Quote from: Maarzan;914094But if you are talking about english gardening and don´t cut the grass, then the focus jumps back to laziness.
In an adventure obviously designed as a military operation and tactical challenge the question "but what if there where babies" is off range. In the sandbox that the keep in the borderlands adventure they are already an established part of the setting and thus on the table of exploration.

like I said, this is probably a pointless detour but I really don't see it. Should say though the answer I was responding to wasn't really specific to the situation raised by the OP. I was speaking to his general points about being able to get away with stuff in a campaign and not have many consequences. It just seems like a cheap rhetorical way of getting someone to care about that stuff. Same thing happens all the time when people talk about stuff like rape as a plot device in TV shows (the go to criticism is its lazy writing because that is the one that will get under most writer's skin). It certainly could be laziness in some cases, but I think the reasons behind the decision to do or not do something matter if that is what you are trying to evaluate. Especially in something like gaming where there are going to be things you focus on and things you don't depending on what you want in the game.

I mean if the focus of that campaign has been on these kinds of things in the past, and the GM out of laziness doesn't address it, that is one thing, but if they the players are there specifically to blow of steam without having to deal with fallout. Labeling it laziness gets at the motivation of the GM and the group. If it is genuinely coming out of laziness, by all means it is fair criticism. But if the GM is putting those kinds of consequences off to the side, say handling them the way they might be treated in a sitcom rather than a drama, it isn't laziness, its just that isn't what their going for at all. Not really that important I suppose. If people find it lazy, they find it lazy. To me it is simply a matter of what kind of campaign I am running. Usually those consequences will be important. In some campaigns they won't be.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914030"Anybody up for discussing whether killing goblin children is evil?"

No.  Not now, not ever.

It's a shitass thing for a referee to put in the game, period.

I agree there. And I allways wanted to ask Gygax why he included kids in Keep on the Borderland.
The Lizardmen.
The Kobolds.
Both Orc factions.
The Goblins.
The Hobgoblins.
The Bugbears.
The Gnolls.

That module really puts the moral screws on the players. Of these only the bugbears have kids that join in in the combat.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;914088Probably a pointless detour but I just don't agree with you on this. Laziness is a trait and arises from wanting to avoid work. There is a difference between not doing something because you don't feel like putting in the effort and not doing something because you don't care about it. If someone doesn't cut their grass because they are locked in their basement working on a novel, I wouldn't call it laziness. I'd just say they probably don't give a shit about lawns. Generally speaking I think 'lazy' is becoming a lame and overused criticism. And I don't think it particularly applies here. Whether people are talking about 'lazy' writing or 'lazy' gaming. If the issue is, someone wants more realism in a game, then I get that as a critique, to say its lazy....I can't really say I see the connection there. Unless it genuinely arises out of laziness.

I wasn't referring to anyone in general, only the habit of ignoring extended consequences in a game setting because it takes time, consideration and forethought to sometimes work these thing out. Far easier to just yank the Goblin kids out of the module, let them all run away or whatever. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just the easier of the choices available.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914102I wasn't referring to anyone in general, only the habit of ignoring extended consequences in a game setting because it takes time, consideration and forethought to sometimes work these thing out.

If that is why the person is not including extended consequences, I would agree it is lazy. But if it is simply because they don't want to include it, I wouldn't call it lazy. If they are there for a more Rambo-style of play. Or if the GM simply wants to make things easier for the players. I know I've been in situations where I've thought through a line of consequences for something but chose not to implement them in game because it didn't feel right for that particular group of players.

One reason for putting this sort of stuff in is it emphasizes that this is a world and not just a shooting gallery for the PCs to mindlessly go on killing sprees through. Just like the innkeeper has a wife and kids. World in motion.

And its a simmilar dilemma in more modern setting games like Vampire which can put even more severe moral screws on the PCs.

I just came home from a game of Keep on the Borderlands. We did not kill any goblin or hobgoblin cubs nor any females guarding them since they did not attack after we slaughtered the warriors attacking us. One player talked about killing them and take the remaining adult females as slaves. We other in the party just said flat no.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;914104I know I've been in situations where I've thought through a line of consequences for something but chose not to implement them in game because it didn't feel right for that particular group of players.

Because they were worthless, lazy shitbags!

Ok, yeah I get your point, especially about lazy writing, lazy plotting, lazy worldbuilding, etc... it's practically a dog whistle now for "this person is a closet IST."  It's a lazy criticism.

But take the case of Gronan coming over for a game of Tractics.  I propose we play a game using only 25% of the Tractics rules, so we get something like this...
Gronan: Why are you throwing out the rest of the rules?
Me: I don't want to bother with them.
Gronan: Why not play Game-X, then, it has hardly any rules.
Me: I know Tractics, I don't want to bother with learning another game.
Gronan: You're a lazy fuck, you know that?
Me: and your point is?  Beer's in the fridge.

Note: I don't play Tractics or live in the same state as Gronan and we all know if there is beer in the fridge, that's all the conversation that would be needed, this is just an example.

Lazy isn't always a personal or racial slur.  Sometimes is just means you can't be arsed to do something to it's fullest extent, again, which is everyone's right to do sometimes.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914102I wasn't referring to anyone in general, only the habit of ignoring extended consequences in a game setting because it takes time, consideration and forethought to sometimes work these thing out.

But sometimes people ignore things not because it takes time, consideration, and forethought, but because they don't want the that thing. The reason I don't quilt is not because I am too lazy to be a quilter. The reason I don't watch Nascar is not because I'm too lazy to sit on my sofa and watch Nascar. I don't do those things because I don't want those things. Even if doing those things took almost no time, consideration, or forethought I still wouldn't do those things. It's not laziness it is lack of interest or active dislike.

That, I think, is the distinction Brendan was pointing out.

Of course if you want to attribute my not doing those things to my being lazy, I'm not going to be offended. But if you say it other than in jest I am likely to think that you don't have quite enough sandwiches packed in your picnic basket.

Quote from: Bren;914110...I don't watch Nascar...

Well you've got that going for you.

Which is nice.

Quote from: Omega;914106One reason for putting this sort of stuff in is it emphasizes that this is a world and not just a shooting gallery for the PCs to mindlessly go on killing sprees through. Just like the innkeeper has a wife and kids. World in motion.

And its a simmilar dilemma in more modern setting games like Vampire which can put even more severe moral screws on the PCs.

This is how I see it. And this is how I run it. But I don't see it as "putting the moral screws on people". See, if you're *good* [Edit: If your PC IS GOOD that is], you probably have little desire or reason to go around killing things that aren't an actual threat to you. Now there are *always* circumstances that could change this generalization - like "well all the Goblin kids have knives and they've been taught to fight-fight-fight for survival purposes." but then that breaks the "threat to you clause". AND EVEN THEN - it might be trivial for the PC's to still not kill them. Being Good means you're Good. If you have to justify why you're killing things that aren't really threats to you or your own, in the immediacy of the present moment, well then you're probably not as "Good" as you think you are.

If you are playing a PC that *wants* to do that kinda stuff - go for it. Just don't pretend because you scrawled LG on your character sheet that you are, in fact Lawful and Good (depending on the circumstances). The moral screws are the fact that the Alignment system even exists as some finger-wagging indicator for the DM to go meta and tell someone how they should be playing because of two words written on their paper. For some Classes it matters - those who serve some entity that truly are agents of a given Ethical/Moral principle. But for most characters? The only effects that I need make happen are the social ramifications.

If there is a value at all to having alignment outside of some divine/infernal power's mandate - it's purely for ego-stroking. That's why I find it useless. Just play your fucking character. If you're a murderous asstard that believes they're really a pious Lawful Good adventurer, then a DM worth their salt will let you know in-game that this is what happens to murderous asstards that falsely believe that of themselves. And ONE of those options might be: Absolutely Nothing. Keep on with your murderous self (just don't let too many people catch on)

"Do Goblin children scream in the woods when they die?"

Depends how fast and clean you take their heads off.

Quote from: AaronBrown99;914111Well you've got that going for you.

Which is nice.

Funny story. Not all that funny, but its an RPG forum not a comedy club.

So my wife and I just got back from vacation. We decided to take a road trip to go back to Eureka Springs, AR and ride the dinner train like we did on our honeymoon. That's not the funny part though.

So we're driving across the south and we get tired and end up stopping for the night in Oxford, Alabama. So the next morning, my wife checks her phone to see is there anything to see or do nearby. Turns out Oxford is right next to Talladega Speedway and the International Motorsports Hall of Fame. So we go to the museum and take the tour around the track and everything, despite the fact that neither one of us watches or follows car racing.

So here's the funny part. We both had a lot of fun....


...But I'm still not watching Nascar.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914109Because they were worthless, lazy shitbags!

Ok, yeah I get your point, especially about lazy writing, lazy plotting, lazy worldbuilding, etc... it's practically a dog whistle now for "this person is a closet IST."  It's a lazy criticism.

But take the case of Gronan coming over for a game of Tractics.  I propose we play a game using only 25% of the Tractics rules, so we get something like this...
Gronan: Why are you throwing out the rest of the rules?
Me: I don't want to bother with them.
Gronan: Why not play Game-X, then, it has hardly any rules.
Me: I know Tractics, I don't want to bother with learning another game.
Gronan: You're a lazy fuck, you know that?
Me: and your point is?  Beer's in the fridge.

Note: I don't play Tractics or live in the same state as Gronan and we all know if there is beer in the fridge, that's all the conversation that would be needed, this is just an example.

Lazy isn't always a personal or racial slur.  Sometimes is just means you can't be arsed to do something to it's fullest extent, again, which is everyone's right to do sometimes.

Note I haven't played Tractics, but I think there is a difference between that and ignoring potential consequences a roleplaying. But using a game I like, like Axis and Allies, I think I could still see someone junking 25% of the rules, not because they are lazy but because they find the game plays better without them. Not playing out consequences of players breaking the law or murdering people isn't taking out 25% of the rules of roleplaying. It is a different animal I think.  

But in your example, that is being lazy, because your saying to Gronan the whole reason you don't want to use the rules is you can't be bothered. So in that case, yeah it is laziness. Also in that case, Gronan's just busting your chops.

I am not saying laziness is never a factor, but with that particular claim, I think the motivation really does matter. But two friends calling each other lazy fucks, is different from calling a habit or approach in general lazy (which I would file under the 'lazy writing' criticism).

Just to be clear here, I am not saying lazy is being used as a slur or offensive. If someone wants to call me lazy, I don't care. But if I think it doesn't fit, I am going say so. It just seems like a really inaccurate assessment to me. And like I said before it also feels like a cheap way to get someone to agree with your way of doing things. Here I see nothing inherently lazy in an approach to play that avoids playing out consequences. For it to be lazy, it would need to be because the GM doesn't want to put the time and effort in. For me, if someone is investing 5-10 hours of prep time a week on other things, I have a hard time saying laziness is the reason they are not putting these kinds of consequences into their games.

Personally I love consequences in my games. I am a big fan of how much engaging developments that can produce in play. And I like worlds that feel concrete and consistent. So if a GM puts thought into that, I think it is good. I just wouldn't call it laziness if they didn't unless it was clearly a product of sloth because I've consciously chose not to include that stuff for plenty of other reasons.

Quote from: Bren;914119We decided to take a road trip to go back to Eureka Springs, AR and ride the dinner train like we did on our honeymoon. That's not the funny part though.

You sure about that?

Quote from: Bren;914110But sometimes people ignore things not because it takes time, consideration, and forethought, but because they don't want the that thing. The reason I don't quilt is not because I am too lazy to be a quilter. The reason I don't watch Nascar is not because I'm too lazy to sit on my sofa and watch Nascar. I don't do those things because I don't want those things. Even if doing those things took almost no time, consideration, or forethought I still wouldn't do those things. It's not laziness it is lack of interest or active dislike.

That, I think, is the distinction Brendan was pointing out.

Of course if you want to attribute my not doing those things to my being lazy, I'm not going to be offended. But if you say it other than in jest I am likely to think that you don't have quite enough sandwiches packed in your picnic basket.

I agree. I mentioned up-thread other areas groups might gloss over. Specifically I mentioned sex. Now, some people enjoy role-playing sex. Others simply might say, "The farmer's daughter takes you up to her room for the night. Next morning..." Is a group or DM lazy if they simply do a fade to black on sex instead of having vigorous rules with medical, emotional and moral consequences to it? Not at all. It means it's not something they are interested in. It might mean it's a game with a younger player and perhaps inappropriate. Laziness need not factor into such a decision.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;914104If that is why the person is not including extended consequences, I would agree it is lazy. But if it is simply because they don't want to include it, I wouldn't call it lazy. If they are there for a more Rambo-style of play. Or if the GM simply wants to make things easier for the players. I know I've been in situations where I've thought through a line of consequences for something but chose not to implement them in game because it didn't feel right for that particular group of players.

Sure, there are many reasons I imagine. I had planned for a princess to be.. well.. deflowered by some bad guys in one game long ago. It would serve to explain the "Kill them all!" order given by the king afterward towards the nation of the assailants. When at the last moment a guy asked to bring his girlfriend to play, I changed the idea - feeling it would in most likelihood offend her. You gotta be flexible. (point of fact the assailants were disguised agents of an evil Warlock, stirring up trouble between the two nations to cover his vile plans... buwaah ha ha ha ha ha ha)