Paradigm

[Dosjetka]

I'm betting that as I write this, legoss is posting his IA, just like Ace did :P

 

Ludovic

[NightrawenII]

I believe the paradigm is that writing an IA should be difficult. Whenever I ask myself why do we believe it is difficult, my only answer is because we are told it should be hard be prepared for long boxing matches of presenting and criticing. We understand that some people mess up entirely with female marines but this conversation is not about them. I am referring to vets who because of the paradigm struggle to write IAs. I agree with you restrictions and justifying is good, but what I am saying is that we shouldnt make it seem like its difficult as this makes it harder to write.

To be honest, I think the "difficult" or "hard" are wrong choice of word. If you look at it all around, then all human activities are either hard or difficult. ;)

 

One of my teachers on high school like to tell us, his whining students, that solve the matematical problems is not hard or difficult, of course if you know the right formulas :P , but it's laborious. It simply takes time, effort and dedication to solve them, so we shouldn't be just lazy and do it. And I think the writing an IA is the same case, it reguires certain amount of dedication, effort and thinking. Of course, there are people, who are unwilling to pay such price, but in my not so humble opinion they are not worth of good IA.

 

 

As one of the people who was worried that Nightrawen was refering to me when he was talking about creative people, I do not think the IA format or the standard of fitting within GW quidelines that hinders creativity. It is we, the editors, who hinder creativity. As Ace said, we sometime approach with a bowling ball rather than a tennis ball of truth and fact.

 

Does this change that we are right? No, no it does not. However, our methods are still flawed, despite that they are supported by the fluff. Our mentality when approaching an idea or the beginning of an IA that is the problem.

 

Instead of stamping out bad ideas and replacing them with more fitting ones, we should find the theme or character of the chapter amongst the inexperience. Instead of informing of them of which lines they cannot cross, we should show them just how wide the box they have to play with. Instead of disregarding something that's taboo or already used, we should show them a few examples of where there are very, very similar ideas.

Lol, you got me here.

The thing is, I'm in constant state of displeasure and quite frankly it's hard for me to find a *good* example to show it a newcomer.

Another thing is that my policy is, "NightrawenII helps these, who can help themseves.". - I know, this is paradox, but I like to show the door(s) rather than open them, if you get what I mean.

 

Edit:

The B&C in general, and the Liber specifically are some of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to power armor, because you're all very passionate about it. Octavulg has several quotes sigged that are perfect examples of what I mean. Liberites aren't harsh out of some misplaced cruelty or sadistic outlet, I firmly believe that they really do want you to succeed, even the harshest of critics like Nightwraven.

Definitely sigged! :tu:

 

 

Cheers, NightrawenII.

[legoss]

I'm betting that as I write this, legoss is posting his IA, just like Ace did :P

 

Ludovic

Guilty as charged lol

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

As one of the people who was worried that Nightrawen was refering to me when he was talking about creative people, I do not think the IA format or the standard of fitting within GW quidelines that hinders creativity. It is we, the editors, who hinder creativity. As Ace said, we sometime approach with a bowling ball rather than a tennis ball of truth and fact.

 

Does this change that we are right? No, no it does not. However, our methods are still flawed, despite that they are supported by the fluff. Our mentality when approaching an idea or the beginning of an IA that is the problem.

 

Instead of stamping out bad ideas and replacing them with more fitting ones, we should find the theme or character of the chapter amongst the inexperience. Instead of informing of them of which lines they cannot cross, we should show them just how wide the box they have to play with. Instead of disregarding something that's taboo or already used, we should show them a few examples of where there are very, very similar ideas.

Lol, you got me here.

The thing is, I'm in constant state of displeasure and quite frankly it's hard for me to find a *good* example to show it a newcomer.

Another thing is that my policy is, "NightrawenII helps these, who can help themseves.". - I know, this is paradox, but I like to show the door(s) rather than open them, if you get what I mean.

See, the thing you, Nightrawen, have to realize is that the Liber isn't made for you to edit IAs, its made for the writer to develop an IA. The focus isn't on you - its on the writer. You're just there to help them out, so your criticism and comments shouldn't vary depending on whether or not you're in a good mood.

 

I'm sorry if this offends, mon ami. Just trying to improve the Liber.

[Leonaides]

but it doesn't vary if he's constantly disgruntled... :yes: how're those tactical squads coming along DAT? hehehe...

[Ace Debonair]

I'm betting that as I write this, legoss is posting his IA, just like Ace did :yes:

 

Ludovic

Guilty as charged lol

 

I'm a trend-setter! ;)

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

but it doesn't vary if he's constantly disgruntled... :) how're those tactical squads coming along DAT? hehehe...

Why don't you go and look, the Combat Doctrine is eager for feedback :)

[Brother Tyler]

Ultimately, Chapter (or warband or order or whatever) development is a collaborative project. The author is the project manager and is the only fixed member of the working group. All other members of the working group are voluntary - they may begin and end their participation at any time and for any reason. The author is the only real stakeholder, though, and determines the goals of the project and makes all decisions. The other members merely advise, suggest, and criticize. Some degree of persuasion is always going to take place, but this should only be in places where the author has indicated that there is room for change. When the author indicates that a decision is firm and that further persuasion is a waste of time, further persuasion (in that area) should cease. This is basic respect.

 

We might not always like the decisions made by others, but courtesy demands that we respect their decisions. If the decision is so objectionable, this is where the voluntary aspect of participation comes in and members should bow out if they can't participate in line with the direction of the project.

 

Now it's interesting that the issue of "work" and "challenge" and "difficulty" has come up.

 

Developing a Chapter doesn't have to be challenging or difficult. Remember, this is a game, a hobby. It's supposed to be about fun. Whatever format the author chooses, some degree of work will be involved. If the author chooses a format that requires a considerable amount of work, that's up to him and should be because he wants to do that amount of work, not because others are telling him that he needs to do that kind of work. Telling people that they must/should use a specific format is a clear example where creativity (that of the format of presentation) is being stifled. Remember - the format used is entirely up to the author.

 

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.

 

The problem with that is that people don't always know what they want when they start out.

 

If someone had asked me what I wanted with my first chapter (the Ice Lords, because we're not talking about the Sons of Vigilance), I would have told them that I wanted a lot of Terminators. While I did, that's not what they're about now, and not really what they were about then. It's what I thought they were about. Same thing with the Stone Hearts.

 

To some extent, the process of being told "no, I don't like That, but I like This instead" is a very good one for creating things both the author and the reader enjoy. Obviously it can end badly on both sides, but I think there is a risk that people will present things as non-negotiable that really aren't, then not get responses.

I think this is a poor counterargument, though it does bring up a few good points.

 

The first point is that different authors may have more or less firm decisions made. Sometimes an author won't have any decisions made (other than to create a DIY of some kind). It's incumbent upon the author to conduct some sort of evaluation in order to determine what is a "firm" decision and what might be nothing more than a concept that is being considered. Knowing the direction that the author wants to go in gives the participating members a little more rudder, helping to keep development a bit more focused.

 

The second point is that even "firm" decisions can change. Participating members bring different perspectives to the table and might be able to present something that the author hadn't considered previously. Whether or not to change the decision is up to the author, but this is a strength of the collaborative process.

 

Yes, there is some contradiction here with the point I made previously about respecting the decisions of the author. Ultimately, this is a fuzzy science where authors and members have to discern between what is fixed and what isn't. Sometimes an author might have a firm decision in mind and might later change his mind. The point is that when an author says that discussion is closed on a topic, it's closed. If he later wants to re-open it for discussion or changes his mind, that's his prerogative. Other members need to be followers in this and respect the decisions of the author/project manager.

 

In most cases, authors will have some decisions made. Those decisions might be very specific, or they might be vague concepts. Some of those might be fixed decisions, whereas others might be subject to change. Knowing these parameters on the front end will help to give the participating members some direction. This currently takes place on a very informal basis, though it isn't always spelled out clearly. Often it has to be drawn out of authors.

 

So my suggestion there will definitely work.

 

Now I've seen continuing arguments that the Index Astartes article should be used.

 

This won't happen, of course - we'll never mandate the use of the Index Astartes article for DIY development. Authors are free to use whatever format they'd like.

 

Really, this stubborn insistence on the use of the Index Astartes article has to stop. It's unthinking intransigence.

 

However, I can think of a number of official Chapters that players are drawn to despite never having an Index Astartes article:

• The Celestial Lions have a cult following with only a short article at the Third War for Armageddon page and a few brief mentions elsewhere.
  
• The Scythes of the Emperor have appeared in some games and novels/short stories and are very well known.
  
• All of the Chapters in the Imperial Armour Badab War books have developed fans, though only one, the Red Scorpions, had an Index Astartes article.
  
• and the list goes on.
  

What this demonstrates is that the format of presenting an article isn't the important thing. The important thing is the material. If that material is presented in a very brief article such as what we saw with the Chapters mentioned in the Third War for Armageddon (e.g., Marines Vigilant, Marines Malevolent, etc.), it still succeeds if the reader gets some kind of understanding of the Chapter. Really, we don't always need to know a huge amount of information on a Chapter for it to be interesting.

 

If you're on the train that says that the Index Astartes article "should" be used, you need to get off because that train has come to a halt.

 

If you're on the train that says that the Index Astartes article "may" be used, look up front and you'll see me driving. The Index Astartes article is a very good format. It's succinct and gives the reader a decent amount of information. It's not the end-all-be-all of DIY Chapter development, though, and we need to be just as supportive of other formats.

 

As far as creativity goes, we need to be supportive of creativity. Different goals will establish different limits, so it's important for us as participating members to understand the goals of the author. If the author wants to throw fluff-compliance out the window and create a Space Marine Chapter that looks like Scooby Doo and the gang, that's his choice. There might not be a lot of us participating (I know I won't if he brings in that turd Scrappy Doo), but it is the prerogative of the author to create a DIY Chapter that allows him to enjoy the game/hobby as he wants. Personally, any Chapter I create will be fully fluff-compliant, but that's my personal choice. I know that there are many of you out there who are just like me in endeavoring to have your DIYs mesh with the fluff, but not everyone wants that. You need to get it through your skulls.

 

As far as quality of writing goes, there's nothing wrong with a minimum standard of acceptability. Whether we're presenting our DIY via a two-paragraph brief or in a 5,000 page article, it needs to clearly communicate. "Minimum standard" is highly subjective, though. We can chalk it up to correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar; and smooth reading flow comes in. There are a lot of aesthetics involved, however, and articles will likely never be perfect. This isn't professional writing, however, so we need to shift away from any notion that people are going to be writing anything on the level of a Pulitzer-prize winner or a doctorate thesis. Yes, we should always strive for as high a quality as possible, but we need to have realistic expectations and remember that this is part of a hobby - it's about fun. If a member wants to do work, that's up to him. It's not up to us. The more work he's willing to do, the more we'll be willing to help. If someone comes in wanting to do a lower amount of work, though, that isn't always because they're "lazy" so we need to stop thinking that way. Sometimes the DIY development is just a small part of a much larger effort (the more important part being the actual assembly and painting of an army), so some members might put a much lower priority on the amount of work they do here in favor of work done elsewhere.

 

Now quality of writing matters, so perhaps we might provide links to some style manuals or web sites that provide guidance in writing to those of us that might need help. And let's face it, we could all use help, no matter how accomplished we might think we are at writing.

 

When people show up here with an idea or article that needs work, they need to understand that they will receive criticism. That's the name of the game after all. The leeway to give honest criticism, however, isn't the same is being able to be a jerk about it. Criticism must still be constructive and courteous. As a member demonstrates that his/her personality might be more tolerant of more blunt criticism, members can be more blunt. If a member is a bit more sensitive or doesn't understand the dynamic, however, it would behoove us as good community members to respect that and provide criticism in a manner that is more acceptable to them - that doesn't mean that we just nod our heads and go along with whatever they say, but that we phrase our feedback in softer terms. We can still say that something sucks without chasing people away. The goal, after all, is to help the author. We don't help when we're being jerks.

 

Dark Apostle Thirst said it very well:

 

"...the Liber isn't made for you [the participating member] to edit IAs, its made for the writer to develop an IA."

[Ace Debonair]

Dark Apostle Thirst said it very well:

 

"...the Liber isn't made for you [the participating member] to edit IAs, its made for the writer to develop an IA."

I feel like a jerk for pointing this out, since I enjoyed your post above, but that quote is rather contrary to saying IAs are not the only function of the Liber. B)

 

I feel worse about it since I basically agree with the sentiment, and I'm probably guilty of shoehorning people even though I try not to. :D

Sorry. It's hard to switch my pedantic-ness off!

[Octavulg]

Developing a Chapter doesn't have to be challenging or difficult. Remember, this is a game, a hobby. It's supposed to be about fun. Whatever format the author chooses, some degree of work will be involved. If the author chooses a format that requires a considerable amount of work, that's up to him and should be because he wants to do that amount of work, not because others are telling him that he needs to do that kind of work. Telling people that they must/should use a specific format is a clear example where creativity (that of the format of presentation) is being stifled. Remember - the format used is entirely up to the author.

 

Developing a chapter doesn't have to be (fully developing a chapter is, of course). But writing an IA is difficult. They're long and involved. Which is what CKO was talking about.

 

I think this is a poor counterargument, though it does bring up a few good points.

 

Perhaps that's because it's not complete a counter-argument, but simply me pointing out a problem you did not seem to have considered?

 

It's not supposed to defeat the idea. It's supposed to improve the idea by pointing out a problem the author might not have considered. It is, in point of fact, a criticism.

 

Yes, there is some contradiction here with the point I made previously about respecting the decisions of the author. Ultimately, this is a fuzzy science where authors and members have to discern between what is fixed and what isn't. Sometimes an author might have a firm decision in mind and might later change his mind. The point is that when an author says that discussion is closed on a topic, it's closed. If he later wants to re-open it for discussion or changes his mind, that's his prerogative. Other members need to be followers in this and respect the decisions of the author/project manager.

 

And that's fine. But encouraging people to label some things as off-limits for discussion from the get-go will, as I have said, probably result in some discussions not taking place that could be very helpful. It will also, of course, prevent a lot of discussions that are unhelpful or pointless. The question, at least to me, is whether it is possible (and I think it is) to present the points that are not open to as much debate in a fashion that makes it clear that they're firmly held while still allowing people to question them and suggest alternatives.

 

So my suggestion there will definitely work.

 

No one said it wouldn't. My point was that it carried a consequence you might not have expected (and which I think a little tinkering could account for), not that the idea would fail in a burst of flame and tragedy.

 

The current system works, too. It just could work better.

 

If you're on the train that says that the Index Astartes article "may" be used, look up front and you'll see me driving. The Index Astartes article is a very good format. It's succinct and gives the reader a decent amount of information. It's not the end-all-be-all of DIY Chapter development, though, and we need to be just as supportive of other formats.

 

People use the options they see available. Right now, almost everyone makes IAs, and that's the only format that's ever discussed in any resources. If you want to encourage people to look at different formats, encourage people to compile an article for the DIY Guide about possible formats. That will actually give people a tool to use in discussing them. Walking into every thread and saying "what kind of article are you trying to write" doesn't work. I've done it. A lot. Putting it in the DIY Guide may not work 100% of the time, but it will help. If only by making it possible for people to just link to an article about various formats and questions to consider instead of repeating themselves over and over.

 

Also, you seem to be talking about a lot of things that I don't think anyone was really discussing. That's fine (and they're worth discussing), but I'm curious if you're bringing these up because they're related or because you think people in this thread have been actually arguing that (as an example) perfect prose is a perquisite of help here.

[CKO]

Also, you seem to be talking about a lot of things that I don't think anyone was really discussing. That's fine (and they're worth discussing), but I'm curious if you're bringing these up because they're related or because you think people in this thread have been actually arguing that (as an example) perfect prose is a perquisite of help here.

 

No, brother tyler and I are on the same page! We dont see anything wrong with IA's, we see something wrong with the idea of restricting others to an IA format. The conversation is about ways that we are limiting creativity of others either consciously or subconsciously with our opinions. Bottom line is this there is no right or wrong way to write (ofcourse you need proper grammar and what have you) but there is a correct way to give feedback. Our feedback for the most part until this thread has been to harsh mainly because of the paradigm. The paradigm is that fitting your ideas into the 40k universe is difficult. The critics are affected by this paradigm and make it alot harder than it should be to write with our comments, and there is nothing wrong with harsh comments aslong as you help inspire the writer.

 

Look at it this way how many people have been motivated to write an IA because of this thread? How much more active has the forum been since this thread? Its gotten better because we are more conscious of what we say and how it affects others creativity.

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

Dark Apostle Thirst said it very well:

 

"...the Liber isn't made for you [the participating member] to edit IAs, its made for the writer to develop an IA."

I feel like a jerk for pointing this out, since I enjoyed your post above, but that quote is rather contrary to saying IAs are not the only function of the Liber. ;)

 

I feel worse about it since I basically agree with the sentiment, and I'm probably guilty of shoehorning people even though I try not to. :yes:

Sorry. It's hard to switch my pedantic-ness off!

I hate your guts, you, you... jerk :P As if we would ever mind your words.

 

It's not contary, it's just not completely accurate - to rephrase, "The Liber isn't made for people to edit IAs, its made for the writer to develop IAs AND blah blah blah."

 

Hmmmmm. It somehow doesn't sound as good. Maybe I do mind your words. :mellow:

[Heru]

Dark Apostle Thirst said it very well:

 

"...the Liber isn't made for you [the participating member] to edit IAs, its made for the writer to develop an IA."

I feel like a jerk for pointing this out, since I enjoyed your post above, but that quote is rather contrary to saying IAs are not the only function of the Liber. ;)

It's not contary, it's just not completely accurate - to rephrase, "The Liber isn't made for people to edit IAs, its made for the writer to develop IAs AND blah blah blah."

It is contrary, even that edited line is contrary. Both lines are the opposite of "creating IAs is not the only function of the Liber", thus they are saying that "creating IAs is the only function of the Liber".

 

This on the other hand wouldn't be contrary:

"The Liber wasn't made for creating IAs, it was made for people to develop their DIY Chapters/Warbands/Orders".

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

Dark Apostle Thirst said it very well:

 

"...the Liber isn't made for you [the participating member] to edit IAs, its made for the writer to develop an IA."

I feel like a jerk for pointing this out, since I enjoyed your post above, but that quote is rather contrary to saying IAs are not the only function of the Liber. :D

It's not contary, it's just not completely accurate - to rephrase, "The Liber isn't made for people to edit IAs, its made for the writer to develop IAs AND blah blah blah."

It is contrary, even that edited line is contrary. Both lines are the opposite of "creating IAs is not the only function of the Liber", thus they are saying that "creating IAs is the only function of the Liber".

 

This on the other hand wouldn't be contrary:

"The Liber wasn't made for creating IAs it was made for people to develop their DIY Chapters/Warbands/Orders".

Um, no. My statement on what was the purpose of the Liber wasn't exclusive, therefor it doesn't contradict anything. However, my statement on what the purpose of the Liber wasn't was exclusive - but then no-one else mentioned anything about what the Liber wasn't intended to do, therefor that didn't contradict anything either.

 

That hurt to say ;)

 

Also, where are you getting the -

Both lines are the opposite of "creating IAs is not the only function of the Liber"

- from? I'm not suggesting that isn't true at all, much less stating the opposite. I truly don't understand B)

[Heru]

Dark Apostle Thirst said it very well:

 

"...the Liber isn't made for you [the participating member] to edit IAs, its made for the writer to develop an IA."

I feel like a jerk for pointing this out, since I enjoyed your post above, but that quote is rather contrary to saying IAs are not the only function of the Liber. ;)

It's not contary, it's just not completely accurate - to rephrase, "The Liber isn't made for people to edit IAs, its made for the writer to develop IAs AND blah blah blah."

It is contrary, even that edited line is contrary. Both lines are the opposite of "creating IAs is not the only function of the Liber", thus they are saying that "creating IAs is the only function of the Liber".

 

This on the other hand wouldn't be contrary:

"The Liber wasn't made for creating IAs it was made for people to develop their DIY Chapters/Warbands/Orders".

Um, no. My statement on what was the purpose of the Liber wasn't exclusive, therefor it doesn't contradict anything. However, my statement on what the purpose of the Liber wasn't was exclusive - but then no-one else mentioned anything about what the Liber wasn't intended to do, therefor that didn't contradict anything either.

That is the thing, it does because all your statement talks about is IAs. It is all very well and good to say "that wasn't the intent" afterwards, but it as read doesn't have any indication of said intent. It reads as "the Liber was made for writers to develop IAs".

 

Also, where are you getting the -

Both lines are the opposite of "creating IAs is not the only function of the Liber"

- from? I'm not suggesting that isn't true at all, much less stating the opposite. I truly don't understand :D

You may not be intentionally stating that DAT, but Brother Tyler quoted you whilst maintaining a "the Liber is not about IAs" stance. He quoted a line which reads as a contradiction to his stance. That is what Ace was pointing out, not anything about how you DAT wrote that line.

[Lysimachus]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to create a new section for the DIY Guide, somewhere near the start, highlighting a few of the different ways a creator can tell people about their Chapter… while making it clear they don’t have to use any of them.

 

Some differing methods that could possibly be mentioned:

 

IA (obviously)

 

FW style IA

 

Insignium Astartes - This is something that has always slightly bugged me, when people come along with nothing but a colour scheme and Liberites tell them they’re there to help with fluff, not how a Chapter looks, as though the colours are unimportant compared to the writing. That’s not right. For many people, they want their own Chapter on the table top but don’t actually care about who they are. We’re here to help with whatever aspect of DIY creation the creator wants to work on, and if he/she wants to have 30 different painter images detailing every squad type, company, rank and specialisation, all without ever even giving the Chapter a name, then we need to support that. (Although I would suggest they make a solid contribution to development/running costs for the Painter! ;) )

 

Writing short (or long) stories.

 

etc, etc, etc

 

Any/some/none of the above.

[Tolek]

You know, I have read this thread and I am adding my 2 cents. IA's suck and there is no one way to "do it" each codex, imperial armour and other books contain information about the universe we call 40k. When i created a DIY chapter and made mention of an orange skin "HUE" ( a change in the skin pigmentation, everybody yelled glowing marines you can't have that! I never said they glowed.) I have had many great ideas and theories written down. I never posted them because lets be honest here, nobody ever promoted a positive creative mentality. " hey bud thats kinda interesting that they have an orange hue because their dietary habits consisted of an alge or plant like substance that affected their skin pigmentation." Instead I got a bunch of "hey you can't do that or this organ affects this or that and well this is suppose to be" so i stopped and realized that nobody wanted to really hear about my chapter they wanted to ridicule it. so why bother? the idea of the beholder is the creativity, creativity is not a notion that a certain text format or this is what the books say, is the way it needs to be.

 

With that said I thought about it. I came to the conclusion and thought about realistically there is no 40k universe, its all fiction. stories made up for a gaming company to sell models and books. Yes we are all hooked and love the game thats why we play it right? to have fun and enjoy the company of those that enjoy it too? to create our own chapter with colors and heraldry?

 

@CKO I agree, I get it. this forum should promote creativity. I feel some members make it a "do it this way because thats how it should be or has to be." attitude.

 

What is the definition of creativity?

 

Is there anything in game rules or books that say "you will do this and you are limited to this" ?

 

I have thought about this thread and have followed it the pasted few days. Honestly I see arguing back and forth and no real solution. So I see a problem and I offer a solution. A sentence that has stared us all in the face time and time again.

 

"IN THE GRIM DARK FUTURE, THERE IS ONLY WAR."

 

In war, are there rules? Are there limitiations as to how you attack your enemy or build your force? Is there limitations on females in the military (i do believe that space marines can be females also)?

 

There is no right or wrong, but the fun way!

 

With that said I am sure someone is going to come back with some statement stating "your contradicting yourself or you can't say that or take offense..........so on and so on. Let me ask you all this. Have you thought of a way to make it better? or have you stood by idly and thought "how dare they say that" ( and honestly Nightrawen, your comments you made in this thread, in MY Opinion, are utterly disgusting and I no longer hold you in a positive, productive perspective.) ( If this is taking it to far, I apologize but I will not stand Idly by while players make ridiculous comments and blantant remarks that show a biased motivation)

[Ace Debonair]

You know, I have read this thread and I am adding my 2 cents. IA's suck and there is no one way to "do it" each codex, imperial armour and other books contain information about the universe we call 40k.

I disagree with the notion that IAs suck.

I certainly agree that they're not the be-all-and-end-all of DIY creation.

 

With regards to 'limiting creativity', my thoughts are that yes, by trying to create something within the 40k universe, you are in fact imposing boundaries on creativity. But, any boundaries that are put in place serve to increase creativity rather than limit it. It takes more creativity to invent an idea that fits neatly into the vast jigsaw that is the shared 40k universe than it does to have an idea wherein your marines can fly, shoot lasers from their eyes, are part-kroot, live on the sun and have been around since before the Emperor.

 

I have no problem with folks inventing chapters like that, but if they're posted here, I'm probably going to mention that they're stretching the believability factor just a tiny bit. :P

This is a place for opinions, after all. :P

 

However, I'm surprised that your orange marines were picked on for being orange. :no:

That doesn't seem right at all, even for picky types like us Liberites.

[NightrawenII]

Oh, I remember... the Eternal Stalkers were they? :no:

 

Actually, you didn't get hammered and ridiculed, because of the orange skin of your marines, but because of your misguided opinion what makes Chapter original or unique. - I should know, I'm the perpetrator. :P - Moreover, it's not like anyone was against that idea, it just wasn't enough to make the Chapter interesting or characterful.

 

++++++

and honestly Nightrawen, your comments you made in this thread, in MY Opinion, are utterly disgusting and I no longer hold you in a positive, productive perspective.

- Opinions are like e.g.o., everyone gets one. :P

 

 

Cheers, NightrawenII.

[Brother Tyler]

Point taken on the perceived contradictory nature of the quote, but my point was that the purpose of the Liber Astartes forum is to help the writer, not to give the participating member a venue to achieve any personal agenda (whatever that might be). The forum is inherently collaborative, but the author sets the goals and makes the decisions, and he's the one that has to live with the results.

 

Yeah, I would definitely have to disagree with the notion that Index Astartes articles suck. I think they're great. They're just not the default one size fits all answer that too many of us seem to think they are. They are one of the ways that an author can choose to present his Chapter/warband/order/whatever.

 

As for how we might more formally articulate the true paradigm of the Liber Astartes forum (in order to counter the misconceptions that have crept in over the years), I'm working on something. We (the staff) have seen this problem over the years and have been quietly wrestling with a solution. The informal efforts haven't had as much of an impact as we would have hoped, so a much more public solution will be put in place (no big deal - it will probably be an addition or revision to the stickies). It will still take time for the paradigm to be fully shifted, and for some people that might never happen, but everyone is entitled to participate here as they want (as long as it's within the rules of the B&C, of course ;) ). Even then, there's value in leveraging the wealth of knowledge that many of our members possess, and striving for excellence is always a good thing, so even the hard-liners bring value.

[strongbow]

I've read the thread and have found it very interesting.

 

It seems that a few themes have been raised.

 

• Pushing of the 'IA' format.
  
• Extent to which the fluff and boundaries are pushed on DIY'ers.
  
• Style of the comments and critique.
  

 

There are probably more but these have stuck out for me.

 

Pushing the 'IA' format

 

Personally, I like the format. I think that most people here do too.

 

I have only rarely seen it, but don't like the idea that people are told that is what they 'should' be doing. Sometimes people write 'IA' in their topic titles completely unaware that an 'IA' is a specific format. It's become so synonymous with DIY chapters that people perceive that as the official title for any DIY work on a chapter. So if someone writes 'IA' in their thread title, they may well be following what a lot of other people do without necessarily wanting their chapter in the IA format.

 

As has been stated, people are free to express their chapter however they like. Critics are free to suggest the 'IA' format or indeed any other type. However the information has to be there to the person DIY'ing to make their own mind up. Any moves by the staff to improve this are very welcome ;).

 

What do people want from their DIY?

 

Even though, as has been said, many people don't know or change their idea, I believe most at least know one thing. This will almost always be the end result. For example, most people writing a Japan themed chapter would have known that more or less from the beginning. Where possible asking people to post that allow the critic to tailor their response to something that can develop thought from the author. I certainly respect, as Nightrawen put it, showing them the door rather than how to get through it (or something to that effect, my bad for not remembering it fully ;)) but a couple of pointers while it explaining it's up to them could make a lot of difference. Of course, this is the real world and some will not always reply. But it's worth a try (and clearly some people do from what has been posted here).

 

Extent to which the fluff and boundaries are pushed on DIY'ers and Style of the comments and critique

 

As has been said many times, some ideas seem, to many of us, stupid at best when it comes to plausibility. Naturally this on many occasions leads to blunt responses on the part of the critic (I have done this before myself). I think what we need to see more of from those commenting is an appeal to the reasonable nature of people.

 

What I mean by this is, if you see someone posting any cliche, rather than just say:

 

No.

 

Explain to the person, who quite clearly won't know about the full extent of the fluff, why what they say might not make sense. Very often it seems to me some of the more stubborn DIY'ers that get angry and say that it's their idea and no one can change it are often like that because they're told bluntly to the point of rudeness that what they're doing is wrong. A bit of patience and explanation could probably result in more productive change for the DIY'er. Obviously we have the DIY guide for this and it's great when people post links to it for people. However it's a beastly tome and sometimes pointing out which bit might be more helpful might be a good thing.

 

In fairness, some people post ideas only expecting and wanting to hear 'good job'. If you are reasonable and they still respond angrily to criticism best thing to do is just leave it. Again, as has been stated elsewhere, if it really is that bad and it just can't be handled don't respond.

 

I do believe that justifying divergence from the norm is more creative than just making something up, however I don't think people always realise how simple some explanations can be. Sometimes it can be as little as the personal preferences of the original chapter master that can set the way a chapter develops.

 

In summary I think the majority of people, if explained in a less blunt manner would make good, real changes to things perhaps too unrealistic given what we are told by the fluff.

 

One key aspect to the fluff is the Codex Astartes. Many people are criticised for diverging from it too much, that they would not go against 10,000 years of knowledge.

Quotes from the Insignum Astartes book (I've put in the highlights and I think they speak for themselves):

 

His conclusions became the almost mythic book known as the Codex Astartes, a work so important its contents still form the basis of Space Marine organisation and tactics ten thousand years after it was originally compiled.

 

Through the ages other Chapters have developed organisations and heraldries that are so variant with the Codex that they can no longer be considered as such. In truth most Chapters retain the basic organisation and markings or something close to the original though only a few can claim to be Codex

Chapters.

 

It is not known what form the original took: it may have been a manuscript or it may have been a compilation of holo-files or even some combination. Of course manuscript copies were made and distributed. The oldest surviving copy of the Codex is reputed to be the Apocrypha of Skaros. The Liber Arcanum of Grand Marshall Tolof and the Holo-Record 442/33508; Gant Manuscript v2 of the Ceris Archive have some claim to this honour as well. Over the millennia the copies have been copied and recopied many times in order to preserve them. Inevitably, mistakes occur and so it is unlikely that any two copies of the Codex will be identical. Furthermore, the work is constantly being reanalysed and reinterpreted. The original prose style of Roboute is at best archaic and in some cases almost unintelligible. This has led to many varied interpretations over the centuries and to many situations where two entirely different doctrines have been legitimately claimed as 'official Codex' at the same time.

 

With this last one, it is open to abuse. However, a chapter can be extremely divergent without necessarily realising that it is doing so. I guess though knowing how a chapter like the Ultramarines fights is a good way of working out how accurate your copy of the codex is, but most chapters will never encounter them.

 

And another quote directly related to all fluff, taken from this thread - http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...36351&st=0:

 

"Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...

 

Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

 

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.

 

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a "big question" doesn't matter. It's all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is "Yes and no" or perhaps "Sometimes". And for me, that's the end of it.

 

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note thet answer may well be "sometimes" or "it varies" or "depends".

 

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

 

It's a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.

 

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

 

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you."

-Marc Gascoigne

 

"The Background exists as a context for the games that people play. Despite the occasional event, the background was never intended as an ongoing narrative that would be constantly updated. The back story presents questions, enigmas, problems, and conflicts. Gamers explore and solve these issues by playing games and developing armies. In short, the background provides the beginning, but the players provide the end.

 

What is Cypher up to? Well, he's up to whatever you need him to be up to for your games and campaigns. What does the cult mechanicus have to do with the dragon? Whatever you want that relationship to be.

 

The background should be like Schrödinger's Cat - Nothing is defined until the players look into the box by playing games and determining the outcome for themselves. Backgrounds should be full of possibilities to be exploited and expanded by players, not answers that limit the potential of the game and its setting."

-WD320

 

I fear I've ventured off topic but my point is the fluff isn't as rigid as often we might like to think. We should not expect new people to be aware or get it right and therefore address them accordingly. In terms of whether or not certain formats stifle creativity and whether the nature of responses to people's ideas stifle creativity, I think it is possible. I think GW has done this on purpose to ensure that people can do whatever they want with their hobby. In the Liber I don't think that the goal should be to box people in by rigid background. Where possible facilitate ideas, make small suggestions and try to make it plausible to the extent that, even though something might not happen often in the background, that it could happen, let's see how. If something is too ridiculous, explain why that might be the case. Some people might be fully aware but want to give it a go anyway. If that is the case it is up to them. It could end up being a fun story even if it doesn't fit with the Liber's accepted view of the fluff.

 

Thanks for reading, sorry if it's gone too far off topic or caused offence :).

[Octavulg]

Brother Tyler

 

The informal efforts haven't had as much of an impact as we would have hoped, so a much more public solution will be put in place (no big deal - it will probably be an addition or revision to the stickies).

 

To be quite blunt, that's because 'informal efforts' have given people precisely zero tools to use to deal with the problem. We're not allowed to discuss alternative formats in a way that might look like naming them, for example (if we were, I would have written something about it ages ago). That makes it difficult to produce any resources about them, or even have a discussion about them.

 

Unless you genuinely expected people to rush out and deliver lectures on the many possibilities for what they can write to every aspiring DIYer, while carefully couching those lectures in caveats to ensure they don't feel too restricted, I'm amazed that you're surprised the place did not magically transform overnight. If you did expect that, I'm just generally amazed.

 

If we're allowed to talk about different formats now, that's great. I'll start a discussion forthwith. The Octaguide could use it, as could the DIY Guide. But I, at least, haven't been talking about it because it seemed very clear we weren't supposed to. And that's because you told us not to:

 

So we will not be assigning any names to the IA9 format articles. And this also means that we don't try to do so in some underhanded fashion.

 

If the prohibition was not meant to be that broad, that's fine. But I think most people tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to these things. And 'underhanded fashion' encompasses a whole lot of things even without being cautious.

 

So: can we publicly talk about formats amongst ourselves now? Because it's a discussion I'd enjoy having.

[Octavulg]

CKO

Look at it this way how many people have been motivated to write an IA because of this thread? How much more active has the forum been since this thread? Its gotten better because we are more conscious of what we say and how it affects others creativity.

 

This thread pops up about every four or five months in various iterations, CKO. The paradigm has remained remarkably unbattered (which is both bad and good).

 

Even the nice people here think an IA is a lot of work. That's because producing a 5000-word document that makes coherent sense is a fair bit of work, and making one people like reading is even more work. Writing about a chapter, maybe not, but IAs? Yes. Work. Not the fault of the community.

 

* * *

 

Tolek

You know, I have read this thread and I am adding my 2 cents. IA's suck and there is no one way to "do it" each codex, imperial armour and other books contain information about the universe we call 40k. When i created a DIY chapter and made mention of an orange skin "HUE" ( a change in the skin pigmentation, everybody yelled glowing marines you can't have that! I never said they glowed.) I have had many great ideas and theories written down. I never posted them because lets be honest here, nobody ever promoted a positive creative mentality. " hey bud thats kinda interesting that they have an orange hue because their dietary habits consisted of an alge or plant like substance that affected their skin pigmentation." Instead I got a bunch of "hey you can't do that or this organ affects this or that and well this is suppose to be" so i stopped and realized that nobody wanted to really hear about my chapter they wanted to ridicule it. so why bother?

 

You appear to be interpreting "positive creative mentality" as "agree with whatever you produce and think it's cool".

 

You also appear to be interpreting disagreement as ridicule.

 

First, a positive creative mentality is, in my view, one that helps people create things that they enjoy and that others enjoy, and does so without making too many people feel like crap (since someone always feels like crap). This will require people telling you they don't like things, or that things don't make sense and (in a positive environment) offering suggestions for how to make the idea work through alternative explanations or alternative ideas that might provide what the author is looking for.

 

Looking at your thread, I don't know what you expected. Even Nightrawen was nice (and Nightrawen needs to seriously work on being nicer. I mean that). Your response in post #14 seems to indicate that you feel everyone ganged up on you and was mean, but from what I see everyone was at least somewhat helpful, and no one was unpleasant.

 

People can tell you they don't like things, and make suggestions for alternatives. That's not being mean. That's helping. If you want unmitigated choral approval of everything you do in regard to writing, get a really nice girlfriend who's willing to lie.

 

For the second point, I will point you to the first section of the Octaguide.*

 

*Historical footnote: that section is actually a large part of the reason I ended up writing the guide. You wouldn't believe how much mileage I get out of it.

 

* * *

 

strongbow

 

Well said.

 

* * *

 

Nightrawen

 

and honestly Nightrawen, your comments you made in this thread, in MY Opinion, are utterly disgusting and I no longer hold you in a positive, productive perspective.

- Opinions are like e.g.o., everyone gets one.

 

Nightrawen, I don't entirely agree with what Tolek said. But he's not wrong that your comments in this thread have suggested something a little worrying.

 

You used to be harsh, but fair and helpful. These days you seem to mostly delight in being unremittingly harsh, following that up with some more harshness and capering with glee about it.

 

It's one thing to criticize people's work and poke holes in their ideas. It's another to enjoy doing it. It's still another to enjoy doing it and tell them that not only are you enjoying it, they deserve it.

 

Remember this section of the Octaguide? It is, at least in some part, a reaction to you.

 

I'm not saying you can't be harsh. I'm not saying you can't enjoy doing it. But these days, you're just being mean for fun. And that's never been what the Liber was about.

[Heru]

Brother Tyler

 

The informal efforts haven't had as much of an impact as we would have hoped, so a much more public solution will be put in place (no big deal - it will probably be an addition or revision to the stickies).

 

To be quite blunt, that's because 'informal efforts' have given people precisely zero tools to use to deal with the problem. We're not allowed to discuss alternative formats in a way that might look like naming them, for example (if we were, I would have written something about it ages ago). That makes it difficult to produce any resources about them, or even have a discussion about them.

 

Unless you genuinely expected people to rush out and deliver lectures on the many possibilities for what they can write to every aspiring DIYer, while carefully couching those lectures in caveats to ensure they don't feel too restricted, I'm amazed that you're surprised the place did not magically transform overnight. If you did expect that, I'm just generally amazed.

 

If we're allowed to talk about different formats now, that's great. I'll start a discussion forthwith. The Octaguide could use it, as could the DIY Guide. But I, at least, haven't been talking about it because it seemed very clear we weren't supposed to. And that's because you told us not to:

 

So we will not be assigning any names to the IA9 format articles. And this also means that we don't try to do so in some underhanded fashion.

 

If the prohibition was not meant to be that broad, that's fine. But I think most people tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to these things. And 'underhanded fashion' encompasses a whole lot of things even without being cautious.

 

So: can we publicly talk about formats amongst ourselves now? Because it's a discussion I'd enjoy having.

Didn't I say something like this already?

 

:: Looks at broken word smithing hammer::

 

:rolleyes:

[Rafen_2]

Nightrawen

and honestly Nightrawen, your comments you made in this thread, in MY Opinion, are utterly disgusting and I no longer hold you in a positive, productive perspective.

- Opinions are like e.g.o., everyone gets one.

 

Nightrawen, I don't entirely agree with what Tolek said. But he's not wrong that your comments in this thread have suggested something a little worrying.

 

You used to be harsh, but fair and helpful. These days you seem to mostly delight in being unremittingly harsh, following that up with some more harshness and capering with glee about it.

 

It's one thing to criticize people's work and poke holes in their ideas. It's another to enjoy doing it. It's still another to enjoy doing it and tell them that not only are you enjoying it, they deserve it.

 

Remember this section of the Octaguide? It is, at least in some part, a reaction to you.

 

I'm not saying you can't be harsh. I'm not saying you can't enjoy doing it. But these days, you're just being mean for fun. And that's never been what the Liber was about.

 

Have to agree with this unfortunatly, I've seen you been real helpful. For instance when you did mine the Blood Eagles (shivers at the memory) and you were helpful but the way you word somethings come out wrong which kinda add to that feeling that CKO is trying to point out. If someone is told that what they think is just simply a "FAIL" then that person feels offended and wants to stop. If you just point out what is wrong with it and how to fix it so it can be added (unless it is something super silly which is a hard definition to make).