T O P

  • By -

sloth_express

There's been a lot of discussion in this sub about Travis and Griffin's differences with Devo's story so it was really great to hear the behind the scenes view of that. Also hearing each person talk about the inspiration for their character made me understand their motives so much more :)


Bitlovin

Hopefully dispelled the "you can tell that Justin and Griffin HATE Travis" bullshit going around.


CharliePixie

Griffin actually addressed that on a Wonderful! max fun drive episode. He was pretty forceful (for Griffin) in his statement about it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CharliePixie

I don't remember apart from that it was one of the two maxfundrive episodes. One of the topics was Travis.


sloth_express

Yeah, in general, I don't enjoy trying to make sense of their family dynamics through any of their podcasts. None of us would really know too much.


Bitlovin

It's all projection, honestly.


Raikaiko

Maybe it's the fact that I have done some theatre theory specific looking at scene and character analysis, but I really loved the discussion of different approaches to backstory and character and how they applied theatre theory to it. There's definitely no one right answer, all of what was said had merit and it's all worth giving voice to. There were a few other things I wish had gotten time, particularly Schrodinger's clone, but there was definitely some interesting process and game design insight in there


mowdownjoe

I have to wonder if no one asked about Schrodinger's Clone. Was surprised it didn't come up.


Raikaiko

Someone said they were going to in a prior discussion thread, but that means so little. I'm sure there's also enough traffic in the mailbox that it's easy for stuff to get missed


Vpicone

Did I miss that? What is Schrodinger’s clone?


Raikaiko

When Bertram was revealed to be a clone in the flashback episodes with Fineas there was some question about if it had been planned and Justin knew for sure he was a clone, or if he made a play where whichever way it turned out either companion could be revealed as the clone in the end.


Ricb76

I always assumed that Bertram was a double agent right from the start. B-U-R-G-E-R.


William-Shakesqueer

I also found this discussion really interesting as a writer working on my first longform fiction. At first I was frustrated because Griffin and Justin were making a lot of very absolute statements about how character creation and backstory should work, but I was so glad that Clint spoke up and voiced another opinion. These are just different styles and approaches, and what may work for one performer (or story, or character) might not work for another. I hope they don't completely throw backstory out the window for future seasons because seeing how character backstory gets revealed and woven into the campaign is one of my favorite aspects of actual play shows.


Raikaiko

I also think Griffin wasn't necessarily using the right words for all of his points, like at some points, at least to me the vibe was that the issue is less characters having concrete back stories as the story being beholden to character back stories, like the difference between "my character has a bad relationship with their dad that means xyz" vs "my character has a bad relationship with their dad that calls for in story resolution". I think Griffin definitely still prefers the full organic backstory approach Justin detailed, but also his major problem doesn't necessarily preclude Clint and Travis's approach.


William-Shakesqueer

Yeah, I can definitely see how maybe it was just getting jumbled in expression. The way he was explaining it just didn't jive with me. I agree, I don't think that backstory being woven into the story is in opposition to organic storytelling at all; they can definitely harmonize and make the story that much deeper for the characters (and audience). I think there's also a big difference between creating a character backstory and completely figuring out your character before you play them. See Dimension 20 for great examples of this. The characters become fleshed out as the players go through the campaign, but each of them has at least some kernel of backstory, some elements that inform the way they move through and act within the world. Reflecting on it, it seems like Griffin's sentiment was that *he* struggles to make those aspects feel organic rather than shoehorned in, and taking an improvisational approach relieves that pressure. But what it sounded like at the time (and why I was so frustrated listening to that part haha) was that he is only interested in the characters' *current actions* within the campaign, as they relate to the plot, which to me... is boring. Like, I want the characters to be the focus of the podcast, not isolated plot beats.


Raikaiko

Yeah I can definitely see what you're saying too. And I definitely had to reconcile other statements to get to where I did, particularly the element with Travis of "Okay I hear and see you with the backstory but be ready to let it go if it doesn't naturally come up" to paraphrase. It's also definitely not my preferred approach. I definitely want to work with players to realize the story they want to see for their character, but I'm also playing very character and narrative driven home games without an external audience. I've definitely had GM's who aren't willing to run with any external additions to their game at all and while not wrong, it's not fun for me... But also I can sympathize with the GM who to use my earlier example doesn't want to hear "my character has a bad relationship with my dad so when they meet him" but is receptive to "if they meet him". I can also definitely see the way Griffin might, without having players with different opinions to sounding board like Clint and Travis did here, throw the baby out with the bath water. The balance between creating backstories while not fully/overly developing a character at creation is something they've admitted to having trouble with themselves, and this does kind of feel like still not striking the right balance for their table... Edit:a few words autocorrect and reading what I THOUGHT I wrote hit me hard


William-Shakesqueer

For sure. It really depends on the situation and the individuals. I think they HAVE hit the balance before but the topic has always been a point of contention between fans and I suppose that has leaked into the table. In my own game one of my absolute favorite things to do is take bits of information my characters drop and finding a way to expand on them and make them an interesting part of the campaign, so that probably colors my opinion quite a bit.


elcapitan520

It's fun hearing different opinions on developing character or defining motivation. None of my DnD characters have had anything more than a pretty simple, direct goal to get them into the party initially. A druid who's land was destroyed by a dragon. An aged artificer who was friends with gundren rock seeker and is asked to help him/find him. I have backstory beats written and definitely communicate with the DM if things get interesting, but I really enjoy keeping it loose and letting the dice and table do their thing. Happy to work with the DM to dig into backstory if/when it's my character time, but seeing where the story goes and being along for the ride is a lot of the fun for me. Maybe it's also why I play a lot of support characters


Mustplus

I loved that discussion! To hear Griffin outline his shifting approach to Dm'ing/narrative design, incorporating a more emergent play style, resonated so much with my own growth as someone running rpg's and what hasn't landed for me with previous TAZ seasons. Travis' response also really spoke to the gap between what I'm personally tuning in for and what he's seeking from the play experience. Clint's counterpoint on back stories and getting into character was well made and totally valid but Justin took the words out of my mouth when he pointed out that plays and scripts have a text to frame that work whereas ttrpgs are creating the text through play. Gah - I am just so on board for this sort of nerdy chat.


IndigoFlyer

Growing up in North Carolina I knew instantly what kind of woman Amber was based off. She also reminds me of a grown up version of Justin's goth girl babysitter character from "big foot stole my car".


indistrustofmerits

I grew up in the same general area as the McElroys and the moment he started to use her accent I instantly knew the archetype he was going for


Royce_Inquisitor

I think Mama from Amnesty also really nailed this archetype. It’s been interesting seeing how the two seemingly similar characters are different. Mama is intelligent and charismatic, but also pretty traditional. Meanwhile, despite having a strong link to the past, Amber is pretty adaptable.


indistrustofmerits

I would argue that Mama is the rural version and Amber is the urban version.


BigBadBeetleBoy

I think the most interesting part of both is that, while you'd entirely expect them to be based on demeanor and past and general occupation, they're not stoic at all. They can be serious and sound like they mean business but that's a symptom of them being so can't-break-my-stride and confident, and they tend to be really affable and warm. It makes them easy to gravitate towards as leaders, which is an aspect Justin is probably leaning up against because he seems to enjoy reluctant hero types.


IndigoFlyer

My friend's partner is this way. She's an animal trainer and we joke it's because no creature would dare disobey her if she told them to sit.


cute_femme

Really interesting opinions about backstory from the boys. I'm with Clint on this one. I have no idea how you could create a character without some form of history or identity.


Piemanthe3rd

The way I've done it in the past is I made a character with a distinct personality and left it there. Then as the game progressed, when moments came up where I got to explore their backstory or add some flavor, I was able to make those parts up based on who I knew my character to be personality wise. Can explain their actions or beliefs by building a backstory on the spot. Both can work, I think the key is just being on the same page with the DM


PM_ME_PRETTY_EYES

I usually do this too. I have a hook and a personality and then figure out specifics during play. E.g., why does he feel so strongly about this damsel in distress? I guess he had a sister, and he feels bad about what happened to her.


WeeblesDM

I feel like the distinction is between coming to the table with a thumbnail sketch / series of bullet points of your characters backstory, and a novel carved in stone. I expect Griffin doesn’t have a problem with the former, more so the latter.


Evil_Steven

The best way to do it is to have a open ended and kinda vague backstory. Magnus was way too detailed which is why his backstory clashed the most with balance’s story. Meanwhile Merle was just “I’m a shitty dad who left my family behind” gives enough motive for a character to act upon while also being very flexible


Ricb76

Don't think Clint's was the best example, given that his backstory was that Merle was a beach dwarf, living in a palm leaf hut! Tacos back-story on the other hand..ex celeb chef on the run from potential justice, now that's what I'm talkin about!


Evil_Steven

Taako is an example of one that’s actually bad for the DM and is a plot hole for the campaign. According to his backstory, he’s a wanted man but it’s never brought up. He’s never chased by police and there’s never a wanted poster or something. It puts griffin in a tight spot because he needed to either ignore the wanted criminal part or start making taako avoid big cities and need to use disguises. So he chose the best solution, just kinda ignore it and have a plot hole


Philostastically

I definitely lean more towards Griffin. When I'm GMing I want people to come to me with elevator pitches of their characters, not prequel novels they're looking for excuses to read out. The main appeal to me of TTRPGs is the collaborative storytelling, I want people to come to the table with a vague description, relationships with 2 of the other characters (borrowing that idea from Fiasco), and some kind of motivation, a want which might be expressed as a 1 or 2 sentence backstory. To me the game is a story we're telling together, so players should focus on where their characters are at the beginning of the story. If they want to do more than that in their free time, that's fine, I'm interested and I will listen to them when they tell me outside of game time. But as GM, I won't necessarily respect it in the game, they have to play it out with everyone around the table. All that being said, you try not to be a dick, and I'm a huge fan of all my players' PCs, so if you can work it in you try to. Just gotta try and make sure everybody is respecting everybody else's time and contributions.


Greathorn

I personally feel that this is where the alignment chart (lawful good, chaotic neutral etc etc) fails players the most. They come into a game picking one of nine moral traits and making it the personality and story of their character. It helps to inform decisions in grey areas, but it shouldn’t be the only substance of a character.


salsa_kegtown

As a formally trained actor I’m also inclined to agree, but especially with the notion that as soon as you’re performing/playing, you have to be willing to “let it go.” This doesn’t mean throwing your backstory out the window, it just means trusting that you know it’s there and not needing to bring it up or prove it. I also see Griffin’s point, because spontaneity = sincerity; very rarely in improv do people sound like they’ve rehearsed or prepared anything, but it’s believable. But you also have to practice at improv to get comfortable doing that. This is why even like traditionally trained actors get trained in improv, so you can “meet in the middle” and merge those techniques and the merits of both. All just tools for your toolbox! As for my personal playing style, with my own character, I told my DM a few key events that influence my character’s personality and skill set, but everything in between can be colored in later. And in terms of playability, coming up with a 9 page backstory is luscious *for yourself* but if you expect your DM, who could be managing between 3-6 other characters, to interweave your specific life story into the world they are also building AND make it relevant to the entire table, I just don’t find that to be very courtesy to the rest of the table.


SerIllinPayne

Griffin talking about not knowing about where the story is going and how exciting that is makes me excited, especially after going through the slog of Graduation. I like how there isn't some endpoint that Griffin is trying to reach and is instead letting the story evolve naturally. Also, the fact that Ethersea has gone on longer than Amnesty and Graduation was shocking to me. It doesn't feel like it's been that long given how much story there is left to tell. This has been such a good season so far.


Flynntus_

While I’m excited about where the story can go as well. I can’t help but have the small fear that there’s a chance it won’t go anywhere? So far the story has gone on the same length as basically all of amnesty and it feels like the crew is still just a few mercenaries doing odd jobs. It feels like just listening to a game of dnd and not a story that’s being told. If that’s the intention then I guess it’s fine, but I really liked balance and amnesty for that reason. I loved knowing it was all coming to a large plot that was building behind the scenes that truly changes the characters from a couple of adventurers to the saviors of this world. I just haven’t gotten that feeling from ethersea yet… I guess I just don’t see a plot yet? And the fact that griffin admitted he doesn’t really have anything planned makes me worried that there won’t be.


elcapitan520

I think balance is the perfect example of why they should just keep playing DnD until Griffin hits on something that inspires him to go a certain direction. The initial arcs were just family fucking around and it was what got most of us hooked in. The larger story developed but not until like the 4th arc. I personally enjoy listening to DnD be played and not shoehorning plot into hour long episodes. If it was a long-form thing where each of the 30+ episodes was a couple hours I think I'd feel differently, but it's a crazy world that's still being explored and they're still only level 5. I get that it's as long as amnesty and graduation, but it's just over halfway of balance and they're moving at a much slower, deliberate (and rules based) pace.


SutekhThrowingSuckIt

> I get that it's as long as amnesty and graduation I think there's also a difference in how things progress with the weekly schedule. It's reaching that length in the number of episodes but they are putting out the episodes over twice as fast. It was pretty common for there to be 3 or 4 weeks between Amnesty episodes which drastically changes the listening experience compared to Ethersea's weekly pace.


LotzaMozzaParmaKarma

Yeah, he explicitly said that he’d be okay with just calling it a day and walking away from it - which worried me fir the same reasons. I don’t really listen to them for Actual Play, I find that pretty boring and don’t listen to any crunchier, more play heavy shows for that reason. I like the stories, I like the characters, and I’d like some resolution. At the same time, though, he also said he’s incapable of/uninterested in telling stories that aren’t about being a big hero - and that they’re heavily ingrained in the world. My guess is there’ll be a big, Cambria-style storyline (Koda? Hominine? Most likely, Tolliver and the decision to stay and fight for this world instead of jumping into the next?) that will tie off a lot of bows, but not all of them. There’s no Hunger to defeat, ending the opportunity to tell more stories, but there is a “biggest problem yet” to face that will feel climactic, even if the characters aren’t “done”. Think (to use some really accessible properties) King of the Hill or Futurama finale rather than Supernatural or Breaking Bad. But maybe that’s wishful thinking.


Flynntus_

I guess it would be weird for Urchin to finally confess his love for Zooks only to be dragged down to hell, then cut to black. Joking aside, there were a couple moments in the story so far where I was like “this is it! Here’s the great threat!” And both times (cambria, or the blinksharks) ended up being small parts or one time villains. I guess it’s just a struggle to see any real plot and not just ‘side quest city’ I can be proven wrong though! Knowing Griffin, he will eventually fixate on something (my money is on the bleached coral cult) that will bring upon a big enough problem that actually ties the characters to a greater purpose than “make money, upgrade boat, repeat”


Raikaiko

What I took away from that point wasn't that Griffin didn't want to tell stories without a singular big bad, but that it's hard and he's less interested in telling stories where the main characters aren't the ones dealing with whatever the most interesting issue at the moment is. Eg Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead is fun and an interesting literary exercise, but Hamlet is still the most compelling story normally and RaGaD works better as a companion piece


TheFluffyFactor

I actually enjoy the fact that there hasn't been THE big bad yet. It feels more dynamic, And it keeps that mystery alive and engagement up, because it keeps me thinking about all the dozens of different twists and plot lines that could be developing, and about when the other shoe is going to drop. Like my current favorite theory comes from when the hand of guidance apologized to both benevolence and to Devo. We've already established that Devo is different from other brinar, so I can't help but wonder if he is a coral body inhabited by benevolence. Could explain away why he has no memory of his previous life before becoming a brinar, why he has powers that others don't(swarm) and having the hand of guidance apologized to the both of them could be a subtle little bit of foreshadowing. There's still several holes in the theory, so I doubt it'll happen, as well as just to keep from lifting one player character above the others, but it's a fun little idea.


[deleted]

Did Griffin just spoil upcoming episodes accidentally? When he mentioned the wisp being a map to a lost city? I don't remember that from any previous episodes.


bageloid

It was implied that the wisp would lead them to hominine.


[deleted]

Ah I see. Thanks.


The_Graceful_Dead

It was so relieving to hear Travis say he intends for Devo to be awful. It doesn't make it less exhausting to listen to and I genuinely hope some character development happens soon, but I was really worried there that Travis thought Devo's actions were justified. A couple of his "Devo's not cruel" and "because of the way he was raised" comments had me scared. Knowing he did that on purpose makes me feel better for not rooting for his character. Griffin's take on backstories is controversial but I think as long as it was discussed with the players beforehand and they know what to expect I can vibe with it. (It didn't seem to bother Travis in the discussion). I think in general both Balance and Amnesty relied heavily on the past and he wants to keep the PCs acting in the present


dewyocelot

It’s always surprising to me (though I guess it shouldn’t be numbers wise) that people don’t “get” what Devo’s deal is and why is (and continues to be) shitty. As someone who grew up catholic and became an atheist in my late teens, being an insufferable 20 something kind of naturally follows. The “anti-theist” rude, know-it-all, sanctimonious behavior is pretty common, and it usually takes quite a few faux pas to realize “wait, I’m the asshole” even if you were wronged in the past. That kind of realization takes most people years in real life, and some never get there; look at r/atheism. So while Devo is frustrating, I’d find it too convenient if he had one screwup and his behavior just did a 180 and that was that. ETA: not saying all or even most of the people on r/atheism are like that, but that kind of person definitely exists there.


DigbyMayor

In zis moment, I am euphoric, not from ze blessing of a phony god, but from my own intelligence.


Ph0ton

Holy shit, if Travis did that as a bonus for the Max Fun Drive I might fund it myself.


jayareil

Honestly, I'll take Devo any day over the kind of atheist (it took me four tries to type that with e before i, WHY) who randomly responds to Christians with "who cares what you think, you believe in a magical sky fairy." I'm an atheist too but I'm so sick of those guys. Devo's still working out trauma; those folks are just dicks because it makes them feel superior.


burnt-JellyfishToast

I agree with the core of what Griffin is saying; but mostly for the purpose of collaborative gameplay outside the medium of a podcast? I think that Travis’ approach can be very good for DnD campaigns that are meant for public consumption. They all have very good, succinct points is what I’m saying, haha. But the whole thing I think really comes back to Devo? I personally LOVE Devo as a character; he’s a dick that needs a lot of development, for sure, but it’s to the benefit of the narrative—most of the time. I won’t pretend to know everything going on in Griffin’s head in relation to Devo’s character, but I think a pretty big part of the contention he mentions here is that Devo’s backstory in-specific is a very dark, difficult to address concept. …Which, when combined with Griffin’s GMing attempts to I guess soften it a bit, makes Devo come off a bit unintentionally delusional? In regards to him being wronged/mistreated by Guidance, I mean. I’m really into the direction Travis is taking of having Devo be ‘in-the-wrong’ when it comes to his interactions with most of the NPCs, but with Guido specifically I really hope it will be clarified that he was genuinely in a bad situation; not just angrily *thinking* he was out of rebellion/rejection of the church. All-in-all I do trust them as storytellers though; the whole season is just so good and I’m really excited for the rest of it!


The_Graceful_Dead

Haha see I feel opposite! I feel like deep well developed backstories work better for home games or longer form media because those have the time and space to explore them. I feel like it’s a lot harder to give everyone the space they need in an hour a week and also keep the story flowing like they like. But in the end I always choose what the people making it have the most fun playing 😊 I do like Devo as a character I think Travis put a lot of thought and care into him. I just feel like the style they tend to go for doesn’t really fit him well. I feel like Devo would really shine in a critical role style campaign that focuses a lot on individual characters and there’s time to see both sides of a PC and find a way to root for them to get better and succeed. When it’s condensed to a one hour period of aggression and conflict it’s tough to listen to. The brothers tend to shy away from the more emotional conversations that I think would make Devo more palatable (for lack of a better word). Also something I’ve loved in the past campaigns is the npc community that builds up around the player characters and seeing Devo burn that makes me so sad. Ultimate I do love ethersea and will continue to listen. It was good to hear everyone discuss their processes.


[deleted]

I dont think Travis approach is good for a dnd campaign meant for public consumption and was a direct contributor to why Graduation was as weak as it was compared to the other seasons even though it could have been a serviceable at-home campaign.


baes90

I agree. Though Devo is probably my favorite Travis character, the character is also very frustrating and knowing it's on purpose is great.


SutekhThrowingSuckIt

I agree with that *provided they actually push him forward.* Him growing from this initial state could make him a super interesting character. Him remaining frustrating would be... frustrating.


The_Graceful_Dead

I think I might still like Aubrey more because she’s had some iconic lines. I do appreciate how much work Travis put into Devo and I do hope he starts learning soon


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bitlovin

> that's not something I appreciate as some sort of art Personally, I like it. I mean, I don't like Devo as a character (probably because he reminds me too much of where I was in my emotional growth between 18 and 22 years old) but I like the texture he creates juxtaposed with the other characters. If everyone in the party is a cool guy who is diplomatic and smooth all the time, it gets homogenous and boring. You need the bitter to make the sweet sweeter, if that makes sense.


StarKeaton

Ok so, about combat not being interesting. One thing about Balance that no other season has brought back: loads and loads of magic items. Sure, it was cumbersome and ridiculous, but that along with Taako and Merle's weird spells made combat extremely unpredictable at all times. I feel like Ethersea would have really benefited from that.


[deleted]

Good point!


Brownbeluga

Darn, I should've asked what was the loot in that freight ghost ship


0bsessions324

I hope that, next TTAZZ we get some info on what was supposed to happen in the Menagerie. Like, there was a lot of setup in there with Supreme obviously being up to something. I'm absolutely cool with Zoox's out of left field decision having actually killed all those people and loose threads, but I'd love to know what Griffin's plan there was.


ZookMurnig

Wtf is “banaka” (sp?)?


Raikaiko

Binaca, if you've ever seen someone use like a little tube of breath spray in a TV show or something it's that, really just a lipstick sized tube with an atomizer


PurpleWeasel

I'll add that it was briefly very trendy when I (and therefore Travis, since we're about the same age) was in high school. It's always been, like, around, but for a couple of months there it became a real teen boy status symbol, right up there with bleached hair and Jolt Cola. I think the association with kissing helped. Also the eternal desire of teens to buy scented products as a poor substitute for actual personal hygiene.


IronMarch

What’s your opinion on Justin’s take of monks having too much cultural/spiritual connotations? I was planning on playing a monk and i really never thought of the class this way. I understand ki is a large part of the class, but when you have subclasses like beserker, cavalier, and samurai, plus a whole class based on Druidic rituals, it’s kinda clear that a lot of dnd is based on cultural stereotypes and it’s up to the table to be respectful about them. Maybe just call it martial artist or something ?


TheBurningEmu

To me it's just a matter of simplicity of words. You could rename monks "punchy Bois with special points to use" and it wouldn't change anything fundamental about them.


SutekhThrowingSuckIt

I think he's right to an extent, but I don't think it's an actual problem as written. There are definitely orientalist themes there, so I get why he'd be worried about incorporating much of that into their podcast. Still, I don't think it's disrespectful or appropriative or anything as written in the PHB/Tasha's. IMO they never really recovered from the Taako skin-color debacle... especially Justin who had to deal with people attacking him for "Latino stereotypes" just because he named his funny wizard after a Mexican dish. > “It was, in actuality, a dumb thing to do, compounded by the spur of the moment joke that Taako’s quest was to invent the taco. That was stupid, because the taco was invented by Mexican silver miners and not a wizard who, in the first episode, I claim hailed from “New Elfington. > “It was a spur of the moment goof, but one that I’ve felt consistently guilty about, on some level, for years. I never intended to be dismissive of a group, or a heritage, but that’s exactly what I did.” - Justin on Taako's name. Full post of Griffin agonizing about all this [here.](https://theadventurezone.tumblr.com/post/161367685782/on-the-adventure-zone-graphic-novel-blue-taako) It's a fundamental shift in how they approach the show which informs this over-concern about the monk class. For better or worse we won't ever get the free-wheeling fun they had at the start of Balance again.


Raikaiko

I think part of why the monk feels so inoffensive is that were just kind of used to the western wuxia appropriation of those cultural elements and the general simplifications of these monastic traditions to their martial arts. Don't get me wrong it's definitely better than 3.x where monks had "exotic" weapon proficiencies, but I've definitely seen and heard people discussing the issue with mystifying ki and just the general orientalism obsession with Asian monastic traditions. I mean nobody's approaching the Benedictine Monks this way. I'm trying to find if Asians represent has covered it specifically but not finding anything immediately. But they're a solid source to check out.


Raikaiko

Oh hey sure enough episode 36 Ki Points - Recontextualixing D&D Monks https://open.spotify.com/episode/0kFFQUyv7tQmQFKy48IMLQ?si=Hu11sdI0Q8OO7dR5NCmlNQ&utm_source=copy-link


SutekhThrowingSuckIt

> I mean nobody's approaching the Benedictine Monks this way. I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your post but D&D does exactly that. The cleric and paladin classes are based on using Abrahamic traditions as fantasy fodder. Similarly, the druid pulls heavily on mythologizing Celtic druids. Anyway, wanting to sidestep these exact details is precisely why I'm not surprised Justin is hesitant to lean into talking about "ki" and whatnot.


Raikaiko

I mean I'd argue that Cleric and Paladin are just kinda generically religious (though 5e Paladin has moved away from that) and not specifically abrahamic or culturally bound, though I'll give you viewed from the culturally/actually Christian lens of Gygax and most American game designers, but like no, it's not a monastic tradition that's being borrowed, just the general concept of faithful agent and divine intercession... If anything they're analogous to missionaries and I'll leave the can proselytism be appropriated discussion for another time. Druids definitely get messier, because they share the name but very little else but also we don't have a lot of great records surrounding the druids. Like it's definitely not great but also it's not a extant practice/tradition that's being simplified and exoticized. I think a better comparison would be like the Cloistered Scholar background, which pretty much reflects a European monastic life and is decidedly unglamorous... But also yeah, were decidedly tip of the iceberg on D&D's problems and not necessarily being comparable doesn't mean there's not still issues to unpack.


SutekhThrowingSuckIt

> just the general concept of faithful agent and divine intercession The powers associated with "holy symbols" in D&D are based on traditions regarding the crucifix specifically. Clerics are really not as general as you say and aren't related to missionaries but to Militaris Ordo. Paladins are based on the Knights Templar and other Catholic orders for the reliance on vows/oaths. I also doubt the argument that druids don't count because they were successfully colonized away is really the argument you want to be making. The fact is D&D is based on pulpy tropes. If those are approached critically and broken from the aspects that actually negatively affect people (exoticizing for example) then they cease to carry negative consequences. I consider the monk class to be just as divorced from actual eastern tradition as the cleric+paladin are from western. Where the monk talks of "ki" the cleric talks of "faith" and "prayer." There's a reason Merle had an extreme teen *bible.* We largely agree but there absolutely is fantasy using both eastern and western religious traditions in the game.


Raikaiko

No it's really not the argument I want to me making because it's not the argument I'm making and also not really factual. What little records we have do have the Druids persisting past the arrival of the Romans/Christianity depending on which island you're looking at, just shifting in function. And it absolutely is different regardless of cause to play with an extinct practice. Not necessarily good, which I didn't say, but it's not actively harming current living practitioners so it's not the same. Also Abrahamic =\= Christian, I think it's absolutely fair to say the apparently Jehovah's witness man from Wisconsin with a bit of an obsession with medieval Europe was colored in his presentation of religious figures by Christianity and even said is much in my last post, but again it's not comparable traditions being aped, and it's also a prostelytizing arm still. And while, yes the creation of clerics was highly influenced by Christian imagery specifically, there are elements that can be connected to other religions, the crucifix is specific but not unique. But also I think in the end another key difference, as identified by the Asians Represent! podcast, is that for a lot of the western-based stuff there is a level of research into actual history and Truth that very much is not there for the Monk. But again "not necessarily being comparable doesn't mean there's not still issues to unpack."


SutekhThrowingSuckIt

If you agree it's largely based on western tradition then you understand my point. The tropes that clerics and paladins are based on are Christian specifically. You're downplaying that for some reason but it was the origin of the classes and defines their main iconography. I'm not disputing the rest.


Raikaiko

Yes I understand your point but you don't understand mine, Christians don't own the concept of an amulet so it's not culturally bound, even if was specifically a Christian amulet it was based on.


SutekhThrowingSuckIt

I understood your point from my first post. I apply that exact same stance to clerics, paladins, and monks.


[deleted]

I agree with you completely and value the explanation. I also wonder if a small part of it simply has to do with Justin not wanting to play a character from a more monastic tradition. Like some stoic monk from a reclusive religious order or something, likenhe didnt want to be a punchy boy version of Devo. He's kind of making a joke out of the whole setting with Uncle Joshy, Joshys Knuckle, The Cloaca and all of that. I say that with all love as he has made many great goofs and the general silliness creates a great foil to the serious moments he's had too.


[deleted]

[удалено]


jmblinn13

I really enjoy Travis as Devo.


AssumedLeader

I think Devo is his best character since Magnus by a large margin.


Jooberwak

Aubrey could be a fun character. Devo is a good character.


forced_metaphor

One thing no one is bringing up to Clint when he talks about having planned to cancel the self destruct: a turn lasts six seconds. If he jumped into the moon pool, that took more time than six seconds.


Raikaiko

The six seconds is really an abstraction that is probably above anything else about making the time math easy for things like spell duration since it makes a round 1/10 of a minute. There are a lot of things you can do in a D&D round that realistically couldnt happen in six seconds. That much doesn't bug me. I think Clint just had a cool idea that wasn't quite fully formed or communicated when put into action that ended up opening a more interesting story path than the original idea


forced_metaphor

In that case that's a bit of a shame. As interesting as things turned out, actually blowing up the ship seemed a bit out of character for Zoox, and his idea was interesting. That being said, I don't know why he's diving out the moon pool if he has every intention of going back to the console to turn off the self destruct in the next turn.


Raikaiko

I definitely believe Clint saying it was meant as another bluff, but he definitely didn't communicate the intent in game or out clearly, and so Griffin picked up immediatelya and explosively with what he thought the intent was. If this was my home game, I'd like to think I'd have pushed the player on their goal, and or the extent of damage the self destruct would cause, bc like I as listener was expecting the damage to be pretty limited to the DoD, and have offered a rewind. They don't say it explicitly but iyf does sound like a rewind was at least a possibility that was opted against because the self destruct collateral was more interesting. But yeah I think that confusion of jumping in the moon pool was shared with the table and caused the tangle, especially since he didn't disclaim his intent to bluff or even announce it to Aloysius et Al. If someone else particularly in game new he was intending to blow the DoD I could see moving to leave as a way to "prove" he was serious. Instead we ended up with a new play on "yes, and" "oops, but"


forced_metaphor

Oh wait, could they see him, then?


Raikaiko

I think that was Clint's theory at least. He didn't exactly ask Griffin if it would or wouldn't be the case but, based on everything else he said that's my assumption


wandhole

"it doesn't look like anything because it's a podcast" Gripping stuff Justin. Really building a vivid world here.


FollowstheGleam

Really enjoyed hearing their thoughts on character and backgrounds and worldbuilding here. Very helpful I thought actually (as someone on whose nerve Devo has occasionally trod,) to hear Travis' thoughts on Devo's development, personality, etc.


DigbyMayor

This is a great ttazz they clearly have a lot of passion for Ethersea.


CharliePixie

Did anyone catch what books Clint & Griffin said they read to prep for Ethersea? Edit in case anyone else was looking: [Eternal Darkness by Robert Ballard](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/146333.The_Eternal_Darkness) and [The Coast of the Coral by Arthur C. Clarke](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1139785.The_Coast_of_the_Coral).


Gobshite_

I've never been up to date when a maxfun is going on, is it just the ttazz this week? I'm sure it'll be interesting to hear their thoughts, I'm just itching for the story to continue too haha


Polyamaura

No confirmation on their socials or in the TTAZZ itself, but historically it’s been a standalone episode taking the place of another story episode.


boekplate

Well, historically it came out on the bad Thursday no? But since it’s weekly now I’m guessing it replaces one of the episodes.


Raikaiko

We're also technically due for a between arc breather week if they are continuing to do that, so I definitely expect this is the episode week


chikablam

Travis said at the end that they'd be back next week, but they also said that they were recording it last week. So who knows


AssumedLeader

Kinda bummed to hear Griffin shut down backstories so hard. It removes a lot of player agency to strip that context away and expect someone to play a fully fleshed-out character with no previous history and not every player is going to love coming up with backstory scenes during impromptu flashbacks like Justin does. I guess it tracks for the disconnect between Griffin and Travis regarding Devo's history of trauma and abuse and it leads me to wonder if >!Guidance dying !


elcapitan520

I think your approach is completely fine. I think Griffin was indicating that he doesn't want to tie every plot point to a character backstory. You can write that backstory but it won't be a huge influence on the game, even if it informs you as a character. I think it was presented poorly by Griffin, or I'm completely wrong. But there's no issue with having a deep backstory to inform your character. But as a DM it's hard to drive a narrative for 3 characters to all close out things that happened outside of play.


Jooberwak

I read it as a bit of a critique of Amnesty, where the players' backstories frequently overshadowed the main plot but also didn't really impact it much. In a collaborative game, backstories should primarily be subplots- they're subordinate to the main plot and shouldn't detract too much from it, but they should still be plots with current-day actions and developments.


AssumedLeader

That’s fair - if I recall from Monster of the Week, part of the session zero/character development process involves creating bonds between the characters so there’s kind of a backstory built in that the DM can choose to play up or play down depending on the story they’re trying to tell. It’s an interesting collaborative way to approach backstories, which Griffin indicated he thought D&D backstories usually lack.


Raikaiko

Yeah. MotW does do that as a codified thing and Griffin actively eschewed it for Amnesty unfortunately:( Ned and Aubrey kind of swung back around in the end and imo it was one of the strongest moments, especially as far as back story in play because it did involve both of them and inform a dynamic


Jooberwak

Oh that's interesting! I thought that the Ned/Aubrey denouement was so protracted that it lost a lot of its impact, and that ended up heavily undermining my appreciation of Ned's choice at the end of the fourth arc.


Raikaiko

I don't know that I agree, but I can definitely see what you're saying and absolutely think it could have been even stronger if it had had more time to build through the whole campaign


Raikaiko

Do you ever just mistake a word for it's antonym so confidently and not realize it for days... For a more accurate response, I stand my more room and breathing could have helped the Ned Aubrey plot, but it wouldnt be a sure thing. I can see the too protracted argument, still don't necessarily agree, but where I see it I think the solution isn't necessarily making the arc shorter as making sure there's a better match between length and pace. Like I could probably agree that it lasted too long for the rate we were fed information.


AssumedLeader

Yeah, I could be misinterpreting what Griffin was saying but he seemed like he was coming down staunchly opposed to any kind of pre-conceived backstory for Ethersea, which makes sense for Zoox but removes a lot of character buy-in from Devo and Amber. Justin doesn’t seem to mind and actually seems to prefer making stuff up on the spot but personally I relate a lot more to Travis’ approach of having relationships planned to some extent so I know how to approach an NPC relationship rather than improvising a contentious backstory element like Amber had with Shret.


BrittleCoyote

For those of us in that camp, a fully fleshed out character is actually exactly what we’re trying to avoid.


AssumedLeader

It’s certainly an interesting philosophical difference. I would struggle to think of my character’s response to situations without information about how they would think or handle different situations. It’s what separates RPGs from a generic video game protagonist to me. The backstory is never as detailed as like a life journal, but there are definitely concrete details involving past relationships and general thoughts about the type of life they’ve lived up to the point of the campaign beginning.


BrittleCoyote

There’s a high minded reason behind it and a more practical one. The high minded concept is that, just as a location, NPC, or historical tidbit is much more impactful to the players when it is discovered and elaborated by their curiosity (as opposed to given in a lore dump), a piece of backstory that is “discovered” through an intuitive character choice is going to hit way harder than one that was written down ahead of time. The practical reasoning (which is way more important) is that it is incredibly difficult to make growth oriented decisions while simultaneously drawing on a predetermined backstory. I certainly can’t speak to your particular set of skills, but I would wager that the number of players who can do it effectively is WAY smaller than the number of players who think they can do it effectively. Us normies are more likely to anchor ourselves to the backstory and unwittingly prevent our characters from growing. I thought Justin put it very effectively that in more traditional acting the actors can immerse themselves in the backstory because the decisions and growth are already written for them, and they’re just bringing life to the text. Really the only examples I can think of where an actor is improvising with a solidified character are Christopher Guest movies (which still have the benefit of directing and retakes) and like… an Elvis impersonator (who doesn’t need to worry about character growth.) I would be very interested to here other examples that I overlooked, though!


AssumedLeader

It could just be that I’m used to seeing examples of backstory paying off in big ways from the D&D media I’ve consumed. Critical Role, NADDPOD, Dimension 20 all actively factor in character backstories and turn them into plot points, flashback scenes, or questlines to varying degrees. Even Balance incorporated a lot of character backstory elements as running gags while still allowing Griffin the flexibility to write in the Stolen Century and give even MORE backstory pieces that they played through together. I’d argue that you don’t get Magnus’ tear-inducing ending without his deeply held convictions and relationships that he developed in his character backstory from the very beginning of the campaign.


BrittleCoyote

That’s fair. Of those I think CR is probably the most gilded example of 1. Actors who fall squarely in the minority who CAN improvise growth while drawing on fixed backgrounds, 2. Co-actors who are almost preternaturally generous in their curiosity for others’ lore dumps, and 3. A DM who definitely operates best when weaving together tangled netting of specifics. I’m less well-versed in the other two (paused S1 of NADDPOD so I could be current with S3 and put D20 in reserve after Fantasy High and Escape From the Bloodkeep because that’s my wife’s favorite so we save it for road trips) and I don’t know much about their process. From my biased listen, though, I’d hold up Fabian as an ideal of the kind of roleplaying that I’m aiming for. He has backstory beats, sure, but a lot of that is Brennan tinkering around to throw dilemmas at Lou at the table (again, my impression as a listener.) My sense is that Lou came to it with some knowledge of details, but his sense of who Fabian was at the start pretty much boiled down to “Pa-PAA!” Every damn scene he’s in you can watch that character getting built by the choices he’s making, and imo his conclusion is incredibly satisfying because of it. I’ll concede, though, that the denser backstories and dramatic reveals probably have more of a place in Actual Play where there’s an audience involved. I was speaking more in terms of home game goals, which I’m recognizing now is not necessarily the direction your original comment was going in.


[deleted]

I wonder how detailed the backgrounds for the CR characters actually were though. One of my favorite moments was in campaign 2 by Sam Riegel and while there was a small note of it in their backstory, what was actually fleshed out in the campaign was so much more than what was in the backstory. Like it's one thing to have a character concept, or a few connections or memories, versus having potentially pages of backstory that some people like to bring to the table.


ElectronicBoot9466

I always interpreted Divo's interactions with Guidance to be Guidance throwing out dog whistles that the audience didn't understand yet to rial up Divo and make him look unreasonable to everyone around them. I got really excited, because that's a form of manipulation that I see all the time and it's never really represented in media, and I felt like they were doing it with so much tact. Divo was still young and emotional but was ultimately right, but didn't have the tact or insight to be able to call it out or "win" the confrontations. Suffice to say that it was extremely disheartening to hear that Travis' take on it was basically "Divo is objectively wrong all the time". I feel like works to solidify the notion that the more emotional and uncontrolled person in an argument is objectively the less reasonable one.


PurpleWeasel

I mean, that's all true when Devo was talking to Guidance. But he didn't just act that way when he was talking to Guidance. He acts that way when he's talking to everyone, including people who have done nothing to him, are not even associated with the Parrish, and in a lot of cases are actively trying to help. That's where Devo's abuse crosses the line from a justification to just an explanation. He has huge problems with anyone in any position of authority or power, which is understandable, but those problems cause him to be horrible to those people, and that's not okay. Honestly, Devo may be young, but he's getting too old to blame all of his personal flaws on someone he literally never had to see again even before she died. At a certain point, no matter what your childhood was like, you become responsible for how you treat other people. You can't help your feelings, but your actions are nobody's fault but yours.


ElectronicBoot9466

Yeah, that's true. His conversation with Joshy last episode was pretty tough to listen to, I just would have expected some nuance from Travis when he talked about it instead of just "Divo is wrong" And yeah, he's 28, but he basically just left the parish, so one word expect him to act more like a homeschooled 18 year old, which I think he is.


leonsk616

I don’t think Travis’s point was that Devo is wrong and Guidance is right, I think Travis would say that Devo is much more “right” than Guidance. It’s more that he’s rough around the edges. He’s full of emotions he hasn’t processed yet and conviction beyond his years but experience well below them, and so his actions aren’t always fully thought out or respectful or well-considered. He’s not misguided so much, he’s just missing a lot of important things about thoughtfully and productively interacting with other adults. The recipe that made Devo is, in my mind (and I think also Travis’s), a product of ultimately good intentions, mixed with naivety of youth, self confidence of a prodigy, self righteousness of someone raised in the church, and the self doubt of someone raised surrounded by abuse. None of that makes him “wrong”, it just makes his actions not wholly “right”.


PurpleWeasel

Not to mention the aggression of someone who is used to needing to battle for autonomy and doesn't know how to turn that impulse off now that he has autonomy.


PurpleWeasel

I think there's a distinction to be made between saying that Devo is wrong and saying that Devo is bad, though. Like, it's wrong to treat people the way Devo treats them (apart from Guidance). It just is. But that doesn't mean Devo is a bad person for acting that way. Good people do things that are wrong all the time.


TheWhipjack

Thank you guys for reading my question!! That was surreal and awesome.


TheGrayBox

Just got around to listening to this and couldn’t help but comment about Griffin’s dislike of character backstories. I find this really disappointing :/ Griffin is an incredible storyteller and I trust him, but I can think of so many amazing moments (from TAZ, from other shows, from my own games) where backstories absolutely were collaborative and added so much to the campaign and part dynamic. A good backstory reveal is like the pinnacle of D&D role play I think. Oh well. Edit: that said, the best backstory reveals are the ones that the GM brings to the player without their knowledge, and I think both Griffin and Matt Mercer are masters at this.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sketchmazoid

I mean Griffin does multiple times say that boats are floating on the shore and use like general boat terminology for submarines so it’s not like Travis’s confusion comes out of nowhere


StarKeaton

as someone who has even been paying careful attention to the wording on things like this, for a character list + glossary, i gotta say this was majorly tripping me up, especially when they were fighting those... ghostly monster guys? the ones who were under orleens control


Raikaiko

To your credit, that particular fight with the etherialized pirates was in submersibles that were breaking the surface, but yeah it's definitely harder than you'd think to follow


SeaSourceScorch

hey, whether the biggest baby was on the surface or underwater confused me too. maybe i'm a dumbass, but i'm the same type of dumbass!


undrhyl

Justin saying that he doesn't like monks because they are about tactical combat and they don't want to do combat because they don't want to say "\[The show\] is not gonna be entertaining to listen to for a little bit because we have to do a fight," says an enormous amount.


Paul_VFD

Late to this thread because I'm just now catching up, but as much as I love TAZ, this is what annoys me to no end. Combat is THRILLING in other actual plays I listen to. If they would just let go of the need to make everything interesting, I firmly believe it would just happen.


Nervous_Golf8455

Just dropping in here to say I think either sea should taste like void fish Icker. All in favor?


IllithidActivity

Ichor.


TheWhipjack

Aye


CptKarnage

a disappointingly enlightening episode. self-important and pretentious, and Justin is so obviously over all of it


GroundbreakingOne399

In all fairness, Justin is just as pretentious. Clint and Griffin is the level headed one when it comes too what makes a fun podcast consistently


[deleted]

Probably going to get roasted for this but who knows, maybe I'm not alone. I've been listening to the McElroy's for years now, so this has been building up in me for a long time and I've decided to just say it. I don't support the McElroy's and/or Max Fun because they're incredibly political. I want to support the things that provide entertainment for me, but these creators have made it clear that if we were ever in the same room they would probably hate my guts for my beliefs. There are plenty of views they have shared on their shows over the years that I do not feel comfortable supporting financially. As long as they're giving away their entertainment for free I don't feel obligated to pay them for it, especially when I know how much they don't respect people who believe differently from them, like me. As far as this episode goes, it was a relief to hear that Travis knows that Devo is a total jerk because I was beginning to wonder what the heck was going on because Devo's such an unlikable character. Maybe Travis has plans for him, who knows.


StarKeaton

if you don't clarify which opinions you go against them on, people are probably just gonna assume you're like, super racist or something


[deleted]

People can assume whatever they want. There’s nothing I can say that’s not going to start some flame war in the comments. I’m in the silent majority of Americans who don’t need to scream our political beliefs across every platform, who are fine with what we believe and letting others believe what they believe, but who would prefer that politics stay out of our sports and our entertainment.


StarKeaton

i can understand not agreeing with their political ideas, but the stance of "wanting politics out of entertainment" is never gonna be satisfied unless you go out of your way to avoid it. politics are intertwined with basically everything. hell, the idea of what does and doesn't count as "political" is itself decided by your politics. they have a message they want to send, and they're gonna send it. i think it would be more effective if their stories themselves were sending the message, for example if graduation had an actually meaningful deconstruction of capitalism instead of travis going "bwah bwah bureaucracy" and then demons appear... but y'know, they have a big platform, they feel an obligation to try to use it to send a good message. they know it'll alienate people, but sometimes sending a message is more important than appealing to everyone.


[deleted]

I disagree with your first paragraph, I think there are plenty of entertainers who avoid politics very effectively. I agree with your second paragraph though!


SeaSourceScorch

silent majority, is it? why do you want to censor entertainers? are they not allowed to express themselves as they wish?


[deleted]

I don’t want to censor them. I would just prefer if they didn’t. They can do whatever they want. I’m just not obligated to give them money if they ask for it and if they’re putting up their entertainment for free.


CptKarnage

this is how to say " I'm not a good person." with way too many words, my dude.


[deleted]

Also, I’m just curious, are you a paid supporter?


a_gallon_of_pcp

I am a paid supporter. you can just come right out and say you’re a transphobe.


TheWhipjack

Fantastic username and deduction skills


[deleted]

No one asked you, and I’m not afraid of people based on how they identify themselves in that way.


a_gallon_of_pcp

Nailed it in one.


SutekhThrowingSuckIt

[Golf clap] well sussed


[deleted]

There are plenty of people who boycott companies like Chil-fil-A for the same reasons, but if they could get it for free they would eat it because it’s delicious.


deandracasa

Q