(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927312200316616754/1323673646828359782/IMG_7380.png?ex=67755ea6&is=67740d26&hm=bf5a8f13eab80f7df5d77163f0d5b11e30b5fd06e5502f1fe8b3c987f14b8470&)
what do you think?
Unexpected directions take the game into unknown places which can be fun as long as it doesn't become ridiculous. Of course games can meander, you are dealing with thinking individuals, hopefully, and seeing what players can come up with is half the fun. This is why I always have a bunch of 3x5 cards handy to steer things back if they wander too far into a pointless direction, otherwise, I adjust to their decisions. Crossing arms in an X, really?
If the person "doesn't have to explain why the content is objectionable," how the fuck is it possible to "set the scene right"? This reminds me of arguments with petulant teenage girls: you ask them what's wrong, they say "Nothing!" when they're obviously irritated about something, but they expect a guy to read their mind and get even more pissed off when he can't do that. Of course, modern D & D seems to be pitched at petulant teenage girls as a market, so maybe that's on purpose.
I really don't get it.
How is a hand gesture or a code word better than simply talking to the other people at the table?
We actually had something like that, it turns out one of my players id REALLY freaked out by spiders.
I had a significant encounter with giants spiders, as I described the webbing he said "wait, I hope there aren't spiders, I don't deal with them" so I told them to go elsewhere until I figure out something else. Took all of 10 seconds to resolve.
What will all these extra steps add? you gesture, than the GM has to ask what's the problem or guess it, it turns to a whole thing with zero added benefit.
Even from a pragmatic angle, what's there to gain?
Quote from: a_wanderer on December 31, 2024, 11:25:28 AMI really don't get it.
How is a hand gesture or a code word better than simply talking to the other people at the table?
We actually had something like that, it turns out one of my players id REALLY freaked out by spiders.
I had a significant encounter with giants spiders, as I described the webbing he said "wait, I hope there aren't spiders, I don't deal with them" so I told them to go elsewhere until I figure out something else. Took all of 10 seconds to resolve.
What will all these extra steps add? you gesture, than the GM has to ask what's the problem or guess it, it turns to a whole thing with zero added benefit.
Even from a pragmatic angle, what's there to gain?
Was this player playing Dirk Blackpool?
Quote from: a_wanderer on December 31, 2024, 11:25:28 AMEven from a pragmatic angle, what's there to gain?
Control. The inclusion of this gives mentally and emotionally stunted aspiring karens the ability to control the DMs game, no questions asked.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on December 31, 2024, 12:22:04 PMQuote from: a_wanderer on December 31, 2024, 11:25:28 AMI really don't get it.
How is a hand gesture or a code word better than simply talking to the other people at the table?
We actually had something like that, it turns out one of my players id REALLY freaked out by spiders.
I had a significant encounter with giants spiders, as I described the webbing he said "wait, I hope there aren't spiders, I don't deal with them" so I told them to go elsewhere until I figure out something else. Took all of 10 seconds to resolve.
What will all these extra steps add? you gesture, than the GM has to ask what's the problem or guess it, it turns to a whole thing with zero added benefit.
Even from a pragmatic angle, what's there to gain?
Was this player playing Dirk Blackpool?
😂
I doubt he knows the name, but come to think of it, his current character shares some similarities
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on December 31, 2024, 12:26:24 PMControl. The inclusion of this gives mentally and emotionally stunted aspiring karens the ability to control the DMs game, no questions asked.
That's... messed up
The Babylon Bee caught wind of this and made a video:
Woke Dungeons And Dragons (https://babylonbee.com/video/woke-dungeons-and-dragons)
Not this crap again...if you're so weak that you can't handle a typical D&D session, you should probably seek help and get some medication.
Quote from: Brad on December 31, 2024, 12:43:27 PMNot this crap again...if you're so weak that you can't handle a typical D&D session, you should probably seek help and get some medication.
And you certainly shouldn't be pretending to be something else, like an elf, without qualified medical supervision.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 31, 2024, 12:46:01 PMQuote from: Brad on December 31, 2024, 12:43:27 PMNot this crap again...if you're so weak that you can't handle a typical D&D session, you should probably seek help and get some medication.
And you certainly shouldn't be pretending to be something else, like an elf, without qualified medical supervision.
This. All of the above.
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on December 31, 2024, 12:34:18 PMQuote from: a_wanderer on December 31, 2024, 12:31:00 PMThat's... messed up
Which is why you shouldn't let them.
LOL, I'm very chill in general but no one gets to sit at our table and pull some passive agressive crap, and if they sit it won't be for long...
Quote from: a_wanderer on December 31, 2024, 01:20:36 PMLOL, I'm very chill in general but no one gets to sit at our table and pull some passive agressive crap, and if they sit it won't be for long...
Good man.
Quote from: antonioGUAK on December 31, 2024, 10:45:05 AM(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927312200316616754/1323673646828359782/IMG_7380.png?ex=67755ea6&is=67740d26&hm=bf5a8f13eab80f7df5d77163f0d5b11e30b5fd06e5502f1fe8b3c987f14b8470&)
what do you think?
I'll be the first to say that more than a few D&D players can be socially deaf and awkward. Having said that, this is the socially deaf and awkward solution. X cards and hand signals are passive aggressive nonsense, and I hear come from sexual bondage terminology.
The only thing I agree with is that if a player is uncomfortable they should let the group know. Be a friggin adult and actually communicate with the group.
And accept that the group may not want to cater to your particular quirk, and you may be asked to deal with it or leave. I'm not put on this earth to play Therapist at the gaming table.
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on December 31, 2024, 12:26:24 PMQuote from: a_wanderer on December 31, 2024, 11:25:28 AMEven from a pragmatic angle, what's there to gain?
Control. The inclusion of this gives mentally and emotionally stunted aspiring karens the ability to control the DMs game, no questions asked.
↑↑↑
This. This is a case of socially maldajusted people trying to get on the top of the socially maladjusted hierarchy.
You know, it's not so bad, my group's been doing just that for years and I just never put two and two together. Our signal phase is, "Fuck You Dave."
Quote from: https://theangrygm.com/office-hours-personal-boundaries/There is strong, documented evidence that giving people an implied promise of safety from discomfort combined with the idea that exposure to discomfort constitutes actual, tangible harm, does deep psychological damage to people. It turns them brittle. It renders them delicate and unable to cope with stressors.
Quote from: David Johansen on December 31, 2024, 01:32:47 PMYou know, it's not so bad, my group's been doing just that for years and I just never put two and two together. Our signal phase is, "Fuck You Dave."
Many such cases. as it should be
Millennials are so fucking weak.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 31, 2024, 01:26:33 PMQuote from: antonioGUAK on December 31, 2024, 10:45:05 AM(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927312200316616754/1323673646828359782/IMG_7380.png?ex=67755ea6&is=67740d26&hm=bf5a8f13eab80f7df5d77163f0d5b11e30b5fd06e5502f1fe8b3c987f14b8470&)
what do you think?
I'll be the first to say that more than a few D&D players can be socially deaf and awkward. Having said that, this is the socially deaf and awkward solution. X cards and hand signals are passive aggressive nonsense, and I hear come from sexual bondage terminology.
The only thing I agree with is that if a player is uncomfortable they should let the group know. Be a friggin adult and actually communicate with the group.
And accept that the group may not want to cater to your particular quirk, and you may be asked to deal with it or leave. I'm not put on this earth to play Therapist at the gaming table.
I agree, BDSM came to mind immediately when I read that quote.
This is the type of thing people do when they're not friends. I only play RPGs with my friends.
Quote from: antonioGUAK on December 31, 2024, 10:45:05 AMwhat do you think?
If someone in my game makes a gesture like an X or say "Stop" because they cannot handle the material I am going to make a gesture of my own.
Its the gesture of me poiting to the door and me telling them to get lost.
Quote from: Brad on December 31, 2024, 12:43:27 PMNot this crap again...if you're so weak that you can't handle a typical D&D session, you should probably seek help and get some medication.
This. It would be great if everyone could play games but the reality is, some people simply can't handle them.
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 31, 2024, 04:51:03 PMMillennials are so fucking weak.
No Shit. I saw someone on the big purple complaining about the tomb of horrors saying that it is unfair and it is only playable if the DM gives the players a break and make it less leathal. I saw someone talking about playing Tomb or Horror using 5e and they said while characters died, they were able to be reserected and that there were no "permanent deaths".
Players these days are soft.
Quote from: GhostNinja on December 31, 2024, 05:29:37 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on December 31, 2024, 04:51:03 PMMillennials are so fucking weak.
No Shit. I saw someone on the big purple complaining about the tomb of horrors saying that it is unfair and it is only playable if the DM gives the players a break and make it less leathal. I saw someone talking about playing Tomb or Horror using 5e and they said while characters died, they were able to be reserected and that there were no "permanent deaths".
Players these days are soft.
Heh.
The Tomb of Temporary Setbacks
The biggest problem with "safety tools" is that they are not safe at all.
If you triggered someone at the table, the damage is already done. Stopping the game ruins everyone's experience. It's disruptive and stinks of attention-grabbing derailment.
I've seen people bring this shit to a con game and it never gets used. No one is going to cause a scene in pubic with strangers. Well, most people won't anyways.
The only thing that works is having a discussion before play. Better yet, have some idea of what terrible things will be in the game and just be upfront about it. Then players can decide to exit stage left and save everyone the fucking agony of turning a game into a high-drama tv show.
If you're triggered by violence, or a drunk dwarf trying to pick up a barmaid, or monsters, or blood, or dark confined spaces, what in the fucking hell are you doing playing D&D?
Quote from: Wisithir on December 31, 2024, 01:34:38 PMQuote from: https://theangrygm.com/office-hours-personal-boundaries/There is strong, documented evidence that giving people an implied promise of safety from discomfort combined with the idea that exposure to discomfort constitutes actual, tangible harm, does deep psychological damage to people. It turns them brittle. It renders them delicate and unable to cope with stressors.
The bolded part is the key problem.
There's nothing wrong with making a game comfortable (i.e. free from discomfort). It's a fucking game, not therapy or military training. I have no problem with people playing horror games of confronting deep fears, but I also have no problem with playing a game that's just easy happy fun.
The converse is this:
Quote from: GhostNinja on December 31, 2024, 05:29:37 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on December 31, 2024, 04:51:03 PMMillennials are so fucking weak.
No Shit. I saw someone on the big purple complaining about the tomb of horrors saying that it is unfair and it is only playable if the DM gives the players a break and make it less leathal. I saw someone talking about playing Tomb or Horror using 5e and they said while characters died, they were able to be reserected and that there were no "permanent deaths".
Players these days are soft.
So, they're wrong to say that it's not playable - but they're also not wrong to prefer a lower-lethality D&D.
I play high-lethality Call of Cthulhu, but that doesn't mean that I'm tougher than someone who plays a different RPG. It's just a different preference of how to have fun. Just like watching action movies doesn't mean that someone is really a tough guy.
I used to think such things would be useful at a convention but really they should have special non offensive games available for fragile people. Don't force normal people to comply.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 31, 2024, 06:53:57 PMThe Tomb of Temporary Setbacks
So this is the future we have arrived at: all games are now variants of Toon?
Quote from: jhkim on December 31, 2024, 08:49:37 PMSo, they're wrong to say that it's not playable - but they're also not wrong to prefer a lower-lethality D&D.
I play high-lethality Call of Cthulhu, but that doesn't mean that I'm tougher than someone who plays a different RPG. It's just a different preference of how to have fun. Just like watching action movies doesn't mean that someone is really a tough guy.
Someone who can't bear to watch action movies because it will traumatise him is certainly not a tough guy.
Quote from: jhkim on December 31, 2024, 08:49:37 PMQuote from: GhostNinja on December 31, 2024, 05:29:37 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on December 31, 2024, 04:51:03 PMMillennials are so fucking weak.
No Shit. I saw someone on the big purple complaining about the tomb of horrors saying that it is unfair and it is only playable if the DM gives the players a break and make it less leathal. I saw someone talking about playing Tomb or Horror using 5e and they said while characters died, they were able to be reserected and that there were no "permanent deaths".
Players these days are soft.
So, they're wrong to say that it's not playable - but they're also not wrong to prefer a lower-lethality D&D.
I play high-lethality Call of Cthulhu, but that doesn't mean that I'm tougher than someone who plays a different RPG. It's just a different preference of how to have fun. Just like watching action movies doesn't mean that someone is really a tough guy.
There's probably an interesting conversation to be had about the pros and cons of higher lethality, though this might not be the venue. The short version is that upping the lethality can invest your players more in the game and make it more exciting, but too-high lethality can disinvest them and make the game boring.
Personally, I have no issues with characters dying. I actually look forward to it, since I'm one of those annoying players that likes to frequently change characters. That said, Tomb of Horrors represents a style of gaming I have zero interest in.
Quote from: jhkim on December 31, 2024, 08:49:37 PMQuote from: Wisithir on December 31, 2024, 01:34:38 PMQuote from: https://theangrygm.com/office-hours-personal-boundaries/There is strong, documented evidence that giving people an implied promise of safety from discomfort combined with the idea that exposure to discomfort constitutes actual, tangible harm, does deep psychological damage to people. It turns them brittle. It renders them delicate and unable to cope with stressors.
The bolded part is the key problem.
There's nothing wrong with making a game comfortable (i.e. free from discomfort). It's a fucking game, not therapy or military training. I have no problem with people playing horror games of confronting deep fears, but I also have no problem with playing a game that's just easy happy fun.
The converse is this:
Quote from: GhostNinja on December 31, 2024, 05:29:37 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on December 31, 2024, 04:51:03 PMMillennials are so fucking weak.
No Shit. I saw someone on the big purple complaining about the tomb of horrors saying that it is unfair and it is only playable if the DM gives the players a break and make it less leathal. I saw someone talking about playing Tomb or Horror using 5e and they said while characters died, they were able to be reserected and that there were no "permanent deaths".
Players these days are soft.
So, they're wrong to say that it's not playable - but they're also not wrong to prefer a lower-lethality D&D.
I play high-lethality Call of Cthulhu, but that doesn't mean that I'm tougher than someone who plays a different RPG. It's just a different preference of how to have fun. Just like watching action movies doesn't mean that someone is really a tough guy.
Playing Tomb of Horrors and complaining that it's too lethal means either the complainer is ignorant of the history of the module. (A possibility, the thing is decades old and not everyone knows the Deep Lore of D&D) or they're missing the fucking point of the module that Gary wrote to explicitly and deliberatley be lethal as a challenge to his more experienced players.
It's like playing Star Wars and complaining there's too much space opera.
Quote from: a_wanderer on December 31, 2024, 11:25:28 AMI really don't get it.
How is a hand gesture or a code word better than simply talking to the other people at the table?
We actually had something like that, it turns out one of my players id REALLY freaked out by spiders.
I had a significant encounter with giants spiders, as I described the webbing he said "wait, I hope there aren't spiders, I don't deal with them" so I told them to go elsewhere until I figure out something else. Took all of 10 seconds to resolve.
This is the mature way to handle things. If we have real issues, we handle them like adults. These "trigger" warnings and signaling are for people who can't. A gaming group is a social group, and you get to know each other and develop bonds, and understand each other on a human level, and thus, you learn to know each other's issues among the other things, and you play with respect for one another as individuals. These other methods are about being "offended" at anything that people looking to be offended as a soapbox opportunity find objectionable.
Quote from: jhkim on December 31, 2024, 08:49:37 PMQuote from: Wisithir on December 31, 2024, 01:34:38 PMQuote from: https://theangrygm.com/office-hours-personal-boundaries/There is strong, documented evidence that giving people an implied promise of safety from discomfort combined with the idea that exposure to discomfort constitutes actual, tangible harm, does deep psychological damage to people. It turns them brittle. It renders them delicate and unable to cope with stressors.
The bolded part is the key problem.
There's nothing wrong with making a game comfortable (i.e. free from discomfort). It's a fucking game, not therapy or military training. I have no problem with people playing horror games of confronting deep fears, but I also have no problem with playing a game that's just easy happy fun.
The converse is this:
Quote from: GhostNinja on December 31, 2024, 05:29:37 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on December 31, 2024, 04:51:03 PMMillennials are so fucking weak.
No Shit. I saw someone on the big purple complaining about the tomb of horrors saying that it is unfair and it is only playable if the DM gives the players a break and make it less leathal. I saw someone talking about playing Tomb or Horror using 5e and they said while characters died, they were able to be reserected and that there were no "permanent deaths".
Players these days are soft.
So, they're wrong to say that it's not playable - but they're also not wrong to prefer a lower-lethality D&D.
I play high-lethality Call of Cthulhu, but that doesn't mean that I'm tougher than someone who plays a different RPG. It's just a different preference of how to have fun. Just like watching action movies doesn't mean that someone is really a tough guy.
False dichotomy:
Snowflakes being so fragile as to not be able to play elfgames doesn't mean those who can are "tough guys" but they ARE tougher than the snowflakes.
In this case we ARE talking about a spectrum, the toughness spectrum, on the extreme low end of the bell curve you have the snowflakes, on the extreme high end we have the REAL tough guys. In between we have most people at the center.
So, if you can't bear to watch an action movie because it makes you uncomfortable or "triggers" you then you're NOT tough, and I, by being able to do what you can't I'm tougher than you, which doesn't mean I'm a "Tough Guy".
These are games. None of these things is actually happening. Nothing here requires that someone be tough. All it requires is the basic ability to separate fantasy from reality.
Quote from: yosemitemike on January 01, 2025, 02:36:34 AMAll it requires is the basic ability to separate fantasy from reality.
Sadly, this is not a universal skill.
Quote from: yosemitemike on January 01, 2025, 02:36:34 AMThese are games. None of these things is actually happening. Nothing here requires that someone be tough. All it requires is the basic ability to separate fantasy from reality.
I believe that this is crux of the issue. I work on a college campus and am the 'D&D Guy' (I have even been embarrassed by being called this at a couple of panel events, there is no escape for me) and to this end a lot of faculty and students approach me about gaming and every so often they are included in a game after I try to decide what I am getting into. I also have non-campus people in the group because everyone can contribute and I am hardly a snob and I like that everyone contributes and different backgrounds bring different outlooks to the game and we can do other things together, like going to the D&D movie as a group. I have sat in on other campus gaming groups and usually bail after a few minutes when I hear the concerns come out because life, it just isn't a fair thing and gaming is escapism for all at the table, not drama club, and some individuals just cannot separate fantasy from reality to save their lives or the psyches of those around them. Therefore they try to control the table to their own satisfaction and are best avoided.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 31, 2024, 06:53:57 PMHeh.
The Tomb of Temporary Setbacks
Basically that's what they want. :)
Quote from: jhkim on December 31, 2024, 08:49:37 PMSo, they're wrong to say that it's not playable - but they're also not wrong to prefer a lower-lethality D&D.
I play high-lethality Call of Cthulhu, but that doesn't mean that I'm tougher than someone who plays a different RPG. It's just a different preference of how to have fun. Just like watching action movies doesn't mean that someone is really a tough guy.
Yes. Games without the possibility of getting hurt are dead are pointless. If you want to write a story with a bunch of friends, put away your books and dice, grab a laptop and write.
The danger is what makes it more exciting. 5e (Tabletop MMORPG) makes it so characters are almost impossible to die and can easily be reencarnated. Characters are superheros at 1st level. That's boring.
Being a level 1 character who has to decide "yes we should go this way or no we shouldn't" or whether to fight creatures or not makes it interesting. Characters become better from these experiences. That's the way Gygax did it.
I believe Gygax up to his death I believe played Castles and Crusades (much like the older D&D and AD&D) and not the WOTC versions of D&D that were put out. If he were alive I doubt he would see D&D in 5e. WOTC has turned it into an entirely different game.
That's why I love the OSR and playing games like Old School Essentials because I feel like I am playing D&D like I did when I first started.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 31, 2024, 10:47:13 PMThere's probably an interesting conversation to be had about the pros and cons of higher lethality, though this might not be the venue. The short version is that upping the lethality can invest your players more in the game and make it more exciting, but too-high lethality can disinvest them and make the game boring.
Personally, I have no issues with characters dying. I actually look forward to it, since I'm one of those annoying players that likes to frequently change characters. That said, Tomb of Horrors represents a style of gaming I have zero interest in.
I get this myself. I agree with you on more lethality investing your players in the game and yes, the Tomb of Horrors is a whole different things and doesn't represent a lot of the adventures out there.
The reason I think players are becoming more soft is because games (many of which are new gamers) who have a fit if their character dies and as a DM you have to do what you can to apease them.
For me, I will just kick the player out and find someone else. I don't want to put up with that. Games are suposed to be fun for both the players and the GM/DM. I am not changing my game for one troublemaker.
If a DM ever brought out X cards at a table I was at, I'd say they were triggering to me and ask for them not to be used. It would be hypocritical to continue using them after that.
Quote from: GhostNinja on January 01, 2025, 11:32:58 AMQuote from: jhkim on December 31, 2024, 08:49:37 PMSo, they're wrong to say that it's not playable - but they're also not wrong to prefer a lower-lethality D&D.
I play high-lethality Call of Cthulhu, but that doesn't mean that I'm tougher than someone who plays a different RPG. It's just a different preference of how to have fun. Just like watching action movies doesn't mean that someone is really a tough guy.
Yes. Games without the possibility of getting hurt are dead are pointless. If you want to write a story with a bunch of friends, put away your books and dice, grab a laptop and write.
I agree, but the stakes aren't always binary life or death.
I think what we're railing against is the idea of a "safe" adventure where the consequences for failure are minimal and players can bumble through without worrying that their character might get dead. That's not fun and not in the spirit of D&D. The whole idea is that players make choices, and those choices have appropriate consequences. That's the "engine" of role playing games.
Quote from: Krazz on January 01, 2025, 02:16:28 PMIf a DM ever brought out X cards at a table I was at, I'd say they were triggering to me and ask for them not to be used. It would be hypocritical to continue using them after that.
Great idea. Turn their bullshit back on them. People have been trying to push safety tools on the hobby and it has failed because they DO NOT WORK. Now they are trying to use D&D 5e as a conduit to get them into the hobby. Hopefully people will continue to ignore them and not intergrate them into their games.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 01, 2025, 02:21:49 PMI agree, but the stakes aren't always binary life or death.
I think what we're railing against is the idea of a "safe" adventure where the consequences for failure are minimal and players can bumble through without worrying that their character might get dead. That's not fun and not in the spirit of D&D. The whole idea is that players make choices, and those choices have appropriate consequences. That's the "engine" of role playing games.
Yeah, it's not just life or death. I agree with what you say that if a player can go through an adventure and there are no consequences either way, that's just no fun. You might as well be writing a story, not playing a game and that is not D&D as any of us who have been playing it would recognize.
Quote from: yosemitemike on January 01, 2025, 02:36:34 AMThese are games. None of these things is actually happening. Nothing here requires that someone be tough. All it requires is the basic ability to separate fantasy from reality.
Separating fantasy from reality doesn't mean that someone will necessarily
enjoy a particular fantasy. Someone can perfectly well understand that watching people be tortured in a gory horror film is fantasy, but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily going to enjoy watching it.
This contrary to GeekyBugle's claim of a spectrum...
Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 31, 2024, 11:32:56 PMIn this case we ARE talking about a spectrum, the toughness spectrum, on the extreme low end of the bell curve you have the snowflakes, on the extreme high end we have the REAL tough guys. In between we have most people at the center.
So, if you can't bear to watch an action movie because it makes you uncomfortable or "triggers" you then you're NOT tough, and I, by being able to do what you can't I'm tougher than you, which doesn't mean I'm a "Tough Guy".
Someone's taste in fiction is not any sign of real-life toughness.
In real life, no one (outside of psychopaths) enjoys seeing torture, or enjoys seeing people they know get killed. That some people can enjoy it in horror movies and action movies isn't a sign of their toughness in real life. It's just that they have a different taste in fiction.
For example, my stepdaughter is a big fan of gory movies. She loves The Terrifier films, say. My son hates horror movies. He finds the gory stuff gross and pointless. Both of those are just taste in fiction - it's completely unrelated to real life toughness.
There are plenty of real-life combat veterans who don't enjoy gory movies. That isn't a sign that they're weak. It's that they know that real life gore isn't enjoyable.
Quote from: jhkim on January 01, 2025, 04:57:07 PMThere are plenty of real-life combat veterans who don't enjoy gory movies. That isn't a sign that they're weak. It's that they know that real life gore isn't enjoyable.
There are? You've personally surveyed them and determined their motives? See, this is the bullshit that gets slipped in when he thinks there is no one watching carefully.
There are many reasons that someone/anyone might not like gory movies. You have nothing, outside of maybe a handful anecdotes (and, as I know how flimsy your understanding of the scientific method is, I'll remind you that the plural of anecdote is not data), to suggest that the reason any particular veteran doesn't like gore in movies is related to their perception of real life gore. YOU are the person who cannot separate fiction from reality, not these hypothetical veterans.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 01, 2025, 05:12:33 PMQuote from: jhkim on January 01, 2025, 04:57:07 PMThere are plenty of real-life combat veterans who don't enjoy gory movies. That isn't a sign that they're weak. It's that they know that real life gore isn't enjoyable.
There are? You've personally surveyed them and determined their motives? See, this is the bullshit that gets slipped in when he thinks there is no one watching carefully.
There are many reasons that someone/anyone might not like gory movies. You have nothing, outside of maybe a handful anecdotes (and, as I know how flimsy your understanding of the scientific method is, I'll remind you that the plural of anecdote is not data), to suggest that the reason any particular veteran doesn't like gore in movies is related to their perception of real life gore. YOU are the person who cannot separate fiction from reality, not these hypothetical veterans.
I would have to say that people are people. My uncle psychologically tortured me with animal parts and other grisly things in my early youth (he was a combat veteran from the Korean war and he is pretty far out there, still) in addition when I was 8 years old I saw a toddler get its head splattered inside a windshield when a bee caused a driver to crash and the child was standing on the passenger's lap when the driver hit a truck's bumper. Then hunting with dad for deer and elk and his grisly sense of humor (my uncle's brother). Then teaching English overseas in a jungle environment for two years and meeting cannibals and seeing a lot of pointless deaths. I have a morbid sense of humor and I hang out with combat vets who have seen worse than me. We all watch gory movie, although our actual gaming is pretty mellow for the most part, although combat can get a little GWAR-ish. Everyone is different. I am not saying that every combat vet has seen grisly stuff, I am not saying none like gory movies or that all do, I am saying that we all react to life differently.
Quote from: GhostNinja on January 01, 2025, 11:32:58 AMI believe Gygax up to his death I believe played Castles and Crusades (much like the older D&D and AD&D) and not the WOTC versions of D&D that were put out.
Gygax didn't run Castles & Crusades, although he did have some of his adventures published under that system (and he had some published under the d20 System, too). However, even then he wrote his material in either AD&D or Lejendary Adventures format, and the staff at Troll Lord Games converted it to C&C stats, et cetera. (TLG has always had some editing issues, but this caused even more editing problems in some published material; for example, the conversion of the Lejendary Adventures money system to C&C in the Yggsburgh setting book was all sorts of screwed up.) FWIW, Rob Kuntz took the same approach with his material that was published for C&C: he wrote it in AD&D terms and it was converted to C&C for publication.
Gary ran his Lejendary Adventures RPG, and that's where his interest was focused. In his later years he was *WAY* more interested in LA than in D&D (which, after all, was a game owned by another company at that point). He wasn't against making some money by publishing material for C&C, though (e.g., the "Castle Zagyg" effort for C&C which fell apart after his passing).
He did occasionally run D&D for people: usually original D&D with Castle Greyhawk. But it wasn't his main thing. Like I said, LA was his thing. He was also excited about a sci-fi variant of his LA system that he was working on. And he was excited about a board game he designed called
King of England, King of France (which Troll Lord Games was going to publish, but all of the plans with TLG fell apart after he passed -- I should note that it wasn't TLG's doing that brought all those projects to a halt).
Quote from: bat on January 01, 2025, 07:17:06 PMWe all watch gory movie, although our actual gaming is pretty mellow for the most part, although combat can get a little GWAR-ish. Everyone is different. I am not saying that every combat vet has seen grisly stuff, I am not saying none like gory movies or that all do, I am saying that we all react to life differently.
I agree with this. If I implied anything differently, it was a failure of communication.
My primary point was that someone's taste in movies or in fantasy gaming isn't related to how tough they are in real life.
If someone who doesn't like playing RPG adventures where it's expected that PCs will die, that's not a real-life weakness. It's a difference in taste.
Quote from: jhkim on January 01, 2025, 07:38:04 PMIf someone who doesn't like playing RPG adventures where it's expected that PCs will die, that's not a real-life weakness. It's a difference in taste.
Sure, but that's NOT D&D. There are plenty of games where death is highly unlikely, and perhaps even impossible, but if there's no possibly of death, that's not pulp or swords and sorcery. Like I sure as hell wouldn't expect my character to die in an Amber game, ever. The GM could make my PCs life a miserable hell, but death? That's a campaign-altering event. But D&D, like real D&D, needs PC death as a very real possibility or the entire game is undermined.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 01, 2025, 05:12:33 PMYou have nothing, outside of maybe a handful anecdotes (and, as I know how flimsy your understanding of the scientific method is, I'll remind you that the plural of anecdote is not data), to suggest that the reason any particular veteran doesn't like gore in movies is related to their perception of real life gore.
He always seem to have the perfect anecdote to back up whatever point he is trying to make at the moment. It's almost like they are tailor made for that purpose. A cynical person would think he is just making this shit up.
Quote from: Brad on January 01, 2025, 09:13:08 PMThere are plenty of games where death is highly unlikely, and perhaps even impossible, but if there's no possibly of death, that's not pulp or swords and sorcery.
Other than Elric, is there a classic sword & sorcery hero that canonically dies in action? I don't think I know of any.
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 02, 2025, 12:26:12 AMQuote from: Brad on January 01, 2025, 09:13:08 PMThere are plenty of games where death is highly unlikely, and perhaps even impossible, but if there's no possibly of death, that's not pulp or swords and sorcery.
Other than Elric, is there a classic sword & sorcery hero that canonically dies in action? I don't think I know of any.
Guaranteed character death is not a requirement. The possibility of character death IS a requirement. D&D is a game, not a story. When playing, the survival of the hero is determined in play. The character may live or die, or become injured and forced to flee, or captured, etc. Game play is open ended. Once you take certain outcomes off the table you enter the realm of story crafting rather than game play and thus, are no longer playing D&D.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on January 02, 2025, 07:39:40 AMQuote from: ForgottenF on January 02, 2025, 12:26:12 AMQuote from: Brad on January 01, 2025, 09:13:08 PMThere are plenty of games where death is highly unlikely, and perhaps even impossible, but if there's no possibly of death, that's not pulp or swords and sorcery.
Other than Elric, is there a classic sword & sorcery hero that canonically dies in action? I don't think I know of any.
Guaranteed character death is not a requirement. The possibility of character death IS a requirement. D&D is a game, not a story. When playing, the survival of the hero is determined in play. The character may live or die, or become injured and forced to flee, or captured, etc. Game play is open ended. Once you take certain outcomes off the table you enter the realm of story crafting rather than game play and thus, are no longer playing D&D.
Yeah, I get all that. But I wouldn't talk about the high lethality of old-school D&D in terms of genre emulation. It's one of several points where D&D goes in exactly the opposite direction of the fiction it takes inspiration from.
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 02, 2025, 12:23:28 PMYeah, I get all that. But I wouldn't talk about the high lethality of old-school D&D in terms of genre emulation. It's one of several points where D&D goes in exactly the opposite direction of the fiction it takes inspiration from.
Well because it's a game, not a story. REH can't kill off Conan because...then what? Iconic literary character dead, end of stories. But if my Conan clone dies in-game, I can make another one and continue playing in the campaign without any real interruption. So you're right that D&D sort of inverts this considering the source material, but you could also simply say that for every Conan there were about a million other barbarians who died or whatever.
Quote from: jhkim on January 01, 2025, 07:38:04 PMQuote from: bat on January 01, 2025, 07:17:06 PMWe all watch gory movie, although our actual gaming is pretty mellow for the most part, although combat can get a little GWAR-ish. Everyone is different. I am not saying that every combat vet has seen grisly stuff, I am not saying none like gory movies or that all do, I am saying that we all react to life differently.
I agree with this. If I implied anything differently, it was a failure of communication.
My primary point was that someone's taste in movies or in fantasy gaming isn't related to how tough they are in real life.
If someone who doesn't like playing RPG adventures where it's expected that PCs will die, that's not a real-life weakness. It's a difference in taste.
I can certainly agree with you on that, but working your analogy, the X card's introduction to D&D is like a movie theatre introducing a button that you can press when you don't like what's happening in the movie to change the script.
Just don't go to those type of movies or leave (as I did when watching 'Saving Private Ryan').
As you say, if you don't like PC's dying, play an RPG where that isn't the possibility. I think Fate 3e only allows character death if the player allows it, or something like Golden Sky Stories or Ryuutama maybe?
Quote from: ponta1010 on January 02, 2025, 04:20:30 PMQuote from: jhkim on January 01, 2025, 07:38:04 PMMy primary point was that someone's taste in movies or in fantasy gaming isn't related to how tough they are in real life.
If someone who doesn't like playing RPG adventures where it's expected that PCs will die, that's not a real-life weakness. It's a difference in taste.
I can certainly agree with you on that, but working your analogy, the X card's introduction to D&D is like a movie theatre introducing a button that you can press when you don't like what's happening in the movie to change the script.
Just don't go to those type of movies or leave (as I did when watching 'Saving Private Ryan').
That's a weird analogy to me, since I love RPGs precisely
because they let you change the script. I'd be happy to try out a button to rescript a movie, if it worked well enough.
As a non-hypothetical analogy, some people will look away or fast forward through bits of a movie if it's particularly gross or gory. I managed to sit through _Saving Private Ryan_ without walking out when I saw it in the theaters, but it bugged me and I think I looked away some. If I had first seen it at home on video, I might have fast-forwarded parts, but still watched more to see how it ended.
It seems like a purism argument that if there's a film, someone should either only watch the whole thing with no looking away or fast-forwarding, or not watch it at all. Likewise, in RPGs,
Quote from: ponta1010 on January 02, 2025, 04:20:30 PMAs you say, if you don't like PC's dying, play an RPG where that isn't the possibility. I think Fate 3e only allows character death if the player allows it, or something like Golden Sky Stories or Ryuutama maybe?
I've never felt bound to follow exactly the rules as written. If someone wants to house-rule a FATE 3E to have mechanical character death, or house-rule D&D death rules, I don't see a problem with that.
I might not like a particular house rule for myself, but if everyone in a given gaming group likes the house rule, then that's their business.
Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 2025, 06:36:05 PMQuote from: ponta1010 on January 02, 2025, 04:20:30 PMQuote from: jhkim on January 01, 2025, 07:38:04 PMMy primary point was that someone's taste in movies or in fantasy gaming isn't related to how tough they are in real life.
If someone who doesn't like playing RPG adventures where it's expected that PCs will die, that's not a real-life weakness. It's a difference in taste.
I can certainly agree with you on that, but working your analogy, the X card's introduction to D&D is like a movie theatre introducing a button that you can press when you don't like what's happening in the movie to change the script.
Just don't go to those type of movies or leave (as I did when watching 'Saving Private Ryan').
That's a weird analogy to me, since I love RPGs precisely because they let you change the script. I'd be happy to try out a button to rescript a movie, if it worked well enough.
As a non-hypothetical analogy, some people will look away or fast forward through bits of a movie if it's particularly gross or gory. I managed to sit through _Saving Private Ryan_ without walking out when I saw it in the theaters, but it bugged me and I think I looked away some. If I had first seen it at home on video, I might have fast-forwarded parts, but still watched more to see how it ended.
It seems like a purism argument that if there's a film, someone should either only watch the whole thing with no looking away or fast-forwarding, or not watch it at all. Likewise, in RPGs,
Quote from: ponta1010 on January 02, 2025, 04:20:30 PMAs you say, if you don't like PC's dying, play an RPG where that isn't the possibility. I think Fate 3e only allows character death if the player allows it, or something like Golden Sky Stories or Ryuutama maybe?
I've never felt bound to follow exactly the rules as written. If someone wants to house-rule a FATE 3E to have mechanical character death, or house-rule D&D death rules, I don't see a problem with that.
I might not like a particular house rule for myself, but if everyone in a given gaming group likes the house rule, then that's their business.
Except we're not talking about any of that. We're not discussing houserules about lethality. We're talking about a game that directly, in its rules, prescribes processes for other players to invalidate the GM's actions or adventures with no push-back or recourse. As always, you've gone off on some tangent that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Quote from: ponta1010 on January 02, 2025, 04:20:30 PMI can certainly agree with you on that, but working your analogy, the X card's introduction to D&D is like a movie theatre introducing a button that you can press when you don't like what's happening in the movie to change the script.
That's a good way to think about it, but then again look at the outrage brigade take to the streets when someone dares to make a game or movie they find "problematic". They use the hecklers veto to a ludicrous degree, which is why the only real response is to ignore them and tell them to fuck off if they try to invade your game with X cards or whatever else.
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 02, 2025, 12:26:12 AMQuote from: Brad on January 01, 2025, 09:13:08 PMThere are plenty of games where death is highly unlikely, and perhaps even impossible, but if there's no possibly of death, that's not pulp or swords and sorcery.
Other than Elric, is there a classic sword & sorcery hero that canonically dies in action? I don't think I know of any.
This question assumes every PC in the game is a "hero". The heroes
of a story are the ones that
didn't die along the way. All those other pirates, soldiers, and mercenaries that perished alongside Elric and Conan include the dead PCs.
Bran Mak Morn dies in battle and then is worshiped:
"After Bran's death, his debased people made him into a god. Part of his consciousness was preserved in a statue, and he was worshipped as the Dark Man. A cult to him even survived down through the centuries, with his idol and its cultists surfacing again in "Children of the Night," a Lovecraftian horror story set in the 1930s."
-from conan.com
Obviously not the most popular fictional hero, yet a well written one. I always liked Bran Mak Morn and Kull over Conan myself.
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 02, 2025, 12:26:12 AMOther than Elric, is there a classic sword & sorcery hero that canonically dies in action? I don't think I know of any.
Does Game of Thrones count?
Quote from: Zalman on January 03, 2025, 06:51:20 AMQuote from: ForgottenF on January 02, 2025, 12:26:12 AMQuote from: Brad on January 01, 2025, 09:13:08 PMThere are plenty of games where death is highly unlikely, and perhaps even impossible, but if there's no possibly of death, that's not pulp or swords and sorcery.
Other than Elric, is there a classic sword & sorcery hero that canonically dies in action? I don't think I know of any.
This question assumes every PC in the game is a "hero". The heroes of a story are the ones that didn't die along the way. All those other pirates, soldiers, and mercenaries that perished alongside Elric and Conan include the dead PCs.
Those pirates and mercenaries and etc weren't PCs. They were characters in a story who died because the author said so. In an old school RPG they would (arguably) be the hirelings and followers.
But I also think it's a mistake to go too far into the weeds of simulating story. That way leads to story games where they do try to write a story at the gaming table.
Quote from: bat on January 03, 2025, 11:17:10 AMBran Mak Morn dies in battle and then is worshiped:
"After Bran's death, his debased people made him into a god. Part of his consciousness was preserved in a statue, and he was worshipped as the Dark Man. A cult to him even survived down through the centuries, with his idol and its cultists surfacing again in "Children of the Night," a Lovecraftian horror story set in the 1930s."
-from conan.com (https://www.therpgsite.com///conan.com)
Fair enough. I thought I'd read all the Bran Mak Morn stories, but I either missed or forgot that bit. I asked the question out of genuine curiosity. It wasn't meant as a "gotcha".
Quote from: bat on January 03, 2025, 11:17:10 AMI always liked Bran Mak Morn and Kull over Conan myself.
Same. In my personal canon, Solomon Kane and Kull are broadly tied for best Howard characters, and then Bran Mak Morn and Conan. I haven't gotten to reading the El Borak or Steve Costigan stories yet, though.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 03, 2025, 01:53:51 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on January 02, 2025, 12:26:12 AMOther than Elric, is there a classic sword & sorcery hero that canonically dies in action? I don't think I know of any.
Does Game of Thrones count?
Genre definitions are slippery, but I would not call GOT sword and sorcery. "Political Fantasy", maybe?
Game of Thrones has limited relevance to the "what is true D&D?" conversation. It's the only narrative fiction I'm aware of where protagonists routinely die pointless deaths due to little more than misfortune, and that's really what we're talking about with high-lethality D&D. However, classic D&D does predate GOT by a long way, so you can't really argue that it was influenced by it.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 03, 2025, 02:27:24 PMQuote from: Zalman on January 03, 2025, 06:51:20 AMQuote from: ForgottenF on January 02, 2025, 12:26:12 AMQuote from: Brad on January 01, 2025, 09:13:08 PMThere are plenty of games where death is highly unlikely, and perhaps even impossible, but if there's no possibly of death, that's not pulp or swords and sorcery.
Other than Elric, is there a classic sword & sorcery hero that canonically dies in action? I don't think I know of any.
This question assumes every PC in the game is a "hero". The heroes of a story are the ones that didn't die along the way. All those other pirates, soldiers, and mercenaries that perished alongside Elric and Conan include the dead PCs.
Those pirates and mercenaries and etc weren't PCs. They were characters in a story who died because the author said so. In an old school RPG they would (arguably) be the hirelings and followers.
But I also think it's a mistake to go too far into the weeds of simulating story. That way leads to story games where they do try to write a story at the gaming table.
I agree on both points. Rather than "hero", it would probably have been clearer to say "protagonist". If you're going to analogize RPGs with prose fiction, the players may or may not be heroes, but they definitely are protagonists.
I brought this up because it never sits right to me when people refer to D&D as a "sword and sorcery" game. S&S is fundamentally a literary genre, so if you're calling something an S&S game, that suggests to me that the game is setting out to emulate the fiction genre. D&D does in some respects, but clearly and intentionally doesn't in many others.
I thought about starting a separate thread by going point-by-point through where D&D does and does not emulate S&S fiction, but to do it right would have to be a long and detailed post, and I don't think anyone other than me really cares. I know full well that I'm shouting into the void on this particular issue.
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 06, 2025, 09:41:54 AMQuote from: bat on January 03, 2025, 11:17:10 AMBran Mak Morn dies in battle and then is worshiped:
"After Bran's death, his debased people made him into a god. Part of his consciousness was preserved in a statue, and he was worshipped as the Dark Man. A cult to him even survived down through the centuries, with his idol and its cultists surfacing again in "Children of the Night," a Lovecraftian horror story set in the 1930s."
-from conan.com (https://www.therpgsite.com///conan.com)
Fair enough. I thought I'd read all the Bran Mak Morn stories, but I either missed or forgot that bit. I asked the question out of genuine curiosity. It wasn't meant as a "gotcha".
Quote from: bat on January 03, 2025, 11:17:10 AMI always liked Bran Mak Morn and Kull over Conan myself.
Same. In my personal canon, Solomon Kane and Kull are broadly tied for best Howard characters, and then Bran Mak Morn and Conan. I haven't gotten to reading the El Borak or Steve Costigan stories yet, though.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 03, 2025, 01:53:51 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on January 02, 2025, 12:26:12 AMOther than Elric, is there a classic sword & sorcery hero that canonically dies in action? I don't think I know of any.
Does Game of Thrones count?
Genre definitions are slippery, but I would not call GOT sword and sorcery. "Political Fantasy", maybe?
Game of Thrones has limited relevance to the "what is true D&D?" conversation. It's the only narrative fiction I'm aware of where protagonists routinely die pointless deaths due to little more than misfortune, and that's really what we're talking about with high-lethality D&D. However, classic D&D does predate GOT by a long way, so you can't really argue that it was influenced by it.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 03, 2025, 02:27:24 PMQuote from: Zalman on January 03, 2025, 06:51:20 AMQuote from: ForgottenF on January 02, 2025, 12:26:12 AMQuote from: Brad on January 01, 2025, 09:13:08 PMThere are plenty of games where death is highly unlikely, and perhaps even impossible, but if there's no possibly of death, that's not pulp or swords and sorcery.
Other than Elric, is there a classic sword & sorcery hero that canonically dies in action? I don't think I know of any.
This question assumes every PC in the game is a "hero". The heroes of a story are the ones that didn't die along the way. All those other pirates, soldiers, and mercenaries that perished alongside Elric and Conan include the dead PCs.
Those pirates and mercenaries and etc weren't PCs. They were characters in a story who died because the author said so. In an old school RPG they would (arguably) be the hirelings and followers.
But I also think it's a mistake to go too far into the weeds of simulating story. That way leads to story games where they do try to write a story at the gaming table.
I agree on both points. Rather than "hero", it would probably have been clearer to say "protagonist". If you're going to analogize RPGs with prose fiction, the players may or may not be heroes, but they definitely are protagonists.
I brought this up because it never sits right to me when people refer to D&D as a "sword and sorcery" game. S&S is fundamentally a literary genre, so if you're calling something an S&S game, that suggests to me that the game is setting out to emulate the fiction genre. D&D does in some respects, but clearly and intentionally doesn't in many others.
I thought about starting a separate thread by going point-by-point through where D&D does and does not emulate S&S fiction, but to do it right would have to be a long and detailed post, and I don't think anyone other than me really cares. I know full well that I'm shouting into the void on this particular issue.
Lots of Clark Ashton Smith's protagonists die since the unifying element are the settings rather than chatacters. There are also more Micheal Moorcock examples like Corum, and while its not S&S its relarively common in mythology and other classics for the cool guy to die (Cu Cuthlainn, Beowulf etc)
@ForgottenF my post wasn't meant as a 'gotcha' either, and I am no Howard scholar, I just grew up in Idaho and was alone a lot as a kid and read voraciously.
@ Slambo excellent point with CAS and Mythology (I teach it at a college currently)- from Gilgamesh to Odysseus and Ragnarok, where not even the gods are exempt from death we see heroes and deities succumb to the inevitable.
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 06, 2025, 09:41:54 AMGenre definitions are slippery, but I would not call GOT sword and sorcery. "Political Fantasy", maybe?
Game of Thrones has limited relevance to the "what is true D&D?" conversation. It's the only narrative fiction I'm aware of where protagonists routinely die pointless deaths due to little more than misfortune, and that's really what we're talking about with high-lethality D&D. However, classic D&D does predate GOT by a long way, so you can't really argue that it was influenced by it.
From what I read the Song of Ice and Fire was based on a GURPs campaign. I'd call it Dark Fantasy.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 06, 2025, 05:42:09 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on January 06, 2025, 09:41:54 AMGenre definitions are slippery, but I would not call GOT sword and sorcery. "Political Fantasy", maybe?
Game of Thrones has limited relevance to the "what is true D&D?" conversation. It's the only narrative fiction I'm aware of where protagonists routinely die pointless deaths due to little more than misfortune, and that's really what we're talking about with high-lethality D&D. However, classic D&D does predate GOT by a long way, so you can't really argue that it was influenced by it.
From what I read the Song of Ice and Fire was based on a GURPs campaign. I'd call it Dark Fantasy.
I know "Malazan: Book of the fallen" was based on a GURPS campaign, but I had never heard that Martin's series were.
Quote from: DocJones on January 08, 2025, 12:06:36 PMI know "Malazan: Book of the fallen" was based on a GURPS campaign, but I had never heard that Martin's series were.
I think I probably go the idea from an RPGPundit post (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/01/did-game-of-thrones-start-as-gurps.html). All I can find directly is George RR Martin loved Superworld and Call of Cthulu by Chaosium
I found the interview with Martin in my collection of Dragon magazines (May 2003).
Quote from: GRR MartinWhen I first started gaming back in the 80's, we played different games. We played Morrow Project. Then we played a lot of Call of Cthulhu- that was one of our favorites for years- then Superworld which was a superhero game. That ultimately gave birth to the Wild Cards series. Those were all fun, and we had a lot of good times with those games, but each game had its own set of rules. What was annoying about that was that every time you picked a game, you had to learn a different set of rules. Then GURPS came along. It appealed to us greatly, because it was one system that was good for any game.