The Many Lost Loves of Blackstone Tower

View Comments

• Art. Punk. Crusade.

  • Ok ok, so you’re maybe on to something with your critique of some of the writings of that ‘movement’ or ‘style’ … but you’re beginning to sound a bit like a broken record. Don’t take this the wrong way: you made it clear you don’t like the style. And why that is. And I happen to agree for a good part. But maybe everyone and their uncle now knowing your position, it might be time to raise a new question?

    “Is all so-called art-punk bad? Is it an inevitable consequence of a stylistic form (for the most part externally defined as such by you, and not by the author) or is it merely a tendency? And does everything have to look like 1981 to be acceptable, or might that also be construed as a slightly conservative and silly yardstick? Are developments in style (and not merely writing) totally unacceptable or at there other reasons?”

    I for one think that Deep Carbon Observatory works really well in reading, prep, and play. I would be interested to read one of your detailed reviews on it. But remember - as with any a academic peer-review, you are asked to kindly review the work “as written” and not “as you think you might have written it”.

    • t. Artpunkman

    • Use the search function or check out "the best" section.

      Bryce describes DCO as a "master-class example of a good OSR adventure."

      So it's not artpunk he hates/can't get past. It's shitty adventures.

      • It's not Bryce that's the problem ... it's the rest of you screeching bitter old men, wanking endlessly to your Gary Guglax pron. "OHHHH ohhh, it's the evil artpunk, ruining my perfect AD&D, oh oh Morgan Ironwolf, only you and bigtory still give me joy!"

        Fucking slugmen.

        • Go Fisticus yourself.

        • Old men... are the future!

        • Yet people will be playing Keep on the Borderlands forty years from now, whereas The Many Lost Loaves of Blackstone will be forgotten in a few months.

          So maybe Old Man Gygax was onto something? Like, usability? Protest all you want, but that’s a legitimate possibility.

    • I understand that "research" is a bad word amongst the Art people...
      He actually liked it, what do you know!

      https://princeofnothingblogs.wordpress.com/2021/05/13/review-deep-carbon-observatory-remastered-the-grievous-miracle-and-the-beautification-of-st-patrick/

    • @Gopsie
      The question 'is all Artpunk bad' is very easily answered: No. I have reviewed plenty of Artpunk or Proto-Artpunk things that I liked, or was critical of but admitted had good elements. DCO I have reviewed twice and I came THIS close to giving it 5 stars the second time around.

      My thesis is more that over time it produces a disproportional amount of junk and that noise ratio will only increase because of a disconnection with some of the core pillars that make up DnD, and this attracts people that have no interest in DnD. I'll throw up an On Artpunk essay sometime.

      Reviews are not academic papers written via a scientific method. There is no universal method or set of standards or goal agreed upon by all. If my criticism consists of a well-founded argument that something should have tackled a certain topic whose inclusion I suspect was vital to the area it was covering I can make that argument.

      • @PoN:

        When you engage a discussion with the statement "Art. Punk. Crusade" then surely you see a potential of hyperbole?

        Ok, so not all Artpunk is bad. Does the style have problems? Yes. Having those problems identified is key. You have obviously taken large part in doing just that. And as you repeatedly point out, when form takes precedence over function, things begin to slide. I have learned a lot from reading your work and it resonates with my own opinions.

        As for "Reviews are not academic papers written via a scientific method" then that is evidently true. I might add "scholarly" to "scientific", since the two are not the same.

        But the process seemingly does share elements:

        -- one is the ideal to remain consistent and faithful to the piece under review (in my experience this ideal is rarely upheld in either world, but that's a different matter). Scientific method does not often apply to studies of Literature, Art, Philosophy, Religion, Language, etc. And what you do arguably comes close to what such studies attempt: to engage with necessarily subjective issues of content, style, quality, etc. Like a student of Impressionist Art you apply terms and define parameters for discussing creations that were produced by people who did not necessarily identify as part of or subject to "Impressionism" and who may or may not have identified as "works of art" – did Van Gogh think of his lacquer boxes as "Art" or as utilitarian objects or both?

        -- another one is that one defines terms carefully before engaging: in the present context, I call for an awareness that "Artpunk" is mostly an "etic" label (as opposed to "emic") and thus applied by outsiders (the reviewer) as opposed to creators (the author); To my knowledge, the latter rarely self-identify as being part of an "artpunk" style or movement or whatever.

        So the issue is how to avoid tautology: "I don't like artpunk. I don't like this thing. This thing must be artpunk".

        I know things aren't straightforward. I appreciate the care you take to avoid pitfalls and take other people's creativity into consideration. I am not trying to be facetious. I do try to nudge the conversation forward based on a genuine interest in the topic. I was under the impression that I read all your work, yet I missed your two (!) DCO reviews. Oh boy.

        I will await your Artpunk essay with interest. And hopefully not miss it.

        @Reason: I was responding to PrinceOfNothing, not Bryce. I know he liked Medusa, DCO and other works that some label as "artpunk".

      • @Gopsie

        I state my initial position in the clearest, most unequivocal terms possible, and only then add nuance, context, ass-covering etc. etc. if a discerning reader asks for clarification, or poses a question. I find it helps get to the bottom of the issue. Curious, I have heard this particular argument before.

        [Academic papers-->]

        The problem with defining anything as Artpunk is that the only attempt to define its parameters is an incoherent jumble by Patrick Stuart that incorporates anything from elements that would apply to any OSR game to political orientation to a high percentage of transpeople that does not neccessarily have anything to do with what your typical Artpunk product is like or about.

        Nevertheless, the existence of the nebulous spectre that plagues the OSR is very real, has salient examples and is self-applied in many relevant cases (Stuart & Mork Borg etc. etc.). These issues on where exactly the boundary is to be drawn might be relevant in certain rare exceptions (such as proto Artpunk, Gardens of Ynn, say) but they do not yet present a pressing concern.

        Look for the essay around newyears, I have taken a week off and we are in full lockdown.

        • Oof, my pattern recognition is playing tricks on me. You wouldn't happen to be from the LA area would you?

        • I actually prefer the term “Impressionistic” lifted from Grognardia (or perhaps Pointilism). It’s artsy, it looks like D&D material from a distance and when one gets a closer look, all the holes between the dots are apparent. In some cases, they’re easily filled and the item can be run at the table. In others, the DM has to essentially write a module that fits into the setting presented by the module s/he bought.

          Which, naturally, defeats the purpose of buying the module.

        • Looking forward! (To the essay, that is. Not the lockdown). I will be particularly interested to see whether your position reflects that you think AP is growing or whether they remain mostly fringe.

        • For all practical purposes, Artpunk is the most prominent strain of OSR.

• But it comes with a Spotify link!

• I'm a firm believer in adventures as technical writing. Sure, a little flavor helps; but the true value of a scenario is information. No one runs D&D who doesn't enjoy fantasy or have some emotional connection to the subject matter enough to communicate that in their own voice. Tell me it's an old cellar, and I'll channel the terror I felt when my brother locked me in the basement for a more organic (and convincing) narration than any flavor text could ever provide. That said, people have creative urges and think gaming might be a suitable medium. Maybe. Or perhaps they could write fiction instead. Or produce visual art. What doesn't work in a module might succeed elsewhere and be immensely more satisfying. Anyway, here's wishing everyone a safe and happy holiday...