Seiya. Yeah, that is an anime. I never saw more than half of a single episode of it though, but I remember seeing chains. No _spiked_ chains though (huge difference), and the chains the one guy had seemed to be functioning as a divining tool from what I saw... Not that I know much about the series. It seems old and campy, and unless you are a kid, something like that is hard to swallow without a good dose of nostalgia. I mean, it probably isn't very different from Ronin Warriors, which I loved as a kid, but mostly like out of nostalgia now.

As a side note, Ronin Warriors is the exact anime I was thinking about when I mentioned that anime doesn't need the Spiked Chain because it has the Kusari-Gama.

As for good fantasy anime...
*Record of Lodoss War* The OVA is higher quality, but the TV series isn't bad.
*Berserk* The anime is _very_ incomplete, so get the manga. Is not for kids or work safe _at all_.
*The Twelve Kingdoms* The result of a Japanese author unfamiliar with fantasy being told to make a fantasy story... Very different from D&D fantasy, but it is one of my favorite anime series of all time.
*Fushigi Yugi* Also not D&D style fantasy, and is also a _shoujo_ anime (girl's anime) focused on a girl and her group of magical prettyboys. I wish I could find more than the first few DVDs of this...
*Scrapped Princess* This is D&D fantasy with a distinct twist.
*Tsubasa* and *xxxHolic*, two stories about world-hopping heroes and myths in the modern world, respectively, are quite good (though I am making this recommendation based on the manga, not the anime). Tsubasa might be a bit unaproachable unless you have a good background in anime and manga made by CLAMP though...

Arguably, a few other good anime/manga series, like the brilliant *Fullmetal Alchemist*, qualify as fantasy.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 9, 2007)

*Record of Lodoss War* -- D&D as we think it should be played.

*Slayers* -- D&D as we actually play it.

(The latter is a comedy.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 9, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain why if anything is derived from anime/WoW (even if it has a non-existent connection) it seems like there is opposition not based on the concept itself but from where it comes from?



Why did people hate New Coke?

Why do people hate Fergie?

Why do people hate Uwe Boll movies?


----------



## Ghendar (Sep 9, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Ignoring the cloudwatching quote, except to say "it doesn't mean what you think it means; it's just a bad wording"...
> .




Can you back that up with proof? Not saying you're wrong and trying to "call you out" but I'd like to see real tangible written proof that the wording is wrong and that's not really what Noonan meant.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 9, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> The ever-expanding rule-set, all of which has official sanction. Try to tell some players that they can't play a Thri-Kreen Duskblade/Warlock/Psion with two +6 double-bladed swords, and and they will throw a fit.




Man, I wouldn't let a player touch this build. He'd be a total drain on the party's resources, and the player would have nothing to do but miss with his swords or use a low level invocation or power. Not cool. This has to be like the worst optimized build ever. No synergy whatsoever. Thrikeen are awesome dual-wielders. Duskblades are BAD at two weapon fighting, and the warlock and psion levels don't really seem to add much (not much combat buffing potential, save the Eldritch Glaive). Nor do they add to each other if, for some reason, they're going mostly caster (which would be weird, since you're a thrikreen). 

I mean, let's not even get into the +6 swords; ONE of those will run you ~1440k, and two will really break the bank .


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 10, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> *Record of Lodoss War* -- D&D as we think it should be played.
> 
> *Slayers* -- D&D as we actually play it.
> 
> ...




Calling Slayers just a comedy does it a disservice. The thing about Slayers is that it can have its very intense/serious moments (e.g. Lina choosing Gourry over the world/Gourry racing after Lina) but they never forget to have fun with the concept.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 10, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Creating combat rules that REQUIRE the use of miniatures.



People keep saying this and I keep trying to find it. As if no-one ever used miniatures before 3E. 



			
				Clavis said:
			
		

> An additional expense, that WOTC will be happy to provide you with. How swell of them.




It is, actually. Lead miniatures cost a lot more than the plastic ones, have to be painted and protected, and more than a few handfulls is too heavy to bring to the game. 



			
				Clavis said:
			
		

> The totally unnecessary changes to Halflings and the silly changes to Gnomes (Bards?), both completely top-down and unasked for.




Those are flavor changes, easily house-ruled. In my campaign, all elves have less than a 15% difference among themselves; they all look like they are closely related and a lot of times it's hard to differenciate their sexes. One line, and I totally change how elves are perceived and how they fit into the game world. All the flavor stuff in the PHB is just a suggestion.

I guess you've missed all the posts describing the gnome as a fifth wheel. Wizards has an entire department devoted to nothing more than trying to find out just what people do want. I strongly suspect that what most people do want does not coincide with what you yourself want.


----------



## Hammerhead (Sep 10, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> People keep saying this and I keep trying to find it. As if no-one ever used miniatures before 3E.




I've been in numerous D&D games, and the only one I've seen that really used miniatures* was a 1e game. 

*For my first 3e game I ran, I bought minis of all the player characters, then used counters/pennys/whatever for the bad guys.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 10, 2007)

While I am sure that miniatures, gnomes, and cloudwatching are all important to people, arn't they a bit off topic for this thread? This thread is about new fantasy, not overall 4E changes, and there are other threads to discuss those exact things. It is beginning to clutter this thread up...


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> From David Noonan:
> "So you've got time. We're going to reveal more and more of the game as time goes on, both here on the wizards site, in the preview books, and at D&D Experience (Feb. 28 to March 3 in DC). But all those individual "reveals" are clouds in the sky. You can admire the clouds' beauty or shake your fists at them, but they're just going to keep moving across the sky anyway.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with cloud-watching. If you're a farmer, you need to watch the clouds at least a little. (Maybe DMs are like farmers, but that might be straining the metaphor.) But farmers know that no amount of cloudwatching will bring the rain. (And don't mention cloud-seeding; it messes up the metaphor.)
> ...




In other words, everything we're seeing right now is just small bits and pieces without any context.  Some people read snippets and go off on lengthy tangents about how the game is going to be.  I took Noonan as saying, don't sweat it too much, wait and see.  I fail to see how this is very insulting.  



> There is a real lack of respect for D&D players that is being evinced by WOTC, similar to the later TSR. The problem with TSR started with the release of the 2nd edition rules themselves, when TSR decided for everybody that they didn't need Half-Orcs, Assassins, Demons or Devils because those things were for naughty children.  In the mid-90s, TSR began releasing endless supplements that "empowered" players. However, even though the supplements were supposed to be optional, they tended to become core and expected parts of the game. This was a deliberate attempt to increase sales of game materials. Soon everybody needed a PC with a kit, skills and powers, and gaming material was written with the assumption you were using that nonsense. Examples of top-down decisions from TSR include the massive crap they took on Greyhawk (for example: "From Their A$$es", I mean "From The Ashes") just to spite Gygax.




Never mind that there are a number of vocal gamers who LIKE From the Ashes.  Not me, granted, but, different strokes and all that.  This also ignores things like the fact that in 1e THERE WAS NO CORE.  Every book was 100% official and there was no guidelines stating that Book X trumps Book Y.  Thus you had arguments that brought in Dragon articles and Unearthed Arcana and the like that just went around and around in circles.  Sorry, power creep was more than alive and well in 1e era as well.  



> Some parallel actions from WOTC include:
> 
> Creating combat rules that REQUIRE the use of miniatures. An additional expense, that WOTC will be happy to provide you with. How swell of them.




You never played 1e with a protractor and a piece of string?  You missed out.  



> The ever-expanding rule-set, all of which has official sanction. Try to tell some players that they can't play a Thri-Kreen Duskblade/Warlock/Psion with two +6 double-bladed swords, and and they will throw a fit.




Yeah, because my Priest of Kossuth that could summon Fire Elementals (2e) at 5th level wasn't overpowered at all.  Or my Paladin using the Cavalier rules from Unearthed Arcana (1e).  Or my double spec'ed fighter getting extra attacks and +3 to hit and damage at 1st level.  Or...



> The totally unnecessary changes to Halflings and the silly changes to Gnomes (Bards?), both completely top-down and unasked for.




Really?  Unasked for by you perhaps.  However, I'm thinking that you might be in a minority position there.



> The whole silly 3.5 edition thing. A .5 edition? I still can't understand it except as a way to make people buy their rule books all over again.




There are easily as many rule changes between 3e and 3.5 as there was between 1e and 2e.  



> The apparently massive 4th edition re-working of the game, that promises to be compatible with NO previous edition. This way, you'll have to re-purchase ALL of your books. Once again. Just what everybody never asked for. Oh, and lets not forget the fervent denials that 4th edition was anywhere on the horizon.




There you have a point.  When 3e came out, the hobby was gasping on its deathbed.  Crap rules had choked the life out of the game and a new rules set was greeted with open arms.  4e has some massively huge shoes to fill.



> The destruction of Dragon magazine, with the rise of the Digital Initiative. One wonders to what extent 4th edition will be "crippleware" that requires the monthly subscription to be usable.
> 
> Just some examples.
> 
> Funny thing is, I really believe that WOTC started out with the best of intentions towards D&D. But you know what they say about the road to gaming hell...




As far as Dragon and Dungeon go, well, people forget that both magazines were on life support a few years ago and Paizo managed to bring them back.  Well done them.  But, both magazines only reached a very, very small number of gamers.  The hope is that D&DI will reach a much wider audience.  Whether this pans out or not remains to be seen.  But, considering they've already stated that online material will be made available offline, the conspiracy theory rumourmongering isn't helping.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> While I am sure that miniatures, gnomes, and cloudwatching are all important to people, arn't they a bit off topic for this thread? This thread is about new fantasy, not overall 4E changes, and there are other threads to discuss those exact things. It is beginning to clutter this thread up...




Good point.  Sorry, got off on a tangent there.  My bad.


----------



## Mad Mac (Sep 10, 2007)

Ah, Slayers. I really enjoyed the show when I first watched it, but I have a hard time seeing it the same way after watching this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZVP1qwteTI

  Maybe it's just because Xellos fits the part so freakishly well. Lousy munchkin DM NPCs....  

  And yeah, the spiked chain isn't bad because it's anime. It's bad because they took a perfectly functional historical weapon and added spikes for no paticular reason. 

  As far as the relationship between over the top action and anime...I can see a connection, clearly. The thing is, when I was a youngun playing D&D who hadn't even seen anime yet, my characters were already jumping all over the place and pulling wild stunts in my imagination. I'd say it's much more a case of anime meshing with my established tastes than anime influencing my love of action. I'd pin my influences when I started playing more on comic books, american cartoons, fantasy novels, and Street Fighter.


----------



## coyote6 (Sep 10, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Why do people hate Uwe Boll movies?




They inflict negative levels on viewers.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2007)

Mad Mac - I can agree with that.  Over the top action has been a part of gaming for AGES.  Heck, I love Errol Flynn movies.  There's over the top action right there.  Jackie Chan as well.  

Much of the themes people talk about here can be traced back an awful lot further than anime.  Heck, Peter Pan kills a roomful of pirates and then flies away.  Odysseus fires arrows through axeheads.  Biblical characters level cities.

The idea of massively powerful humans is hardly a new one.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 10, 2007)

Personally, I'm a fan of any new fantasy works that promote Gnome love.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 10, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Oh, Saint Seiya. Yeah, that is an anime. I never saw more than half of a single episode of it though, but I remember seeing chains. No spiked chains though (huge difference), and the chains the one guy had seemed to be functioning as a divining tool from what I saw... Not that I know much about the series. It seems old and campy, and unless you are a kid, something like that is hard to swallow without a good dose of nostalgia. I mean, it probably isn't very different from Ronin Warriors, which I loved as a kid, but mostly like out of nostalgia now.




Yeah, one of the main characters uses a his spiked chain as a divining tool from time to time.

Either way, a chain with a (at least) spike qualifies as a spiked chain? /shrug, I am totally clueless when it comes to weapons, maybe I made the wrong assumption.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 10, 2007)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Thanks, I have been looking for a list of good animated fantasy cartoons. Wanna add any more to it?




scraped princess is kindof interesting.


----------



## shilsen (Sep 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Much of the themes people talk about here can be traced back an awful lot further than anime.  Heck, Peter Pan kills a roomful of pirates and then flies away.  Odysseus fires arrows through axeheads.  Biblical characters level cities.
> 
> The idea of massively powerful humans is hardly a new one.




That's precisely what I've always maintained. D&D can do anime and it can do fantasy and it can do grim-and-gritty (with more difficulty) and a bunch of other things with some tweaking. But right out of the box, what it really does and does well is mythic. Look at the Iliad, the Mahabharata, the Eddas, the Mabinogion ... and so on. The characters there and their capabilities are what D&D maps to very well. D&D does Cuchulainn far more than Conan.


----------



## RFisher (Sep 10, 2007)

The funny thing is, every time I pick up my copy of BESM, something about it turns me off. I think it is the anime, which is strange, because I _like_ anime.

(So, normal English style is to italicize foreign words. (Just as in Japanese, BTW, they write foreign borrowings like "anime" in katakana instead of kanji or hiragana.) But what if you're writing a word that you're borrowing back from a foreign language that borrowed it from English? (^_^))



			
				psionotic said:
			
		

> Spot-on here.  The better a ruleset is, the more it will allow vastly different campaign styles and character choices, I says.




For a long time I was in the "generic" camp. These days, though, I tend to think that both generic mechanics & rules tied to a genre/setting have their place.

& frankly, I think there's a reason that games like D&D--that split the difference--seem to do best.

(Likewise, I think Wizards was smart not to make d20 into a truly generic system, but to present it as a toolkit for building non-generic games.)


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 10, 2007)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Yeah, one of the main characters uses a his spiked chain as a divining tool from time to time.
> 
> Either way, a chain with a (at least) spike qualifies as a spiked chain? /shrug, I am totally clueless when it comes to weapons, maybe I made the wrong assumption.




No, it doesn't.  The character in Saint Seiya, Shun (the Andromeda Saint), uses a series of chains for weapons that end in a weights, but they aren't particularly sharp (though one of them is pointed).  He (and yes, it is a guy) uses them to bind enemies, strike them and electrocute them primarily.  Shun's chains are a direct descendant of the chains used in the kusari-gama...except that instead of a small bladed scythe, the other end is simply has a sharpened point.

The D&D spiked chain is purely a WotC fictional invention, afaik.  Particularly with representation to it's wonky combat abilities (It's a melee weapon! It's a reach weapon!  It's BOTH!)

Here's a mini with the spiked chain, by way of comparison with Andromeda's armor.










And in case you're wondering, while I liked the anime back in 1986 (in the same way I liked Dragonball Z) I can't STAND the abortive attempts to bring it to the US.  Any of them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm a fan of any new fantasy works that promote Gnome love.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 10, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Ah, Slayers. I really enjoyed the show when I first watched it, but I have a hard time seeing it the same way after watching this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZVP1qwteTI
> 
> Maybe it's just because Xellos fits the part so freakishly well. Lousy munchkin DM NPCs....
> 
> .




Heh, I can top this...So good but so wrong....


----------



## Nifft (Sep 10, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> The D&D spiked chain is purely a WotC fictional invention, afaik.  Particularly with representation to it's wonky combat abilities (It's a melee weapon! It's a reach weapon!  It's BOTH!)



 I always thought the spiked chain was just a poorly visualized kusari-gama.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 10, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I always thought the spiked chain was just a poorly visualized kusari-gama.




Well, now you know better. 

It might have started out that way, at one point...but a Kusari-Gama would do either bludgeoning (at range) or slashing damage....not Piercing like the spiked chain does and at a range of up to 10'.  In fact, the weighted end of the weapon was really only ever used for snaring an enemy's weapon, rarely for damage, which also invalidates the comparison.

And the Kusari-gama sure as heck didn't weigh *TEN POUNDS.*  Yikes.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 10, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> not Piercing like the spiked chain does and at a range of up to 10'.  In fact, the weighted end of the weapon was really only ever used for snaring an enemy's weapon, rarely for damage, which also invalidates the comparison.



 Oh, no doubt they're different.

I'm just saying that the k-g shared some properties with the 3.5e spiked chain:
1/ Effective at 10 ft. and up close;
2/ Good for tripping & disarming;
3/ Exotic; and
4/ Involves chain.

The piercing damage thing never made ANY sense to me.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 10, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't. The character in Saint Seiya, Shun (the Andromeda Saint), uses a series of chains for weapons that end in a weights, but they aren't particularly sharp (though one of them is pointed). He (and yes, it is a guy) uses them to bind enemies, strike them and electrocute them primarily. Shun's chains are a direct descendant of the chains used in the kusari-gama...except that instead of a small bladed scythe, the other end is simply has a sharpened point.




Yeah, fair enough. I must admit that i couldnt recall precisely how the chain was. Havent seen the show since 87-88. I even had it on connected with the blonde one, the Knight of the Swan, but I seem to recall now that he was all about cold attacks 

Either way, I would still maintain that WoTC designers could have been inspired by said cartoon.

Cheers


----------



## Clavis (Sep 10, 2007)

I wonder how many people are setting up a false dichotomy with regard to anime and D&D. The whole conversation isn't necessarily between the camps of "I love anime and what more of that style of action and D&D" and "I hate anime and keep anything to do with it away from D&D". How about the camp that generally likes Japanese animation, and yet still thinks that its aesthetic doesn't really make a good fit with D&D? By way of a metaphor, I love curry, but that doesn't mean I think curry ice-cream is a good idea.

I also think that anime must not be confused with modern fantasy. I would argue that the most important modern fantasists are J.K. Rowling and Neil Gaiman, not any particular Japenese anime.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 10, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> I wonder how many people are setting up a false dichotomy with regard to anime and D&D.



 All the ones who aren't having fun. 

Many folks here seem to know enough about anime to recognize that the base argument ("4e is too anime!") is fallacious.

However, like the previous strawman ("3e is too video game!"), there's a baby / bathwater situation, because both video games and anime are contemporary entertainment media, and probably have a lot to offer contemporary audiences. We mine fiction and movies for ideas all the time, why not mine video games and anime?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> I would argue that the most important modern fantasists are J.K. Rowling and Neil Gaiman, not any particular Japenese anime.




How would you possibly argue that? Gaiman is a genius who has contributed a significant amount to the fantasy genre, so yeah, completely with you there, Rowling, on the other hand, is an ignoramus regarding fantasy as a genre (literally, her conception of fantasy begins and ends with The Lord of the Rings - Practically from her own admission), and whilst her fantasy series was popular, she has both denied it is fantasy, and then later, claimed she's "revolutionized the genre", when in fact what she's writing is functionally identical to stuff written decades before, none of which was hailed as revolutionary (the "Worst Witch" books, for example). That she is popular does not mean she is "important" to a genre, especially when she's outright denied being part of that genre and denounced the genre on the basis of her own stolid ignorance.

However, you are right to question whether "anime" and "WoW" have anything to do with "new fantasy". They do not. Anime is a style of animation and art, and to some degree, stereotypical plots. Much of it is sci-fi or "weird" or even "day-to-day", and whilst it engages with fantasies, frequently, only a certain subsection could be termed "fantasy". Similarly, WoW is not "new fantasy", it's just extremely dervative "old fantasy" put in a pink dress and some lipstick and sent to the prom.

WoW, as MMORPG, is arguably a very fun, excellently designed game (or a horrible piece of derivative trash, depending on who you ask). However it does not advance fantasy as a genre ONE SINGLE FOOT. There is nothing original in WoW, no uniqueness, no smart ideas. It's success comes in large part from it's familiarity, it's simplicity, and it's derivative nature - What does it have to teach D&D? That's debatable, but it sure as hell isn't "new fantasy".

New fantasy, I would argue, is fantasy written in the last five to ten years by new authors, from China Mieville's _Perdido Street Station_, to Greg Keyes "_Kingdoms of Bone _ and Thorn", to Scott Lynch's "_Locke Lamora_" cycle, to Joe Abercrombie's "_First Law_" books, and many many others - all of these books include tropes and ideas not yet really seen in fantasy RPGs much. That's NEW FANTASY, not EQ-derivative MMORPGs (which in turn was severely AD&D derivative). You could also argue the LotR movies were "new fantasy", but they were such a timeless vision of old fantasy novels that I would question that.

So the disdain isn't for "new fantasy", that's misleading spin.

The disdain is for EQ-derivative MMORPGs and apparently for a Japanese animation style - and the disdain is strong because many people loathe derivative MMORPGs with very good reason. They're basically designed to hypnotize the stupid, and keep you mindlessly "advancing your character" forever. There's a lot that's "forced" and "fixed" about them - people don't want to see that in D&D because_ it's not fun_.

Anime is a bit vague, to be honest. Lots of people hate Japanese animation because the vast majority of it that reaches western shores is extremely cliched, often creepy (in a bad way), and frequently extremely childish and child-oriented, which would be fine, if the westerners pushing it as "great entertainment" weren't 20-somethings who should know better (eg. Naruto, One Piece, etc. - all of which have some value being watched a handful of times, I admit). People who hate it are often unclear on what exactly it is they hate.

Some people hate the aesthetics. That's a matter of taste. I've seen anime that was beautiful and anime that's utterly hideous, so I don't think generalizing about the visual aesthetic is terribly helpful. It's all personal, though - for example, I really hate Akira Toriyama's work (if I have that name right), but I can see that the man has talent. I just don't want to look at his designs.

Some people hate the "Over the top anime action", which is similar in nature to so-called "wuxia" and so on. I think it's fine to hate that, but players want to do cool things, and so hate should not blind you to the odd cool thing worth stealing, nor should the baby be thrown out with the bathwater.

Other people just hate the stupid cliches and general "low-IQ" nature of most anime that reaches the West. I'm one of them so I don't feel I'm qualified to be reasonable on that.

Anyway, TLDR of it is: WoW + Anime IS NOT THE NEW FANTASY. WoW is ultra-derivative old fantasy, and anime is an animation style.

Edited in:



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> We mine fiction and movies for ideas all the time, why not mine video games and anime?




I quite agree - the worry is that one is mining uranium without any protection, though 

Sure it glows pretty, but it'll kill ya in the end.

I'm all for mining WoW for "neato" ideas - they did it to Warhammer and D&D, after all, amongst other sources. I just think one needs to be careful not to sweepingly include MMORPG elements in the haste to "learn from" or "mine" something. It could be very bad.

On the other hand, I don't _think_ WotC will screw this one up.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Other people just hate the stupid cliches and general "low-IQ" nature of most anime that reaches the West. I'm one of them so I don't feel I'm qualified to be reasonable on that.
> .






  I don't think "most anime that reaches the west" is a very good phrase to use at this point. A LOT of anime has now reached the west, far more than just Pokemon and DBZ, and much of it is excellent.

  Evangelion, Haibane-Renmei, Serial Experiements: Lain, RahXephon, Outlaw Star, the .//hack series, Fullmetal Alchemist, FLCL, Gilgamesh, Miyazaki's works, Get Backers, Melody of Oblivion, Kenshin, Boogiepop Phantom, and many others are availble here, that are neither low-IQ or primarily aimed at children. 

 I am not trying to attack or anything, I just dont think trying to not say "all anime" by refering to "what has reached the west" doesnt really work very well at this point.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Rowling, on the other hand, is an ignoramus regarding fantasy as a genre (literally, her conception of fantasy begins and ends with The Lord of the Rings - Practically from her own admission), and whilst her fantasy series was popular, she has both denied it is fantasy, and then later, claimed she's "revolutionized the genre", when in fact what she's writing is functionally identical to stuff written decades before, none of which was hailed as revolutionary (the "Worst Witch" books, for example). That she is popular does not mean she is "important" to a genre, especially when she's outright denied being part of that genre and denounced the genre on the basis of her own stolid ignorance.




Wait, Rowlings actually said HP wasn't fantasy-fiction? What the hell is it then?

Sounds like Margaret Atwood who basically denies that "A Handmaiden's Tale" isn't classified as science fiction. Then again, most non-gamers I've met who've read "A Handmaiden's Tale" or "A brave New World" don't consider it science fiction. To them, who I'd argue represent a more common cross-section of the general population, science fiction must have rayguns, space aliens and starships.

To me, it sounds like the general public views science/fantasy fiction in the same way many gamers view anime and MMORPGs


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I don't think "most anime that reaches the west" is a very good phrase to use at this point. A LOT of anime has now reached the west, far more than just Pokemon and DBZ, and much of it is excellent.
> 
> Evangelion, Haibane-Renmei, Serial Experiements: Lain, RahXephon, Outlaw Star, the .//hack series, Fullmetal Alchemist, FLCL, Gilgamesh, Miyazaki's works, Get Backers, Melody of Oblivion, Kenshin, Boogiepop Phantom, and many others are availble here, that are neither low-IQ or primarily aimed at children.
> 
> I am not trying to attack or anything, I just dont think trying to not say "all anime" by refering to "what has reached the west" doesnt really work very well at this point.




Ah, but some of that I would very much include in my definition of cliche-ridden, low-IQ pap. Outlaw Star and .//hack very definately. .//hack makes it's position even worse by being deeply pretentious and faux-deep, when it's actually puddle-like in it's depth, at least based on the first series. I was quite excited by the concept when I heard about it, I admit.

Serial Experiments Lain, Cowboy Bebop, FLCL, Miyazaki's stuff and NGE and the like, I certainly wouldn't degrade or insult in any way. My question is whether this stuff sells more or less copies than pap like Naruto, or Inuyasha, or that one with the vampire (grrr name escapes me), or DBZ or what have you? Do as many people see it? It seems like when I come across people keen to "push" anime, whilst they mention the "better" anime frequently, 90% of what they're "watching now" is the crap. Which is a little confusing. Perhaps only I'm confused though. Wouldn't be the first time.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Wait, Rowlings actually said HP wasn't fantasy-fiction? What the hell is it then?




That's exactly what she said early on. I can probably even link an example if demanded.

Later she changed her position. For example in an interview with Time, she instead says that has "revolutionized" fantasy, and she goes on in the hilarious fashion that makes it 100% clear that she regards _all fantasy _ as LotR, and has not read, nor come across, any post-LotR fantasy.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> People who hate it are often unclear on what exactly it is they hate.



Fixed it for you...

I'll say it again, the idea that the (mostly alleged) influence of anime on D&D will make the game less _dignified_ and _realistic_ is pretty funny.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 10, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> That's precisely what I've always maintained. D&D can do anime and it can do fantasy and it can do grim-and-gritty (with more difficulty) and a bunch of other things with some tweaking. But right out of the box, what it really does and does well is mythic. Look at the Iliad, the Mahabharata, the Eddas, the Mabinogion ... and so on. The characters there and their capabilities are what D&D maps to very well. D&D does Cuchulainn far more than Conan.



Actually, I have always argued that D&D doesn't quite do enough to emulate ancient myth. Mythic warriors have truly super-human power (fitting, since many are demigods or the avatars of gods), power that is on an entirely different order of magnitude than most videogames or anime, let alone Tolkien-style fantasy. After all, the classic mythic set-up is that a single warrior kills the dragon himself (even Tolkien did this), but D&D is set up so that it is impossible.

Since my fandom of ancient myth predates my interest in anime by a significant degree (and probably goes back to the same time I got into videogame RPGs with Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy 4), I really would like to see D&D work more towards the mythic.

I would like to see more Cuchulainn, Arthur, Heracles, Rama, Hanuman, Odysseus, Finn MacCumhail, and Beowulf in D&D. I would like to see more historical magical and alchemical concepts, like the tarot, Goetic magic, and Hermetic magic. I would like to see more like the great Chinese novels Journey into the West, Water Margin, or Romance of the Three Kingdoms in D&D. I would like to see more Final Fantasy, Fire Emblem, and Suikoden (double counting!) in D&D.

I would probably be happy if there was less emphasis on post-Tolkien and Lovecraftian fiction in D&D, myself. I would be _very_ happy if there was less Star Wars and other science fiction in D&D (I see elements of that creeping up now and then).


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> ...Serial Experiments Lain...NGE...



I like the former and positively adore the latter (easily in my top five  SF/F works), but they're both pretentious.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Fixed it for you...
> 
> I'll say it again, the idea that the (mostly alleged) influence of anime on D&D will make the game less _dignified_ and _realistic_ is pretty funny.




Good correction, because that is generally true. However, whilst it's easy to mock, and funny, I don't think it's quite fair. D&D's style of unrealistic fantasy has traditionally be slower-paced, with a bit more gravitas than your average fantasy anime (which is often extremely humour-oriented, like Ruin Explorers and Slayers), and features a lot less jumping around and shrieking, and a lot more quietly creeping down corridors and so on. It's definately a different style. People who complain about "realism", though, are definately a little confused. This game has hit points, for god's sake!



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> I like the former and positively adore the latter (easily in my top five  SF/F works), but they're both pretentious.




I'm not sure NGE is as pretentious as it comes across to Western eyes, because all the Biblical stuff is comparable to us doing, I dunno, Greek Gods, and I wonder how seriously Japanese anime viewers took it - I doubt it was remotely as serious as some anime-fans over here. Lain is a pretentious, but it gets away with it by being high quality in a way that .//hack isn't - Don't get me wrong, I wanted to like .//hack, but it was just too faux-deep and teenage-angsty. At least NGE's teenage angst is genuinely stuff that stresses kids out (like Kenshi's sexual orientation confusion).


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I like the former and positively adore the latter (easily in my top five  SF/F works), but they're both pretentious.





  I'm not really a big believer in the concept of "pretentious"

Lain and Eva both deal with BIG major philosophic and pyschological concepts (quite a few of the same ones in fact), and they act accordingly. 

  It would be hard to deal with those things in that format without being what some call "pretentious"


----------



## Clavis (Sep 10, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I would probably be happy if there was less emphasis on post-Tolkien and Lovecraftian fiction in D&D, myself. I would be _very_ happy if there was less Star Wars and other science fiction in D&D (I see elements of that creeping up now and then).




Interestingly, D&D has had science-fiction (or in this case science-fantasy) in it from the VERY beginning. After all, before even Greyhawk there was Blackmoor, where magic was ultimately just misunderstood high technology. Expedition To the Barrier Peaks brought science fantasy to Greyhawk, and the First Edition DMG had rules for converting Gamma World and Boot Hill characters to AD&D stats, and vice-versa.

To be true to its own pedigree, D&D MUST have a place for science-fantasy ideas.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> The disdain is for EQ-derivative MMORPGs and apparently for a Japanese animation style - and the disdain is strong because many people loathe derivative MMORPGs with very good reason. They're basically designed to hypnotize the stupid, and keep you mindlessly "advancing your character" forever. There's a lot that's "forced" and "fixed" about them - people don't want to see that in D&D because_ it's not fun_.




I'm not sure I'd characterize 9 million people as hypnotized and stupid for enjoying a game and playstyle you do not, but that's just me.  Clearly there's something that people enjoy about MMORPGs; whether that has any correlation to pen-and-paper RPGs is another question entirely.  Does Second Life have anything to offer?  A Tale in the Desert?  Puzzle Pirates?  Lineage II?  

I'm not questioning that some people don't like MMOs or Wow in particular.  I've never played WoW, though several of my players do.  I wouldn't suggest that WoW is the route for D&D to go, but I also wouldn't suggest that WoW has nothing to offer D&D, either.  I think it's a disservice to WoW to represent it as nothing more than a cheap knock-off of 'real games' and full of BadWrongFun.

Mind you, I've yet to see a concrete example of how D&D 4e is, in any way, being influenced by WoW.  Every time someone brings up an example, it gets quickly shot down by people who've been playing RPGs for 30+ years.  Just like the idea that power-gaming was invented by 3e.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer, did you just insult .hack//SIGN as shallow? And praise Neon Genesis Evangelion as deep?  

I guess I can say I _really_ disagree with your opinions of anime, and find a lot of your comments about how people should "know better" to be very rude. You should pull back on the elitist attitude a lot.

Fantasy exists for one purpose: entertainment. If people are being entertained by what they watch, than you have no right to call what they are watching "crap". As such, for me at least, a lot of what you call "crap" has far more value than what you seem to favor.

I don't even recognize the names or titles of what you are claiming to be the "new" fantasy. It is obvious they are novels, at least, but that is all I know about them. Of course, I only know the names Moorcock, Lieber, and Vance because they keep coming up on these forums, and most fantasy novels are horribly boring to me these days, so I am probably not one to talk about fantasy novels...

All I cna say is that it is highly flawed to hold up such a limited set of novels which are not widely known, and call that the "new fantasy", disregarding the value of everything else.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I'm not really a big believer in the concept of "pretentious"



Having been pretentious for most of my life, I am, since I firmly believe in believing in oneself...



> Lain and Eva both deal with BIG major philosophic and pyschological concepts (quite a few of the same ones in fact), and they act accordingly.



Setting Lain aside for a moment... Evangelion can be summed up as 'it's the Apocalypse because I am sad (and lonely and indecisive)', which, for my money, is one of the savviest things ever said about the human condition in work of science fiction. The philosophizing and name-dropping are just decoration, IMHO.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> How would you possibly argue that? Gaiman is a genius who has contributed a significant amount to the fantasy genre, so yeah, completely with you there, Rowling, on the other hand, is an ignoramus regarding fantasy as a genre (literally, her conception of fantasy begins and ends with The Lord of the Rings - Practically from her own admission), and whilst her fantasy series was popular, she has both denied it is fantasy, and then later, claimed she's "revolutionized the genre", when in fact what she's writing is functionally identical to stuff written decades before, none of which was hailed as revolutionary (the "Worst Witch" books, for example). That she is popular does not mean she is "important" to a genre, especially when she's outright denied being part of that genre and denounced the genre on the basis of her own stolid ignorance.




By way of explanation, I wasn't addressing the literary qualities of Rowling's work. I was only making an observation of its importance for our culture. Derivative or not, badly written or not, Rowling's work is going to influence a whole generation's ideas about what magic is, how mythological beings "work", and what the great questions addressed in fantasy are. 

Howard addressed the tension between civilization and the raw energy of nature. Tolkein addressed how human beings are corrupted by power. Rowling's work is ultimately about authority and its abuse. Whether or not she did a good job of it, my feeling is that a whole generation of new readers is going to read fantasy through the lens provided by Rowling.

Its like watching clouds....


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Having been pretentious for most of my life, I am, since I firmly believe in believing in oneself...
> 
> 
> Setting Lain aside for a moment... Evangelion can be summed up as 'it's the Apocalypse because I am sad (and lonely and indecisive)', which, for my money, is one of the savviest things ever said about the human condition in work of science fiction. The philosophizing and name-dropping are just decoration, IMHO.





Yea, I hear that a lot. I dont really agree at all, on various levels, but I don't want to totally derail the thread over it.

  To me "pretentious" is to pretend at, or feign something. Lain and Eva don't pretend to be about big stuff...they actually are, one way or other.

  Pretentious would be DBZ trying to act like its philosophical.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 10, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Interestingly, D&D has had science-fiction (or in this case science-fantasy) in it from the VERY beginning. After all, before even Greyhawk there was Blackmoor, where magic was ultimately just misunderstood high technology. Expedition To the Barrier Peaks brought science fantasy to Greyhawk, and the First Edition DMG had rules for converting Gamma World and Boot Hill characters to AD&D stats, and vice-versa.
> 
> To be true to its own pedigree, D&D MUST have a place for science-fantasy ideas.



I am not disagreeing. Keep in mind, I listed Final Fantasy as something I think D&D should be like, and in Final Fantasy 1 there are giant war robots, talking robots, and a techological flying castle. Those elements keep coming back, too. Omega in FF5, the Tower of Babel and Lunarian civilization of FF4... Also, I listed Scrapped Princess as a good fantasy anime. If you havn't seen it, imagine a fantasy world which is entirely a construct of an advanced alien civilization which defeated mankind, and this world exists only to serve as a prison for humans, forcefully keeping them at a low technological level, and powerful technological weapon systems called "dragons" are trying to help humans break free.

So, I have no objection to science fiction elements as such expicitly showing up in D&D. I mostly have a problem with "alien" entities or elements found primarily in sci-fi being used as inspiration for the _fantastic_ elements, rather than remaining explicitly sci-fi. Stuff like basing a new race on something you would see in Star Trek, rather than on something from a fantasy work.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Ruin Explorer, did you just insult .hack//SIGN as shallow? And praise Neon Genesis Evangelion as deep?
> 
> [snip]
> 
> ...




I can call anything I like crap, matey. You like Days Of Our Lives? Doesn't stop it being trash  You like Big Macs? Doesn't stop them being low-grade food that's basically bad for you. I don't criticise the enjoyment when I call it crap, I criticise the constant attempts to claim that it's not... crap... At least Days Of Our Lives fans aren't say "Wow it's deep man", yet Naruto fans sure are...

As for .//hack vs NGE, let me be clear - I've only seen the first series of .//hack - It was very shallow in that one, and full of unlikely angst. Does it improve? You tell me. Maybe it's just a slow start. Star Trek: TNG's first season was pretty awful, and Buffy's first season was one of it's weakest ones. So, if you're saying that .//hack LATER gets much much better, well, that's cool, maybe I'll give it a second chance - the first season though... oy vey...

You don't know anything about fantasy literature. Good for you. This puts me in a position of advantage over you, though - I've seen most of what you've seen, anime-wise, but you've not read the books I talk about. The ones I mention are ones that expand and improve the fantasy genre, not that mindlessly repeat existing tropes. Most JRPGs and anime fantasy is _all about _ mindlessly repeating existing tropes. That's not necessarily a criticism, but it's quasi-post-modern wankery, not advancement, and it sure as hell isn't "new fantasy". Slayers is a good example of "post-modern-by-accident" self-aware fantasy entirely about extant tropes.

As for "fantasy exists only for entertainment", I disagree, it also exists to expand the mind's horizons, and to illuminate touchy situations that might otherwise be seen in completely political or historical terms without any deeper thought.

Hell, if you thought fantasy was REALLY just about entertainment, you wouldn't give two shakes of a lamb's tail about whether .//hack was good, just whether you enjoyed it personally. Which is it?

_Clavis_ - I dunno, maybe. I suspect what will actually happen is that, in a way, Rowling will get her wish, and people will differentiate between "Harry Potter"-type stuff and "Swords and Sorcery"-type stuff, and that there will not necessarily be a cross-over. I would be willing to bet someone finding the latest edition of D&D in 2020 (if it still exists), even though they were raised reading Harry Potter etc. will find their vision of "fantasy" dominated by D&D, not Potter. Time will tell, though.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I'm not sure NGE is as pretentious as it comes across to Western eyes, because all the Biblical stuff is comparable to us doing, I dunno, Greek Gods, and I wonder how seriously Japanese anime viewers took it - I doubt it was remotely as serious as some anime-fans over here.



That's a good point. The Biblical/Kabbalist/weird physics ('Sea of Dirac') stuff is probably better viewed as a more elaborate form of the decorative use of English words in Japanese branding. It's not really meant to 'deep', just pretty. However, the cumulative effect of all those embellishments in NGE initially made me think the show was mocking just about every other piece of speculative fiction with a philosophical/conspiratorial bent, effectively saying 'this is all a bunch of hooey, truth is, you're lonely and you don't want to be'. Which, having read F/SF all my life, made me love it even more.



> At least NGE's teenage angst is genuinely stuff that stresses kids out (like Kenshi's sexual orientation confusion).



Kidding aside, it's one of the most honest pieces of entertainment I've ever seen. As is FLCL, come to think of it...

Hijack-mode off!


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Lain and Eva don't pretend to be about big stuff...they actually are, one way or other.



Hijack-mode back on!

Eva is about 'big stuff' in an emotional/psychological sense, not an intellectual or metaphysical sense. And by 'big' I basically mean 'honest'.  

edit: actually, by 'big' I meant 'personal'.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

RuinExplorer said:
			
		

> I don't criticise the enjoyment when I call it crap, I criticise the constant attempts to claim that it's not... crap





  This exact type of elitist attitude is what caused me to stop coming to ENworld for almost a year. "crap" is a relative term. If a creative work was made with thought and feeling, and if someone enjoys it and/or is affected or made to think or feel by it, it has value.






> As for "fantasy exists only for entertainment", I disagree, it also exists to expand the mind's horizons, and to illuminate touchy situations that might otherwise be seen in completely political or historical terms without any deeper thought





  Its both. I can be one, or the other, or both at once. And anything that succeeds on either or both levels for someone has meaning and value.





			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Eva is about 'big stuff' in an emotional/psychological sense, not an intellectual or metaphysical sense





Theres a difference? All of that is basically different words for forms of the same thing to me.




> That's a good point. The Biblical/Kabbalist/weird physics ('Sea of Dirac') stuff is probably better viewed as a more elaborate form of the decorative use of English words in Japanese branding. It's not really meant to 'deep', just pretty





Maybe, maybe not. perhaps both.




> However, the cumulative effect of all those embellishments in NGE initially made me think the show was mocking just about every other piece of speculative fiction with a philosophical/conspiratorial bent





Interesting. I never got that, precisely from it but I can see where one might. 

  I tend to take stories on their own terms for the most part. Eva, to me, was being put forth in a serious fashion, and I took it as such.




> And by 'big' I basically mean 'honest'.




  By "big" I mean important, and dealing with non-superficial, lasting and mostly universal problems/issues/ideas/questions. 


  Thats why i dont consider Lain or Eva "pretentious". They don't act like they are something they are not. They are both stories about big/deep/important issues.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> This exact type of elitist attitude is what caused me to stop coming to ENworld for almost a year. "crap" is a relative term. If a creative work was made with thought and feeling, and if someone enjoys it and/or is affected or made to think or feel by it, it has value.




That's precisely it, though. Things like DBZ and Naruto are not made with feeling or thought. They might have started that way, but soon just became "products" to be sold. The mangas that created them probably were, but the animes? Pfffft. Even Naruto fans will tell you about the endless "filler" episoders, which are basically satan crapping on your TV screen.

I don't buy that "enjoyment" gives something value, either. If you go with that, injecting heroin is "valid" because it gives a very great deal of enjoyment. Watching crappy soaps and trash-anime may be enjoyable for you, but it's stifling your imagination and generally melting your brain in a way worse than drugs (albeit one less likely to directly stop your heart, but just as likely to kill you in terms of encouraging a sedentary lifestyle), so I have no respect for it.

I don't think mindlessly labelling any view you object to as "elitist" is an effective argument any more so than calling people one dislikes "facists", either. I'm not pro-elite. I'm pro-art-for-the-masses. It's the opposite of _actual_ elitism.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I can call anything I like crap, matey. You like Days Of Our Lives? Doesn't stop it being trash  You like Big Macs? Doesn't stop them being low-grade food that's basically bad for you. I don't criticise the enjoyment when I call it crap, I criticise the constant attempts to claim that it's not... crap... At least Days Of Our Lives fans aren't say "Wow it's deep man", yet Naruto fans sure are...
> 
> As for .//hack vs NGE, let me be clear - I've only seen the first series of .//hack - It was very shallow in that one, and full of unlikely angst. Does it improve? You tell me. Maybe it's just a slow start. Star Trek: TNG's first season was pretty awful, and Buffy's first season was one of it's weakest ones. So, if you're saying that .//hack LATER gets much much better, well, that's cool, maybe I'll give it a second chance - the first season though... oy vey...
> 
> ...



Do you even know much about .hack? Argh, there is no such thing as a "first" season or not. .hack//SIGN is a standalone series (presumably the "first season" you ramble on about), and also functions as a prequel to the first set of .hack videogames. Another anime, .hack//Legend of the Twilight, however, is just a bad, butchered adaptation of the very good manga of the same name, which is the epilogue to the first set of .hack videogames. The .hack//Liminality anime OVa is packaged with the games, and serves as a side-story. .hack//Roots is seperate, serving as the prologue to the .hack//G.U. videogames. There is no such thing as a "first" season, or a continuation for the first season. They are all seperate things.

.hack is deep because it thoroughly confronts the issues of life in the internet age. It deals with real issues about the disparity between someone's internet persona and their real self, gender issues that result from that confusion, parental issues from all kinds of perspectives, and many other major and minor things.

NGE is shallow because it is little more than a Super Robot series by the numbers, which go hijacked by its director's bout with depression, and ended with a complete collapse of the series' production budget, resuting in a good anime that turned horribly sour at the end. The creators have said that if they knew the series would be brought to the Western market, they probably wouldn't have used Christian elements (none of the creators were Christians). As a whole, there isn't a single thing in there that hasn't been done better by other anime series.

Also, you fail to see that I am not disagreeing with you about your judgements of quality, I am _completely_ disagreeing with your _measure_ of quality. The only thing that should be used to judge fantasy is its entertainment value. Saying something is "entertaining, but bad" is a complete logical contradiction to me. If it is entertaining (like Naruto is), then it is good. If it doesn't entertain anyone, then it is bad. Popularity occurs because of quality, not in spite of quality.

Your measures of Originality and Evolutionary qualities of a work are completely tangential to any real measure of value. If something is original, then the original elements will either work to add to or detract from the entertainment value. If it adds to the entertainment value, then it is good. If it detracts from the entertainment value, then it is bad. Either way, originality in of itself has no value worth considering.

Besides, you contradict yourself. You argue that originality is good, but insult Naruto. Like it or not, Naruto is an anime which heavily breaks away from existing conventions within its genre, and has many fresh and original takes on old ideas. It is anything but a story by the numbers.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> That's precisely it, though. Things like DBZ and Naruto are not made with feeling or thought. They might have started that way, but soon just became "products" to be sold. The mangas that created them probably were, but the animes? Pfffft. Even Naruto fans will tell you about the endless "filler" episoders, which are basically satan crapping on your TV screen.
> .






  Without actually knowing the people doing the writing, you can't really say that with any accuracy.

  Now yea, certainly stories in whatever form can end up commercial commodities and become somewhat divorced from their pure value. But in the end, they can regain that value on the other end...even if thought wasnt put it to their making, if thought and enjoyment are their result, they still maintain value.




> I don't buy that "enjoyment" gives something value, either. If you go with that, injecting heroin is "valid" because it gives a very great deal of enjoyment





  Oh please. We are talking about enjoyment of creative works.  Heroin has objective, observable, negative physical effects on the body, that are not a matter of opinion, there a matter of medical fact. When we say "enjoyment" in this discussion we are refering to enjoyment of a show, a book or other creative work.





> Watching crappy soaps and trash-anime may be enjoyable for you, but it's stifling your imagination and generally melting your brain in a way worse than drugs





This is entirely, 100% your opinion. Many have the same view of roleplaying games, or of fantasy in general.





> so I have no respect for it.





You can dislike it all you want. You can even not respect it, for yourself. But you should respect the fact that for others, it has meaning even if that meaning is only enjoyment. And it is not for you, or anyone, to say that a creative work is somehow objectively "bad".





> I don't think mindlessly labelling any view you object to as "elitist" is an effective argument any more so than calling people one dislikes "facists", either. I'm not pro-elite. I'm pro-art-for-the-masses. It's the opposite of actual elitism.





  When I say "elitism" in this case, I am refering to the belief that it is possible to label a creative work objectively "bad", for everyone, based on criteria established by another person or group of people.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

TwinBahumut said:
			
		

> Also, you fail to see that I am not disagreeing with you about your judgements of quality, I am completely disagreeing with your measure of quality. The only thing that should be used to judge fantasy is its entertainment value. Saying something is "entertaining, but bad" is a complete logical contradiction to me. If it is entertaining (like Naruto is), then it is good. If it doesn't entertain anyone, then it is bad. Popularity occurs because of quality, not in spite of quality





  I agree entirely. However, I do not feel that entertainment is the *sole* purpose of fantasy, or any creative work. It is also a form of communication, a means of putting forth and exploring ideas etc.

  But as you say, if its entertaining, then it is good on that level, wether it has anything "deeper" or not.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 10, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Mind you, I've yet to see a concrete example of how D&D 4e is, in any way, being influenced by WoW.



 I don't have any concrete examples, but it would surprise me greatly if resource management as a whole didn't learn anything from WoW and the rest of that genre.

(I'm not a WoW player so I can't be concretely useful in that regard...)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> That's precisely it, though. Things like DBZ and Naruto are not made with feeling or thought. They might have started that way, but soon just became "products" to be sold. The mangas that created them probably were, but the animes? Pfffft. Even Naruto fans will tell you about the endless "filler" episoders, which are basically satan crapping on your TV screen.
> 
> I don't buy that "enjoyment" gives something value, either. If you go with that, injecting heroin is "valid" because it gives a very great deal of enjoyment. Watching crappy soaps and trash-anime may be enjoyable for you, but it's stifling your imagination and generally melting your brain in a way worse than drugs (albeit one less likely to directly stop your heart, but just as likely to kill you in terms of encouraging a sedentary lifestyle), so I have no respect for it.
> 
> I don't think mindlessly labelling any view you object to as "elitist" is an effective argument any more so than calling people one dislikes "facists", either. I'm not pro-elite. I'm pro-art-for-the-masses. It's the opposite of _actual_ elitism.



So, your entire claim is that anime is as damaging as heroin? That it rots the brain and destroys the imagination? The classic elitist argument...

I am sorry, but just because you can't see the value of something doesn't mean it isn't there.

And come on... You are arguing that Naruto is bad because it has the bad filler episodes? That is a pretty shallow argument. No one is claiming the _filler_ is good. People are claiming that Naruto is good, despite the bad filler. Your admission that the manga is good doesn't help you at all...

Also, it is hypocritical to insult Naruto as being a "product meant to be sold", and then proclaim anything else as good. That impies that there is art out there that is _not_ a "product meant to be sold", which is simply not true. All art is a product meant to be sold. Every last bit of it, with the sole exception of small things which never get distributed. Whether it is a product or not has no relevence on whether or not it has feeling or thought.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

I've seen .//hack/SIGN, I'm guessing, as it was before the computer-games and did not seem to rely on me having seen anything else. It was crummy, that's all I know. I've tried to watch it twice. It didn't get any better.

As for "quality always causes success", I say bollocks to that. It should be true, but it isn't. Mediocrity and simple, thoughtless enjoyability create success in most cases. If that's quality to you, by all means, take your Big Mac and Naruto episodes, and enjoy them. That's clearly not quality though, it's meaningless drivel providing temporary escapism/entertainment (Naruto being a prime example).

Quality and success can go together, but your insistence that they always do is true nonsense.

As for "originality", well, Naruto may be original, but to a pathetic degree by anime standards. It's certainly no Cowboy Bebop of FLCL now, in originality terms, is it?



			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> So, your entire claim is that anime is as damaging as heroin? That it rots the brain and destroys the imagination? The classic elitist argument....




Now you're just making stuff up 

It seems you have fallen victim to my Inflammatory Agenda, and gone off into a universe of your own, where you argue with things I've not said, _but you can imagine I might say_  I'm saying real bottom-of-the-barrel crap rots the brain and stunts the imagination. Not typical anime. Not even NGE or .//hack/SIGN, I admit, but Naruto's filler episode? Every minute of those you watched, are minutes that would have been better spent doing ANYTHING else, and you know it!

On the contrary, as I've directly stated, lots of anime is great. Lots is trash. 90% of everything is crap, and anime is no exception. Do not agree? In the 1990s most anime reaching America was part of the 90%, not the 10%, do you not agree?


----------



## Nifft (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> generally melting your brain in a way worse than drugs



 Melty brains and drugs... dude, you're making me hungry. Knock it off.

Lunch time, -- N


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I agree entirely. However, I do not feel that entertainment is the *sole* purpose of fantasy, or any creative work. It is also a form of communication, a means of putting forth and exploring ideas etc.
> 
> But as you say, if its entertaining, then it is good on that level, wether it has anything "deeper" or not.



Yes, well, I am of the opinion that regardless of authorial intent or entertainment value, every last thing on this earth ever created by a human being puts forth and explores ideas, simply because humans by their very nature like having thoughts and sharing them. There isn't anything which doesn't explore ideas. Also, exploring ideas is part of the entertainment value of something.

One doesn't need to _look_ for entertaining works that share ideas, in the same sense that one doesn't need to _look_ for salt in pre-processed foods.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Yes, well, I am of the opinion that regardless of authorial intent or entertainment value, every last thing on this earth ever created by a human being puts forth and explores ideas, simply because humans by their very nature like having thoughts and sharing them. There isn't anything which doesn't explore ideas. Also, exploring ideas is part of the entertainment value of something.
> 
> One doesn't need to _look_ for entertaining works that share ideas, in the same sense that one doesn't need to _look_ for salt in pre-processed foods.




One does need to look for ones that do so in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, though. Mindlessly exploring ideas occasionally produces beautiful insights. Intentionally working on your ideas and exploring them in a thoughtful way frequently does so.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Yes, well, I am of the opinion that regardless of authorial intent or entertainment value, every last thing on this earth ever created by a human being puts forth and explores ideas, simply because humans by their very nature like having thoughts and sharing them. There isn't anything which doesn't explore ideas. Also, exploring ideas is part of the entertainment value of something.
> 
> One doesn't need to _look_ for entertaining works that share ideas, in the same sense that one doesn't need to _look_ for salt in pre-processed foods.





I agree with that as well. But as we're seeing here, some don't realize the facts you just mentioned.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I'm saying real bottom-of-the-barrel crap rots the brain and stunts the imagination.



I'm saying that's wrong.

Plenty of smart, creative people I know choose to decompress with bottom-of-the-barrel crap. Just because you watch a "What Not to Wear" marathon one evening doesn't mean you can't, won't or don't read Proust the next.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Not to say that sort of thing isnt part of a lot of it. And even a big part of some of it. But it has no part at all in some, and only a small part in others.




??? Is this statement some sort of zen koan?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I'm saying that's wrong.
> 
> Plenty of smart, creative people I know choose to decompress with bottom-of-the-barrel crap. Just because you watch a "What Not to Wear" marathon one evening doesn't mean you can't, won't or don't read Proust the next.




You know what?

You're actually right.

The brain-rot occurs when you trick yourself into thinking that it's art, or when you don't use in an un-wind-y way, but as your main form of entertainment. I speak from personal experience, by the way.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I've seen .//hack/SIGN, I'm guessing, as it was before the computer-games and did not seem to rely on me having seen anything else. It was crummy, that's all I know. I've tried to watch it twice. It didn't get any better.
> 
> As for "quality always causes success", I say bollocks to that. It should be true, but it isn't. Mediocrity and simple, thoughtless enjoyability create success in most cases. If that's quality to you, by all means, take your Big Mac and Naruto episodes, and enjoy them. That's clearly not quality though, it's meaningless drivel providing temporary escapism/entertainment (Naruto being a prime example).
> 
> Quality and success can go together, but your insistence that they always do is true nonsense.



There you go, mixing up my words and your definitons again... Yes, quaity always goes with success, if you measure quality by my standards. I have no idea what standards you use, but they don't make any sense to me.

Certainly, I find it amusing that you deny your status as an elitist, when you make claims that the only thing that is popular is mediocrity and meaningless drivel. It is just another way of saying that your tastes are "better" than everyone else's, and that you are the brilliant source of truth regarding what has quality.

Trust me, I have seen some real drivel in my life. Naruto isn't that.

I don't know why you think I like Big Macs, though... I prefer home-cooked meals. Much batter tasting.



> As for "originality", well, Naruto may be original, but to a pathetic degree by anime standards. It's certainly no Cowboy Bebop of FLCL now, in originality terms, is it?



Cowboy Bebop is original now? Does original mean "Ruin Explorer likes it"? Sorry, but it _easily_ fits into the classic "Picaresqe" genre that predates the idea of the _novel_, and blends it with half a dozen common anime tropes. Nothing original at all, other than some setting elemetns (but that hardly counts these days). It is fun, though. FLCL, on the other hand, is just a classic coming of age story filled to the brim with manic energy (probably inspired by Excel Saga) and surrealistic and comic elements. Also very good, but not original. At least, not any more original than Naruto.




> On the contrary, as I've directly stated, lots of anime is great. Lots is trash. 90% of everything is crap, and anime is no exception. Do not agree? In the 1990s most anime reaching America was part of the 90%, not the 10%, do you not agree?



 yes, there is lots of crap. However, for your other question, the answer is no. Most anime reaching the US is taken from the 10%, not the 90%. It is the quality stuff that gets brought over.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> You know what?
> 
> You're actually right.
> 
> The brain-rot occurs when you trick yourself into thinking that it's art, or when you don't use in an un-wind-y way, but as your main form of entertainment. I speak from personal experience, by the way.






  Nobody gets to decide what is or isnt "art" or what does or doesnt have value, for anyone but themselves. At least not when it comes to creative works and the like.

  Now yes, there are things that are clearly made primarily for profit, reality shows and romance novels and the like. But again, if it gives someone enjoyment, or sparks an idea, it has value.

  I do not accept the notion of objectively "bad" creative works.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> One does need to look for ones that do so in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, though. Mindlessly exploring ideas occasionally produces beautiful insights. Intentionally working on your ideas and exploring them in a thoughtful way frequently does so.



 I don't see the relevence to our discussion. Also, I disagree with the premise. Humans are highly intuitive creatures, with the ability to process incredibly large amounts of information in interesting ways, even while not explicitly paying attention to what they are doing. Thought progesses according to random connections and mass simultaneous processing. Intentional work is not necessary for the human brain to achieve extremely insightful and interesting results. Certainly, a level of critical examination of new ideas is useful, and the ability to formulate ideas in a logical manner and evaluate the logic of antoher's ideas, but these abilities are all that is required to get a large amount of information from anything. Authorial intent or originality of a work is irrelevent to these processes.

If anything, critical thinking is more useful when trying to sort through the miring mass of junk called the "network news" than it relevent to enjoying fantasy.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2007)

On the subject of whether or not "objective" crap exists:

Does anyone here think that _The Hulk_ was not crap?  I swear, that movie was 7 hours of my life I'll never get back..........

Does anyone here think that _Tarzan and the Lost City_ was not crap?  My son, who was 7 or 8 at the time and heavily into Power Rangers, looked up at me and said, "Dad, this movie makes no sense."

I think that, in some cases, the interplay between art and the viewer/reader/whathaveyou can create the illusion of depth that isn't there in the original work.  I love _Doctor Who_ but sometimes what I love about a particular story is coming from me, from what I read into it, rather than being something inherent in the story itself.  It is sometimes the act of loving observation that has depth, not the thing observed.

I've published stories, poetry, and essays.  Crap exists.  I've had a bunch of it rejected.  I still have electronic copies; I can prove it exists.  I've heard myself sing.  Trust me, that's an experience you don't want to have.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Does anyone here think that _The Hulk_ was not crap?  I swear, that movie was 7 hours of my life I'll never get back..........



You mean Ang Lee's feature film, the one with Eric Bana? In all seriousness, I thoroughly enjoyed it. 

I also know quite a few people that think the entire Hulk _corpus_ is crap, at least in the sense that they find no value in it whatsoever. In fact, I'm married to one of them... 



> I think that, in some cases, the interplay between art and the viewer/reader/whathaveyou can create the illusion of depth that isn't there in the original work.



Ummm, isn't that how the whole reading/viewing process works? I like to call that 'illusion of depth' _meaning_ (which never inheres and is always assigned). I also like to think that a work of art really does exist mainly in the eye/mind of the beholder, created, just as you say, by the 'interplay between the art and the reader/viewer'. It's my 'art object as catalyst' theory... 



> It is sometimes the act of loving observation that has depth, not the thing observed.



.
Yup... that's still how art works.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> On the subject of whether or not "objective" crap exists:
> 
> Does anyone here think that _The Hulk_ was not crap?  I swear, that movie was 7 hours of my life I'll never get back..........
> 
> ...



Certainly, bad stuff is out there... I don't think anyone would claim otherwise. However, I would argue that it is bad because it is not enjoyable, not for because of some lack of ideas or the like.

However, regarding your Dr. Who comment, I don't think a distinction needs to be made between "what you read into something" and "what exists inherently in something" needs to be made. In fact, only three things really exist regarding a work. The author's thoughts when the work was created (intangible element of the past, impossible to exactly recreate), the work itself (the phyical unchanging thing), and the audience's interpretation (the individual response). Often, an audience reads something from a text that the author did not intend (whether from a failure on the author's part or the audience's own creativity), and that is perfectly fine. It is just how things work.

There is no such thing as the one true set of ideas contained in a work. While I would not go so far as too 100% agree with the idea, the main trend of thought in literary criticism these days is based on the "Death of the Author", in which the identity and ideas of the author are irrelevant, and the main goal is examining a work based on the _reader's_ identity and ideas.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 10, 2007)

What about Buffy The Vampire Slayer (and Angel)? Buffy is taken quite seriously in certain academic circles. How would we feel about Joss Whedon's work as an influence on the future of D&D?

Of course, defining Buffy's genre is somewhat problematic. Is it horror, or modern dark fantasy?
Or, more to the point for the original question of this thread, is Buffy essentially a supernatural Wuxia show?

Often it seems what we are really discussing when we talk about "anime" is actually animated wuxia. Is the problem the inclusion of eastern cultural norms into D&D, the feeling that wuxia-style combat is too over-the-top for the game, or that we don't want the worst examples of anime being mistakenly looked to for inspiration?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I can call anything I like crap, matey. You like Days Of Our Lives? Doesn't stop it being trash  You like Big Macs? Doesn't stop them being low-grade food that's basically bad for you. I don't criticise the enjoyment when I call it crap, I criticise the constant attempts to claim that it's not... crap... At least Days Of Our Lives fans aren't say "Wow it's deep man", yet Naruto fans sure are...




And therein lies the problem.

You're stating your opinion as fact.

Its not.

There are objective qualities to most everything, but the second you start saying "Its crap", that's subjective and not a universal fact.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> There are objective qualities to most everything, but the second you start saying "Its crap", that's subjective and not a universal fact.





You have obviously never heard me sing.

Be very, very thankful.    

RC


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You have obviously never heard me sing.
> 
> Be very, very thankful.
> 
> RC



 And you haven't heard me. I bet I'm worse!

But that doesn't change the fact that somewhere out there is a nut who might think my singing is good.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And you haven't heard me. I bet I'm worse!
> 
> But that doesn't change the fact that somewhere out there is a nut who might think my singing is good.




Your second statement proves that you would lose your bet..........


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 10, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'd characterize 9 million people as hypnotized and stupid for enjoying a game and playstyle you do not, but that's just me.



Well, that's because you're obviously not Ruin Explorer.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Your second statement proves that you would lose your bet..........



 ...you win this round...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> ...you win this round...




  I win "worst singer"!  Whee!


----------



## Clavis (Sep 10, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as the one true set of ideas contained in a work. While I would not go so far as too 100% agree with the idea, the main trend of thought in literary criticism these days is based on the "Death of the Author", in which the identity and ideas of the author are irrelevant, and the main goal is examining a work based on the _reader's_ identity and ideas.




I for one disagree with that school of thought, and hold to the idea that the author or creator is the single most important part of any art. In nature birdsong expresses the intelligence and health of its singers. Better singers are healthier and smarter, and those females who breed with them will likely have stronger and smarter chicks. In human life, art expresses the ideas, obsessions, physical capacities and metal states of its creators. It draws together those of similar ideas, and has persisted because of its use to society, and because artistic people are more attractive breeding partners.

When I choose to read a book, I do so because it is the kind of book that appeals to the kind of person I am. I am in sympathy with its author. If I enjoy a particular kind of music, it is because my nature is sympathetic to the kind of person who makes the kind of music in question. But the art itself is not expressive of MY nature, but rather my nature is sympathetic to the art. If we want to understand ourselves through art, we must understand the artist first, because in that way we can uncover what it is about that person that we stand in sympathy with.

How many of us have found our mates through creating art (playing guitar, etc.) or viewing art (going to the movies, at museums, etc.)?

When I identify myself as a lover of a particular kind of art, I already have something in common with all those who also like that kind of art. The art functions as a social glue, both defining an in-group and creating an out-group to persecute. So art draws together those of like mind, whether for love or war. On this thread, for example those who are in sympathy with Anime are arrayed against those who are not. For me, the question is not what does anime say about me, but what does it say about its creators that I either like, or do not like?


----------



## Clavis (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I do not accept the notion of objectively "bad" creative works.




That statement could be used to justify Paris Hilton's musical "career".
Do you really want that on your conscience?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Well, that's because you're obviously not Ruin Explorer.




Nah, it's because he's obviously not played WoW! Zing! 

I have, by the way. I was hypnotized by it for a long time, but I got better.

As for the refusal to accept that something can be crap, this seems to be a uniquely American "everyone and everything is yooneek!" sort of thing. I'm sorry guys, but repeated denial and complex arguments about "objective versus subjective qualities" don't make Dragonball Z not a steaming pile of crap. The idea that "nothing is crap" seems to be particularly popular with anime fans. I wonder why...? I guess it's because you guys* all so enlightened and stuff, eh?

What I don't get is why some people get their knickers in a total twist and weep themselves silly just because their favourite piece of mindless entertainment gets called "crap". It's not something I see in Britain. Plenty of people cheerful admit that they're watching crap over here, in my experience, but on the internet, if you call a spade a spade, or Naruto a crappy anime series for very young adults with little to no intellectual value or discussion of meaningful or universal ideas, then it's FLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEWAR baby! Burning down the house!

Maybe it's just a cultural thing, with the whole "every individual is unique and wonderful" culture clashing with the "don't get too smug" culture?

Next someone will probably be telling me that an awful splodge of a painting is good because the person who did it is their son/daughter/friend. No, mate, it's not good. If you get real, you know that. What it has to you is emotional value, which is lovely and all, but doesn't mean it should be inflicted on the world as a whole.

*Merlion* - I guess you don't feel it's in any way hypocritical for you to imply that two things you don't like are "commercial" (reality shows and romance novels), yet that anime is like, kewl. I'm sorry buddy, but you can't get away with that. Romance novels are no more or less "commercial" than DBZ.

* - Considering I've been labelled an anime fan and own a fairly large quantity of anime, I guess this includes me - how have I escaped enlightenment?


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> On the subject of whether or not "objective" crap exists:
> 
> Does anyone here think that _The Hulk_ was not crap?  I swear, that movie was 7 hours of my life I'll never get back..........
> 
> ...






  But its all still relative. One person's crap is another's masterpiece. Its a matter of taste, and of what criteria are being applied (and even those criteria are going to be pretty much subjective.)


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> What I don't get is why some people get their knickers in a total twist and weep themselves silly just because their favourite piece of mindless entertainment gets called "crap". It's not something I see in Britain. Plenty of people cheerful admit that they're watching crap over here, in my experience, but on the internet, if you call a spade a spade, or Naruto a crappy anime series for very young adults with little to no intellectual value or discussion of meaningful or universal ideas, then it's FLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEWAR baby! Burning down the house!
> 
> Maybe it's just a cultural thing, with the whole "every individual is unique and wonderful" culture clashing with the "don't get too smug" culture?



I have no problem admitting that many things I enjoy a great deal are crap (I enjoyed the _Van Helsing_ movie fer cryin' out loud.  Heck, I enjoy playing D&D!) but I'm less disposed to accept you as the arbiter of what is or isn't crap.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> But its all still relative. One person's crap is another's masterpiece. Its a matter of taste, and of what criteria are being applied (and even those criteria are going to be pretty much subjective.)




Goddamn filthy hippies.

(the correct insulting response is "what are you, some sort of cretinous Rand-fan objectivist?", which I then have to hastily deny etc.)

I know what you're saying, but I will defend my right to call what I see as crap, crap, until the end of time. I believe that a lot of people are in horrible denial that what they are watching/playing is crap too, and they'd feel better and get into less flamewars if they could just laugh it off instead of attempting to use post-modern literary theory to attempt to "prove" that watching Naruto filler episodes is "A-okay!". It doesn't need to be proved, guys, it's a given. That it's crap is also a given. Doesn't stop it being enjoyable.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I'm less disposed to accept you as the arbiter of what is or isn't crap.




It's okay 

I don't actually care whether you're disposed to or not, but if you keep telling me I _can't_ call things crap, especially WoW, I will defend myself!

(You may imagine me clumsily assuming a "kung-fu" stance I saw in a Bruce Lee movie one time at this point).

I liked _Van Helsing_ too. I just don't deny that it's crap. Ever. Nor do you? So where's the beef?


----------



## Clavis (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Goddamn filthy hippies.
> 
> (the correct insulting response is "what are you, some sort of cretinous Rand-fan objectivist?", which I then have to hastily deny etc.)




Objectivist philosophy=true modern fantasy!



			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I know what you're saying, but I will defend my right to call what I see as crap, crap, until the end of time. I believe that a lot of people are in horrible denial that what they are watching/playing is crap too, and they'd feel better and get into less flamewars if they could just laugh it off instead of attempting to use post-modern literary theory to attempt to "prove" that watching Naruto filler episodes is "A-okay!". It doesn't need to be proved, guys, it's a given. That it's crap is also a given. Doesn't stop it being enjoyable.




Just don't blame Americans for Post-Modernist literary theory. It was the French that were responsible for that abortion.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Nah, it's because he's obviously not played WoW! Zing!
> 
> I have, by the way. I was hypnotized by it for a long time, but I got better.
> 
> ...






  But when your talking about art, and entertainment, "good" is a totally relative and subjective concept. 

  Thats why I called you an elitist. You believe, seemingly, that enjoyment has no connection to quality, and that quality is determined by a certain set of criteria, and those criteria are determined by...

 You? People with degrees in Art or Literature? Who exactly?

Whoever it is that you decide gets to decided what art is "good" and what art is "bad" is your "Elite."





> I guess you don't feel it's in any way hypocritical for you to imply that two things you don't like are "commercial" (reality shows and romance novels), yet that anime is like, kewl. I'm sorry buddy, but you can't get away with that. Romance novels are no more or less "commercial" than DBZ.





And for you to do the reverse is ok?

I asserted that any creative work that thought is put into has value. You asserted that many works have no thought put into them, are basically commercial in nature and therefore valueless. I conceded the point that in some cases, artforms may become mass produced or overly commercial in their nature, and so lose much of that initial thought. This can be true for any medium. 

  However, first as I already mentioned, even if a work had no thought put into it at creation, if someone enjoys it, or if they are inspired to thought or feeling by it, it gains value on that end.

  Next, I believe such cases are VERY rare. I think most of the people out of whose heads the creative works are coming DO put thought and feeling into them. Now the ones who market them, maybe not, but thats not the same thing.


  I love stories. Many types of stories. I like most anime, but not all. I like much literature and movies, but not all. However, I understand that my opinion is no more valuable than anyone elses, so I do not subscribe to the notion that those works I dislike are somehow valueless just because I dislike them. In the end, any creative work has value because the one that made it put thought and feeling into it and/or it will be enjoyed and/or inspire at least some of those that experience it.

American/Brittish has nothing to do with it. Some people simply feel that their opinions...or those of supposed "experts" are somehow more valid than those of everyone else, and so whatever they dislike becomes "crap". You havent really presented any even supposed reasons for any of the things you mention being "crap"...but thats ok, because in the end, even any criteria of judging them are themselves subjective


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> But its all still relative. One person's crap is another's masterpiece. Its a matter of taste, and of what criteria are being applied (and even those criteria are going to be pretty much subjective.)





I don't believe that is true.

I do accept that we have no way to determine what is good and what is crap in an absolute sense, but that doesn't mean that there is not an objective difference between the two.  An inability to make an absolute judgement should not render all judgement moot.

RC


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> It's okay
> 
> I don't actually care whether you're disposed to or not, but if you keep telling me I _can't_ call things crap, especially WoW, I will defend myself!
> 
> ...





For most of us, liking it and calling it crap at the same time is a contradiction in terms. If you like it, its good on the entertainment level.

It might not be as deep or philosophical as some things, but that doesnt make it bad. Art can have many purposes, and achieve each of those purposes in many ways.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't believe that is true.
> 
> I do accept that we have no way to determine what is good and what is crap in an absolute sense, but that doesn't mean that there is not an objective difference between the two.  An inability to make an absolute judgement should not render all judgement moot.
> 
> RC





Alone it doesnt. but we're talking about a subjective thing. Quality of art is inherently subjective, by nature. Theres nothing objective about it.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> It draws together those of similar ideas, and has persisted because of its use to society, and because artistic people are more attractive breeding partners.



But _artists_ themselves are usually a poor and drunken (at best) lot, prone to mooching and violent rages... at the least the ones I like, at any rate.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> And for you to do the reverse is ok?




Er yes? Because I'm not the one claiming it's wrong _whilst doing it_. Not very hard is it?

As for the rest of the hippy nonsense, I believe that humans, as a group, have a certain vague set of standards, that do not require an external arbiter, and that people, generally, have a feel for what's crap, and what's not, on an instinctive level. You don't need an artificial elite imposing outside opinions if you have a general consensus feeling on what's crap and what's not - just like we have a general consensus feeling on what's right and wrong on moral issues.

Is it subjective on a grand cultural or even species-based-level? Undoubtedly? Does it allow for me to call things crap, because it's broad enough? I believe so. You don't have to agree. If I think something is crap but most people disagree, then I'm probably wrong.

However, Naruto filler episodes and DBZ are most assuredly crap 

It is a cultural divide, too, because as I've said, British people seem far less stressed about accepting something they like might be widely considered "crap" than Americans. There's clearly something at work there, though what it is is debatable.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> For most of us, liking it and calling it crap at the same time is a contradiction in terms. If you like it, its good on the entertainment level.




I deny that. I have no problem doing so, nor do many others in this thread, and nor do most people I know (which would be "middle-class english southerners", mostly).

You have a problem in that you can't accept that something you like could be "crap". I do not share this problem. Do not assert that everyone does simply because you do, or you become exactly what you were claiming I am


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Alone it doesnt. but we're talking about a subjective thing. Quality of art is inherently subjective, by nature. Theres nothing objective about it.




That is an unproven assertation based upon assumptions that I do not hold.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Goddamn filthy hippies.
> 
> (the correct insulting response is "what are you, some sort of cretinous Rand-fan objectivist?", which I then have to hastily deny etc.)
> 
> I know what you're saying, but I will defend my right to call what I see as crap, crap, until the end of time. I believe that a lot of people are in horrible denial that what they are watching/playing is crap too, and they'd feel better and get into less flamewars if they could just laugh it off instead of attempting to use post-modern literary theory to attempt to "prove" that watching Naruto filler episodes is "A-okay!". It doesn't need to be proved, guys, it's a given. That it's crap is also a given. Doesn't stop it being enjoyable.






This is a seperate issue. You have, of course, the right to say whatever you please. But actions and words have consquences

First, people are allowed to disagree with you, and to express that disagreement.

Second, theres the issue of courtesy. People can have different opinions, but respect that the other person's opinion is valid. Thats where the big problem lies. If you think its crap, then its crap for you, but don't tell me that that means its crap for me as well in some ultimate objective sense. Thats for me to decide, not you. Telling people that their opinions about a subjective subject are crap, meaningless, ill informed etc is rude, and people will respond as such.

Then theres the enjoyment-quality distinction thing. You see enjoyability as seperate from "artistic quality" or whatever. For you, anything is "crap" that doesnt live up to certain artistic criteria, or criteria of depth and relevence, but it can still be fun to watch or read. 

  Many don't see the two as mutually exclusive, in either direction. At the most basic level, if something is enjoyable, than it is good if only on the basic entertainment level.  I do feel that a work can be great on some levels and less good on others...or perhaps it simply doesnt address those levels at all, which is also valid. Much art is made with enjoyment as its primary purpose, and if it succeeds in that, then it is good. Some is made both for that purpose and to convey some message...but even then, the message mail fail for some, succeed for others.

  In the end, just about any criteria you use to try and measure creative works are in themselves going to be subjective.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Telling people that their opinions about a subjective subject are crap, meaningless, ill informed etc is rude, and people will respond as such.




But that's exactly what you're doing to me 

As I've said before, my experience is thus:

1) Some people are able to admit that things like they are "crap", and still like them (Van Helsing being the example earlier in this thread), they think it's funny when people say "That's crap!". Virtually all British people I know fall into this category.

2) Other people throw a giant wobbler every time someone brings up Naruto filler episodes and try to _objectively_ and with great care and use of post-modern literary theory _prove_ that Naruto isn't crap ever, because the other episodes some how magically un-crap the filler episodes because they liked the other episodes or something. Almost all the people I know like this are Yanks.

Break through your barriers. Accept that you like that which is crap, and you will be a better person for it.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 10, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> What about Buffy The Vampire Slayer (and Angel)? Buffy is taken quite seriously in certain academic circles. How would we feel about Joss Whedon's work as an influence on the future of D&D?



 Oh god no.

I love the show, but let's face it: they're meta-gaming in-character. My group is bad enough without encouragement.

Erp, -- N


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That is an unproven assertation based upon assumptions that I do not hold.





I dont know why it would need to be proven. Its self evident. Until the last time I had this same discussion on these same boards, everyone I'd ever encountered used art as THE EXAMPLE of subjectivity, as oposed to objectivity. 

  For something to be objective, it must be the same for everyone. But take a piece of art, and without fail everyone will have a different opinion of it. Everyone will experience it subjectively. Now physically it is what it is. A book is whatever weight and dimensions it is...and the story contained in it, or at least the words printed on its pages, are the same for everyone. But wether they enjoy it...wether they learn anything from it, wether it inspires them, what emotions it evokes if any, and all the rest is going to vary from person to person.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> But that's exactly what you're doing to me
> 
> As I've said before, my experience is thus:
> 
> ...






Give me an actual definition of "crap". Aside from you not liking it.

And all I am "doing to you" is stating the fact that you dont get to decide what is or isnt "crap", for anyone other than yourself.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Give me an actual definition of "crap". Aside from you not liking it.
> 
> And all I am "doing to you" is stating the fact that you dont get to decide what is or isnt "crap", for anyone other than yourself.




When you answer my other posts I may deign to, until then his highness is too busy polishing his nails.

You are quite definately being rude and telling my opinion is meaningless, though 

Back to the nail-filing!


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> .You have a problem in that you can't accept that something you like could be "crap".





No. I have a problem accepting the notion that a piece of art being "crap" is anything other than a subjective personal opinion.


If I like something, and you think of it as crap, which of us is right?


Neither. Because it is neither. Its art, and therefore, subjective.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> When you answer my other posts I may deign to, until then his highness is too busy polishing his nails.
> 
> You are quite definately being rude and telling my opinion is meaningless, though
> 
> Back to the nail-filing!





  Ok. I am not going to do this again, especially if your going to resort to simple insults. Adding to ignore list.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I dont know why it would need to be proven. Its self evident. Until the last time I had this same discussion on these same boards, everyone I'd ever encountered used art as THE EXAMPLE of subjectivity, as oposed to objectivity.




If you want to discuss the philosophy of this with me, email me at ravencrowking at hotmail dot com or start a thread for it here.  Suffice to say, you and I operate with a different philosophy of metaphysics.

RC


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 10, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> I wonder how many people are setting up a false dichotomy with regard to anime and D&D. The whole conversation isn't necessarily between the camps of "I love anime and what more of that style of action and D&D" and "I hate anime and keep anything to do with it away from D&D". How about the camp that generally likes Japanese animation, and yet still thinks that its aesthetic doesn't really make a good fit with D&D? By way of a metaphor, I love curry, but that doesn't mean I think curry ice-cream is a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Clavis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Ok. I am not going to do this again, especially if your going to resort to simple insults. Adding to ignore list.




His highness refers to me, and in no way have I insulted you, so good luck with that


----------



## Clavis (Sep 10, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> But _artists_ themselves are usually a poor and drunken (at best) lot, prone to mooching and violent rages... at the least the ones I like, at any rate.




Something to think about, eh?


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 11, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> It's okay
> 
> I don't actually care whether you're disposed to or not, but if you keep telling me I _can't_ call things crap, especially WoW, I will defend myself!



You're confusing you with someone else.  I never said you can't.

I think it's a somewhat foolish thing to do, though.  The rather sweeping generalization and elitist dismissal.  But, hey, knock yerself out.  It's not like I haven't done the same thing plenty of times myself.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 11, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> You're confusing you with someone else.




This has to be my new .sig. I think you're right btw.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 11, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Something to think about, eh?



Sure, that common monsters can make beauty... it's a pretty instructive lesson.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I have no problem admitting that many things I enjoy a great deal are crap (I enjoyed the _Van Helsing_ movie fer cryin' out loud.  Heck, I enjoy playing D&D!) but I'm less disposed to accept you as the arbiter of what is or isn't crap.





  But who is then?

See this is the problem with trying to apply objective standards to subjective things. If there is good art, and bad art, who exactly gets to decide which is which? Since everyone will have their own opinion on it, how exactly do we decide who's subjective opinion is better and gets crowned the objective truth?


----------



## Nifft (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> But who is then?



 I think what he's saying is that some people distinguish between *enjoyable* and *good*.

I can enjoy something while knowing that it's not any kind of masterpiece. I can also see something that's really good, but not enjoyable (to me).

There are a lot of folks who confuse personal preference and quality -- but to be fair, if you're not educated about a topic, what else do you have to go on besides your own (very limited) experience?

"This topic is *enjoyable*" , -- N


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I think what he's saying is that some people distinguish between *enjoyable* and *good*.
> 
> I can enjoy something while knowing that it's not any kind of masterpiece. I can also see something that's really good, but not enjoyable (to me).
> 
> ...






I understand that. Well I realize that some people think that, I dont really understand it personally.

  What I am saying is, as far as I've ever known, art is subjective. Wether a piece of art is "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion.

  However, many people here believe a creative work can be objectively "bad". Hobo said he admits many things he enjoys are "crap" but doesnt want RuinsExplorer as the arbiter of what is or isnt "crap." My point is, if your going to believe in the concept of objectively "bad" creative works, who then gets to choose whats "bad" and whats not, since in actuality its all personal opinion?


And I dont really think "educated" has much to do with it. That was what happened the last time I had this conversation...many seemed to think that those 'educated" in literature or whatever get to somehow decide for the rest of us what is good or bad art. I disgree-its a personal thing


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> But its all still relative. One person's crap is another's masterpiece. Its a matter of taste, and of what criteria are being applied (and even those criteria are going to be pretty much subjective.)




I've never liked the relativist argument.  Its self contradictory.
I could go along with us saying it's difficult to prove (maybe close to impossible) whats crap and what isn't but I refuse to say that everything is equally valid.

Amazing how so many d&d arguments become philosophical.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I understand that. Well I realize that some people think that, I dont really understand it personally.
> 
> What I am saying is, as far as I've ever known, art is subjective. Wether a piece of art is "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion.
> 
> ...




I would agree that *enjoyment* is subjective, but that doesn't mean quality can't be judged with a certain degree of objectivity. Certainly one can examine how well a work accomplishes its goal (although what the goal is can be hard to determine) and the merit of the craft that went into producing it. 

Examples:

I could write a fantasy novel with an excellent premise, but if the characters are shallow and cliched, or if the plot is poorly structured, or the grammar incorrect, its quality should be questioned. Now, there may still be elements to it that people find entertaining, and for that it can be said to have some quality, but it would be disingenuous to describe it as superlative. Good? Probably not. Entertaining? For some, possibly. But the shortcomings in the execution of the story will likely prevent many people from enjoying it. Since one of the goals of publishing a story is to entertain people, it would be accurate to say that this story failed in at least one of its goals. 

For a further example, lets say that a new anime series is released and billed as "Naruto meets Ninja Scroll". Its goal is to be an entertaining and thought-provoking series about ninjas. However, if I discover that the characters and plots are literally a mish-mash of Naruto and Ninja Scroll, I would certainly be justified in questioning its quality. Now, I might find myself enjoying the show despite its shortcomings, but when describing it to someone I'd likely call it "fun but really derivative" (which, incidentally, is how I describe the band Wolfmother). 

So really, art can -- and should -- be judged in the context of its own goals (and to an extent, within its own genre). Where things get sticky is when the piece in question largely meets those objective criteria; that is where you get into personal opinion being the deciding factor. That grey-area is why I avoid loudly proclaiming things as "crap"; not only is it frequently difficult to back such a claim up, but it tends to diminish the quality of my opinion.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> And I dont really think "educated" has much to do with it. That was what happened the last time I had this conversation...many seemed to think that those 'educated" in literature or whatever get to somehow decide for the rest of us what is good or bad art. I disgree-its a personal thing




That's not quite right. Say you know this guy who really wants to play jazz. But, he's got the wrong rhythm and can't swing. He doesn't understand his jazz scales. Every time he tries to improv he loses the beat. He's a pretty bad jazz musician.

Doesn't mean what he's playing is bad in and of itself. It might be enjoyable to listen to. Many people might love his music, in fact. Doesn't mean he's not a horrible jazz musician, though.

So, when you hear about educated experts. They're educated in a particular matter. And, analyzing something _with that matter in mind_ they can tell whether it fits and how good or bad it is _with that philosophy in mind_.

That's what the objective good and bad are all about.


----------



## hong (Sep 11, 2007)

Or, to put it another way: with a precisely-defined measurement scale in mind, you can rank different things on that scale so that some things are closer to the "good" end than others. The trick is getting other people to care about about the measurement scale you're using.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 11, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Goddamn filthy hippies.
> 
> (the correct insulting response is "what are you, some sort of cretinous Rand-fan objectivist?", which I then have to hastily deny etc.)
> 
> I know what you're saying, but I will defend my right to call what I see as crap, crap, until the end of time. I believe that a lot of people are in horrible denial that what they are watching/playing is crap too, and they'd feel better and get into less flamewars if they could just laugh it off instead of attempting to use post-modern literary theory to attempt to "prove" that watching Naruto filler episodes is "A-okay!". It doesn't need to be proved, guys, it's a given. That it's crap is also a given. Doesn't stop it being enjoyable.



I hold this post as proof that you have not been even making an attempt to understand my position.

Regardless, your increasingly insulting attitude, and the fact that you are bringing the American/British difference into this of all things (blatantly claiming the British are great guys who agree with you, and Americans are idiots who disagree with you), both are going to make me drop out this conversation. You are not worth talking to anymore.

But, if you want to bring national divide into this...

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the difference in reactions to you calling something "crap" is not an expression of superior British good humor, but rather a simple product of different definitons of "crap"?

I mean, from my own use and awareness of the term, "crap" means it has no redeeming value. Such a thing would not be watchable, and no possible enjoyment can be derived from it. As such, "enjoying crap" is an inherent contradiction based on definiton. It's an oxymoron. If the British can laugh it off as not a contradiction, than maybe there is a slight difference of defintion  of "crap" you are not taking into account.

However, you jumped straight at the national insults. I bet you would throw my last name's nationality at me if you could. Congratulations, you are the first person I have _ever_ put on an ignore list in a forum.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

DarthShoju said:
			
		

> So really, art can -- and should -- be judged in the context of its own goals (and to an extent, within its own genre). Where things get sticky is when the piece in question largely meets those objective criteria; that is where you get into personal opinion being the deciding factor. That grey-area is why I avoid loudly proclaiming things as "crap"; not only is it frequently difficult to back such a claim up, but it tends to diminish the quality of my opinion.





I agree with this...the goals/purpose is a big part of it. But the thing about it is, as you say, most works are going to meet some or possibly all of their goals, at least for some people. Especially given that a primarily goal of the majority of creative expressions is enjoyment/entertainment...and there are going to be people who will enjoy it. Other common goals include cartharsis or expression of something by the artist, goals which are also almost always achieved. 





> I could write a fantasy novel with an excellent premise, but if the characters are shallow and cliched, or if the plot is poorly structured, or the grammar incorrect, its quality should be questioned. Now, there may still be elements to it that people find entertaining, and for that it can be said to have some quality, but it would be disingenuous to describe it as superlative. Good? Probably not. Entertaining? For some, possibly. But the shortcomings in the execution of the story will likely prevent many people from enjoying it. Since one of the goals of publishing a story is to entertain people, it would be accurate to say that this story failed in at least one of its goals.






Thats the thing though. Most of the criteria you mention are themselves somewhat subjective. "Shallow and cliched" mean different things to different people. And some people even *enjoy* cliches. That, and their some times useful in conveying certain basic

 But even as so far as those criteria were objective, even a work with many "flaws" can still be greatly enjoyed, and even have quality beyond that.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> That's not quite right. Say you know this guy who really wants to play jazz. But, he's got the wrong rhythm and can't swing. He doesn't understand his jazz scales. Every time he tries to improv he loses the beat. He's a pretty bad jazz musician.
> 
> Doesn't mean what he's playing is bad in and of itself. It might be enjoyable to listen to. Many people might love his music, in fact. Doesn't mean he's not a horrible jazz musician, though.
> 
> ...






With that philosophy in mind, yes. But others may have a different philsophy, which is also valid. And therefore, it isnt objectively bad...only within the context of that philosophy.

Which is exactly what I was saying last time we all had this discussion. If you choose to use a certain set of pre existing criteria, a school of thought or whatever, on an artform as your judge of wether its good or bad for you, great. Then its good or bad for you, based on that. But not objectively, for everyone.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Or, to put it another way: with a precisely-defined measurement scale in mind, you can rank different things on that scale so that some things are closer to the "good" end than others. The trick is getting other people to care about about the measurement scale you're using.





Exactly what I am saying. Thank you for that insightfully different way of putting it, Mr. Orange Kitten.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I hold this post as proof that you have not been even making an attempt to understand my position.
> 
> Regardless, your increasingly insulting attitude, and the fact that you are bringing the American/British difference into this of all things (blatantly claiming the British are great guys who agree with you, and Americans are idiots who disagree with you), both are going to make me drop out this conversation. You are not worth talking to anymore.
> 
> ...








From what I can tell, essentially he defines "crap" as anything that doesnt fit into some specific set of high brow academic artistic criteria, regardless of enjoyability or anyone elses feelings about a work


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 11, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> This has to be my new .sig. I think you're right btw.



  


			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> But who is then?



Why me, of course.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Why me, of course.






For yourself yea. Just not for anyone else, or any "objective truth" of the quality of art.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> For yourself yea. Just not for anyone else, or any "objective truth" of the quality of art.



Well, of course.  Honestly, nobody can say anything of any substance about a work of art other than their opinion on it.

Of course saying "that's a piece of crap" has the implicit "in my opinion" tacked on.

All y'all are really getting yourself in a huff about is the tone with which Ruin Explorer said it. not with what he said per se.  Which is pretty classic RE, believe me.  He's been around for years, and he always posts that way.  It's nothing personal.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Well, of course.  Honestly, nobody can say anything of any substance about a work of art other than their opinion on it.
> 
> Of course saying "that's a piece of crap" has the implicit "in my opinion" tacked on.
> 
> All y'all are really getting yourself in a huff about is the tone with which Ruin Explorer said it. not with what he said per se.  Which is pretty classic RE, believe me.  He's been around for years, and he always posts that way.  It's nothing personal.





  Yes...the tone was offensive, and not just in a "you hurt my feelings" way. I have a problem with rudeness and discourtesy, no matter who it is aimed at. And wether its meant to be "personal" or not, it is not what you'd call positive bheaviour.

  But it was also the statements themselves. "thats a piece of crap" doesnt come with an "in my opinion" when the person is stating that the thing is crap, objectively, totally, and for everyone. Thats where my problem lies...in that, and in the final conclusions of that point of view.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Sep 11, 2007)

I want in on the anime-hatefest.

WTF is it with the recent prominence of it in the West lately?

In the last fifteen years or so, it seems to me that the influence of Japanese culture on popular culture in the West has grown exponentially.

Most video games seem to have been designed in Japan, many (if not most) of the cartoons on TV are either dubbed anime or domestic copies of the style, Japanese comics and card games are freakishly popular, and it seems like the art in every other webcomic or internet artist's gallery I see displays heavy manga influence.

Japanese culture is alarmingly pervasive in the modern West. What is it about all things Japanese that so fascinates young Westerners?

Now, I don't have anything against the Japanese personally; I spent a little time there a few years back, and I didn't hate it. Heck, I spent three years in college studying the language, and still like to flatter myself with the conceit that I'm pretty good at it. Languages were what I studied in college, and my interest in Japanese was primarily linguistic. The Japanese Culture Envy bug never bit me.

The problem doesn't lie with the Japanese; the blame can be laid at the feet of modern youth in the West.

There's clearly an enormous market over here for Imported Japanese Coolness. Things like anime, manga, Pokemon cards, and Final Fantasy video games wouldn't have so much space given over to them in stores and on the airwaves if there weren't such a huge and hungry herd of cultural disciples, eagerly awaiting the next OAV or card-game expansion. Its ubiquity permeates every facet of the American entertainment industry: toys, games, clothes, books, movies--a portion of nearly every department will be sure to contain a selection of Japanese merchandise, or Japanese-themed merchandise, domestic copies of Japanese stuff, or domestic merchandise that's obviously been heavily influenced by Japan.

It seems like nearly every young person I meet nowadays sports a T-shirt with an anime character, wants to visit Japan, is playing a Japanese video game, wants desperately to learn Japanese, draws a manga-style comic, peppers their speech with Japanese words and phrases, constantly talks about what's happening in Inu-yasha, or has a kanji tattoo. It's almost as if these people wish they were Japanese...

Seriously, what is it about all things Japanese that appeals to people today? What do you find so lacking in your own culture that you find in such abundance in Japan's? What causes you to reject your own heritage and run off to worship at someone else's cultural altar?

Frankly, I'd rather not see my Dungeons and Dragons contaminated by its influence.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2007)

Just because I so very rarely get to do this:

I agree 100% with Raven Crowking.

You most certainly can judge something objectively.  Just because something is not 100% objective doesn't make it subjective.  It may be less objective than another thing, but, that doesn't make it 100% subjective.

For example, the criteria chosen may be chosen in a subjective way, but the judgement rendered by those criteria may be 100% objective.

For some, the only criteria that apparently matters is, "Is it enjoyable".  Now, that criteria is somewhat objective, since it boils down to yes or no.  Did I like it?  Yes?  Then it's good.  However, that criteria isn't very useful because it doesn't actually tell us anything.  It doesn't tell us why you think it's good, nor does it allow us to make any sort of prediction for future works.

On the other hand, a more encompassing series of criteria, based on a number of elements, tells us a great deal more than just "it's good."  Going by the popularity scale, one should say that Rowling is the single best writer in English history.  She's sold more books than any contemporary writer.  

However, I doubt many people would seriously try to claim that J. K. Rowlings is the best writer in the history of the English language.  Granted, trying to find out who is would fill a lot of books, but, I'm pretty sure that Rowlings can be knocked off in the preliminaries.  Names like Milton, Shakespeare, and others might be possibly better contenders, despite being nowhere near as popular.

Star Wars is the top grossing film of all time.  Does that mean it's the best movie ever made?  Would anyone seriously make that claim?

Things which are popular may be very good.  Things which are popular may be not so good.  To determine any sort of objective "goodness" we need a better metric than "popular".


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 11, 2007)

ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> The problem doesn't lie with the Japanese; the blame can be laid at the feet of modern youth in the West.




There's a *problem* in that rant somewhere? Is British culture in danger of disappearing somehow?


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> I want in on the anime-hatefest.
> 
> WTF is it with the recent prominence of it in the West lately?
> 
> ...





  I love stories. And I love magic. And anime has an abundance of both.

I love many cultures, and I consider all of them to be "mine." I love Grim's fairy tales. I love Tolkien. I study many belief systems, religions, cultures and mythologies, and enjoy stories...especially stories about magic, from more or less all cultures. That includes Japanese, and other east-asian cultures.

  For many of us life long lovers of fantasy, a lot of it is simply a change of pace. The Asian mode(s) of storytelling are very different in many ways from the Western, and that makes them refreshing. I find the stories of many anime to be original and different, or at least presented in very different ways. I like the fact that many asian stories/anime/movies take a more stream of conciousness aproach, some times with less emphasis on perfectly crafted plots and more on symbolism feeling and atmosphere. Although some times the reverse is true. I like the fact that anime is often willing to confront and explore things rarely done so in Western cinema, in powerful and exacting ways. 


  Also remember, many Americans dont really feel they have much of a cultural heritage, especially from a fantasy/mythology perspective. Modern America doesnt really have its own mythology, being a modern nation composed mainly of immigrants. My heritage, as far as where my family traces back too, is English, Scots, Welsh and Austrian mostly. And I love the folklore and stories of those places as well. So is that betraying my "heritage" as someone born in America?

  Also, its not all youth. Many people I know who enjoy anime are well into their 30s and beyond. Theres a lot more of it now, but there was plenty of anime in the US in the 70s and 80s. 





> Frankly, I'd rather not see my Dungeons and Dragons contaminated by its influence.





  Well, I think "contaminated" is rather to pejorative of a term here. As I said in an earlier post 1) I dont really feel that the aesthetic of anime as a whole fits very well with D&D either and 2) I dont really see where Anime is having any real influence on D&D.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just because I so very rarely get to do this:
> 
> I agree 100% with Raven Crowking.
> 
> ...






So what "metric" are we going to come up with that everyone can agree on?

Whats the problem with everyone having their own opinions and all those opinions being valid?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 11, 2007)

I see a whole lot of getting on high-horses and taunting and smarmy snootiness going on here.  The lack of respect for each other is palpable, and it will end now.  

Respect, folks.  It isn't difficult.  If you've got a problem with it, please feel free to e-mail a mod to discuss it.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> So what "metric" are we going to come up with that everyone can agree on?
> 
> Whats the problem with everyone having their own opinions and all those opinions being valid?




I agree everyone's opinion should be valid. That doesn't mean their opinion is informed, however. And by not making any attempt at determining quality, everything tends to end up rather similar. Its the danger of a monopoly; without competition to drive innovation, the product tends to stagnate.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> I agree everyone's opinion should be valid.That doesn't mean their opinion is informed .





  Their opinion about a given work doesnt necessarily need to be informed by anything other than experiencing that work.





> And by not making any attempt at determining quality, everything tends to end up rather similar. Its the danger of a monopoly; without competition to drive innovation, the product tends to stagnate.




  I dont see this as a problem, as the desire to innovate, grow and expand is pretty much built into most artists/creative types. I speak from experience as a writer in this...even though I dont accept the notion of objectively "bad" creative works, I still attempt to improve my own work within the framework of my own personal standards and those of my personal audience.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 11, 2007)

ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> Japanese culture is alarmingly pervasive in the modern West. What is it about all things Japanese that so fascinates young Westerners?



In all likelihood? It's just something different. And it's not something unique to Western youth.

I'm sure that there are plenty of young Japanese who are fascinated by American culture.

There certainly are plenty of young Singaporeans who are fascinated by American culture.

And plenty of other young Singaporeans who are fascinated by Japanese culture.

And (a more recent phenomenon) yet other young Singaporeans who are fascinated by Korean culture.

Of course, the counter-argument to that is Singapore doesn't really have much culture of its own to begin with. :\


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I'm sure that there are plenty of young Japanese who are fascinated by American culture.





  Very much so, from what I understand. Probably to a greater degree than the reverse.


----------



## hong (Sep 11, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> In all likelihood? It's just something different. And it's not something unique to Western youth.
> 
> I'm sure that there are plenty of young Japanese who are fascinated by American culture.
> 
> ...



 Hey, it was pretty cool when I was there....


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Their opinion about a given work doesnt necessarily need to be informed by anything other than experiencing that work.




And yet there are people that will voice their opinion on books they haven't read, movies they haven't seen, and so on. Is their opinion as valid as someone who has? 




			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> I dont see this as a problem, as the desire to innovate, grow and expand is pretty much built into most artists/creative types. I speak from experience as a writer in this...even though I dont accept the notion of objectively "bad" creative works, I still attempt to improve my own work within the framework of my own personal standards and those of my personal audience.




But if it was "good" to begin with, how do you know when and what to improve? If something can be better than it was before, can there not be a point when you could have called it "bad"? If your story has incomprehensible grammar, glaring inconsistencies and a plot that makes no sense, can you call it "good" if even one person finds it entertaining? What if that person is you?


----------



## tlantl (Sep 11, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I don't see much difference. D&D was originally inspired by pop culture trash - fantasy pulps, space opera, Hammer horror, David Carradine's Kung Fu, 70s Marvel comics, and even bizarre kids' toys. Now it's still being inspired by pop culture trash.
> 
> Okay, some D&D is derived from ancient myth and folklore but it's not a deep reading thereof. It's myth as cheap thrill, being mined solely for weird-shaped monsters for the PCs to murder.





Perzactly. Thats the whole idea. Lets all mindlessly slaughter folklore and fairy stories. Take all of their phatt lewt and Pretend to drink heavily on the spoils.(Cause drinking heavily for real while playing is so unfun.)

It's kind of hard to have deep philosphical discussions where the point of the whole thing is to help a body to unwind and play pretend for a while and Kill the crap out of a lot of fairies and to take their ... I seem to have been here before, uh, Maybe problem solve a little and explore places that we wish might exist, then Kill the snot outa everything, then take their stuff, perspecially the phatt lewt, and then pretend to drink heavily on the spoils.

Anything less would be more civilized. And way less fun! 

Never cared for anime myself. I steal the ideas of well respected and widely read fantasy and science fiction writers. Mostly the sci-fi stuff I don't much care for the fantasy genre either.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> And yet there are people that will voice their opinion on books they haven't read, movies they haven't seen, and so on. Is their opinion as valid as someone who has?





  I wouldnt call that a real opinion of the work. Its probably more like a generalized opinion of similar works etc. 

  I dont really have any issues with any opinion of a work, unless and until someone tries to say their opinion is some sort of objective truth.





> But if it was "good" to begin with, how do you know when and what to improve?





  By my own personal standards, and the standards of others who read them. Edit: Also to me its not a thing of "good" and "bad". Its an issue of all creative works having inherent *value*. This value may or may not manifest for everyone, since everyone has different thoughts, feelings, needs and perceptions.




> If something can be better than it was before, can there not be a point when you could have called it "bad"?





  Flawed and incomplete, yes. Bad, as in lacking any sort of value whatsoever, no I dont think so.




> If your story has incomprehensible grammar, glaring inconsistencies and a plot that makes no sense, can you call it "good" if even one person finds it entertaining?




What are the chances of anyone besides a small child producing a story that simultaneously has incomprehensible grammar, glaring inconsistancies, and a plot that makes no sense?

  A work can have flaws that everyone or nearly everyone can agree upon, but that doesnt make it "bad", "worthless" or "crap." And as I said, I dont really see the liklihood of a literary work being produced by an adult possessed of basic language skills that is simply an incomprehensible collection of words or some such.

  And it also, once again, depends upon the specific purposes of a work. I've read and seen stories/movies whatever that basically made no sense to me and that I didn't get anything from...but I figure they served some purpose for their creators and probably had positive effects on other viewers.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> By my own personal standards, and the standards of others who read them. Edit: Also to me its not a thing of "good" and "bad". Its an issue of all creative works having inherent *value*. This value may or may not manifest for everyone, since everyone has different thoughts, feelings, needs and perceptions.




But what do you base your standards on? Where did you get them from?




			
				merlion said:
			
		

> What are the chances of anyone besides a small child producing a story that simultaneously has incomprehensible grammar, glaring inconsistancies, and a plot that makes no sense?




After reading amateur fiction on the interwebs, I'd say the chances are pretty good that adults can produce that kind of work.



			
				merlion said:
			
		

> A work can have flaws that everyone or nearly everyone can agree upon, but that doesnt make it "bad", "worthless" or "crap."




Hey I don't like tossing around "crap" or "worthless" either; those terms certainly rankle me when they are used. "Bad" is different for me (less offensive I suppose, somehow), although it does get used too liberally on the web.




			
				merlion said:
			
		

> Flawed and incomplete, yes. Bad, as in lacking any sort of value whatsoever, no I dont think so.




I think we are just waltzing with semantics here, so perhaps I'll let things be.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> But what do you base your standards on? Where did you get them from?
> .





  From myself. But I don't claim that they necessarily apply to anyone but me.

For instance, I tend to be bored by most "regular" drama, comedy and even action stories that lack supernatural/unusual elements. But I dont consider most of the things that bore me "bad", I just consider them boring, for myself.






> After reading amateur fiction on the interwebs, I'd say the chances are pretty good that adults can produce that kind of work





  But whats the intention or purpose behind it? Is it meant to be a sincere creative expression?

  But then, how can one really tell?





> I think we are just waltzing with semantics here, so perhaps I'll let things be.





  Its more that for some of these things, there are no single, definitive, absolute and universal answers, at least not in terms of debate-logic.

  I believe that all artistic/creative works have inherent value.

I believe that there are certain areas in which most people tend to agree that certain things are more or less enjoyable or useful, especially as far as storytelling. These are semi-objective elements, like plot, characterization etc. But even they are in the end subjective, and a story can have many flaws in these areas but still retain a great deal of value. 

  I think some works are made simply to be entertainment, without a lot of other purpose or intention behind them. Many of the works that people label "bad" fall into this catagory. They have no delusions of being masterpieces or of changing the world, they exist simply to give enjoyment and entertainment. But this is a value in itself. 

  I think rarely there are works that are created mainly just to be sold and that these could perhaps be considered the "least valuable" of artistic works. However, if they are enjoyed, then they still posses value and merit. 

  I think that works into which great love and thought are poured are on, for lack of a better term, a "higher level" than those that are produced mainly as a commercial commodity. But then, how does one tell them apart?

 Like I said, there arent absolute answers and reconciliations for some of these things. A lot of it depends on the individual work. But the notion that some artistic works are simply bad in some universal objective way, to me basically boils down to either elitism or egotism in the end.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Their opinion about a given work doesnt necessarily need to be informed by anything other than experiencing that work.




And there, we're just not going to agree.  Sorry, cultural ties are extremely important to understanding a work.  The well wrought urn form of critical thought has been pretty much buried since about 1960.  Trying to critique a work in a vacuum leads to some very strange interpretations.  



> I dont see this as a problem, as the desire to innovate, grow and expand is pretty much built into most artists/creative types. I speak from experience as a writer in this...even though I dont accept the notion of objectively "bad" creative works, I still attempt to improve my own work within the framework of my own personal standards and those of my personal audience.




As I said, we aren't going to agree on this.  You are claiming that so long as anyone says something is good, it is so.  That unless 100% of the people claim it is bad, that it cannot be bad.  To me, there is a world of difference between me trying to critique a work and someone who has made a life study of it.  That person can not only tell me, in fairly objective terms, that work X is good, but also why beyond "I like it, therefore its good."

The tendency to conflate subjective taste with quality is very pervasive.  Just because I like something doesn't make it good.  

On the flip side, just because something is popular, doesn't make it bad as well.  There is a danger, and you see this in music all the time, that as soon as something goes mainstream, it's no longer "good".  Early fans talk about bands "selling out" and that new fans just aren't really fans.  This is equally problematic.

But, in the end, I'm going state, I believe objectively, that Mozart writes better music than I do.  Mozart is objectively better than anything I can do.  I might not even like it that much, but I know that its better.  Shakespeare is a better writer than Stephen King.  Michaelangelo is a better painter than you are.  (probably  )  Etc, etc.  

There are objective standards we can apply to a given work.  Those standards will change depending on what we are examining, but, the idea that all standards are subjective, thus, equally valid is, IMO, wrong.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And there, we're just not going to agree. Sorry, cultural ties are extremely important to understanding a work. The well wrought urn form of critical thought has been pretty much buried since about 1960. Trying to critique a work in a vacuum leads to some very strange interpretations.





  I am not talking about "critiquing" it in any academic sense. I am talking about 1) people forming their personal opinion of it and 2) determining wether it has value and merit, which as near as I can tell, all artistic works do.





> As I said, we aren't going to agree on this. You are claiming that so long as anyone says something is good, it is so





 Nope. I'm stating that all artistic works have value.





> That person can not only tell me, in fairly objective terms, that work X is good, but also why beyond "I like it, therefore its good."





And then what happens if you don't like it? Your taste or intelligence are somehow deficient?





> Shakespeare is a better writer than Stephen King.





Why? According to who? By what "objective" criteria? And if I like Stephen King better than Shakespear, does that mean I have somehow "inferior" "taste"?




> There are objective standards we can apply to a given work





What are they, who decides what they are, what happens when those people disagree? What happens when a work lives up to some of them, but not others? How far under the "passing grade" can it fall, and in which areas before it is "objectively bad?"  





> Those standards will change depending on what we are examining





Then they arent objective. Unless maybe you are talking about say literature versus music versus painting or some such, but even then, the purposes of all those forms are pretty similar. Only the execution or means is different.

And I notice you give very little mention to the purpose and intent behind works.





> but, the idea that all standards are subjective, thus, equally valid is, IMO, wrong.





If your talking about boat building, or medicine, or rocket science, then yea. Cause those things are objective and have totally objective results of succeeding or failing in their totally objective purposes. But art, by nature, is subjective. Its meant to be experienced, and everyone will experience it differently.





> Just because I like something doesn't make it good





I am not talking about everything being "good", necessarily. I am talking about all artistic works having value, and the "good and bad" of it being subjective.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

On a side note, I can't remember ever having experienced reading/seeing a book, story, movie or whatever that I felt was "bad" in the way that all of you talk about. I've seen/read plenty that bored me, or that I didnt care for. I've encountered some that put forth views that i disagree with, or even consider to be destructive or wrong. I've been irritated by ones that do things with concepts I am fond of that I don't agree with or like, such as portraying a certain creature in a way inconsistent with its roots.

  I've even encountered specific things, actions or other issues in a story that I considered less than skilled writing/storytelling...most commonly in the context of television series some times having a character act in a way at odds with the character's established nature for no discernible reason. 

  And there are whole types of stories that I don't personally understand why anyone would be interested in them. But I understand that they still are, and that that is valid. 

  But I cant really remember ever feeling that an entire work was simply "bad", devoid of merit, in its entirety or near entirity.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I am not talking about "critiquing" it in any academic sense. I am talking about 1) people forming their personal opinion of it and 2) determining wether it has value and merit, which as near as I can tell, all artistic works do.




Value and merit aren't the same thing. Value is quite subjective, while merit implies excellence (and certainly not all art can be called excellent).




			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> And then what happens if you don't like it? Your taste or intelligence are somehow deficient?




I don't think taste and intelligence are necessarily linked. Intelligent people can like things that are bad for them (smoking, for example).




			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> What are they, who decides what they are, what happens when those people disagree? What happens when a work lives up to some of them, but not others? How far under the "passing grade" can it fall, and in which areas before it is "objectively bad?"




On that note, if we can agree that some works are better than others, if a particular work is inferior to nearly every other one it can be compared to, is avoiding calling it "bad" really accomplishing anything?


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Sep 11, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain why if anything is derived from anime/WoW (even if it has a non-existent connection) it seems like there is opposition not based on the concept itself but from where it comes from?




For myself, it depends on the derived element, and where it is used.

In the 4E core books, I am opposed to any anime-style artwork. D&D has it's foundations in pre-rennaissance Eurocentric culture, and for it to have my approval it should stay there. I don't want factory-style art of young teen heroes with petite noses, big eyes, blue hair, and gargantuan bladed swords. It is _so_ out of character for my tastes, it would actually affect my decision to purchase.

However, if the artwork looked more like Katsuhiro Otomo's anime I'd have far fewer problems.

As for WoW, it's not nearly as bad, primarily because it's effectively a watered down blend of anime and warhammer. I dislike many of WoW visual elements, but I'm nowhere as horrified by it as I am with the mass-produced anime drek I've seen.

Mechanics-wise (character classes, campaign elements, plotlines, etc) I have no compunctions whatsoever. Steal away. If it makes the game more fun so be it. Just keep the Eurocentric feel of the game. If WotC intended to include Naruto-style powerslingers, just save it for a supplemental book.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

DarthShoju said:
			
		

> Value and merit aren't the same thing. Value is quite subjective, while merit implies excellence (and certainly not all art can be called excellent).





  Thats not how I understand the definition of either word, but ok. To me merit and value both imply more or less exactly the same things. And they are subjective, but as such all artistic works would still possess them, since there are going to be people who assign/experience value or merit from them, along with those that dont.





> I don't think taste and intelligence are necessarily linked. Intelligent people can like things that are bad for them (smoking, for example).





Whats that got to do with what we're talking about, or my question?

  If some works are objectively bad/worthless/without merit, it follows that anyone who feels that they arent has deficient taste, intelligence or something.





> On that note, if we can agree that some works are better than others, if a particular work is inferior to nearly every other one it can be compared to, is avoiding calling it "bad" really accomplishing anything?





  Well first, I'm not even sure about the some are better than others type. In the end, its really still subjective. 

  To me, some few works stand above their peers yes. But I dont really think you'd find a work inferior in any remotely objective way to everything else you could compare it to.

  However, to answer your question a little more directly on its own terms, it depends on how your defining "bad." You guys seem to use "bad" to mean "I dont like it" or "not as good as the best of its kind."

  Generally however bad means negative, lousy, worthless, failed, useless etc. And even if a work was inferior to all others of its kind, I dont think that would yet make it any of those things.

  Works of art are works of art, and their badness or goodness is more or less entirely in the eye of the beholder, when it comes down to it, which means that no one can say "this is bad (or crap or worthless or failed or useless or whatever similar word you want to use)" as anything other than a statement of their personal opinion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 11, 2007)

> If some works are objectively bad/worthless/without merit, it follows that anyone who feels that they arent has deficient taste, intelligence or something.




Taste is subjective, not objective.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Taste is subjective, not objective.






  I know. That was my point


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 11, 2007)

And my point was that since taste is subjective, one cannot draw conclusions about someone's character based on their taste.

One can be quite intelligent yet have truly abyssmal taste.

If it hadn't been destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, I'd be able to post pictures of my grandparents' home for illustration of the point.  Both of them were educators, and my grandfather in particular taught History, Math, and a variety of other subjects in the High-Schools and every college & university in the New Orleans area.  If he had a textbook, he could teach the class, he said...and proved numerous times.

Despite the fact that they had green velvet curtains in a red-themed room, and orange-ish ones in a green themed room (custom made, delivered and placed in the wrong rooms, and never moved for 40 years), he even managed to teach a college level course on aesthetics, and could not personally understand the fuss made over Erte or Picasso when one could get art from students & starving artist sales.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Well first, I'm not even sure about the some are better than others type. In the end, its really still subjective.




Not really. There are still objective standards that can differentiate one work from another. You can say one guitarist is better than another by how they play their instrument (one may miss notes/chords that the other consistently hits). One writer may be far more effective at communicating ideas than another. Regardless of whether you accept that art can be "bad", it seems strange to me to claim that there is no objective way to claim something as being better than another.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Generally however bad means negative, lousy, worthless, failed, useless etc. And even if a work was inferior to all others of its kind, I dont think that would yet make it any of those things.




I tend to go with "of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient". I'll agree that where you draw the line of "good vs bad" is somewhat subjective, but I also feel there comes a time when something is so inferior you just have to call it bad and leave it at that.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 11, 2007)

ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> I want in on the anime-hatefest.
> 
> WTF is it with the recent prominence of it in the West lately?
> 
> ...



I think the reason is that, for the most part, Japanese stuff is better than equivalent American stuff right now.

I mean, look at comics. The American comics industry has been stuck in the rut of a single genre, focusing on the same characters, for decades. There are only _three_ superheroes who deserve any level of popular recognition (Batman, Superman, and Spiderman), and every other superhero is extraneous. And these superheroes have remained in narrative limbo (with stories that have no hope of coming to a happy conclusion) for decades. The only people who care about the rest are the die-hard superhero fans. They are stories that, for a modern reader, have no beginning and no end. Also, there is a distinct lack of new authorial invention.

Japanese manga, on the other hand, has a diversity of genres and new creative talent, constantly creating new kinds of stories and new interesting characters. It is a lot less monolithic, and far more closely resembles the Pulp era of American fiction, with lots of companies producing lots of cheap material very quickly. And, just as the Pulps gave us interesting things like John Carter on Mars, manga is creating new interesting material that appeals to wide audiences. I guess it is proof that a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters is more likely to produce gold than following old formulas. The fact that the author/artists of Japanese manga still maintain ultimate control of the copyright of their works, and full control over the future of their works (if an author gives up on a project, it is dead, and the company can't revive it with a new author), might also play a part in this.

Anime succeeds primarily because it borrows from manga, and other countries arn't even making an _attempt_ worth mentioning to match the anime industry's output and quality. Didn't _Disney_ abandon its 2D animation section in recent years?

Japanese videogames are dominant primarily because the American videogame industry bombed in 1983 or so, and the Japanese company Nintendo seized the opportunity to gain dominance. America has been struggling to keep up ever since. It is not very different from how France, Italy, and Germany used to dominate film, but have not since WW1 destroyed their film industries, and have been struggling to keep up with the US ever since.

Also, as a whole, it is not just Japan which is dominating culture. Korean works are becoming ever more important, even in Japan itself. Works inspired by anime and manga, but purely original to the West, such as ever more popular American Webcomics, are also becoming really influential.

As a whole, I think you have it backwards. It isn't that anime and Final Fantasy sell well because people want Japanese culture, it is that people want Japanese culture because of anime and Final Fantasy.

Does that explain it?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> What I am saying is, as far as I've ever known, art is subjective. Wether a piece of art is "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion.
> 
> However, many people here believe a creative work can be objectively "bad". Hobo said he admits many things he enjoys are "crap" but doesnt want RuinsExplorer as the arbiter of what is or isnt "crap." My point is, if your going to believe in the concept of objectively "bad" creative works, who then gets to choose whats "bad" and whats not, since in actuality its all personal opinion?





If something is objectively bad or good, it isn't a matter of choosing.  It's a matter of recognizing.  And, since we don't have an objective toolset for recognizing good or bad, it isn't science.

This is similar, BTW, to the idea in moral philosophy that there can be an objective "good" and "evil" even if our ability to recognize it as such as subjective at best.

If there is an objective "good" and "bad" in art (or in morality), then it becomes possible to refine our subjective toolset over time, being able to better discriminate between the two.  If there is not, no forward motion is possible (if for no other reason than that the term "forward motion" would then have no objective meaning).


RC


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I am not talking about "critiquing" it in any academic sense. I am talking about 1) people forming their personal opinion of it and 2) determining wether it has value and merit, which as near as I can tell, all artistic works do.




Which means that we are having a disconnect in terminology.  To me, critique has a very specific meaning and has very, very little to do with personal opinion.



> Nope. I'm stating that all artistic works have value.




So long as bad is a value, I'd agree with that.    Note, I don't equate bad with valueless.  Lots of things are bad, but that doesn't mean they completely lack value.  Even poorly written prose can contain original ideas that can springboard other writers to better works.  Case in point:  Tolkein.  (I KID I KID!)




> And then what happens if you don't like it? Your taste or intelligence are somehow deficient?




Again, this is a major semantic gulf we're having, so I think we're pretty much talking about different topics.



> Why? According to who? By what "objective" criteria? And if I like Stephen King better than Shakespear, does that mean I have somehow "inferior" "taste"?




As was mentioned, taste is subjective and has very little to do with quality.  Big Mac's may be incredibly popular, but, I'd hardly say that they are higher quality than prime rib.  Brittany Spears may sell more albums than many other musicians, but, I'd hardly call her music better.



> What are they, who decides what they are, what happens when those people disagree? What happens when a work lives up to some of them, but not others? How far under the "passing grade" can it fall, and in which areas before it is "objectively bad?"




Happens all the time.  Heck, look at the MASSIVE body of work that comes out every year critiquing Shakespeare.  New concepts and new ways of critiquing come and go.  As ideas change, so does our value system of judging a work.  Something that may have been panned by critics at the time can become lauded later.  Look at Van Gogh.  Didn't sell a painting in his lifetime.  Now he's considered a master.



> Then they arent objective. Unless maybe you are talking about say literature versus music versus painting or some such, but even then, the purposes of all those forms are pretty similar. Only the execution or means is different.
> 
> And I notice you give very little mention to the purpose and intent behind works.




That's because authorial intent is meaningless.  Authors can be wrong about the meaning of their text.  Authors can lie.  Authors can be misrepresented.  And they can misrepresent themselves.  They can even change their minds over time about the meaning of a work.  Appeals to authorial intent have been discredited for a very long time.  

Heck, earlier in this thread someone pointed to J. K. Rowlings stating that Harry Potter isn't fantasy.  Imagine for a second that this is true, that she really said and meant this.  Does that mean that Harry Potter no longer belongs in the fantasy genre?  Because, if you accept authorial intent, that's what you have to conclude.




> If your talking about boat building, or medicine, or rocket science, then yea. Cause those things are objective and have totally objective results of succeeding or failing in their totally objective purposes. But art, by nature, is subjective. Its meant to be experienced, and everyone will experience it differently.




However, there is often a commonality of experience that can be explored.  And, again, just because experiences differ, doesn't mean that you cannot quantify elements of that experience.  Sure, it's a lot fuzzier than in medicine, but, that doesn't make it purely subjective either.



> I am not talking about everything being "good", necessarily. I am talking about all artistic works having value, and the "good and bad" of it being subjective.
> 
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.




I think one of the biggest disconnects here is the idea that if something is bad, then it has no value.  That's not true.  Star Wars is a bad movie.  It's cliche, hackneyed, poorly acted, poorly written, derivative, the works.  Yet, it spawned the Summer Blockbuster, some of which have been great movies.  So, something that is objectively bad can be subjectively enjoyed and can still have lots of value.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> On a side note, I can't remember ever having experienced reading/seeing a book, story, movie or whatever that I felt was "bad" in the way that all of you talk about. I've seen/read plenty that bored me, or that I didnt care for. I've encountered some that put forth views that i disagree with, or even consider to be destructive or wrong. I've been irritated by ones that do things with concepts I am fond of that I don't agree with or like, such as portraying a certain creature in a way inconsistent with its roots.
> 
> I've even encountered specific things, actions or other issues in a story that I considered less than skilled writing/storytelling...most commonly in the context of television series some times having a character act in a way at odds with the character's established nature for no discernible reason.
> 
> ...




Try watching the first Dungeons and Dragons movie and tell me that again.    Or Hawk the Slayer.  Or Dungeonmaster.  Or reading a Gor book.  Listen to any number of one hit wonder 80's bubblegum pop bands.  The list goes on and on.  It can't possibly all be good.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If something is objectively bad or good, it isn't a matter of choosing.  It's a matter of recognizing.  And, since we don't have an objective toolset for recognizing good or bad, it isn't science.
> 
> This is similar, BTW, to the idea in moral philosophy that there can be an objective "good" and "evil" even if our ability to recognize it as such as subjective at best.
> 
> ...




Dammit RC, quit saying things I agree with.  It's starting to bug me.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Thurbane said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ranes (Sep 11, 2007)

Anime is not a broad art style and far from encompassing a heck of a lot, it defines itself more by what it eschews.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Dammit RC, quit saying things I agree with.  It's starting to bug me.





Even a broken clock is right twice a day.    


unless it's digitial.......


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 11, 2007)

ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> I want in on the anime-hatefest.
> 
> WTF is it with the recent prominence of it in the West lately?
> 
> ...



I've been into it for about 14 years simply because I saw the lack of creativity in media a while ago. Not as much as books as it is television and movies.  Original american movies either rehash the same thing over and over with no substance to characters and no consequence or it steals others ideas and then remakes them (look at the fall television schedule). 

Anime has deeper character development, especially when compared to american cartoons, and realistic underlying storylines.  Sorry, but d and d has already been influenced by the genre else it would have remained a hack and slash wargame. 

There are more dungeons and dragons anime than there are cartoons.  The two naturally mimic each other.  A lot of fantasy anime is based around the concept of the party and the party matures from episode to episode. Main characters die, villians win and things move.  I can't think of one dungeons and dragons cartoon (not even the dungeons and dragons cartoon) that has captured the essence of dungeons and dragons as opposed to anime. 

Sorry, unless its harry potter kids aren't reading as much as they are now becuase of the need for instant gratification, so that leaves movies and television, and the only thing out there with actual character development are the anime.


----------



## Clavis (Sep 11, 2007)

I will posit the idea that our desires and standards (aesthetic, moral, etc.) are the product of a dynamic relationship between three factors:
Biology - genetic and epigenetic factors for example
Society: The cultural norms imposed on the individual and accepted by them
Personal Psychology: Desires that are the result of the personal history of the individual.

We know that monkeys have a sense of when they are being treated unfairly. Recent research indicate a real brain difference between those who self-identify as Conservative and those who declare themselves to be Liberal. We also know that the _proportions_ that constitute beauty in woman (although not the _size_) are universal in every culture on Earth, from the most primitive to the most advanced. So I believe there are some universals with regard to aesthetics and morality, but that they are expressed differently in every culture, and every individual has their own interpretations of his or her culture's expression.

It is easier to say what _isn't_ beautiful than what _is_ beautiful. Nonetheless, I believe there definitely are better and worse works of art. However, we can't take the argument too far before we simply cross over into a conflict over taste, cultural and personal.

Some questions I ask myself to determine is a work of art is "good" are:
Does this art display technical skill beyond that of an ordinary person?
Does experiencing this art deepen my appreciation for my own life?
Does this art encapsulate the experience of some other person or persons in a meaningful way?
Is this art beautiful?
Does this art startle me into considering some point of view I may have been ignoring?
Does this art hold my interest?
Is the message of this art timeless?
Does this art have a message for all people, as opposed to only those of a particular culture?

For myself, the more "yes" answers I can find to those questions, the "better" I think the art is. There are definitely lesser works that I personally find more entertaining than greater works, however. 

Yes, I can watch "crap", find it entertaining, and still know it's "crap". I often do it on purpose, and have a particular love of B-horror movies and 42nd Street grindhouse films. In some ways, I find bad art more interesting than "good" art. There are only a few ways to do things right, but many, many ways to do them wrong.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 11, 2007)

Ranes said:
			
		

> Anime is not a broad art style and far from encompassing a heck of a lot, it defines itself more by what it eschews.
> 
> Just sayin'.



That comes from someone whom would probably go to the Louvre and say its just a bunch of paintings and a few statues.  There are a lot of people on here with such a finite definition of such an expansive subject that you should feel embarrassed for being so wrong about your definition.  

What makes up anime
art
story
writing 
subgenre. 

The art ranges from the spiky hair seen in some anime to the heavily painted drawings seen in anime like Proxy to the movie adaptation of blood pluss.  There is a long range of style between there. 

Stories range from silly and light to serious and heavy tone. Heck, the really deep stories they can't even show on american television because of their realistic nature.  Some have heroes, some have heroins some have loose translations of antiheroes thats as close to anything to root for during the series. 

Anime is traditionally heavy on dialogue, something you don't find in a lot of media that has action in it.  The writing, even in the light stuff, is traditionally heavy as the explanation is often as important as the actions.  This primarily is what separates one anime from another.  What would separate a save the universe anime like dragon ball z to a save my home anime like Naruto (to use the most popular american adaptation).  For fans its the difference between slayers and Record of Lodoss War. 

Then there's the genre which I think alot of people on here are confused about, because there are at least 4 or 5 different sub genres. First, we can seperate them in fantasy and scifi. Then they break out into those that are pg and those that are r. Those that are x is hentai and not considered anime.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 11, 2007)

I've got to agree with Hussar, even though I think I know where Merlion comes from, mainly because I'm sitting in the same boat, or have been for quite a while.

The point is that there's two completely different, and often incompatible, evaluation systems (for lack of better words) being applied to the same thing, mainly artwork.

The one Merlion (and I, for most cases) applies is the very subjective question"Does it entertain me?", which will derive its results from the personal feedback upon experiencing the respective peice of art (story, song, poem, picture, etc.)

The other one is a far more objective (yet not 100% for the simple reason that art IS more malleable than science) question of "How many criterias of this specific kind of artwork does the piece in question contain, and how well are they executed?" (also for lack of more concise words  ).

The point is that art always develops a specific style, be it in painting, writing (poetry as well as prose), composing. Art is grouped into a style by common elements that all of them contain, be it a certain way to rhyme, a certain way to paint, a certain structure to how stories are composed, etc. These elements can be analyzed for the quality of execution by the artist, and hence a certain standard of "good" or "bad" art can be established.

What keeps me from actually caring about all that is the fact that it is a DAMN lot of work (and I'm a lazy-ass where analyzing my passtimes is concerned  ), and it tends to draw your enjoyment away in place of a constant critical state of mind. And there's nothing I hate more than sitting in a movie with a few friends, listening to one of them constantly bemoaning one or another failure of the director/actor/script writer while I'm trying to enjoy the movie. That doesn't keep me from recognizing the fact that there is a pretty broad range of quality between "good" and "bad" artwork, and it doesn't depend on me liking it or not.

In the reverse, though, me liking something or not does NOT depend on it being judged "good" or "bad" either.  

Edit: And the recent (read last 40 years) developments and discoveries in quantum mechanics tend to make me wonder how "objective" some natural phenomena like particles really are...since we can only percieve them through measuring them, and through measuring them we change them. I think Mother Nature is just flipping us a good-natured finger in our eternal search for "objective" and "scientifically quantifyable" truth, but that's just me.  In that manner, "anime" seems to be an artisitc quantum...it can take MANY forms, and they all are modified in their effect through the expectations the viewer is already bringing towards the experiment of watching it.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Not really. There are still objective standards that can differentiate one work from another. You can say one guitarist is better than another by how they play their instrument (one may miss notes/chords that the other consistently hits). .





  Yep, the physical skill of one muscian can be better than another. But lets say they both write their own music. How does one determine which song is "better" than the other? Since in the end, the purpose of both is to be enjoyed. 





> One writer may be far more effective at communicating ideas than another





  He may be far more effective at communicating them to some, but far less with others. And another author may be the reverse.




> I'll agree that where you draw the line of "good vs bad" is somewhat subjective, but I also feel there comes a time when something is so inferior you just have to call it bad and leave it at that.





Why? and to what purpose? And what does that mean for all the other people who consider the same work good?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> How does one determine which song is "better" than the other? Since in the end, the purpose of both is to be enjoyed.




I would say that the purpose of all art is to communicate; that communication is not always meant to be enjoyed.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Which means that we are having a disconnect in terminology. To me, critique has a very specific meaning and has very, very little to do with personal opinion.





  Yea, thats what I was talking about. You seem to be coming from an academic/clinical standpoint based on criteria set down by the "literary elite" or whatever...people "educated" in these matters, supposedly. (I dont say that to be derisive of you or your personal opinions, just of the whole objective criteria for creativity concept.)

  I'm coming from a rather more "basic" perspective, based on the idea that everyone is going to have different opinions on a work of art, and that everyones opinions, thoughts and feelings are of equal value.




> Again, this is a major semantic gulf we're having, so I think we're pretty much talking about different topics





No, I just have less disconnect between "topics" than most people. One, just one mind you, of the issues I have with the notion of "art is objective" is that with any given piece of art many people are going to like it/enjoy it/consider it to be good, while others wont/don't/consider it bad. In your philosophy, as I understand it, the people who consider an obectively "bad" work to be "good" are objectively wrong in their opinion, and it tends to follow, therefore, in some way deficient wether its in knowledge, intelligence, or "taste". I disagree with this conclusion.





> As was mentioned, taste is subjective and has very little to do with quality





See this I just cant wrap my mind around. Taste is of course subjective...but when talking about art, so is quality. Therefore, in art, taste and quality are both going to be different even with respect to the same work, as applied by different people.

  Unless your willing to accept the notion that some peoples opinions are simply "wrong"





> Happens all the time. Heck, look at the MASSIVE body of work that comes out every year critiquing Shakespeare. New concepts and new ways of critiquing come and go. As ideas change, so does our value system of judging a work





Which, as near as I can tell, means it isnt objective. Objective things tend not to change with time. The basic requirements of building a working boat are the same now as a thousand years ago. But as you say, the opinion of the "elite" the "in the know" folks about what constitutes "good" and "bad" art changes regularly, and often even these "experts" disagree about a given work.

All strong signs of subjectivity.






> That's because authorial intent is meaningless. Authors can be wrong about the meaning of their text. Authors can lie. Authors can be misrepresented. And they can misrepresent themselves. They can even change their minds over time about the meaning of a work. Appeals to authorial intent have been discredited for a very long time.






  Discredited by who? See this is part of the thing...I don't accept the notion that anyone is able to dictate to anyone else the validity or relevence of things within these types of issues.

That aside, your misunderstanding me I believe. When I speak of the purpose of a work, what I mean is that most works are made with one or more purposes, and if they succeed at least for some at one or more of those purposes, then they are successful or "good" works. And one of the main purposes of a work, even when it has others, is to be enjoyed. Other common purposes are to communicate something, to achieve a catharsis for the creator and/or audience, or simply because the creator wishes to see if they can create a work of a certain nature. Most if not all art suceeds in its purposes for at least some of those involved.





> However, there is often a commonality of experience that can be explored. And, again, just because experiences differ, doesn't mean that you cannot quantify elements of that experience





But it does mean you cannot, or should not try to say someones experience or opinion of a work is incorrect. That someone is wrong to consider a work "good" because according to the "experts" its "bad"





> I think one of the biggest disconnects here is the idea that if something is bad, then it has no value. That's not true. Star Wars is a bad movie. It's cliche, hackneyed, poorly acted, poorly written, derivative, the works. Yet, it spawned the Summer Blockbuster, some of which have been great movies. So, something that is objectively bad can be subjectively enjoyed and can still have lots of value.






But it can also have value in and of itself. Many consider Star Wars a wonderful movie...even including some who are "educated" in such things. So are their opinions "wrong?"





> Try watching the first Dungeons and Dragons movie and tell me that again.  Or Hawk the Slayer. Or Dungeonmaster. Or reading a Gor book. Listen to any number of one hit wonder 80's bubblegum pop bands. The list goes on and on. It can't possibly all be good






it cant all be "good" for everyone no. But all of it will be good for someone, probably more than one someone, meaning either 1) it isnt objectively bad or 2) some peoples opinions essentially "don't count"


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I would say that the purpose of all art is to communicate; that communication is not always meant to be enjoyed.






I say the purpose of art is in the intent of the creator and to some extent the experience of the experiencer. 

But either way, it remains the same. Most art has many purposes. And it generally succeeds in those purposes with some, and fails with others.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

[QUOTEGeron Raveneye]The one Merlion (and I, for most cases) applies is the very subjective question"Does it entertain me?", which will derive its results from the personal feedback upon experiencing the respective peice of art (story, song, poem, picture, etc.)[/QUOTE] 


That isnt the only question I ask. However, I believe virtually all works of art have entertainment/enjoyment as one of their often several purposes. And I do feel that quite a few works have it as their main or sole purpose. Many of these get labeled "bad" because they are not, nor do they try to be, exceedingly deep or masterpieces of any given set of criteria for the artform, they exist simply to be entertaining and enjoyable. But for many people, not trying to live up to academic criteria makes them "bad"




> The other one is a far more objective (yet not 100% for the simple reason that art IS more malleable than science) question of "How many criterias of this specific kind of artwork does the piece in question contain, and how well are they executed?" (also for lack of more concise words





But often those very criteria are themselves subjective. Even professional critics and other "experts" often disagree about which criteria should be used, which are the more important specific criteria, and how many a work can fail to live up to, in their eyes, and still be "good"

Basically the criteria used to "judge" arent are sets of codified, and in some cases relatively widely held, opinions. 




> The point is that art always develops a specific style, be it in painting, writing (poetry as well as prose), composing. Art is grouped into a style by common elements that all of them contain, be it a certain way to rhyme, a certain way to paint, a certain structure to how stories are composed, etc. These elements can be analyzed for the quality of execution by the artist, and hence a certain standard of "good" or "bad" art can be established.






Some times yes, some times no. Certain highly specific artforms do have extremely stringest criteria, especially some forms of poetry as I understand. A Haiku or Sonnet which breaks the rules of those forms could I suppose be called a "bad" Haiku or Sonnet, but that doesnt necessarily make it a valueless work of art.

As far as more generall purposes...there are so many ways of telling a story or painting a picture or whatever, to try and come up with a set of set in stone criteria for all of them is a fool's errand. What about works that fall outside any established style or genre?





> What keeps me from actually caring about all that is the fact that it is a DAMN lot of work (and I'm a lazy-ass where analyzing my passtimes is concerned  ), and it tends to draw your enjoyment away in place of a constant critical state of mind. And there's nothing I hate more than sitting in a movie with a few friends, listening to one of them constantly bemoaning one or another failure of the director/actor/script writer while I'm trying to enjoy the movie. That doesn't keep me from recognizing the fact that there is a pretty broad range of quality between "good" and "bad" artwork, and it doesn't depend on me liking it or not.





The thing is, most or all attempts to define "objective" criteria for artwork still boil down to someone, or a group of someones, liking it or not.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 11, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I would say that the purpose of all art is to communicate; that communication is not always meant to be enjoyed.




Hi, this post is all about artists, *REAL ARTISTS*.  This post is awesome.    My name is Nifft and I can't stop thinking about art.  These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.

*Facts:*
1.    Artists are mammals.
2.    Artists suffer *ALL* the time.
3.    The purpose of the artist is to flip out and communicate with people.


*Weapons and gear:*














*Testimonial:*

Artists can paint anything they want!  Artists deconstruct unconscious social and political taboos ALL the time and don't even think twice about it.  These guys are so crazy and awesome that they recontextualize symbolic meaning *ALL* the time.  I heard that there was this artist who was eating at a diner.  And when some dude dropped a spoon the artist painted the whole town.  My friend Mark said that he saw an artist totally caricature some kid just because the kid opened a window.

*And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

If you don't believe that artists have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will recontextualize you!!!  It's an easy choice, if you ask me.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 11, 2007)

There are objective qualities in most art that can be judged as 'good' or 'bad'. These are from hundreds of years of the art form developing, and whether you agree with them or not...they exist. Its from an academic end of things, which I know not all people like, but that doesn't change the fact of its existence.

Now, these objective qualities do not make the art ITSELF objective. There are certain qualities that can be 'good' or 'bad' in a piece of art, but in the end, it is STILL subjective as a whole. Also, depending on how elements are used, good can become bad and bad can become good.

Really, its all a headache. The truth, though, is that while there are objective qualities to judge art by, in the end, the overall piece is subjective. I'm going to do something I don't like to do here and generalize: There is nothing anywhere that is considered universally bad.


----------



## hong (Sep 11, 2007)

Needless to say, I love Nifft with all of my body, including my pee-pee.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> There is nothing anywhere that is considered universally bad.





Except my singing.......


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> No, I just have less disconnect between "topics" than most people. One, just one mind you, of the issues I have with the notion of "art is objective" is that with any given piece of art many people are going to like it/enjoy it/consider it to be good, while others wont/don't/consider it bad. In your philosophy, as I understand it, the people who consider an obectively "bad" work to be "good" are objectively wrong in their opinion, and it tends to follow, therefore, in some way deficient wether its in knowledge, intelligence, or "taste". I disagree with this conclusion.










			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> See this I just cant wrap my mind around. Taste is of course subjective...but when talking about art, so is quality. Therefore, in art, taste and quality are both going to be different even with respect to the same work, as applied by different people.
> 
> Unless your willing to accept the notion that some peoples opinions are simply "wrong"







			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> But it does mean you cannot, or should not try to say someones experience or opinion of a work is incorrect. That someone is wrong to consider a work "good" because according to the "experts" its "bad"





You know, I think those quotes above are a good indicator why you have a problem to wrap your mind around the whole matter. You seem to assume that any kind of "objective" (yeah, quotation marks, since being objective is an art even in science  ) judgement on the quality of a piece of art instantly applies to the individual taste as well.

Let me tell you one thing...it only does if you let it. And any "art critic" who hasn't understood that little tidbit of reality is on the best course to become very much ignored when he tries to stuff his concept of "good" and "bad" art down everybody's throat, judging those who like "bad" art to have "bad taste" "ignorant minds" or other choice adjectives.

You have the conscious choice of accepting any kind of objective judgement and shape your tastes to it, or refuse it and go with your own gut feelings. Nobody can really take that from you. It doesn't apply to art (as in "artificially created by humans") alone.

Some crystals, for example, are very "bad" crystals because they are impure, grew in different directions, etc. Yet, they still can (and oftentimes ARE) very pretty. That doesn't make somebody who enjoys looking at such crystals an ignorant, or somebody with bad taste in crystals.
And by the way, crystals are one of nature's biggest arts.  

Same goes for food. There's an art to cooking...and a science in food. Yet liking something like fast food doesn't mean you must have bad tastes in food, or must be ignorant in the inherent qualities of food and its preparation.

Individual tastes and objective judgements of quality are not connected. People try to change that, but that only leads to a lot of snobism, elitism and aggression.

On a tangent...I'd like to point out that just as food isn't just there to "be enjoyed", so isn't art. Art has a lot of different reasons to be produced, not simply to "be enjoyed". That is one stance where, even though I usually go by it for myself too, I have to disagree on a wider scope, simply because that narrows art down to something to be consumed, which it isn't. Being enjoyed is a nice side-effect, and by now a lot of art has been developed as pure consumer art, true, but that's not the only motivation from which art springs, and it would degrade that artwork to view it only as "comsumer art".

All in my opinion, of course, make of it what you like.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> There are objective qualities in most art that can be judged as 'good' or 'bad'. These are from hundreds of years of the art form developing, and whether you agree with them or not...they exist. Its from an academic end of things, which I know not all people like, but that doesn't change the fact of its existence.
> 
> Now, these objective qualities do not make the art ITSELF objective. There are certain qualities that can be 'good' or 'bad' in a piece of art, but in the end, it is STILL subjective as a whole. Also, depending on how elements are used, good can become bad and bad can become good.
> 
> Really, its all a headache. The truth, though, is that while there are objective qualities to judge art by, in the end, the overall piece is subjective. I'm going to do something I don't like to do here and generalize: There is nothing anywhere that is considered universally bad.






  Really this just about sums up what I've been saying, or at least a great deal of it. Especially the bit about objective qualities...I do think there are such, or at least nearly objective qualities, ones almost everyone can agree on. But as you say, the overall work is always still subjective.

And the last part especially is a lot of my main point. There can really be no universal bad in art...unless of course your willing to say some peoples opinions/feelings dont count. Which is part of why this issue gets me a bit riled. I know most don't mean it that way, but the final conclusion of the "objectively bad art" idea is basically that some peoples opinions arent valid, for one reason or other, to one degree or other.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

GeronRaveneye said:
			
		

> Individual tastes and objective judgements of quality are not connected. People try to change that, but that only leads to a lot of snobism, elitism and aggression.





  Its a logic thing. Logically, if a piece of art is objectively bad, then anyone who sees it as good is incorrect/their opinion isnt valid. 

  But either way, as you say, wether they are connected or not many people, most of them in the "objectively bad art" "camp" seem to feel that they are.

  Read Ankh's and my last posts tho. Like I said in there, art may have some elements to which objective or near objective standards can be applied...but in the end, the work as a whole can only be judged subjectively.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2007)

> And the last part especially is a lot of my main point. There can really be no universal bad in art...unless of course your willing to say some peoples opinions/feelings dont count. Which is part of why this issue gets me a bit riled. I know most don't mean it that way, but the final conclusion of the "objectively bad art" idea is basically that some peoples opinions arent valid, for one reason or other, to one degree or other.




Y'know what?  I've got no problems in saying that some people's opinions are less valid than others.  Some people are less educated about a work for example.  Some people judge things, like anime for example, based on a very small biased sample.  Doesn't make their opinion (Anime sucks) wrong for them.  

However, should I give someone's opinion whose sole exposure to the genre is Hentai Tentacle porn the same weight as someone who has watched a wide range of anime?  I don't think so.  I think I'll give more weight to the informed opinion.

To skirt the politics rules on the board a bit, I'd give more weight to reporting which isn't blatantly biased in one direction over one that is.  The same goes for trying to say that all art criticism is subjective.  It is largely subjective.  However, there are definite objective elements we can discuss.

The more free form the art style, the more difficult it becomes, but, it's still not impossible.  Take Star Wars again.  You say that some people think the movie is wonderful.  I'm one of them.  However,  "wonderful" doesn't tell us anything other than "I liked it."  "I liked it" is one of the least informative critique's we can make because, well, who the Hell am I and why should my personal taste matter to you?

However, we can discuss objective elements such as acting (or lack thereof), writing, originality, plot, pacing, cinematography, sound, etc.  These are all criteria which can be looked at in a fairly objective way.  The acting in Star Wars is bad.  There's no other way to put it.  It's just bad.  The acting in Episode 3 is even worse.  Bad leaves out perfectly good words like "Wooden" and "unbelievable".  I just don't care that Annakin is having problems, because the acting is so bad.

Compare the acting in, say, Star Wars to Casablanca or Gone With the Wind.  I mean, there's just no comparison.  It's objectively better and anyone with a modicum of experience with movies will tell you the same.

Yes, if someone sees a bad work as good, they're wrong.  That doesn't stop them from liking it, but, liking something doesn't make it good.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Its a logic thing. Logically, if a piece of art is objectively bad, then anyone who sees it as good is incorrect/their opinion isnt valid.
> 
> But either way, as you say, wether they are connected or not many people, most of them in the "objectively bad art" "camp" seem to feel that they are.
> 
> Read Ankh's and my last posts tho. Like I said in there, art may have some elements to which objective or near objective standards can be applied...but in the end, the work as a whole can only be judged subjectively.





Heh, did read them, and I'll simply take them as I see them...that it is possible to judge something as (for example) "good jazz", "good impressionism" or "bad bauhaus" on objective criteria, but that the overall label of "good" or "bad" can only be assigned by the individual experiencing it.

To which I agree.

So basically, something can be good or bad "Sword & Sorcery" fiction according to a list of criteria on that genre, and a scale of quality of the author's craftmanship (which is easier to evaluate than the quality of the genre criteria, if I dare say so), but it's simply not possible to blanket-judge fantasy as bad literature. Which is just as well. And goes for anime, too.

And that "logic thing" only applies if somebody who uses the same set of objective criteria as you arrives at a completely opposite judgement. Then it's time to check the criteria for usefulness in judging something in the first place.

If somebody comes up to me (like a friend likes to do very often) and gives me a long list of reasons why some movie I pretty much like sucks, I simply shrug and tell him that we're simply using completely different yardsticks, that I can understand and even agree to some of his points and judgements, but that they don't apply to why I like the movie, and hence his judgement has no value for me. It's really as easy as that. Also works every time in making him puff up quite a bit before deflating.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, should I give someone's opinion whose sole exposure to the genre is Hentai Tentacle porn the same weight as someone who has watched a wide range of anime? I don't think so. I think I'll give more weight to the informed opinion





  I agree, and I should have made this distinction more clear. I have been speaking of opinions of specific works. What your speaking of here is an opinion of a whole catagory or genre, and I agree with you in those cases that an opinion formed about a whole catagory based on very limited or nonexistant experience is not a very useful opinion. 

  And that goes regardless of the nature of the limited experience. Someone who's only ever seen Eva or Outlaw Star can have a valid opinion about those works, but can't really form a meaningful opinion of anime as a whole just from that. Positive or negative.




> The same goes for trying to say that all art criticism is subjective. It is largely subjective. However, there are definite objective elements we can discuss.





Agreed. However, even those elements do have some degree of subjectivity. But they are as close to being objective as anything in art gets.




> Yes, if someone sees a bad work as good, they're wrong. .





And here I have to disagree. As discussed above, the final judgement of a work as a whole is still subjective in the end, even though elements of it can be judged in an objective or near objective way.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> So basically, something can be good or bad "Sword & Sorcery" fiction according to a list of criteria on that genre, and a scale of quality of the author's craftmanship (which is easier to evaluate than the quality of the genre criteria, if I dare say so), but it's simply not possible to blanket-judge fantasy as bad literature





  I'd say its also not possible to judge that specific work as objectively good or bad, as a whole. Elements of it yes, the whole not so much.




> If somebody comes up to me (like a friend likes to do very often) and gives me a long list of reasons why some movie I pretty much like sucks, I simply shrug and tell him that we're simply using completely different yardsticks





  Yes, because the yardsticks themselves are subjective, in the context of whole works. Most people tend to use the same criteria for certain specific aspects of a work, but the final judgement of the whole work is subjective.


----------



## hong (Sep 11, 2007)

Aw mang, noone else has pee-pee love for Nifft.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Aw mang, noone else has pee-pee love for Nifft.





  Your slowly tearing a massive rupture in my very conciousness, Mr. Orange Kitten.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 11, 2007)

ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> The problem doesn't lie with the Japanese; the blame can be laid at the feet of modern youth in the West.
> 
> Seriously, what is it about all things Japanese that appeals to people today? What do you find so lacking in your own culture that you find in such abundance in Japan's? What causes you to reject your own heritage and run off to worship at someone else's cultural altar?




You say this like it's a bad thing, for some reason. There is no 'blame' to be tossed here, and nothing wrong with it at all. There's no difference between being fascinated with anime and being fascinated with French cooking or German automotives or British tea or Chinese food. Our culture isn't the be-all and end-all of world culture.

The short answer is because it's new and different. The long answer is that in terms of animation and comics, America has dropped the ball; much like with the auto industry, the Japanese took something we invented and did it vastly better. We let Disney define the beginning and end of animation for fifty years, and dumbed down comics to the level of stupid children for thirty years in a hysterical Puritan reaction to artistic experimentation. Other countries didn't, and produce a vastly more mature art form now where animation isn't looked down on as something for kids in diapers. We're just now coming to that realization and starting the long hard road of catch-up.

Instead of the putrid Hanna-Barbera pap earlier generations were fed, kids now can see a vastly richer array of animation done by a country that doesn't treat animators with the same regard that you treat something you found on the bottom of your shoe. How can anyone one wonder that people love it so much? 



			
				ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> Frankly, I'd rather not see my Dungeons and Dragons contaminated by its influence.




Most people haven't been able to see an actual influence in it at all; D&D, much like the ultra-conservative American comics industry, tends to drag about five-to-ten years behind the times. So, that influence is coming.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 11, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Aw mang, noone else has pee-pee love for Nifft.



 I guess no-one else read the previous page to the end... 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## hong (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Your slowly tearing a massive rupture in my very conciousness, Mr. Orange Kitten.



 What orange kitten?


----------



## Merlion (Sep 11, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> What orange kitten?





  The one to the left of your posts, Mr. Colour-Changing Kitten


----------



## Clavis (Sep 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, should I give someone's opinion whose sole exposure to the genre is Hentai Tentacle porn the same weight as someone who has watched a wide range of anime?  I don't think so.  I think I'll give more weight to the informed opinion.




Strangely....

1) Sometimes I don't mind a little hardcore "tentacle porn' in my D&D (but I'm just sick like that).  
Maybe the designers really should give a big F-You to the Mothers of America and make the game DANGEROUS again. After all, the game was never so big as when it was believed to promote Satanism, and had pictures of naked succubi everywhere and prostitute tables in the DMG. Before 2nd Ed chopped its balls off, playing D&D could be rebellious. SO maybe some "tentacle porn" influence would be a good thing.

2)The tentacle porn has a long pedigree in Japanese art. For example:
http://poetry.rotten.com/pan-asian-kink/index15.html
Note: link is NOT work-safe, but IS historical!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Y'know what?  I've got no problems in saying that some people's opinions are less valid than others.  Some people are less educated about a work for example.  Some people judge things, like anime for example, based on a very small biased sample.  Doesn't make their opinion (Anime sucks) wrong for them.
> 
> However, should I give someone's opinion whose sole exposure to the genre is Hentai Tentacle porn the same weight as someone who has watched a wide range of anime?  I don't think so.  I think I'll give more weight to the informed opinion.





Here we go, agreeing again.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 11, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Sometimes I don't mind a little hardcore "tentacle porn' in my D&D (but I'm just sick like that).




Tentacle porn has no place in D&D.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Clavis (Sep 11, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Tentacle porn has no place in D&D.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Somebody NEEDS to actually publish a writeup of that spell...


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Sep 11, 2007)

> ...the Japanese took something we invented and did it vastly better.




This opinion is every bit as subjective and unfair as the pro-anime crowd are charging the anti-anime folks of being.

No offense--to each, his own, and all--but where you see originality in anime art/stoylines, I see just the opposite--anime has a massive list of tropes, memes, and conceits it constantly re-hashes, and regurgitates with each new series; none of it could be described as original by any stretch.  Where you see compelling plots and well-developed characters, I see characters acting nonsensically and unrealistically, and non-linear storytelling taken to the point of obfuscation.  Where you see depth, I see shallowness.  Where you see something new and original and fascinating, I see vapid, mass-market crassness.

But it isn't the storytelling elements that I fear will negatively impact D&D.  It's the artistic style.  I don't want D&D to feel like Dragonball.

From what I've seen so far, 4th edition art has more of a "Classical" feel to it, and doesn't remind me of anime at all.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Sep 12, 2007)

ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> But it isn't the storytelling elements that I fear will negatively impact D&D.  It's the artistic style.  I don't want D&D to feel like Dragonball.



A lot (actually, I'd say most) of anime doesn't look like Dragonball, either. 



> From what I've seen so far, 4th edition art has more of a "Classical" feel to it, and doesn't remind me of anime at all.



Nor the artwork in 3.* edition, in my honest opinion. It's not "classical" in feel, true, but that doesn't make it "anime-like", either.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 12, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> A lot (actually, I'd say most) of anime doesn't look like Dragonball, either.




Yeah, Akira Toriyama's art style is _very_ distinct and stands out whenever you see it anywhere (Chrono Trigger for instance).


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 12, 2007)

ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> This opinion is every bit as subjective and unfair as the pro-anime crowd are charging the anti-anime folks of being.




Well, yes and no. 

Yes, it's my opinion but it's an opinion based in fact. I could compare many factors - number of animation studios, number of animmators employed, number of wide-release animated features, number of animated shows on TV, the recognition that animators get, plus the relative commercial success in ratings - to say that the Japanese animation industry is in fact 'better' than what we have here. 

And no, because in a lot of ways it's comparing apples and oranges. What goes over well in one market doesn't in another. American attitudes towards animation are different, and we were dominated by one studio in it's twilight years for so long that about two generations of people basically forgot what good animation was like.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 12, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Other countries didn't, and produce a vastly more mature art form now where animation isn't looked down on as something for kids in diapers. We're just now coming to that realization and starting the long hard road of catch-up.



Well actually, anime IS considered kid stuff in Japan.  The vast majority of it is targeted at those under the age of 21.  Admitting you like anime past that age isnt exactly something you'd say in public.  Saying you still watch cartoons in the US might get you a few strange looks, but it wont get you ostracised either.

Japan might target a wider age bracket, but it's not exactly the fabled land of milk and honey for the geek set either.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 12, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Well actually, anime IS considered kid stuff in Japan.  The vast majority of it is targeted at those under the age of 21.  Admitting you like anime past that age isnt exactly something you'd say in public.  Saying you still watch cartoons in the US might get you a few strange looks, but it wont get you ostracised either.
> 
> Japan might target a wider age bracket, but it's not exactly the fabled land of milk and honey for the geek set either.




It all depends.  Manga is very widely read in Japan, even if Anime covers a smaller demographic.  Many manga titles become live action movies instead of anime; claiming you like "Uzumaki" for example, would be little different than claiming you like "Hellboy".  It doesn't necessarily say anything untoward about you to the common audience, other than having a preference for horror movies instead of action movies.

Also, public reaction varies.  Saying you watch "Berserk" or "Gantz" will certainly elicit a different reaction than saying you like "Crayon Shin-chan".   That would be like saying you enjoyed "Spawn" on HBO versus say, "Arthur".  Some anime is aimed for teens and college students, not kids, and are viewed accordingly.  Clearly a show like "The Melancholy of Harumi Suzumiya" has a different kind of cultural clout than a show like "Naruto".


----------



## Mallus (Sep 12, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Clearly a show like "The Melancholy of Harumi Suzumiya"...



Ah yes, a show that blends, among other things, high school comedy-drama, harem anime, post-Singularity SF, and Tom Stoppard's Rosencratnz and Guilderstern Are Dead together... to enormous success. I'm not going to get into this whole East vs. West pop-cultural thing, but I can safely say I've never seen anything remotely like that even attempted on U.S. television.

edit: it's _Haruhi_...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> Also, the Ghouls in Kadath made a cute "meeping" noise. That was really weird.




Funny story.

I was playing _Arkham Horror_ this weekend, and came across one of the planar adventure cards which said something like, "The meeping of the ghouls scares you ..." or something like that.

The entire gaming group (D&D vets all, at this point) looked at each other, looked at the card, and said, "Yeah - that's gotta be a typo.  Weeping?  Mewling, maybe?"

Then, predictably, we all diverged into Seinfeld references: "The Moops."


----------



## Merlion (Sep 13, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> It all depends.  Manga is very widely read in Japan, even if Anime covers a smaller demographic.  Many manga titles become live action movies instead of anime; claiming you like "Uzumaki" for example, would be little different than claiming you like "Hellboy".  It doesn't necessarily say anything untoward about you to the common audience, other than having a preference for horror movies instead of action movies.
> 
> Also, public reaction varies.  Saying you watch "Berserk" or "Gantz" will certainly elicit a different reaction than saying you like "Crayon Shin-chan".   That would be like saying you enjoyed "Spawn" on HBO versus say, "Arthur".  Some anime is aimed for teens and college students, not kids, and are viewed accordingly.  Clearly a show like "The Melancholy of Harumi Suzumiya" has a different kind of cultural clout than a show like "Naruto".





  Exactly. Its important to bear in mind that the broadest definition of "anime" is neither a genre, nor an art style, it is simply any animation from Japan (or some times Asia in general.) It covers all genres, types and styles, and different ones are targeted at different age groups and demographics. 

  And I think the overall attitude toward animation is very different. Most people in the US dismiss anything animated, especially until recently, as purely fare for young children, and as generally having little to no element of seriousness or sophistication. 

  Also, I think some of it is because many other cultures don't have the same assumption that we do that people under 18 are incapable of understanding or enjoying anything sophisticated, complicated or "deep".

  The Manga connection is important as well, because as WizarDru says Manga is very culturally accepted in Japan, far more so than comic books here, and most anime are tied to manga, or at least many.


----------



## RFisher (Sep 13, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> And I think the overall attitude toward animation is very different. Most people in the US dismiss anything animated, especially until recently, as purely fare for young children, and as generally having little to no element of seriousness or sophistication.




The strange thing is how my 7yo son has seem to have already picked this up.

When I recently got my _Star Trek: The Animated Series_ DVDs, I asked if he'd like to watch an episode with me. He wasn't interested, but when I started it, he sat down & watched it. I said, "I thought you weren't interested." He said, "I would've been if you'd told me what 'animated' meant." (^_^)

Even growing up in a house where it is clear that the Pixar, Disney's _Robin Hood_ & _Sword in the Stone_, & Fleischer _Superman_ DVDs are dad's; or that the _Animaniacs_ videos are mom's; despite the fact that he only watched _Powerpuff Girls_ because I watched them & that I'd watch _Samurai Jack_ afterwards even though he didn't like it; or seeing me watch _Teen Titans_ even if he doesn't; despite catching mom & dad watching _The Simpsons_ or _Futurama_ or knowing that I & my co-workers went to _The Simpsons_ movie; he still seems to have picked up a bit of this attitude. That's not even mentioning the _anime_ he knows I own or rent--some of which he isn't allowed to watch yet.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 13, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> It all depends.  Manga is very widely read in Japan, even if Anime covers a smaller demographic. *snip snip*Some anime is aimed for teens and college students, not kids, and are viewed accordingly.  Clearly a show like "The Melancholy of Harumi Suzumiya" has a different kind of cultural clout than a show like "Naruto".



Well, I did specifically say 'Anime' and not 'anime and manga' for a reason   Yes, manga is VERY wide spread, but the anime IS generally produced for a teen and younger audience.  The stuff targeting older age groups tends to show up and ungodly hours of the night and are targeted toward an audience many japanese seem to consider a slight step above child molestors. (Although I understand that attitude is starting to lessen a bit)

And on a side note, I recommend Haruhi a LOT. Dont let the cute character designs and comedy nature of a lot of it fool you.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 13, 2007)

I just wanted to check - is this just an anime review thread now?


----------



## Nifft (Sep 13, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> I just wanted to check - is this just an anime review thread now?



 No.

Watch Potemayo.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 13, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Watch Potemayo.




You sure you didn't mean Potatomoto?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 13, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> There are objective qualities in most art that can be judged as 'good' or 'bad'. These are from hundreds of years of the art form developing, and whether you agree with them or not...they exist. Its from an academic end of things, which I know not all people like, but that doesn't change the fact of its existence.



That is not strictly true.  Academia (and I know this because I'm an academic  ) works on the basis of consensus.  And that includes the arts.  What constitutes a great work of art in academia?  (Or, unfortunately in some cases, a great work of science?)  Nothing more or less is required than that a lot of academics cite or write about it to the point where that work must be included in the "canon" of that field.

So... it's essentially a mildly informed version of a popularity contest.  Nothing more.  And, in the sciences at least, it's severely polluted by the fact that certain kinds of work are "sexier" and easier to get published or even funded in the first place.  And the people making the decisions about funding (and sometimes even the publishing) are not necessarily even informed.  I would argue that the art side of the equation is similarly polluted nowadays, but I'm not an artist, so I can't speak with authority in that area.

Speaking of speaking with authority...


			
				Clavis said:
			
		

> Recent research indicate a real brain difference between those who self-identify as Conservative and those who declare themselves to be Liberal.



I wouldn't touch that one with a 10-foot pole, personally.  There were methodological problems to say the least, and I'll eat my first two diplomas if it replicates.  And I'll eat all of them if it replicates outside an undergraduate population.  But then, almost nothing in social psychology replicates correctly outside an undergraduate population these days.

Back to the issue at hand....

Really, the only rigorously applied means of determining what is art amounts to a popularity contest.  In the end, despite being in such a field (or perhaps because of it), I'm not a fan of this method.  As such, I'm a proponent of a simpler methodology.  Does it communicate something to you?

We can talk about art as communication and all that jazz, but communication requires a sender AND a receiver.  So, IMO, the creation of a piece of art is NOT the point.  It is the experience of it that defines it as art.  "Was something communicated between the creator and myself?"

In other words, the work of the painter's craft called "the Mona Lisa" is a masterpiece of art IF you find it affecting.  I'm one of those people who finds her facial expression enigmatic, and slightly mesmerizing.  My mind can create 10,000 viable reasons for that facial expression, and I get lost in the sea of them.  As a result, for me, it's a piece of ART.  For my wife, who is actually a more artistically-trained person than I will ever be, the Mona Lisa is naught but a fine example of craftsmanship.  The skill of a master artisan is there in the craft, but it fails for her to cause any thought or emotion what-so-ever about anything.  For her, it's simply a somewhat unattractive woman.  A well-crafted representation of one, to be sure, but an empty one.

Does that make it art?  Not to her.  And the fact that it has been in the canon for ever and ever is not germane to the question.  No amount of academic or popular agreement on the subject of the Mona Lisa is going to make someone who is unaffected by it suddenly see something there.

Similarly, if watching an episode of Spongebob causes someone to think deep thoughts on the nature of brotherhood (or whatever), then it succeeded as a piece of art for them, and while I might find nothing there, I recognize that different people have different intellectual and emotional triggers and different needs.  And that makes it a more interesting world, whereas uniformity in this regard would only bore me to tears in the end, even if I got to be smugly self-righteous in the vindication of my choice of Coke over Pepsi for a while.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2007)

I'm not sure if the definition of art as "Something which affects me" is a really useful definition though.  It works, certainly, but, it's so subjective that it becomes meaningless.  

While the criteria chosen for Good vs Bad is a reflection of the time of choice, the application of those criteria are not (hopefully) too polluted by personal bias.  That's tricky though and likely impossible to remove, but, the attempt should be made.

Take the recent Harry Potter book for a second.  I can, without a shadow of a doubt, say that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows is an absolutely crap horror story.  ((Which is a good thing since it's not meant as a horror story))  I can say this with pretty decent certainty because it contains very little of the criteria required for a horror story.  Number one, it's not scary.  

At that level, it's pretty easy to judge.  Where it gets trickier is when you start talking about works within their proper place and whether or not they are good or not.  Taking a look at Star Wars again.  A story, to be a good story, should have a plot that is not full of holes.  I think most people can agree with that.  Star Wars fails in this criteria though.  There are more plot holes in Star Wars than Swiss cheese.  As a very simple example, if the Force can be used to pick up an X-Wing, then why wouldn't Darth Vader catch Luke when Luke swan dives off the platform?

The list of plot holes in Star Wars is pretty lengthy and well documented.  

So, by the criteria of plot, Star Wars is a pretty bad story.  

However, and Merlion is spot on here, you cannot write off Star Wars so easily.  In other terms, such as cinematography, special effects and sound, Star Wars is (ahem) light years ahead of its time.  Lucas and co pretty much invented the whole space battle techniques that are still used today.  The blue screen effects as well.  For this, Star Wars does stand at the head of the class.

Merlion is right, I think, in saying that it is very difficult for a work to be completely crap.  To be valueless.  I'd agree with that.  Even the first Dungeons and Dragons movie had its moments (I think, somewhere, I might have blinked) and at least serves as a warning of how NOT to do a D&D movie.    However, something doesn't have to be valueless to be bad.  

Even Cheeze Doodles have some nutritional content.  I would hardly call them healthy though.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 14, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if the definition of art as "Something which affects me" is a really useful definition though.  It works, certainly, but, it's so subjective that it becomes meaningless.



The only accepted definition is "enough academics like to babble about it."  Seriously.  That's IT.  There is no objective standard, even in academia.

Is my way _actually_ any less useful to the average person? 

It all reduces to opinion anyway, it's just that the "official" methodology is pooling opinions of a largely self-appointed Elite.  And you can see how far that has gotten us just by looking at the thread.  

My method doesn't give anyone a concrete, broadly applicable answer, but it has the virtue of also not leading to unholy Crusades to persecute the heathens who dare label the wrong things art.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 14, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> There is no objective standard, even in academia.




No objective standard for what? Declaring something "art"? While I can agree that declaring something to be "bad" (in the sense of being absolutely without merit) isn't practical (or maybe even possible), I still feel that there are objective standards for evaluating the quality of a work within the context of its medium. While I'd avoid labeling things as worthless, I still feel comfortable stating, after a thorough critique, that video game A is better than video game B, or that this book is better than that book, etc. 

Now, one can enjoy game B for the qualities that it does have and not be considered an idiot, but that doesn't mean, to my mind, that everything that is created to entertain is created equally. Also, there will always be contentious aspects of any critique due to the unavoidable subjective elements of artistic expression, but I still believe that anything can be evaluated with a certain amount of objectivity.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2007)

Really, "what is art" sorts of discussions aren't going to get us anywhere.  But, that's not what this is about.  No one is arguing that, say, Star Wars isn't art.  That would be pretty hard to defend.  However, there are a number of elements which can be used to discriminate good art from bad.

"It affects me" is not a particularly useful one, IMO.  There are all sorts of elements which can be discussed beyond a personal preference.  In novels, one can discuss pacing, characterization, use of language, plot, setting and a number of other, fairly objective (although, truthfully, never 100% objective) elements.

We've seen some pretty blanket statements about anime in this thread.  The counter to those is the fact that anime encompasses such a broad range of styles that making very broad statements is problematic at best.  The same comes with almost any gaming discussion, like talking about classic modules.  Some people talk about classic modules as being dungeon slogs with lots of traps and the like.  Other people talk about vast outdoor modules with lots exploration.  

Classic modules have both.  That's why you cannot really make blanket statements.  

However, I can look at a particular module and judge it in comparison to other modules.  The Forest Oracle is a BAD module.  There's no way around that.  It's just bad.  On the far other end of the scale, most people think that the G series of modules are good.  The problem comes when something is in the middle.  Are the Dragonlance modules good or bad?  Well, it depends on who you ask, because of the criteria each uses.  An informed view, though, will look at both sides and collect as many criteria as possible and then make a judgement.

And, yes, that judgment will be subjective.  But, the criteria leading to that judgment should be as objective as possible.


----------



## RFisher (Sep 14, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> A story, to be a good story, should have a plot that is not full of holes.




I'm beginning to doubt that. Mostly due to RPGs. It seems like you can take just about any piece of fiction &, if you try to play it as an RPG, the players will nigh immediately find a hole to walk through & bring the whole plot down. (Unless they've bought into the idea & choose to ignore the holes.) I'm beginning to think that fiction needs plot holes to make good stories.

Which may be tied into the whole "truth is stranger than fiction" thing.

But it's just a thought.

Which is not to take anything away from your greater point, which I think I agree with.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 14, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really, "what is art" sorts of discussions aren't going to get us anywhere.



They're illuminating if you're interested in other people's reactions to art. 



> No one is arguing that, say, Star Wars isn't art.  That would be pretty hard to defend.



No one? Oh really? Off the top of my head (and from inside the genre), Harlan Ellison. Quite a few people think Star Wars isn't art. You'd be surprised.



> However, there are a number of elements which can be used to discriminate good art from bad.



And then someone like Marcel Duchamp comes along and everything goes down the toilet.



> "It affects me" is not a particularly useful one, IMO.



It's a great start. What follows is usually a blend of rationalization and sophistry.



> But, the criteria leading to that judgment should be as objective as possible.



How are those criteria established if not by consensus?

edit: since this is also an anime recommendation thread... 

_Code: Geass, Lelouche of the Rebellion_ -- it's V for Vendetta, Gundamn, Ender's Game, and a boarding school anime all in one!
_Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann_ -- it's giant robots like _I've_ never seen them.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 14, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> I'm beginning to doubt that. Mostly due to RPGs. It seems like you can take just about any piece of fiction &, if you try to play it as an RPG, the players will nigh immediately find a hole to walk through & bring the whole plot down. (Unless they've bought into the idea & choose to ignore the holes.) I'm beginning to think that fiction needs plot holes to make good stories.
> 
> Which may be tied into the whole "truth is stranger than fiction" thing.
> 
> ...




Classic example: LotR and the Giant Eagles.

Um, this may sound silly but WHY at the Council didn't Gandalf say "Oh, I know, let's get the giant eagles!!!"?

Talk about kicking me out of the story.


----------



## Henry (Sep 14, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Classic example: LotR and the Giant Eagles.
> 
> Um, this may sound silly but WHY at the Council didn't Gandalf say "Oh, I know, let's get the giant eagles!!!"?
> 
> Talk about kicking me out of the story.





Harder to hide from the Nazgul in the Wild Blue Yonder. Those eagles would have been bird-chow for the Fell Beasts and if I understand it from the fans who dig into this kind of stuff, their calling and travel would have put out a signal miles wide for Sauron's cronies to follow.

At least, that's how I would have explained it as DM.


----------



## shilsen (Sep 14, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Classic example: LotR and the Giant Eagles.
> 
> Um, this may sound silly but WHY at the Council didn't Gandalf say "Oh, I know, let's get the giant eagles!!!"?
> 
> Talk about kicking me out of the story.



 Check what Gandalf says about Glorfindel at the Council. That quite covers the reason you can't take Giant Eagle Airways into Mordor.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 14, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> "It affects me" is not a particularly useful one, IMO.



You're right.  It's hardly useful at all, except to yourself.  And sometimes as a starting point for discussion about what exactly was communicated to you.

However, it is also no LESS useful than anything anyone else has come up with.   And it means something to the individual making the judgment, which no amount of debate over what constitutes a canonical piece of art in the academic community is ever going to do.



> There are all sorts of elements which can be discussed beyond a personal preference.  In novels, one can discuss pacing, characterization, use of language, plot, setting and a number of other, fairly objective (although, truthfully, never 100% objective) elements.



No, none of those are objective at all.  I've studied linguistics.  Even "what is grammatical?" is derived by polling the populace.  Seriously.  Grammaticality, despite my 7 years of grammar classes in school that tried desperately to instill a standard, is in actual fact derived from common usage.  To say nothing of "pacing" and "use of language."  Pacing, in  literature and film is wildly variable and subject to fashionable trends.  In the case of movies, it is not uncommon for pacing to be taken out of the hands of the director by the studio.  Is it still even an "artistic decision" at that point?  Where's the border between "art" and "business"?  And this thread, again, demonstrates as well as anything else that things like "plot" and "characterization" are 100% subjective.  You can make all the reasoned arguments you want about why "Great Expectations" is well-plotted with convincing characters, and it will mean nothing to me.  I've had the argument with people who've spent 15+ years studying Dickens and his historical/literary context.  They argued with me until they were blue in the face, and it didn't change the fact that "Great Expectations" is pretentious crap that is poorly constructed for its modern usage in addition to being overwrought and remarkably unconvincing and uninteresting, but "A Christmas Carol" can hang out with "A Tale of Two Cities" in the corner of "remarkable works of literature by Dickens."

Incidentally, "Great Expectations" is part of the canon high school students are forced to read in long form, eventhough it was conceived and published as a serial.  But the much more affecting (to literally everyone I know who read both) "A Christmas Carol" has been relegated in the modern age to "a story for children."  And the phenonmenal (IMO, naturally) "A Tale of Two Cities" is the pariah that most non-honors classes are not even required to read.

These are the kind of decisions consensus makes   Perhaps you can see why I don't believe in it for the purposes of art.  Alas, that it is all we have for science.  No wonder I'm trying desperately to get out of academia.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 14, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> I'm beginning to think that fiction needs plot holes to make good stories.




Less that, than characters usually behave like people rather than omniscient-viewpoint special forces soldiers who execute plans perfectly all the time. Character motivation, in-character knowledge, and all will create instances where people - as they often do - act in sub-optimized ways, usually based on emotions. Contrary to the beliefs of some, that's not lazy writing or bad writing - that's good characterization, where people behave like people instead of machines. People who think a writer is not aware of the 'holes' in his fiction are usually not, themselves, writers.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> No, none of those are objective at all.





It should be noted that, simply because one cannot model something objectively, doesn't mean that it has no objective elements at all.  

The difference between "there may be objective criteria, even if we do not (or cannot) know them" and "there are no objective criteria" is that the first can be discussed with some hopes of improvement, while the second shuts down discussion altogether.

I realize that it is a common point of many modern philosophies to say "If we cannot measure it objectively, it must be subjective" but that doesn't logically follow.  Moreover, it leads to a universe in which nothing is objective.  

I hold, therefore, that a thing or property can be objective whether or not we can objectively observe it.

RC


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 14, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It should be noted that, simply because one cannot model something objectively, doesn't mean that it has no objective elements at all.
> 
> The difference between "there may be objective criteria, even if we do not (or cannot) know them" and "there are no objective criteria" is that the first can be discussed with some hopes of improvement, while the second shuts down discussion altogether.
> 
> ...



Point taken.    However, for the purposes of meaningful discussion that is more informative than "Coke vs. Pepsi" the difference between "those are not objective" and "we cannot observe those objectively" is nil.  What meaningful discussion is there to be had about "objective standards" if we cannot, in fact, observe them objectively?

And since the alleged purpose of much in the field of "art" is to PREVENT you from being impassive or "objective" about the material, it's sort of an empty exercise in the first place.  When you're looking at a piece of art that is INTENDED to push emotional buttons, what "objective" criteria are you going to bring to bear without actually _missing the intended message_?

All we can actually talk about _with authority_ is the difference in our subjective experience.  All else is driven by consensus, which is nothing more than the aggregate of subjective experiences (even in _science_ to say nothing of art).  "Objective" is functionally the plural of "subjective." 

So.... what does that mean for "objective standards" in art?


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 14, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Check what Gandalf says about Glorfindel at the Council. That quite covers the reason you can't take Giant Eagle Airways into Mordor.




It's been way too long, and I don't have the books handy. What _did_ he say?

-The Gneech


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> It's been way too long, and I don't have the books handy. What _did_ he say?
> 
> -The Gneech




... "One does not simply ride Giant Eagles into Mordor." ...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Point taken.






How rare that is to read on the Interweb.  



> However, for the purposes of meaningful discussion that is more informative than "Coke vs. Pepsi" the difference between "those are not objective" and "we cannot observe those objectively" is nil.




Sorry, I thought that was what "It's all subjective anyway" was meant to do..... 



> What meaningful discussion is there to be had about "objective standards" if we cannot, in fact, observe them objectively?




You could ask the same question in any human endeavor.  Our ability to objectively see anything is mythical, AFAICT, like unicorns and virgins.  That doesn't mean that we can't make our subjective toolset more finely tuned (i.e., nearer objective) through this sort of discussion.



> And since the alleged purpose of much in the field of "art" is to PREVENT you from being impassive or "objective" about the material, it's sort of an empty exercise in the first place.




Being impassive and being objective are two different things in this case.



> All we can actually talk about _with authority_ is the difference in our subjective experience.  All else is driven by consensus, which is nothing more than the aggregate of subjective experiences (even in _science_ to say nothing of art).  "Objective" is functionally the plural of "subjective."
> 
> So.... what does that mean for "objective standards" in art?




The same thing it means for "objective standards" in science.


RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Sep 14, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ... "One does not simply ride Giant Eagles into Mordor." ...




And the rest of the PCs didn't respond to this?  Man, it sure is nice to be a novel author rather than a DM.  Tolkien had it easy.  My players would have been all over this.  I wouldn't have even bothered saying it if I didn't follow it up with a "because...".  They would have said - "there are only a handful of fell beasts and some crows and there are dozens or hundreds of eagles, let's give it a go!"  Gandalf would be like "errr...um...you must proceed into the dungeon.  That's why we're not going around Mordor but through it, sheesh.  How am I ever going to level up if you don't let me fight the Balrog?".


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 14, 2007)

Other than "anime"---whatever that even means, do we even know what we're talking about when we see the term "New Fantasy?"  Because I'm not at all sure that I do.  And actually, saying "anime" doesn't help me much either.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 14, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Other than "anime"---whatever that even means, do we even know what we're talking about when we see the term "New Fantasy?"  Because I'm not at all sure that I do.  And actually, saying "anime" doesn't help me much either.




I tried to suggest that "new fantasy" was a totally bogus term for what was being discussed here earlier, but then I got taken to task because apparently nobody has read any non-merchanising-based fantasy novels written in the last five-seven years, so they can't possibly actually be the new fantasy...

What was being discussed by the OP is clear:

1) Anime-influence on D&D.

2) World of Warcraft/MMORPG influence on D&D.

Why in god's holy name he'd stuck these two ideas together and called it "new fantasy" as if it were a generally accepted term, I suspect we shall never know! Particularly as virtually everything in WoW is seriously "old fantasy", with few ideas post-dating Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and most anime fantasy is pretty old-skool too (particularly really "FANTASY!" anime fantasy, like Slayers or Ruin Explorers - You could make a better case that something like Naruto is "new fantasy", because he's basically a wizard, but in a fairly unique semi-modern setting and very much unlike wizardly stereotypes, even cast spells and waggles his fingers).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> And the rest of the PCs didn't respond to this?  Man, it sure is nice to be a novel author rather than a DM.  Tolkien had it easy.  My players would have been all over this.  I wouldn't have even bothered saying it if I didn't follow it up with a "because...".  They would have said - "there are only a handful of fell beasts and some crows and there are dozens or hundreds of eagles, let's give it a go!"  Gandalf would be like "errr...um...you must proceed into the dungeon.  That's why we're not going around Mordor but through it, sheesh.  How am I ever going to level up if you don't let me fight the Balrog?".





Whatever Gandalf said, it would have started "Fool of a Took!"

Then he would probably have pointed out that, in addition to a couple handfuls of fell beasts, the nine Nazgul, and the crebain, Sauron himself would certainly have stopped them long before they reached Mordor....or, at the very least as they crossed the border.  And, had Sauron "seen" the Ringbearer and bent his will toward him, there is no doubt but that Frodo would have delivered the Ring to Barad Dur.

Not only that, but in the book Gandalf is rescued from Orthanc because he was sent there by Radaghast the Brown, who also sent the eagle to carry messages.  Gandalf could not simply summon the eagles at a whim.  And, even if they had deigned to carry the Ringbearer before his quest was complete, who would travel to the aeries of the Misty Mountains to speak to them?  

By the time that the Nazgul had recovered, surely the Enemy would have surrounded Rivendell with spies, as the Council foretold, and nothing going into the valley or out could do so in secret.  Indeed, I could easily see a scene where Orcish archers sent forth from Moria eliminate the eagles early on, when they foolishly fly low to swoop into Rivendell......

.......But, hey, it's a great plan.  Go for it.

(BTW, near Moria, the crebain that find the company were sent by Saruman, who does not alert Sauron because he wants the Ring for himself.  Thereafter, the Enemy believes that Aragorn, as Isuldur's Heir, has the Ring.  This is because Sauron thought that Saruman had captured the Ringbearer and was torturing him by forcing him to look into the Palantir that Grima Wormtongue chucked at Gandalf's head.  Sauron immediately sent a Nazgul to Orthanc, but found it sacked with a victorious army heading away.  Aragorn was part of that army.  Aragorn then contested Sauron's will with the Palantir, and bent it to his will.  It was for this reason that Sauron sent so much of his might against Gondor when he did, and why his Eye was fixed on Aragorn when they marched to the Black Gate.)


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 14, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Other than "anime"---whatever that even means, do we even know what we're talking about when we see the term "New Fantasy?"  Because I'm not at all sure that I do.  And actually, saying "anime" doesn't help me much either.



Well, at the very least, it includes videogames too...

Probably refers to anything more recent than the various old "classics" of fantasy that get brought up once and a while, that I never read. I guess "new fantasy" is anything more recent than Vance's Dying Earth, but I'm not certain... The same people who have a disdain for "new fantasy" also seem to have a disdain for the classic myths and legends I like, at least whenever I bring up their relevence to D&D. As such, aybe it really just is "disdain for anything but a select group of canonical Fantasy texts" rather than "disdain for new fantasy"

Though, I think it is mostly anime and videogames that we are really talking about in thsi thread. And abstract discussion on the proper way to evaluate the absolute quality of art, it seems...


----------



## erc1971 (Sep 14, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I don't see much difference. D&D was originally inspired by pop culture trash - fantasy pulps, space opera, Hammer horror, David Carradine's Kung Fu, 70s Marvel comics, and even bizarre kids' toys. Now it's still being inspired by pop culture trash.
> 
> Okay, some D&D is derived from ancient myth and folklore but it's not a deep reading thereof. It's myth as cheap thrill, being mined solely for weird-shaped monsters for the PCs to murder.




I agree with this 100%.

I really wish WotC would have made the anime stuff a separate supplement instead of core for 4th edition.  Fighters shooting lightning lightning bolts out of their swords, etc. is just not for me.  

By making this stuff core (which is very obviously the way they are going from the bits of information they are giving us) it will make it very hard to remove from the game.  Gamers tend to get upset when you take things away from them (especially stuff from the PHB!!!) - but adding things is usually not a problem (and this is what would happen if the anime stuff was an add on supplement).

Eric


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 14, 2007)

erc1971 said:
			
		

> I agree with this 100%.
> 
> I really wish WotC would have made the anime stuff a separate supplement instead of core for 4th edition.  Fighters shooting lightning lightning bolts out of their swords, etc. is just not for me.
> 
> ...



 I'm sorry but...I am confused.

What?

Is this sarcasm or not?

If the former, good for you...if the latter, I return to my previous "I am confused."


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2007)

erc1971 said:
			
		

> I agree with this 100%.
> 
> I really wish WotC would have made the anime stuff a separate supplement instead of core for 4th edition.  Fighters shooting lightning lightning bolts out of their swords, etc. is just not for me.
> 
> ...



What, exactly, is the "anime stuff" that you think they are adding?


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 15, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> No, none of those are objective at all.  I've studied linguistics.  Even "what is grammatical?" is derived by polling the populace.  Seriously.  Grammaticality, despite my 7 years of grammar classes in school that tried desperately to instill a standard, is in actual fact derived from common usage.




Really? So I should be writing everything in netspeak then? Or using "ain't" more liberally? Perhaps I should start "axing" people questions... 



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> To say nothing of "pacing" and "use of language."  Pacing, in  literature and film is wildly variable and subject to fashionable trends.  In the case of movies, it is not uncommon for pacing to be taken out of the hands of the director by the studio.




Hmmm I didn't think it was common practice. I've heard of studios editing movies after the director/editor was down with it, but to my understanding that was considered bad form and somewhat rare.



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> They argued with me until they were blue in the face, and it didn't change *the fact* that "Great Expectations" is pretentious crap that is poorly constructed for its modern usage in addition to being overwrought and remarkably unconvincing and uninteresting...




Well that would really be your opinion, not fact. Right?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 15, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Really? So I should be writing everything in netspeak then? Or using "ain't" more liberally? Perhaps I should start "axing" people questions...




Sure.  So long as the person on the other end understands your message, congratulations!  You've communicated.

That being said, I support the right of every English teacher (and / or other professor) to select which grammatical standard will be used when adjudicating papers.

It's really no different from specifying MLA or Chicago-style citations.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 15, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Really? So I should be writing everything in netspeak then? Or using "ain't" more liberally? Perhaps I should start "axing" people questions...
> [...]
> I've heard of studios editing movies after the director/editor *was down with it*



 (I realize it's a mere typo, but the assault on colloquialism followed by this is too delightful to ignore.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 15, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> (I realize it's a mere typo, but the assault on colloquialism followed by this is too delightful to ignore.)
> 
> Cheers, -- N




LOL yes. "done with it" was what I was going for there. 

I'm certainly not holding *myself* up as a paragon of communication.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 15, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Sure.  So long as the person on the other end understands your message, congratulations!  You've communicated.
> 
> That being said, I support the right of every English teacher (and / or other professor) to select which grammatical standard will be used when adjudicating papers.
> 
> It's really no different from specifying MLA or Chicago-style citations.




I definitely agree that you should communicate in whatever way will be most easily understood by your audience.  However the point I was trying to make is that, without knowing what your audience will understand, it is best to write/speak as clearly as possible. To me this means avoiding "million-dollar words" as much as slang or jargon (generally speaking). I understand that language evolves (and must, if it is to serve its purpose), but that doesn't mean there can't be some standard to work with. Certainly that standard will involve consensus, but I'd like to think that arriving at that consensus involved evaluation using the most objective methods possible.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 15, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Really? So I should be writing everything in netspeak then? Or using "ain't" more liberally? Perhaps I should start "axing" people questions...



Amusingly enough, if I recall correctly, "ax" is an archaic form of "ask", which is why it survived in pidgin English.  It didn't morph with the mainstream pronounciation.

IANALinguist



> Hmmm I didn't think it was common practice. I've heard of studios editing movies after the director/editor was down with it, but to my understanding that was considered bad form and somewhat rare.



It is actually so common as to be the air and water that the movie industry survives on.  Producers have complete control over the contents of movies, since they're the ones who are paying for them.  If they think that scene A won't make them money, but scene B will, scene A gets cut and scene B is in.  They use test marketing and focus groups to determine which scripts and edits "test" better.  The ends of Fatal Attraction and Pretty In Pink were both changed based on test audiences, and those are just the two examples I'm familiar with off the top of my head.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 15, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> It is actually so common as to be the air and water that the movie industry survives on.  Producers have complete control over the contents of movies, since they're the ones who are paying for them.  If they think that scene A won't make them money, but scene B will, scene A gets cut and scene B is in.  They use test marketing and focus groups to determine which scripts and edits "test" better.  The ends of Fatal Attraction and Pretty In Pink were both changed based on test audiences, and those are just the two examples I'm familiar with off the top of my head.




Ugh. That must be incredibly frustrating for the director.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 15, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Ugh. That must be incredibly frustrating for the director.



From what I gather, it's the business.  Once you've made a name for yourself, and millions of dollars, you can demand control over your own films, if you even care about that sort of thing.  I get the feeling that lots of directors think the same way the producers do.  Of course, sometimes the test audience is wrong.  They wanted to remove "Over The Rainbow" from the Wizard of Oz, because of pacing issues.  Those responsible for the movie fought against it, and the scene stayed in, and became one of the most memorable scenes in movie history.

I would wager that, more often than not, the test audience is wrong, but as I have never--in the vast majority of cases--seen the movies that the test audiences turned down, I can't say for sure.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Canis
> No, none of those are objective at all. I've studied linguistics. Even "what is grammatical?" is derived by polling the populace. Seriously. Grammaticality, despite my 7 years of grammar classes in school that tried desperately to instill a standard, is in actual fact derived from common usage.




I would point out that this is a particularly English thing.  Other languages, such as Korean or Japanese, do have a "standard language" that is followed.

However, even though languages do certainly change over time, and those changes are based on common usage, how is that subjective?  As a word is adopted into the language, THAT becomes the new standard.  Just because a standard changes doesn't make it subjective.  Objective doesn't mean that it can NEVER change.  If it did, then there is no objective standard ever.  Even science has changed numerous times over the years.  That doesn't make the sciences subjective, it just changes the standard.

Now, it's true that usually a group of criteria will be chosen based on whatever point the critic is trying to make.  Someone saying that X is bad will choose criteria in which it fails to acheive a standard.  Someone who wants to say that X is good will choose different criteria.

For example, detractors of anime generally point to the face faults of the art style (not that this is universal, but, it is a general trend).  And, they have a point.  The facial stylings of many anime are very simplistic.  Whether that's a good thing or bad depends on who you ask, but, there is no getting around that Sailor Moon's face doesn't look realistic at all.

It's like studying history.  It's 100% true that you can never be entirely objective.  But, that's the goal that all historians strive for.


----------



## shilsen (Sep 15, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> It's been way too long, and I don't have the books handy. What _did_ he say?
> 
> -The Gneech



 To paraphrase - Even someone with the power of Glorfindel would be unable to get the Ring to Mount Doom safely. Any attempt to enter Mordor openly or dependence on power would be doomed to failure, since it would instantly attract Sauron's attention and he would both crush the attempt and gain the Ring. The Ring needed to be taken into Mordor with stealth.

All of which turned out to be correct. Giant eagles are never an option.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> To paraphrase - Even someone with the power of Glorfindel would be unable to get the Ring to Mount Doom safely. Any attempt to enter Mordor openly or dependence on power would be doomed to failure, since it would instantly attract Sauron's attention and he would both crush the attempt and gain the Ring. The Ring needed to be taken into Mordor with stealth.
> 
> All of which turned out to be correct. Giant eagles are never an option.




I love how people defend the LOTR in this issue when Tolkien himself is quoted as acknowledging that this was a plot hole.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 15, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I love how people defend the LOTR in this issue when Tolkien himself is quoted as acknowledging that this was a plot hole.






			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> That's because authorial intent is meaningless.  Authors can be wrong about the meaning of their text.  Authors can lie.  Authors can be misrepresented.  And they can misrepresent themselves.  They can even change their minds over time about the meaning of a work.  Appeals to authorial intent have been discredited for a very long time.




Sorry...couldn't resist  ...hope you'll forgive me for this one.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2007)

Heh.  However, that's not quite fair.

Pointing out a plot hole isn't quite the same as authorial intent.  Tolkien isn't saying, "I think that LOTR means X", he's simply, and quite rightly, pointing to a problem in the text.  As an English professor, I would expect no less.

An arguement about authorial intent would lead us to the fact that Tolkien denied any allegorical meaning of the LOTR in reference to World War Two.  Denied it vehemently.  Despite that, there's a rather large amount of critical work that claims the exact opposite, that LOTR is allegory for WW2.  

If we accept authorial intent, then all that work is meaningless.  The meaning that those critics are taking from the text is wrong.  Since that's a bit hard to defend, after all, they are flatly stating that that is exactly the meaning they are taking and are supporting their interpretations with textual examples, I'm not so sure that we can really rely on authorial intent.

So, really, it's not a contradiction since we're not really discussing intended meaning, but, actually fairly cut and dried plot elements.

For example, even if they couldn't fly straight into Mordor, howzabout instead of taking all that time hiking through Moria, they just fly to Lothlorian?  If nothing else, they gain a whole whack of time.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 15, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Heh.  However, that's not quite fair.




Nope, it's not. But it was funny...I hope you got a grin out of it as well, at least.  



> Pointing out a plot hole isn't quite the same as authorial intent.  Tolkien isn't saying, "I think that LOTR means X", he's simply, and quite rightly, pointing to a problem in the text.  As an English professor, I would expect no less.
> 
> An arguement about authorial intent would lead us to the fact that Tolkien denied any allegorical meaning of the LOTR in reference to World War Two.  Denied it vehemently.  Despite that, there's a rather large amount of critical work that claims the exact opposite, that LOTR is allegory for WW2.
> 
> ...




I agree, to most all you said...just would like to add that plot elements, and how they are used, also depend on authorial intend in most places. So it's not intended meaning, but intended usage (or lack thereof) that Tolkien commented on, and the effect said lack has on the plot.

When contrasting word of the author with word of critics, I personally prefer the author's word about his piece of work over that of critics. But that's me, and I think I made it clear 4 pages ago that I'm lazy that way.  

And one good question was raised a few posts above...what the heck constitutes "new fantasy" anyway? I admit to not having read most fantasy novels that came out in the last 10-15 years, but from what I've seen on back covers and short review blurbs, it's not THAT different than that from 30 or 40 years ago, except it has grown a few more genre conventions. We got a whole new cultural addition with the far east stuff, be it manga, anime, or fantasy novels, and that of course brings along a lot of new ideas...but honestly, that stuff is on the mass market for the last 15 years as well already, at least here in Europe. And if you look beyond the trappings of cultural symbols and references, the stories told in asian fantasy, myth and legend are not that different from the stories we got told here for decades and centuries.  

By the way, thanks to those who pointed out _Twelve Kingdoms_ and _Scrapped Princess_...great stories, nice anime.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Sep 15, 2007)

erc1971 said:
			
		

> I really wish WotC would have made the anime stuff a separate supplement instead of core for 4th edition.  Fighters shooting lightning lightning bolts out of their swords, etc. is just not for me.




Do you have paypal?  I will pay you $20.00 if fighters can do that without magic items.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 15, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Do you have paypal?  I will pay you $20.00 if fighters can do that without magic items.



 Magic items are too anime.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 15, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Do you have paypal?  I will pay you $20.00 if fighters can do that without magic items.




Book of Nine Swords lets fighters do stuff like that without magic items. Call fire, teleport, cut through steel, walk through shadows, walk on water, all sorts of things, all without magic items of any kind.


----------



## Arkhandus (Sep 16, 2007)

Yet 4E is not going to be a Bo9S reprint.  It is only taking limited aspects of the per-encounter maneuver/stance system from that book as inspiration.

That's no indication that they actually mean to give bog-standard fighters the class feature of being able to breathe fire or teleport through shadows, for instance.

And those things were, after all, only available to Swordsages in the Bo9S itself; the more Western-like Warblade and Crusader could do no such thing (barring a feat to gain one of those tricks; but then, a Fighter can also gain some magical ability by taking a feat, to represent some dabbling, such as that one regional feat in the Forgotten Realms, or the Dragonmark feats in Eberron).


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Sep 16, 2007)

Ok, what really happened is Sauron discovered how the eagles rescued Gandalf and the dwarves in The Hobbit (which lead ultimately to the death of Smaug, his greatest possible ally and resource) so he killed them all.  A few escaped to later save Frodo.  The rest were trashed by a vengeful Sauron and his nazgul.

  Or, Gandalf wisely realized that the Ring would corrupt the eagles, and they would take the ring and the Lord of Eagles would make himself the new Lord of the Rings.

  No?

  Alright, then Sauron would fix his Gaze upon the Company as they flew into Mordor.  Obviously, nobody in the Company except Gandalf could have endured that for long.  Then Sauron would have commanded the eagles (beat down under his gaze) to bring the Ring to him, and they would have.

  Still no?

  Ok, the eagles take off with the Company.  They attempt to fly over the Misty Mountains.  But they all start to freeze to death as they ascend up over 10,000 feet in attitude in winter (nobody thought to bring heavy winter gear, remember?  Without Boromir's wisdom, they wouldn't have even brought wood.)
  As they descend in disappointment back down, the crebain of Dunland attack, knock everyone all their mounts, and Frodo is splattered across half of Eregion.  Then the orcs of Isengard seize the Ring, Ugluk declares it his, and Ugluk becomes the new Lord of the Rings (at least, he does briefly.)

  Still no?

  Let's go with the version from Bored of the Rings instead, then.  (Someone did mention Pepsi, above, anyways ...)


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Sep 16, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Book of Nine Swords lets fighters do stuff like that without magic items. Call fire, teleport, cut through steel, walk through shadows, walk on water, all sorts of things, all without magic items of any kind.




A swordsage is not a fighter.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 16, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> A swordsage is not a fighter.



 Right. A Swordsage is awesome. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## RFisher (Sep 16, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Less that, than characters usually behave like people rather than omniscient-viewpoint special forces soldiers who execute plans perfectly all the time.




Yeah. That too.


----------

