tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post8498665540462659404..comments2024-03-19T07:56:00.031-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: DCC RPG Playtest Files Available for DownloadJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-67509222913344706962011-06-14T01:09:05.014-04:002011-06-14T01:09:05.014-04:00lulz, the special dice are not something I have or...lulz, the special dice are not something I have or will get. And J random's explaination makes my head hurt more than THACO +/- other AD&Disms. <br /><br />I love AD&D btw.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-51057171968382346802011-06-12T19:58:40.368-04:002011-06-12T19:58:40.368-04:00To all those whining that this game 'requires&...To all those whining that this game 'requires' Zocchian dice.<br /><br />Uh. No. Go re-read pp 9-10 of the 1e AD&D DMG. Seriously. You need math help badly. Read it until you grok it.<br /><br />Here's the breakdown of what DCC says it requires in the way of dice rolls, and how to achieve them w/o Zocchi dice:<br />d3 - ROUND_UP[1d6/2]<br />d5 - ROUND_UP[1d10/2]<br />d7 - REROLL_HIGHEST(d8)<br />d14 - d7 + d4(even, +0; odd, +7)<br />d16 - d8 + d4(even, +0; odd, +8)<br />d24 - d12 + d4(even, +0; odd, +12)<br />d30 - d10 + d6(1-2, +0; 3-4, +10; 5-6, +20)<br /><br />Or, you could read the paragraph that immediately follows the one that says the game uses Zocchi dice and use the relatively simpler guidelines given there. The results are statistically the SAME - flat distributions of results.<br /><br />Seriously, this sort of stuff has been in the game for 30 years and now that someone comes along and implements actual mechanics that frequently call upon you to use them you complain? Really? How absurd.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05896515629513305242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-45950720748183905692011-06-12T04:39:14.587-04:002011-06-12T04:39:14.587-04:00"You said it: 'It's just a common, na...<b><i>"You said it: 'It's just a common, narrow-minded opinion.' There's no defense for that, ever, no matter how common it is. Unless the dude's 12."</i>--Zak S</b><br /><br />I agree. Even though I don't think it's extreme, I do think it's indefensible.<br /><br />But how do we know that THOMAS <i>isn't</i> 12?<br /><br />Heck -- how do we know that <i>anybody</i> we haven't met in person isn't 12?<br /><br />Everything online can be fabricated.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-79192576265641030772011-06-12T04:04:42.577-04:002011-06-12T04:04:42.577-04:00@Rick Marshall Thanks for fact-checking THOMAS! If...<b>@Rick Marshall</b> Thanks for fact-checking THOMAS! If I hadn't been so busy acting as Mr. <i>'Being Right Doesn't Justify Being An Ass'</i>, I might've thought of doing that myself.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"Thomas wrote '...the section on alignment demonstrates that good/evil are merely ideas or opinions,' but I'm looking at the text right now and it says nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it says the cosmos itself is organized around a great cosmic struggle of law versus chaos, that law and chaos represent objectively existing cosmic forces, and that a man's choice of alignment 'will become increasingly important as you become more powerful.' This is the opposite of what Thomas says about the game.<br /><br />"Worse, the section on Law says 'Lawful characters believe fundamentally in unity and prioritize the values of mankind: order, authority, loyalty, and charity. They support organized institutions and 'do what is right.' They have a moral conscience which points them toward the appropriate action.' This contradicts the back cover and Thomas's entire point, making it clear that not only can you play a hero in DCCRPG, the heroic perspective is not just an idea but actually represents one of the sides in a great cosmic battle.<br /><br />"Thomas has over-reached in his comments and fallen prey to the Procrustean fallacy of twisting the subject to fit the argument about nihilism he wanted to have. DCCRPG encourages a far wider range of play than Thomas said it does, and so does LOTFPWFRPGGH. Zak was right to take him to task for it, regardless of whether you approve of the way he went about it."</i>--Rick Marshall</b><br /><br />Excellent work! Again, I think everything you've said here is correct. And I really apprectiate <b><i>how</i></b> you've said it too.<br /><br />Now, in light of the fact that THOMAS completely misrepresented the facts <i>(oh, okay, I'll come right out and say it -- he lied)</i>, I'm done defending him.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-64500683841828339552011-06-12T03:57:44.085-04:002011-06-12T03:57:44.085-04:00You said it:
"It's just a common, narrow...You said it:<br /><br />"It's just a common, narrow-minded opinion."<br /><br />There's no defense for that, ever, no matter how common it is. Unless the dude's 12.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-25223839631175951812011-06-12T03:43:03.467-04:002011-06-12T03:43:03.467-04:00"As for his extreme positions, it is hidden i...<b><i>"As for his extreme positions, it is hidden in the statement:<br /><br />'That cosmology stinks, and it is too bad that it is accepted by default.'<br /><br />Because this implies the following extreme belief the fact that this cosmology stinks IN REAL LIFE means it also stinks IN A FICTION."</i>--Zak S</b><br /><br />It's <i>"hidden"</i> there, huh? Hmmm...<br /><br />First, even though that's how I interpreted it too, I don't think that's the only reasonable interpretation. I think, given just that statement alone, the person could just as likely be saying merely that having that cosmology as the default cosmology of a game prevents them from enjoying playing that game. That's all. Nothing extreme or in any way judgmental of others. Just a bit of information that game designers might find useful to know.<br /><br />Second, even the interpretation we share isn't extreme. That is, at least the <b><i>"this cosmology stinks IN REAL LIFE means it also stinks IN A FICTION"</i></b> version of it isn't. It's just a common, narrow-minded opinion. Much more likely an unexamined assumption on the part of anybody who holds it, not an indication of any conscious, let alone articulated, philosophy. Worth pointing out to try to get them to examine their assumptions and consciously articulate their philosophy. But no cause for raising any sort of alarm. And, even more so, no cause for insulting, berating and ridiculing a person who probably just hasn't yet given much thought to why they think and feel the way they do about things.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"Again: he's begging the question. He's assuming a controversial premise without addressing it. I said that already, you ignored it."</i>--Zak S</b><br /><br />First, I didn't ignore it. I just didn't realize you expected me to say anything about it. Now that I know you do, I will...<br /><br />Second, even though the premise we think he's assuming seems controversial to you -- and if, by <i>"controversial"</i>, you mean merely not almost universally accepted, then I'd agree -- I'd be very surprised if <i>he</i> thought it was controversial. And it's just not reasonable to expect him to see himself, his feelings, his assumptions, his beliefs, his opinions and his thoughts through <i>your</i> eyes and warn you about himself before he says anything else.<br /><br />When you think someone has begged the question, then it's your responsibility to ask them the question.<br /><br />And it's your responibility to ask them the question in a way that's intended to actually solicit their honest answer to the question too -- not in any way that's intended to shame them, or intimidate them, or otherwise affect their answer.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-10619871459012378662011-06-12T03:40:36.939-04:002011-06-12T03:40:36.939-04:00"I would be 'conceited' if I thought ...<b><i>"I would be 'conceited' if I thought I was somehow different than everyone else and I don't."</i>--Zak S</b><br /><br />You don't? I'm sorry I misunderstood you again. I thought you said that you <i>are</i> different from anybody who doesn't have a blog, like you do, or isn't famous, like you are.<br /><br />So you <i>don't</i> think either of those things?<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"If I make an extreme statement, it is within anyone's power to INSTANTLY find out the point of view that statement is coming from. This is true of ANYBODY who has their name attached to anything they have been doing for a long time. Anybody with a blog or a real name they use. Introducing myself beforehand is NOT necessary because if I don't I am--unlike THOMAS--not -entirely denying the people listening the possibility of doing that.-"</i>--Zak S</b><br /><br />All that's true. But it still seems to me like you're saying that everybody who has a blog, like you do, and everybody who's famous, like you are, deserves certain privileges that people who don't have blogs and aren't famous don't. Or, stated inversely, that people who don't have blogs and aren't famous have obligations that people, like you, who do have blogs or are famous don't. And, either way, that's a privileged attitude. Am I still misunderstanding you?<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"So if you're going to make extreme statements either:<br /><br />A) have a track record people can look at (I do, this doesn't make me special.)<br /><br />or<br /><br />B) say what the extreme point of view you have up front is."</i>--ZakS</b><br /><br />While it <i>would</i> be nice if people did do that, the problem I see with expecting people to do that is that it expects them to first recognize that both the statement they're going to make and the point of view they're basing it on are extreme. And almost nobody can do that. It requires the ability to assess oneself objectively -- a feat that's at least very difficult, and arguably impossible. So it's just not a reasonable expectation to place on anybody because most people can't do it.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"That's not some special rule for me, that's pretty much an accepted rule of any debate: state your assumptions up front, or at least have them checkable."</i>--Zak S</b><br /><br />Those very limited rules of debate are very different from your expectation that people should either have blogs, become famous, or recognize the extremity of their positions and explain them up front before saying anything else.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-57676206828665630922011-06-11T21:00:05.829-04:002011-06-11T21:00:05.829-04:00I like the artwork and the concept, but the execut...I like the artwork and the concept, but the execution is not quite there. Too much table cross referencing for my taste, and requiring the nonstandard Zocchi dice is an obstacle as they are not readily available at retail, at least in my experience.Freezerclownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04759060053899637459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-779070196339228852011-06-11T18:22:05.393-04:002011-06-11T18:22:05.393-04:00Sorry, that should be LOTFPWFRPGE, not LOTFPWFRPGG...Sorry, that should be LOTFPWFRPGE, not LOTFPWFRPGGH.Rick Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01707062453047354335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-59590033943710145912011-06-11T17:54:58.812-04:002011-06-11T17:54:58.812-04:00Ed, I've just finished going back and forth be...Ed, I've just finished going back and forth between Thomas's comments and the original text he's commenting on. Part of the time he does what you say he does, and part of the time he does what Zak says he does.<br /><br />For example, the back cover text of DCCRPG says more or less exactly what Thomas says it does:<br /><br />"You're no hero.<br /><br />"You're a reaver, a cutpurse, a heathen-slayer, a tight-lipped warlock guarding long-dead secrets.<br /><br />"You seek gold and glory, winning it with sword and spell, caked in the blood and filth of the weak, the dark, the demons, and the vanquished. There are treasures to be won deep underneath, and you shall have them.<br /><br />"Return to the glory days of fantasy with the Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game. Adventure as 1974 intended you to, with modern rules grounded in the origins of sword & sorcery. Fast play, cryptic secrets, and a mysterious past await you: turn the page..."<br /><br />So yes, the back cover rejects the concept of hero, but the game itself does not, contrary to his second post.<br /><br />Thomas wrote "...the section on alignment demonstrates that good/evil are merely ideas or opinions," but I'm looking at the text right now and it says nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it says the cosmos itself is organized around a great cosmic struggle of law versus chaos, that law and chaos represent objectively existing cosmic forces, and that a man's choice of alignment "will become increasingly important as you become more powerful." This is the opposite of what Thomas says about the game.<br /><br />Worse, the section on Law says "Lawful characters believe fundamentally in unity and prioritize the values of mankind: order, authority, loyalty, and charity. They support organized institutions and 'do what is right.' They have a moral conscience which points them toward the appropriate action." This contradicts the back cover and Thomas's entire point, making it clear that not only can you play a hero in DCCRPG, the heroic perspective is not just an idea but actually represents one of the sides in a great cosmic battle.<br /><br />Thomas has over-reached in his comments and fallen prey to the Procrustean fallacy of twisting the subject to fit the argument about nihilism he wanted to have. DCCRPG encourages a far wider range of play than Thomas said it does, and so does LOTFPWFRPGGH. Zak was right to take him to task for it, regardless of whether you approve of the way he went about it.Rick Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01707062453047354335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-61767062798931551702011-06-11T16:38:28.836-04:002011-06-11T16:38:28.836-04:00@Ed Dove
No, Ed. I would be "conceited&q...@Ed Dove<br /><br /> No, Ed. I would be "conceited" if I thought I was somehow different than everyone else and I don't.<br /><br /> If I make an extreme statement, it is within anyone's power to INSTANTLY find out the point of view that statement is coming from. This is true of ANYBODY who has their name attached to anything they have been doing for a long time. Anybody with a blog or a real name they use.<br /><br /> Introducing myself beforehand is NOT necessary because if I don't I am--unlike THOMAS--not -entirely denying the people listening the possibility of doing that.-<br /><br /> So if you're going to make extreme statements either:<br /><br /> A) have a track record people can look at (I do, this doesn't make me special.)<br /><br /> or<br /><br /> B) say what the extreme point of view you have up front is.<br /><br />That's not some special rule for me, that's pretty much an accepted rule of any debate: state your assumptions up front, or at least have them checkable.<br /><br /> As for his extreme positions, it is hidden in the statement:<br /><br /> "That cosmology stinks, and it is too bad that it is accepted by default."<br /><br /> Because this implies the following extreme belief the fact that this cosmology stinks IN REAL LIFE means it also stinks IN A FICTION.<br /><br /> Again: he's begging the question. He's assuming a controversial premise without addressing it. I said that already, you ignored it.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-86533607157122559792011-06-11T16:35:42.622-04:002011-06-11T16:35:42.622-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-15280166398180056752011-06-11T11:59:47.865-04:002011-06-11T11:59:47.865-04:00@Zak S Okay. So you really do think that your blog...<b>@Zak S</b> Okay. So you really do think that your blog somehow makes you special. That, just because people <i>can</i> go there to find out about you, that means you shouldn't be expected to introduce yourself before you make comments elsewhere -- even though that's what you expect people without blogs to do. And that's exactly the sort of privileged attitude that I'd expect someone who has a blog might have.<br /><br />And so you also think that you're way more well-known than you really are. And that's exactly the sort of conceited attitude that I'd expect someone who has a blog and a webshow, and who works as a performer in Hollywood, might have.<br /><br />So your attitude really is as privileged and conceited as what you said before made me suspect it might be. That's good to know. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks.<br /><br /><b><i>"I'm not going to pop over to homphobia.com and say 'gee this -particular- antigay rant really sucks' and so, likewise, I wouldn't expect mr. THOMAS to suddenly appear here in the modern gaming scene and say 'This -particular- game is bad because it does not uphold a heroic ideal' without explaining where he's coming from."</i>--Zak S</b><br /><br />That makes sense. But it's also not what THOMAS did.<br /><br />What he actually did was just say that he, personally, just him, <i>"hated the rejection of the concept of 'hero'"</i>, compared that (mistakenly, I think) to LotFP, explained why he feels the way he does, said that he thinks that something -- the game, its marketing, maybe both -- would be <i>"better"</i> if the game was noncommital rather than prescriptive in philosophy and tone, and added that, I think for marketing reasons, he thinks it's a <i>"mistake"</i> for game designers to make their games nihilistic. Not what I'd call <i>"extreme"</i> positions. Just common opinions. Though I do wish that he'd explained them more clearly than he did. But, then, he did explain his views more clearly in later posts -- in which the most <i>"extreme"</i> thing he ever said was <i>"That cosmology stinks, and it is too bad that it is accepted by default."</i> Again, a pretty common opinion.<br /><br />So I don't understand why your panties got all up in a wad over it.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-91286583243224624632011-06-11T07:38:43.050-04:002011-06-11T07:38:43.050-04:00"More generally, an argument begs the questio..."More generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side."Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-24451783346403334572011-06-11T07:33:00.689-04:002011-06-11T07:33:00.689-04:00@ed dove
I am totally identifiable in these littl...@ed dove<br /><br />I am totally identifiable in these little fracases online 'cause my name is clickable when I comment.<br /><br />And in real life, the clicky link is unnecessary since most people know where the guy with the green hair and tattooed hands is coming from.<br /><br />And, yeah, I think, in general, if you are articulating an extreme position then you don't just drop in on one discussion of one of the zillion things in ordinary life you object to and expect to be taken seriously or be understood.<br /><br />I'm not going to pop over to homphobia.com and say "gee this -particular- antigay rant really sucks" and so, likewise, I wouldn't expect mr. THOMAS to suddenly appear here in the modern gaming scene and say "This -particular- game is bad because it does not uphold a heroic ideal" without explaining where he's coming from.<br /><br />It wastes time. Like I said, it;s a classic rhetorical fallacy: begging the question.<br /><br />Right there:<br />http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.htmlZak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-47747621357982486512011-06-11T07:23:03.641-04:002011-06-11T07:23:03.641-04:00@Zak S Do I understand correctly that you think ju...<b>@Zak S</b> Do I understand correctly that you think just having your blog and being relatively easy to find out about online counts as defining yourself to others before you express yourself to them, not just on your blog and in <i>I Hit It With My Axe</i> episodes, but <b><i>anywhere?</i></b><br /><br />And, while I agree that it'd certainly be considerate and helpful if people did explain, to the best of their understanding, at least what they see as the main reason <i>why</i> they think what they do before they go on and on about the specifics of <i>what</i> they think -- do you really believe that people have some sort of obligation to do so? And that, if they're not <i>'famous'</i> like you are, then they're, at best, lazy if they don't do so at the beginning of every conversation with strangers?<br /><br />Please be assured that all my questions are sincere, not rhetorical. Right now, I'm really just trying to find out if I understand what you're saying so I can figure out how I should respond.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-55883328259263093742011-06-11T05:18:00.289-04:002011-06-11T05:18:00.289-04:00@Ed Dove
I sure as hell do define myself when I m...@Ed Dove<br /><br />I sure as hell do define myself when I make comments. Everybody who can click a mouse button knows I write a blog called "playing D&D with porn stars" and work in the adult industry in Los Angeles and anybody with access to google can see my gigantic degenerate decadent urban elitist anarchist resume and interviews where I yammer on about it and if anybody wants to write off anything I say on account of my profoundly obvious intellectual biases, fine.<br /><br />If you represent some point of view that's equally extreme in the opposite direction, then help us all out by saying that up front. If I click THOMAS I see nothing. Who is Thomas? Thomas could say "Well, I'm a born again" or " Hey, I'm a pretty conservative guy, but...."there's no shame in that. And its intelligent and thoughtful and helpful to realize that it's germane to the discussion.<br /><br />If there's a point to talking to other human being about your ideas, then there's a point to being clear about where they come from and obfuscating that is, at best, laziness.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-68350566169827494922011-06-11T04:43:47.133-04:002011-06-11T04:43:47.133-04:00I read through the playtest, and so far I'm no...I read through the playtest, and so far I'm not a fan. The game feels very much like it's trying to emulate D&D and not its sources.<br /><br />The "race-classes" of Elf/Dwarf/Halfling weren't a major part of Appendix N and can be dropped entirely. Focus on humans, have a page of optional PDF material for folks who must go Tolkienesque.<br /><br />Lose Law/Chaos - especially since they're just "Good" and "Evil" renamed, if Law gets angels and Chaos gets demons.<br /><br />Why is Cleric even a class? It can be handled entirely by broadening the spell selection of wizards - lots of Appendix N spellcasters were capable of healing and holding dark powers at bay. The fact that both wizards and clerics use patrons also suggests that the best course of action is to combine the classes. The "Clerics heal their own alignment best" will prove to stifle party creation, and is yet another reason to remove alignment.<br /><br />The tables for Deeds were incredibly specific and didn't appear much easier to use than those same maneuvers in 3.5.Matthew McGeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953220371311903744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-10207128313108728092011-06-11T00:48:16.741-04:002011-06-11T00:48:16.741-04:00@Zak S To quote Jim Raggi, "I'm going to ...<b>@Zak S</b> To quote Jim Raggi, <i>"I'm going to call great hairy bullshit on this one."</i> Why should <i>"they"</i> have to define themselves to you before expressing their opinions? Do <i>you</i> do that for anybody? If so, I've never seen it. And I know I sure don't do it. And I can't remember ever conversing with anybody else who ever did either. So, <i>"great hairy bullshit"</i>.<br /><br />I wish you'd stop trying to stifle further expression of things you don't like by ridiculing anybody who thinks those things. Such narrow-minded bullying is a waste of your intellectual brilliance -- especially when all you do is just slap together some straw-man misrepresentations of their positions. That's just pathetic.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-61681100129106281342011-06-10T23:26:50.612-04:002011-06-10T23:26:50.612-04:00@Ed Dove
Then they should say "Hi, I'm a...@Ed Dove<br /><br />Then they should say "Hi, I'm a socially and/or religiously conservative person in the English-speaking world in 2011 and want you to listen to me talk anyway, let's have a conversation about all the hundred of thousands of items of beef with modern games that this position implies" not "Y'know what's wrong with this here game that James put out..."<br /><br />In classical rhetoric that's called "begging the question" and it slows any useful conversation down to a crawl.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-89806363146904726142011-06-10T15:29:45.956-04:002011-06-10T15:29:45.956-04:00"If you are good because you refuse to consid...<b><i>"If you are good because you refuse to consider what bad is like..."</i>--Zak S</b><br /><br />That's, at best, a total misunderstanding of, or, at worst, an intentional, assholish, straw-man misrepresentation of, what people like THOMAS think.<br /><br />They don't think it's bad merely to consider what bad is like. They just think it's bad to imagine acting bad and it being okay. That's all.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"They should just come out and say: 'I think it's morally/ethically/religiously bad to do things in games you wouldn't do in real life' and have a conversation about THAT..."</i>--Zak S</b><br /><br />I agree.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"...this bizarre underlying assumption."</i>--Zak S</b><br /><br />That underlying assumption may seem bizarre to you, but it's the way most people thought until very recently. And it's the way many religious people and social conservatives still think.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-91092558006522074972011-06-10T14:50:30.550-04:002011-06-10T14:50:30.550-04:00@5stonegames
If the idea of whatever moral/ethica...@5stonegames<br /><br />If the idea of whatever moral/ethical/religious system you are allegedly describing truly descends to the level of "you have to watch what kind of character you play in a game" then I feel that says a lot more about the limitations of the moral/ethical/religious system you think you are describing than it does about the limitations of the game.<br /><br />If you are good because you refuse to consider what bad is like...<br /><br />Well that's a can of philosophical worms that I don't think anybody should dump all over somebody's game just because they happen to have it writhing around in their own head.<br /><br />They should just come out and say: "I think it's morally/ethically/religiously bad to do things in games you wouldn't do in real life" and have a conversation about THAT rather than picking on recent releases and assuming everyone listening already knows about and agrees with this bizarre underlying assumption.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-6416247918004049282011-06-10T03:34:47.599-04:002011-06-10T03:34:47.599-04:00"Better to be non-committal philosophically a...<b><i>"Better to be non-committal philosophically and let DMs create the tone they want. Game designers are trying to give their games a nihilistic bent, which I think is a mistake."</i>--THOMAS</b><br /><br />If, when you say <i>"better"</i> and <i>"mistake"</i>, you mean with regard to marketing, sales and financial success, then I disagree. It seems to me that the majority of the most financially successful RPGs are philosophically commital in some way. And I see a huge market for nihilism of all sorts out there.<br /><br />But if, when you say <i>"better"</i> and <i>"mistake"</i>, you're making personal value judgements, then I somewhat agree.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"Cthulhu neutral - absolutely. Cthulhu is about as neutral as they come - removed and indifferent to Man, in all likelihood to have existed well before the very concepts of Law and Chaos. His followers are another story - they're Chaotic for sure - likely to commit all kinds of abominable acts to attract his attention/gain power."</i>--maxam</b><br /><br />Exactly.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"The cosmology chosen in the alignment section leads to nihilism, which leads to the mercenary spirit, contra honor, nobility, heroism. Honor and nobility become opinions without base, no more intrinsically good than dishonor and evil. That cosmology stinks, and it is too bad that it is accepted by default."</i>--THOMAS</b><br /><br />In the real world, I agree. But, in games, it can be fun to play nihilistic, mercenary, and even evil characters.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"...imagine someone released an RPG that paid 'homage' to the works of Disney(TM)(C)(R), and specifically stated such at every opportunity, wearing it's heart firmly on its sleeve... I think it's perfectly valid for me to say 'Well, you know I'm not a fan of saccharine sweet morality, and cheesy family friendly type stuff, so this is not a game for me.'"</i>--maxam</b><br /><br />Just to let everybody know, not all Disney stuff is like that. In particular, I recommend <i>Mulan</i>.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"I think this game and LotFP are both trying to make their games more unambiguously conformed to the nihilistic sorts of literary inspirations (e.g. Lovecraft)."</i>--THOMAS</b><br /><br />In the case of LotFP, that's true only with regard to the game's implied setting, not how characters are expected to act in that setting. And, in fact, the LotFP modules actually tend to punish characters who act nihilistically.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"There is incidentally nothing stopping acts of heroism in an uncaring world unless the very idea of heroism hinges on being 'cosmically' right for you, rather than doing what you believe is Right."</i>--Uffish</b><br /><br />Exactly.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"I'd take the LotR true grit over Moorcock's sensationalist eternal champion hoo ha any day."</i>--maxam</b><br /><br />Me too!<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"Is this really what we're all doing here? Is this how we're playing games? As dry runs for what we'd do in real life?"</i>--Zak S</b><br /><br />Some people, yes. Others just try to play how they imagine that they, personally, would really act in the game world if it was really real. And others play to explore ways of thinking and acting that differ from their own. And still others just explore dungeons. And every one of those approaches, and every other approach that results in the participants having fun, is a good and valid way to play these games.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-71524773561728382852011-06-10T01:34:46.333-04:002011-06-10T01:34:46.333-04:00Art is always matter of taste, but it should be no...Art is always matter of taste, but it should be noted that the cloned "Old School" art was drawn by the same artist as the originals, 30 years later. When I first encountered this game, I was also a little put off by the "You're No Hero," copy. Now that I've played it a bit, I'll say that nothing prevents you from being a hero, or discourages it any more than OD&D and AD&D didAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11446889385501600300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-46031712811527488552011-06-10T00:46:59.437-04:002011-06-10T00:46:59.437-04:00Zak. Its a necessary part of most religious and e...Zak. Its a necessary part of most religious and ethical traditions to mind how you think.<br /><br />People who adhere to these beliefs can certainly play RPG's but its incumbent on them to mind how they play <br /><br />Games like RPGs require a bit of extra vigilance as they take you deeper into the dark places in your mind , far deeper than the antiseptic and detached act of moving chips around a board.<br /><br />Roleplaying evil and 'wallowing' in it isn't spiritually healthy.5stonegameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10694550968360550229noreply@blogger.com