Paradigm

[CKO]

There are rules/guidelines to follow when writing an IA and my question to you is do you believe that our expectations is destroying creativity? Whenever I read the comments of others opinions on someones IA they all seem to be similar with the same intent of forcing the writer to make changes until his IA fits into the box. I think there is a paradigm that is preventing us from writing or accepting great IAs what do you guys think?

 

Sorry, I used parodox instead of paradigm please forgive me but it was 5 in the morning when I made this post. ;)

 

watch the 2nd part to get a better grasp of what a paradigm is.

[InquisitorHayn]

This is ever the issue with critiquing the written word. Or any kind of art, for that matter. It can be argued that content cannot be qualified except by its value to the creator. While the writer should be pleased with their creation, the point here is that we are not creating for ourselves in these forums. We are writing with the goal of having our work be meaningful and entertaining to a multitude of people. And even though a roomful of people will never agree on what the best kind of pizza is, they do agree on the basic concepts that make it a pizza and not an orange. The fluff submitted must fit into the established universe, and it must meet certain conventions that have been largely accepted by the community as a whole. It is here to be tested, tried, then enjoyed by many. If that's not okay with some writers, they retain the right to compose to their wits' end anywhere else.

 

DISCLAIMER: The above statements are personal opinions of the author and in no way reflect the opinions or attitudes of the B&C staff, its membership, or any other individuals or organizations likewise affiliated.

[Dosjetka]

I agree with everything Inquisitor Hayn has written. It's up to you how much of the criticism given you accept ;)

 

Ludovic

[Lysimachus]

I read the comments of others opinions on someones IA they all seem to be similar with the same intent of forcing the writer to make changes until his IA fits into the box.

 

The thing is that it's not the members of the Liber who have created the box. GW has told us in a great deal of detail about SM Chapters and how they fight, think and organize themselves. Many visitors to the Liber forum (myself included) therefore like to write and read about Chapters that try to fit within that framework that GW has provided, and this is why a lot of responses will try to help a new writer see what they need to do to make their own creation 'fit'.

 

No one is saying a writer has to follow those suggestions that are made. Your Chapter is for you*, and if in your version of the GW universe it's ok that your Chapter has 10,000 Marines (half of which are female) all equipped with TDA, jet packs and Gauss weapons, that's cool.

 

However, if you're posting it here for everyone to see and comment on, you can't complain because they then do comment and don't think it fits as well as you do.

 

 

 

 

*By 'you', I don't necessarily mean the OP, just a general 'you'. :tu:

[Zynk Kaladin]

I think, at least personally, the fun in this puzzle is fitting all the pieces together into a believable chapter, not necessarily stifling creativity. When I started out my ideas were pretty radical and out of the box. Over time (and with lots of headaches) I was able to make these ideas fit within this universe. It all just takes time and work, and plenty of times DIYers dont have either to dedicate to making an effective IA. I believe everyone has the capacity to make a brilliant IA within the WH40K framework but it's all relative to the amount of work we put into it.

[Grimdarkness]

No one is saying a writer has to follow those suggestions that are made. Your Chapter is for you*, and if in your version of the GW universe it's ok that your Chapter has 10,000 Marines (half of which are female) all equipped with TDA, jet packs and Gauss weapons, that's cool.

 

Hey who told you about my chapter idea!

 

 

As for the "box" the whole point of the liber is to get CnC on are chapter ideas

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

While I agree with those who say that a DIY chapter still has to fit into the framework of GWs concept of Space Marines , the one thing I often stumbled upon was that people who comment on a a new chapter often want explanations for everything. For everything that is not basic standard (ie not for the chapter using boltguns as their main armament, but eg for having many psykers).

 

I think that is not necessary. When you read the articles from GW or FW, especially those from FW, I think they are awesome to read and the chapters are cool. But the articles are often rather short, there is not much explanation why any chapter has this or that trait, there sometimes are a few hints, but not always. And I think that's fine. So if a DIY writer says his chapter believe in the divinity of the Emperor, why would he need to explain it? It is not common, but nobody asked the author of the Novamarines article (I think that was the one) why they believe that - and it is not said in the article. It is only stated that they do, and it works fine.

[Ace Debonair]

And even though a roomful of people will never agree on what the best kind of pizza is, they do agree on the basic concepts that make it a pizza and not an orange. The fluff submitted must fit into the established universe, and it must meet certain conventions that have been largely accepted by the community as a whole. It is here to be tested, tried, then enjoyed by many. If that's not okay with some writers, they retain the right to compose to their wits' end anywhere else.

I think, at least personally, the fun in this puzzle is fitting all the pieces together into a believable chapter, not necessarily stifling creativity. When I started out my ideas were pretty radical and out of the box. Over time (and with lots of headaches) I was able to make these ideas fit within this universe. It all just takes time and work, and plenty of times DIYers dont have either to dedicate to making an effective IA. I believe everyone has the capacity to make a brilliant IA within the WH40K framework but it's all relative to the amount of work we put into it.

 

So, so, very true, on both counts.

It's taken me two years' work and counting, and my IAs still aren't what I'd call 'great.'

 

I don't think it's really limiting someone's creativity when we point out, for instance, that a chapter of Tau-worshipping marines who are secretly really necrons with jetpacks built into their feet kills any believability more effectively than an exterminatus to the face.

 

To continue InquisitorHayn's metaphor, that above example would make for one peculiar pizza, for sure. :D

 

I certainly can't think of any great IA ideas that haven't had at least some positive recognition, I have to say. :)

Anyone got any good examples?

[Donkey Kong]

Your, and I do speak to everyone when I say this, creativity is limited the instant you choose to work within the framework of someone else's universe. This is the be all, end all answer to your question. You choose to limit your creativity by making an IA. How's that for a paradox: You make the creative choice to limit your creativity.

 

Contrary to your belief, CKO, there is no IA that could have been made to better fit within the constraints of the 40k universe without the constraints of the 40k universe. The 40k universe itself is a fairly messy conglomerate, and, in my mind, could be vastly improved. But, that is a discussion for a completely different thread. For now, official 40k background is a laughable "constraint," and here's the reason why.

 

While I agree with those who say that a DIY chapter still has to fit into the framework of GWs concept of Space Marines , the one thing I often stumbled upon was that people who comment on a a new chapter often want explanations for everything. For everything that is not basic standard (ie not for the chapter using boltguns as their main armament, but eg for having many psykers).

 

I think that is not necessary. When you read the articles from GW or FW, especially those from FW, I think they are awesome to read and the chapters are cool. But the articles are often rather short, there is not much explanation why any chapter has this or that trait, there sometimes are a few hints, but not always. And I think that's fine. So if a DIY writer says his chapter believe in the divinity of the Emperor, why would he need to explain it? It is not common, but nobody asked the author of the Novamarines article (I think that was the one) why they believe that - and it is not said in the article. It is only stated that they do, and it works fine.

 

If something cannot be explained in such a way that it fits within the universe then it does not belong in the universe. Your right in saying that a shorter IA is almost always a better IA. If there is a method of shortening an IA, then it's only better for it. I recall a poster once saying that if the most recent Space Wolves Codex background was presented here as an Index Astartes, it would have been torn apart. I can personally attest that the Blood Ravens and Storm Wardens would have received an equally harsh response. Unfortunately, we have no power to demand any explanation of the Games Workshop design teams or the design teams of any branch or licensed studios. We can ask each other to justify things. In other words: You are not unquestionable. Alternatively, no one is above criticism. Some people are just lucky enough to be out of our reach.

[Rafen_2]

From personal experience, I can say that creativity isn't really being shot down. You can be creative but the only problem is the why? The point of a DIY is to have a small it of property in the 40k universe so therefore wouldn't it have to fit in? Sure some of the critiques come out as aggressive and put down but think about what they are saying because they're just saying how it should fit in. So you want to have space marines ride lizards. why? Because they grew up on a planet were every warrior was taught to fight like that. okay feasible.

 

You see what I mean?

[CKO]

I understand what you guys are saying and I agree with you all 100% but at the end of the day there is a 40k box. We help each other by trying to get others IAs to fit within this box or acceptable 40k fiction but I believe this has lead to boredom. I believe our suggestions is the cause of our problems. I made this thread awhile back and it was very useful as everyone shared their thoughts and opinions, but out of those ideas that were disliked how many were truly unacceptable? Is having a bad/good relationship with the adeptus mechanicus really a poor concept?

 

Do our suggestions inspire creativity or limits it? Do our suggestions lead to a new colorful chapter or one that belongs in section b row 4 seat 12? To me it seems that after a writer post his chapter he goes from trying to create something to justifying his ideas, and once that happens it sabotages creativity. Do you get what I am trying to say?

[InquisitorHayn]

I think I see what you're driving at CKO, but you have actually just answered your own question.

 

To me it seems that after a writer post his chapter he goes from trying to create something to justifying his ideas, and once that happens it sabotages creativity.

 

This is precisely the point of the Liber. You have an idea. It's fun. It's exciting. It's the best idea in the world to you. But now you've brought your literary hacky-sack to a playground where some kids have a ball or an action figure or crayons and they all think they have the coolest toy on the planet too. They're don't know how to play with you and they're not sure if it'll be fun. This doesn't mean your toy is less awesome and fun, you just have to break the other kids into the game. You have to give them a reason to want to play along.

 

Justification is what allows others to see the creativity in your work. But now, to continue the metaphor, you've invited them in and they want to play too. It's not just your game anymore; it has to be enjoyable for everyone playing. Now, ultimately, it was your choice to bring the toy and you have every right to take it back home. But the game usually isn't as fun without the other kids, is it? Even if they do cheat and change the rules sometimes. That's why we all came to the playground in the first place. ;)

 

EDIT: Oh and by the by, Ace

I don't think it's really limiting someone's creativity when we point out, for instance, that a chapter of Tau-worshipping marines who are secretly really necrons with jetpacks built into their feet kills any believability more effectively than an exterminatus to the face.

I totally want to sig this, but I can't remember for the life of me how to code the little quote tag with name and date. Help? :P

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

While I agree with those who say that a DIY chapter still has to fit into the framework of GWs concept of Space Marines , the one thing I often stumbled upon was that people who comment on a a new chapter often want explanations for everything. For everything that is not basic standard (ie not for the chapter using boltguns as their main armament, but eg for having many psykers).

 

I think that is not necessary. When you read the articles from GW or FW, especially those from FW, I think they are awesome to read and the chapters are cool. But the articles are often rather short, there is not much explanation why any chapter has this or that trait, there sometimes are a few hints, but not always. And I think that's fine. So if a DIY writer says his chapter believe in the divinity of the Emperor, why would he need to explain it? It is not common, but nobody asked the author of the Novamarines article (I think that was the one) why they believe that - and it is not said in the article. It is only stated that they do, and it works fine.

 

If something cannot be explained in such a way that it fits within the universe then it does not belong in the universe. Your right in saying that a shorter IA is almost always a better IA. If there is a method of shortening an IA, then it's only better for it. I recall a poster once saying that if the most recent Space Wolves Codex background was presented here as an Index Astartes, it would have been torn apart. I can personally attest that the Blood Ravens and Storm Wardens would have received an equally harsh response. Unfortunately, we have no power to demand any explanation of the Games Workshop design teams or the design teams of any branch or licensed studios. We can ask each other to justify things. In other words: You are not unquestionable. Alternatively, no one is above criticism. Some people are just lucky enough to be out of our reach.

 

Have you read the Imperial Armour articles? They are awesome, and they explain very little. The Blood Ravens would have been shot down here, and it would have been a shame. I think it is very fortunate that 'we' do not have the 'power' to demand explanations from GW.

 

I'm not saying you need not explain things that are outright contrary to 40K or unfitting, like female marines or pacifist marines or marines from the missing legions, etc. But having to justify every single divergence from the completely standard chapter-without-character makes it impossible to leave that bit of mystery that often makes stories good. And it does limit creativity, because instead of asking yourself "What would I like my chapter to be like?" you start asking yourself "Will the Liber allow me to make my chapter like this?" or "How will I justify this trait and that trait and this homeworld?"

 

And that is the point where technicians (and nazis) continue, but creative minds lose interest.

[Sigismund Himself]

I'm not saying you need not explain things that are outright contrary to 40K or unfitting, like female marines or pacifist marines or marines from the missing legions, etc. But having to justify every single divergence from the completely standard chapter-without-character makes it impossible to leave that bit of mystery that often makes stories good.

Every little bit doesn't need to be justified but enough needs to be said so that the differences don't break the reader's suspension of disbelief. Getting this takes a lot of practise and even then failure is commonplace. Somebody might write an IA on the Second Legion that plausibly (to me) explains why they were expunged from the records and why they still exist at the end of the 41st millennium. And you know what? It will probably be a dull read. There's just too much justification that needs to be done and as a result of this, the Legion's theme will suffer.

 

Every IA has to strike a balance between justification of its chapter's differences and reinforcing the theme or character of the chapter. If you can combine the two elements so that they actually solve one another, that's when you hit the jackpot :ph34r: The Liber is able to provide help with the first one and does so. But the second part, the theme of an IA, is more dependent upon the author to come up with and is often overlooked.

[NightrawenII]

*walks in, grinning widely*

 

First:

I think that is not necessary. When you read the articles from GW or FW, especially those from FW, I think they are awesome to read and the chapters are cool. But the articles are often rather short, there is not much explanation why any chapter has this or that trait, there sometimes are a few hints, but not always. And I think that's fine. So if a DIY writer says his chapter believe in the divinity of the Emperor, why would he need to explain it? It is not common, but nobody asked the author of the Novamarines article (I think that was the one) why they believe that - and it is not said in the article. It is only stated that they do, and it works fine.

Have you read the Imperial Armour articles? They are awesome, and they explain very little. The Blood Ravens would have been shot down here, and it would have been a shame. I think it is very fortunate that 'we' do not have the 'power' to demand explanations from GW.

Answer: Yes, I did and no, they are not awesome. :ph34r: The FW articles are prime example of the case, when the author doesn't have enough time, place and enthusiasm to actually flesh out the Chapter(s) "properly". These articles are intended to be the summary or preview and in some cases it works, in other it looks like the ideas were tacked together by hot needle, bubble gum and wishful thinking and in few it doesn't work at all. Go figure. :)

 

Mind you, I'm not going to crucify FW for what they did. After all, write a good and enjoyable IA takes time, effort and, what is important, feedback. But I don't think their type of DIY article is suitable for common DIYer, because it's too brief, incomplete and sometimes just load of pretty words without any meaning.

 

++++++

Someone mentioned the Blood Ravens and Storm Wardens. Well, actually in my mind the original (please, note the 'original') Index Astartes: Blood Ravens is good example of "origins shrouded in mystery" and that's comming from guy, who hates said cliché with burning passion. My knowledge of Storm Wardens can be summarized as, that Chapter with fancy bedtime story. :huh:

 

++++++

I'm not saying you need not explain things that are outright contrary to 40K or unfitting, like female marines or pacifist marines or marines from the missing legions, etc. But having to justify every single divergence from the completely standard chapter-without-character makes it impossible to leave that bit of mystery that often makes stories good. And it does limit creativity, because instead of asking yourself "What would I like my chapter to be like?" you start asking yourself "Will the Liber allow me to make my chapter like this?" or "How will I justify this trait and that trait and this homeworld?"

 

And that is the point where technicians (and nazis) continue, but creative minds lose interest.

I LOLed really hard. Do you know why? It's because to me a creative mind is a insult. In my experience, people with *creative mind* are always living in their own world and are absolute hopeless and consequently annoyed, when they are confronted with reality. Yes, they are able to come up with like thousand of ideas, but almost all of them are most likely just building of aircastles. And when you told them to do something resourceful, they will be all whinny/bitchy.

All *normal* people will go, rethink their idea and make it more plausible, but not them. They will call you out for being restrictive of their full potential and what not. I don't have the stomach to deal with these people and to be frank, from time to time, such guy appear in the Liber.

 

In order to add something to discussion and not rambling.

Do our suggestions inspire creativity or limits it? Do our suggestions lead to a new colorful chapter or one that belongs in section b row 4 seat 12? To me it seems that after a writer post his chapter he goes from trying to create something to justifying his ideas, and once that happens it sabotages creativity. Do you get what I am trying to say?

Since I'm THE guy, who is often asking for justification or question the plausibility of said idea in his comments, I should explain this in more depth.

 

1st, I do think that most ideas are actually quite good or plausible. However, the execution of said idea is where the DIYers struggle. In most cases than not, the people are just lazy and go for the fastest route, either cliché or very unplausible scenario. In such case, I'm using all my wits and skill to make them abandon this idea. Of course, some people are just plain dense and insists on the such thing, because, for them, is this scenario pinnacle of originality and creativity. Note, that I'm against the execution, not the source. The prime culprit of this are the japanese-themed Chapters.

 

2nd, I'm against justification, which looks like the justification. On the other hand, when you read the article and suddenly, out of nowhere, new trait appears is no good either. In my mind the IA should flow, all ideas working in unisono and interacting with each other to create a new symetry. So, it's not about justification, it's about flow.

 

3rd, Justification(s) keeps the author in the line. It's good to be creative, but everything has its limits and this holds true for W40k verse. If you ask yourself, "Is this plausible?", it will be more acceptable by others than just throwing you ideas into fray.

 

 

Cheers, NightrawenII.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

I do not like when people use the "you limit my creativity" excuse for writing completely annoying texts and then not being able to deal with criticism. I am not saying there should be no criticism. But there does not need to be an explanation for everything, because that makes things boring as hell.

 

"Is this plausible?" is a good question to ask oneself from time to time while writing, but doing it all the time makes you, as I said above, a technician, instead of a writer. I do not read technical manuals for fun. Your criticism is often, in my opinion, way too harsh and too inflexible. I also disagree with your approach about making people stop things. I don't like all the cliché stuff either, female marines or gundam marines make my skin crawl, but you know what I do? I stop reading it. Sure, that will not help the guy, but you are not going to make them agree with your image of space marines anyway, so why bother? Let them do it, let those who want to read it do so, and spend your time with something you enjoy instead of something you dislike. Read an IA that looks good, for example, then find a few things you could do to help improve that, instead of insulting the ego of someone who is in a completely different 40K than you are in the first place.

 

BTW, Nightraven, if you do not like creative people, that is your problem, insulting them in this way is just that: insulting.

[Heru]

EDIT: Oh and by the by, Ace

I don't think it's really limiting someone's creativity when we point out, for instance, that a chapter of Tau-worshipping marines who are secretly really necrons with jetpacks built into their feet kills any believability more effectively than an exterminatus to the face.

I totally want to sig this, but I can't remember for the life of me how to code the little quote tag with name and date. Help?

 

+quote name='Ace Debonair' date='Oct 9 2011, 10:58 PM' post='2896199'+

I don't think it's really limiting someone's creativity when we point out, for instance, that a chapter of Tau-worshipping marines who are secretly really necrons with jetpacks built into their feet kills any believability more effectively than an exterminatus to the face.

+/quote+

 

Change the +'s into [ and ]

[Brother Tyler]

The answer to the basic question is that creativity is impacted in a variety of ways. There are times when creativity is stifled, there are times when creativity is promoted, and there are times in between. Sometimes this is good, and sometimes this is bad.

 

I think the most important thing to remember is that ideas are posted in a certain context, with a certain intent.

 

To say that articles are for the readers is partially wrong, though.

 

Communications is a two-way street, so it's essential that the message be clear to the reader. However, the real goal is for the author to develop the article for his/her Chapter/warband/order/whatever. In this, the intent of the author is what is really important. The goal of the forum, after all, is to provide a place in which the creation is facilitated by others.

 

Readers too often impose what they would like to see over what the author desires to develop/deliver, pressing for certain formats (typically the Index Astartes article format), recommending for/against certain things, etc. What readers really need to consider, however, is what the author desires for the Chapter/warband/order/whatever. Most active Liberites are staunch advocates of fluff-compliance, and these members will typically provide feedback based on helping an author to achieve an acceptable (to the readers) level of fluff-compliance in their articles. I tend to fall in this camp myself. However, sometimes authors don't care about fluff-compliance. Maybe they want female Space Marines, Clone Wars Space Marines, GWAR Space Marines, or some other representation that is either inconsistent with the fluff or crosses genres/milieus. Sometimes authors really want a fluff-compliant product, and those tend to be easy for other Liberites to deal with. Unfortunately, however, there are some gaps in the fluff, or there are places where players have drawn conclusions that might be plausible, but are by no means definite. In these cases, differing interpretations often lead to conflict where a member advocates some conclusion that isn't necessarily a sure thing, but he does so aggressively as if it is the gospel truth.

 

What we have to remember is that the army being created isn't for us, the readers. It's for the author.

 

If the author wants to create female Space Marines, he's perfectly entitled to do so (no matter how much some of us, myself included, might hate the notion). Likewise, if a member wants to create a Dark Angels Successor that doesn't hunt the Fallen, or a 2nd Founding Successor of the Ultramarines, that's within his rights, too.

 

Responsible participation on the part of other members might obligate us to inform a member when his chosen course of action isn't compliant with the fluff, but if the member is dead set on pursuing that course of action, that's his choice. If members find the chosen course of action so objectionable, the respectful thing to do at that point is to simply back out of the discussion (rather than pressing the issue, which members occasionally do).

 

Getting back to the Index Astartes article, we sometimes get fixated on that format and developing information based on that format. I get it. It's a good format. I was one of the first advocates of using that format back when we started seeing the First Founding series of Index Astartes articles I wrote an article advocating the use of that format. However, members are not now, will not in the future, and have never in the past been required to use this format. We tend to advocate the format because it is a really good format and presents a good amount of information that covers the basic information of a Chapter in sufficient detail that a reader can get a good feel for the Chapter. However, there are other formats, including non-formats.

 

This comes down to what the author desires to develop.

 

When you cut through all of the other stuff, what does an author really need to develop in order to have created a viable Chapter/warband/order/whatever?

 

Just looking at it from a tabletop gaming perspective, all I really need are the basic livery (color scheme, Chapter badge, methods of identifying ranks and specialists) and the rules for the Chapter. I don't even really need a Chapter name (though I personally think that every Chapter should have a name).

 

Do I need to know who the Chapter's progenitor Legion/Chapter/Primarch are? Do I need to know the founding in which the Chapter was created? Do I need to know the names of the Chapter's homeworld/fortress-monastery/major vessels?

 

In short, no, we don't need to know any of those things.

 

In most cases, just giving us the bare minimum would be pretty boring, though. Readers want to know something more than just the basic minimums. The Index Astartes article is good for expanding beyond the basic minimums, though there are definitely ways to provide information beyond the minimum without having to resort to an Index Astartes article. One of the most interesting aspects of the game background, after all, is how information is often very limited, with different pieces of information sometimes conflicting so that we're never quite sure what the real truth is. The typical Index Astartes article gives us "real" truth, while some other methods of presenting a Chapter allow for a more organic approach.

 

I always find it interesting when someone chooses a format other than the Index Astartes article, and/or when someone gives us a different batch of information than the Index Astartes article provides. Sometimes this is done poorly, though it is sometimes done very well. When executed well, the end product is no less effective than an equally well-executed Index Astartes article.

 

Do members need to explain everything?

 

Not if they don't want to. I, personally, like to see explanations, but that's just personal preference. Sometimes authors have a strong end-state in mind, but have difficulty developing a rationale for that end-state, or other members have conflicting opinions about the plausibility of the various explanations that might be given for the end-state. Sometimes the whole intent is for the background to be somewhat mysterious. That shouldn't be a cop-out for laziness, however. If we look at real life, most of the time we are concerned with the end-state, while the details of "why" the end-state came to be can often be perceived as boring and mundane. I think that too often we as members/readers push for explanations that open the author's work up to an unnecessary amount of scrutiny, making the author's job all the harder when he is suddenly pressed for an explanation of X, and then the reader that asked for the explanation doesn't like the one that is given, and then it goes back and forth.

 

Do authors sometimes get lazy? Sometimes. Perhaps not as often as others might perceive, but I've seen far too many posts that have started off along the lines of "Hey, I want to make a Chapter based on the Janissaries. Can you help?" with no real work done by the "author" and that author have some expectation that the other members will just fill in the gaps, like a poor WH40K DIY Chapter mad lib. Sometimes "laziness" is nothing more than frustration, or a realization that the requested explanation isn't really necessary.

 

Perhaps the dynamic of the DIY process here in the Liber Astartes forum needs some examination and revision. Perhaps if authors stated their intents and must-haves up front, other members might better understand whether or not the DIY development discussion is one in which they'll desire to participate. Along the way, we'll have to change the paradigm where fluff-compliance isn't the end-all-be-all and the Index Astartes article isn't the product in all cases. This way, when I see that member Z wants to create a Sisters of Battle Order based on the Winx Club I won't have a coronary and can just choose to ignore that discussion, whereas when member N has made up his mind that his Spartan-based DIY Chapter is going to be led by Chapter Master Leonidas after others have recommended against it I can choose to ignore that portion and try to effect the improvements to which I think the author might be receptive.

 

The best advice I can give anyone that is thinking about a DIY is to accept that they are going to receive criticism and recommendations for change, and to be polite in acknowledging the feedback and similarly polite in informing the other members of the decisions that have been made. Don't feel an obligation to take every recommendation, and don't allow yourself to get bogged down in explaining things you don't want to explain or defending your decisions. If you want to create a Chaos Space Marine warband based on Blue Duck and his comancheros, go for it.

 

At the end of the day, while all of us readers might have an opinion on someone's DIY creation, the author is the one that has to live with it.

[Rafen_2]

I LOLed really hard. Do you know why? It's because to me a creative mind is a insult. In my experience, people with *creative mind* are always living in their own world and are absolute hopeless and consequently annoyed, when they are confronted with reality. Yes, they are able to come up with like thousand of ideas, but almost all of them are most likely just building of aircastles. And when you told them to do something resourceful, they will be all whinny/bitchy.

All *normal* people will go, rethink their idea and make it more plausible, but not them. They will call you out for being restrictive of their full potential and what not. I don't have the stomach to deal with these people and to be frank, from time to time, such guy appear in the Liber.

 

Wow, just wow. I have never seen people like this in my life (granted I haven't been around long but still). I understand what you are saying and you are right but you're describing a certain type of creative people. Your *normal* people are the second half of creative people who do rethink their strategy to make it more realistic. I feel for you guys who help and get negative responses such as you described but shooting down everyone as a certain type of person seems silly in my mind.

 

Plus, we are forgetting the point of a DIY which is to be creative yet to fit into the box as others have said. So is a little creativity needed? Yes. But should you be naive about it? No, because everyone ends up angry. So your DIY can be different but within a certain context.

[Ace Debonair]

EDIT: Oh and by the by, Ace

I don't think it's really limiting someone's creativity when we point out, for instance, that a chapter of Tau-worshipping marines who are secretly really necrons with jetpacks built into their feet kills any believability more effectively than an exterminatus to the face.

I totally want to sig this, but I can't remember for the life of me how to code the little quote tag with name and date. Help? :(

 

Just go and click the 'quote' button under the post, then copy all the bits you wanted to quote (including the quote tags). That's the way I've always done it!

 

Or, conversely, Heru Talon's post has the instructions you're looking for.

 

I'm not saying you need not explain things that are outright contrary to 40K or unfitting, like female marines or pacifist marines or marines from the missing legions, etc. But having to justify every single divergence from the completely standard chapter-without-character makes it impossible to leave that bit of mystery that often makes stories good. And it does limit creativity, because instead of asking yourself "What would I like my chapter to be like?" you start asking yourself "Will the Liber allow me to make my chapter like this?" or "How will I justify this trait and that trait and this homeworld?"

 

And that is the point where technicians (and nazis) continue, but creative minds lose interest.

 

Actually, that's an interesting point.

Apart from the bit where you call justification-favouring Liberites nazis. That's the point where this creative mind lost interest in your post. ;)

 

But it's certainly true that my mindset altered after a while here, and I frequently catch myself wondering 'would I shake my head at that if someone else posted it?' when working on things.

I would add, however, that I don't feel that thinking that way has limited my creativity. In fact I'd say exactly the reverse is true!

 

I would say that it takes more creativity to make an idea tick the Liber's 'acceptable' boxes and still be unique than it does to just accept any old idea for a chapter.

 

None of my Chapters have dropped their core characteristics over the last two years - the Red Lords are still arrogant, with a love of artillery. The Infinity Knights still like to use their dreadnoughts to kill things, and the Stonebound are very much dwarvish to the core.

 

Sure, they aren't the best IAs ever or anything, but I don't think it'd be fair to say they aren't creative. :ermm:

 

I LOLed really hard. Do you know why? It's because to me a creative mind is a insult. In my experience, people with *creative mind* are always living in their own world and are absolute hopeless and consequently annoyed, when they are confronted with reality. Yes, they are able to come up with like thousand of ideas, but almost all of them are most likely just building of aircastles. And when you told them to do something resourceful, they will be all whinny/bitchy.

All *normal* people will go, rethink their idea and make it more plausible, but not them. They will call you out for being restrictive of their full potential and what not. I don't have the stomach to deal with these people and to be frank, from time to time, such guy appear in the Liber.

Well, that's a near-perfect description of me; a daydreamer and ideas guy to the last. :lol:

I'd like to think I'm not that annoying, but I'll admit I might be.

 

Perhaps the dynamic of the DIY process here in the Liber Astartes forum needs some examination and revision. Perhaps if authors stated their intents and must-haves up front, other members might better understand whether or not the DIY development discussion is one in which they'll desire to participate. Along the way, we'll have to change the paradigm where fluff-compliance isn't the end-all-be-all and the Index Astartes article isn't the product in all cases.

 

I might give that a try for my Steel Dragons, rather than filling out my usual outline. See how it goes. :lol:

I'll probably stick with the IA format, though, because I very much like how it looks. Besides, I don't want to start a revolution or anything. :P

[Rafen_2]

Perhaps the dynamic of the DIY process here in the Liber Astartes forum needs some examination and revision. Perhaps if authors stated their intents and must-haves up front, other members might better understand whether or not the DIY development discussion is one in which they'll desire to participate. Along the way, we'll have to change the paradigm where fluff-compliance isn't the end-all-be-all and the Index Astartes article isn't the product in all cases.

 

I might give that a try for my Steel Dragons, rather than filling out my usual outline. See how it goes. :lol:

I'll probably stick with the IA format, though, because I very much like how it looks. Besides, I don't want to start a revolution or anything. :ermm:

 

I agree with you on the outline being nice and neat but what Brother Tyler is suggesting is maybe a list at the very start that names your main points so people see it easier. But if it gets put into the final copy you cut out the list and leave the rest.

[Brother Tyler]

Correct. What I was suggesting was that these issues get brought up as part of the development process, but are removed in the finished product.

[Ace Debonair]

I agree with you on the outline being nice and neat but what Brother Tyler is suggesting is maybe a list at the very start that names your main points so people see it easier. But if it gets put into the final copy you cut out the list and leave the rest.

 

Gotcha. I actually meant I'd try exactly that!

Guess I didn't communicate that particular notion too well, haha.

 

Correct. What I was suggesting was that these issues get brought up as part of the development process, but are removed in the finished product.

I'll give that a try later tonight then, once I work out what the key points and ideas for my Chapter are. :)

[Shinzaren]

I'm a huge fan of the Liber Astartes method. My first IA draft on the current Sons of Lightning was something completely different than what it is now, and was riddled with mistakes that I now get after people for. The Liber and its members really leaned on me and showed me where I was going astray. As a result the Sons of Lightning are 100% different than what they started out as and I couldn't be happier. They now fit reasonably well into the shared universe, with some breaks that I think work well in the context of the IA. It was thanks to the Liber and its method that I was able to refine and produce a vastly superior IA. I think that working inside the guidelines makes you more creative because for every wild idea, you get to have the fun of explaining and reasoning it, which is great.

 

Now, had I wanted to have female marines who were also rebuilt dreadnoughts in human shape, with gauss weapons and a penchant for summoning daemons, I could have. It shatters the shared universe, but hey, it's my chapter. That is the mindset I take. I assume that everyone is trying to work in the same shared universe and I approach each critique and comment from that view. If they ignore/refute my comments, that's fine. No one on the Liber is forcing anyone else to do ANYTHING. We are merely offering our ideas and critiques, to be adopted or ignored as each author wishes.

[NightrawenII]

Ok., sorry for the yestreday, but I was not exactly in the mood. However, the "creative mind" and "normal" are in "**" for reason, it's here to indicate that the description is used in rhetorical sense.

 

Now, I was thinking about the question and today will try something a little different.

 

In my mind, the Index Astartes is type of informative article and it's purpose is to present/deliver your(the author's) ideas to the wider audience, in a believable, plausible and interesting way.

 

That's how I see it. If you don't want to share you ideas with others, then what's point of posting them on internet? The thing is, the last part of the definition is a little bit tricky, technically speaking it's not requirement, but rather a desirable condition. After all, the Liber Astartes forum is here to provide criticism and comments, so if you post your article in this forum you are giving a random bunch of people the permission to tell you what they think about your work. In this way, the reply of "They are my marines and I'm free to do with them whatever I want." is a self-defeating argument, but I dismiss.

 

The "believable and interesting" are the keywords here. The problem is and let's face it, 99.99% of DIYers are poor writers with low to zero talent or skill, including myself. The talent is quite dead-end, there can be done nothing, but in case of skill is situation different. Skill can be aquired through hard work and experience. Therefore in most cases than not, the writing of IA turns out to be endless circle of labour, suffering and misery. You have to develop technician in yourself in order to develop your skill and Index Astartes.

 

So to answer the original question; No, the Liber is not restrictive of creativity, it's just that the author's mastery of wordcraft sucks and he has to be more *creative* in his presentation(s). The creativity is not only about inventing something out of nowhere, it's also about making this idea come true.

 

 

Cheers, NightrawenII.