I saw this a short while ago on ZuckBook and had to share it because...it's just...something else. As others have said, these halfwits are turning RPGs into 'Maoist Struggle Sessions'. If your whole concept of playing (or DMing) D&D is 'lessons', you're not only a fucking asshole, you're a drooling imbecile that would follow any halfwit strongman cause you probably don't have an internal monologue. These people are, honest to God, fucking cancerous. They should be treated like tumorous growths and not allowed to break containment to infect other games (though we know that's already happened as the vectors for infection have been there for years).
This comes as no surprise at all. Commies look to indoctrinate through everything they do. Why would gaming be any different? Best to avoid such idiots and let them play with each other.
A+ thread title. F- for Gene Martin for using D&D as a mechanism for propaganda. Idiots like him will be the first against the wall when the executions begin.
It all becomes clearer when you realize that this is a religion, and many people are determined to "take captive every thought to make it obedient to" the Spirit of the Age.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on May 31, 2024, 08:59:18 AMI saw this a short while ago on ZuckBook and had to share it because...it's just...something else. As others have said, these halfwits are turning RPGs into 'Maoist Struggle Sessions'. If your whole concept of playing (or DMing) D&D is 'lessons', you're not only a fucking asshole, you're a drooling imbecile that would follow any halfwit strongman cause you probably don't have an internal monologue. These people are, honest to God, fucking cancerous. They should be treated like tumorous growths and not allowed to break containment to infect other games (though we know that's already happened as the vectors for infection have been there for years).
I would ban this loser from my table so fast the sonic boom would break windows. A game is no place for this kind of recruiting bullshit.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 31, 2024, 10:42:54 AMIt all becomes clearer when you realize that this is a religion, and many people are determined to "take captive every thought to make it obedient to" the Spirit of the Age.
Yep. You've hit the nail on the head. It's like talking with an atheist, vegan, or someone into Crossfit. How do you know if someone is an atheist, vegan, or into Crossfit? Just wait a second; they'll tell you...
FWIW, on FB I'm in that group and the breakaway "non-progressive" D&D group (which that guy is also in), and from what I can see from what else he's posted he's just a shit-stirrer; I think he posts extreme things like that just to see what happens. Kind of a "this is so insane no one could support it". But then you get the comments from people that do, which is the scarier part.
It's a shame, since that group started off as a pretty good one, no politics or ideology, just gaming discussion (even though the group creator was actually very far left). It very quickly went downhill when the admin team expanded to essentially the Woke Justice League.
I think this runs simply deeper than merely shoving partisan politics into our Escapism.
This goes for all media that attempts a strong interjection of allegory or "Lesson" into it's craft and form.
Our ancient myths and stories were not so dumb'd down and simple as "moral lessons" even if there was a moral to be conveyed, and they often were far more nuanced than simply moral lessons, even if that was a neat side effect.
I think there was a good reason Tolkien hated the notion of allegory in story, and so goes the same in my eyes for roleplay, and because the current lefts politics view no action outside the realm of politics they are always an eternal enemy at the gates for our Escapism.
There is no connection to the raw human condition, only pledges of allegiance or declarations of defiance to these possessed.
Some people can't do anything without making it all about themselves.
I chose to switch from D&D to Tales Of The Valiant because I was sick of the stream of stupidity coming out of WOTC. I don't want to indulge it by buying their new D&D version. I'm done. I'm out.
And I still won't use Orcs in my personal games. Because that cuts way too close to Tolkien for my comfort.
And yes, I know that Tales Of The Valiant has them as an option. I just won't use them.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on May 31, 2024, 08:33:57 PMI chose to switch from D&D to Tales Of The Valiant because I was sick of the stream of stupidity coming out of WOTC. I don't want to indulge it by buying their new D&D version. I'm done. I'm out.
And I still won't use Orcs in my personal games. Because that cuts way too close to Tolkien for my comfort.
And yes, I know that Tales Of The Valiant has them as an option. I just won't use them.
So you switched from WotC's brand of progtardation to Kobold Press' type of progtardation...
Whatever floats your boat I guess.
If I wanted to be preached at, I'd go to church.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 31, 2024, 05:27:12 PMThis goes for all media that attempts a strong interjection of allegory or "Lesson" into it's craft and form.
Our ancient myths and stories were not so dumb'd down and simple as "moral lessons" even if there was a moral to be conveyed, and they often were far more nuanced than simply moral lessons, even if that was a neat side effect.
I generally agree, but there is also a long tradition of stories intended as lessons, including many in the Bible to passion plays to the Comics Code and movie-of-the-week in my youth. The best stories have always been nuanced rather than simple lessons.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on May 31, 2024, 08:33:57 PMI chose to switch from D&D to Tales Of The Valiant because I was sick of the stream of stupidity coming out of WOTC. I don't want to indulge it by buying their new D&D version. I'm done. I'm out.
And I still won't use Orcs in my personal games. Because that cuts way too close to Tolkien for my comfort.
Darrin - what's your issue with Tolkien's orcs?
From my side, I dislike the constant imitation of Tolkien in fantasy mostly because it's dull. There's so much other fantasy to draw from. I love Tolkien, but he is slavishly imitated too much, I feel. Still, I have had orcs in my D&D games.
Quote from: jhkim on May 31, 2024, 09:25:52 PMDarrin - what's your issue with Tolkien's orcs?
From my side, I dislike the constant imitation of Tolkien in fantasy mostly because it's dull. There's so much other fantasy to draw from. I love Tolkien, but he is slavishly imitated too much, I feel. Still, I have had orcs in my D&D games.
I don't like them. My preferred fantasy is more swords & sorcery and humanocentric.
Or if I do the cosmopolitian thing, I focus on races that are not Tolkien in origin. I'm not looking to imitate Tolkien.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on May 31, 2024, 09:36:13 PMQuote from: jhkim on May 31, 2024, 09:25:52 PMDarrin - what's your issue with Tolkien's orcs?
From my side, I dislike the constant imitation of Tolkien in fantasy mostly because it's dull. There's so much other fantasy to draw from. I love Tolkien, but he is slavishly imitated too much, I feel. Still, I have had orcs in my D&D games.
I don't like them. My preferred fantasy is more swords & sorcery and humanocentric.
Or if I do the cosmopolitian thing, I focus on races that are not Tolkien in origin. I'm not looking to imitate Tolkien.
Careful, there. If jhkim thinks you like swords & sorcery too much, he'll decide you are a REH Conan fan and accuse you of racism.... :p
It doesn't work anyhow. I've been trying to teach my players the lesson "if you act like an evil idiot in town you will die" for years and it's never sunk in.
Confession: When running a Heroic fantasy game, I find it impossible to not insert some good anti-Seattleite lessons into the game. For example, the idea that normal people are NPCs, but Heroic PCs can make a difference in the world by taking on challenging tasks.
Quote from: Zelen on June 01, 2024, 11:22:42 AMConfession: When running a Heroic fantasy game, I find it impossible to not insert some good anti-Seattleite lessons into the game. For example, the idea that normal people are NPCs, but Heroic PCs can make a difference in the world by taking on challenging tasks.
Huh. This use of "NPCs" threw me given that we're talking about tabletop RPGs. In my tabletop experience, NPCs are often interesting people who pursue dynamic goals. I do understand in principle that it's supposed to mean dumb computer NPCs, but I don't play computer RPGs so it wasn't my first read.
Anyhow, I'm not sure how it relates to your lesson, but in my recent Tolkien games, I emphasized his theme that power corrupts, and that simple people with humility and mercy were crucial to save the world. I don't think of it as an intentional lesson for the players, but I like having it there for aesthetic reasons. My games will represent my interests and values because that's the stuff I like, but I see that as different from wanting to insert lessons.
Greetings!
Yes, in my Thandor world, my game also embraces representing my values. I certainly do not ham-fist some weird fucking political BS "lessons" into my game sessions and modules--but my values are often prominent dynamics within the campaign milieu.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I try to keep it apolitical, but I have to inject my own little things in there. So recently, while designing a level of the Patali Underworld using Pundit's Arrows of Indra I had an area where I rolled up "toxic environment." Pundit has tables for generating poison gas, etc. So I added grating feminine voices whispering "me too" as you traverse the toxic environment.
Quote from: Zelen on June 01, 2024, 11:22:42 AMFor example, the idea that normal people are NPCs, but Heroic PCs can make a difference in the world by taking on challenging tasks.
This reminds me of an old article in Dragon or White Dwarf or something that talked about what level a king would be. At the time I was in high school thinking that made no sense. He might have class and level but it has little to do with the royal succession.
I do not want to game a fantasy themed After School Special. True story.
Cue Drinker: THE MESSAGE
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with A message. Like jhkim pointed out, LotR was awash in the theme that humble nobodies saved the day while surrounded by immensely powerful badasses. The important distinction here is that Tolkien put out a good story that presented its theme with some elegance and didn't bludgeon the audience with it like a modern girlboss movie. A good DM should already be striving to avoid any sort of ham-fisted storytelling, so refraining from being overbearing with an aspect of the plot is part and parcel of that.
Why would I want to inject modern day tropes into my fantasy elf game about a flying lizard the size of a bus who hordes imaginary loot in an underground cave?
Just go post on Mastadon...
Quote from: David Johansen on June 01, 2024, 10:40:10 AMIt doesn't work anyhow. I've been trying to teach my players the lesson "if you act like an evil idiot in town you will die" for years and it's never sunk in.
Yeah, it's exasperating to me, but there's no escaping the fact that a lot of players go to roleplaying games expressly to be free of moral consequences.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 03, 2024, 07:58:15 PMQuote from: David Johansen on June 01, 2024, 10:40:10 AMIt doesn't work anyhow. I've been trying to teach my players the lesson "if you act like an evil idiot in town you will die" for years and it's never sunk in.
Yeah, it's exasperating to me, but there's no escaping the fact that a lot of players go to roleplaying games expressly to be free of moral consequences.
Nothing wrong with that, as long as don't get mad at the in game consequences of stupidity. In my campaigns, anyone who wants a chance of seeing level 2 learns that real quick.
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on June 03, 2024, 01:23:49 PMCue Drinker: THE MESSAGE
Love the Critical Drinker!
"That's all I have for today....Go away now!"
Most of my games are based on actual historical eras and reflect the morals and values of the age they are set in. One of the things I like about the German rpg The Dark Eye is that its setting Aventuria is ruthless in this regard. "Democracy" is considered "demoncracy" and your character better know his or her place in the social hierarchy. It's therefore beneficial if at least one person in the party is a noble, a mage, a priest, or an army officer.
Quote from: Rhymer88 on June 05, 2024, 12:42:05 PMMost of my games are based on actual historical eras and reflect the morals and values of the age they are set in. One of the things I like about the German rpg The Dark Eye is that its setting Aventuria is ruthless in this regard. "Democracy" is considered "demoncracy" and your character better know his or her place in the social hierarchy. It's therefore beneficial if at least one person in the party is a noble, a mage, a priest, or an army officer.
There's a difference between having characters act in historically plausible ways, and making the game actually themed around lessons from the times.
Tolkien, say, wrote about a stratified society with kings and nobles -- but the themes of his works tended to celebrate commoners more than kings, which is not a very medieval theme. Historical fiction and fantasy almost always have themes more from the values from times of the author, rather than from the period it is set in. This goes back a while. Le Morte d'Arthur reflects 15th-century French values far more than 6th-century England, for example.
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2024, 01:27:59 AMQuote from: Rhymer88 on June 05, 2024, 12:42:05 PMMost of my games are based on actual historical eras and reflect the morals and values of the age they are set in. One of the things I like about the German rpg The Dark Eye is that its setting Aventuria is ruthless in this regard. "Democracy" is considered "demoncracy" and your character better know his or her place in the social hierarchy. It's therefore beneficial if at least one person in the party is a noble, a mage, a priest, or an army officer.
There's a difference between having characters act in historically plausible ways, and making the game actually themed around lessons from the times.
Tolkien, say, wrote about a stratified society with kings and nobles -- but the themes of his works tended to celebrate commoners more than kings, which is not a very medieval theme. Historical fiction and fantasy almost always have themes more from the values from times of the author, rather than from the period it is set in. This goes back a while. Le Morte d'Arthur reflects 15th-century French values far more than 6th-century England, for example.
Yes, but Frodo, Merry, and Pippin are all members of the Hobbit gentry, while Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli belong to the highest ranks of their respective societies.
Quote from: Rhymer88 on June 06, 2024, 05:05:04 AMYes, but Frodo, Merry, and Pippin are all members of the Hobbit gentry, while Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli belong to the highest ranks of their respective societies.
Hey, don't you dare use facts to undermine his point!
And, yes, the only normie of note in the entire Hobbit/LotR series is Sam. Everyone else is either aristocracy or of divine origin. The fact he's the primary hero does subvert the theme somewhat, but not in the way jhkim wants you to believe.
Merry, Pippin and Sam all went because they were friends of the Ringbearer, period. That two of them were "aristocracy" reflects that they were more from Frodo's own social class. Boromir went because he was the eldest son of the Steward and therefore the best representative of Gondor, Legolas because he was the son of the Elf-King of Mirkwood, Aragorn because he was the rightful king (not to mention he stood the best chance of getting the Ringbearer to Mount Doom, for a host of reasons). Gimli just seems to have been selected as a competent representative of the dwarves. Why would the Free Peoples send a bunch of powerless, uniformed mooks who in no way represented the governments of their people on a mission that important?
A real-world example: Even the Bolsheviks, when they were negotiating Russia's withdrawal from the Great War, sent ambassadors (including Trotsky's own brother-in-law) empowered by their government to represent them. They did include a worker, a peasant, and a soldier in their team, but these people had no say in the negotiations. Even avowed anti-monarchists will send people who know what they're doing and who have actual power in their government on an important mission.
Quote from: Rhymer88 on June 06, 2024, 05:05:04 AMQuote from: jhkim on June 06, 2024, 01:27:59 AMQuote from: Rhymer88 on June 05, 2024, 12:42:05 PMMost of my games are based on actual historical eras and reflect the morals and values of the age they are set in. One of the things I like about the German rpg The Dark Eye is that its setting Aventuria is ruthless in this regard. "Democracy" is considered "demoncracy" and your character better know his or her place in the social hierarchy. It's therefore beneficial if at least one person in the party is a noble, a mage, a priest, or an army officer.
There's a difference between having characters act in historically plausible ways, and making the game actually themed around lessons from the times.
Tolkien, say, wrote about a stratified society with kings and nobles -- but the themes of his works tended to celebrate commoners more than kings, which is not a very medieval theme. Historical fiction and fantasy almost always have themes more from the values from times of the author, rather than from the period it is set in. This goes back a while. Le Morte d'Arthur reflects 15th-century French values far more than 6th-century England, for example.
Yes, but Frodo, Merry, and Pippin are all members of the Hobbit gentry, while Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli belong to the highest ranks of their respective societies.
I agree - but having gentry as heroes is perfectly consistent with Tolkien's upbringing in the 1890s. Lots of other contemporary fiction from the period have well-born heroes, even if they don't have medieval settings.
I think Tolkien's themes have more in common with others of his era than with medieval writers like Chaucer -- notably, environmentalism and the evils of industrialization (as reflected in the ents and Saruman's factories); but also other themes.
Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2024, 09:39:05 AMQuote from: Rhymer88 on June 06, 2024, 05:05:04 AMQuote from: jhkim on June 06, 2024, 01:27:59 AMQuote from: Rhymer88 on June 05, 2024, 12:42:05 PMMost of my games are based on actual historical eras and reflect the morals and values of the age they are set in. One of the things I like about the German rpg The Dark Eye is that its setting Aventuria is ruthless in this regard. "Democracy" is considered "demoncracy" and your character better know his or her place in the social hierarchy. It's therefore beneficial if at least one person in the party is a noble, a mage, a priest, or an army officer.
There's a difference between having characters act in historically plausible ways, and making the game actually themed around lessons from the times.
Tolkien, say, wrote about a stratified society with kings and nobles -- but the themes of his works tended to celebrate commoners more than kings, which is not a very medieval theme. Historical fiction and fantasy almost always have themes more from the values from times of the author, rather than from the period it is set in. This goes back a while. Le Morte d'Arthur reflects 15th-century French values far more than 6th-century England, for example.
Yes, but Frodo, Merry, and Pippin are all members of the Hobbit gentry, while Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli belong to the highest ranks of their respective societies.
I agree - but having gentry as heroes is perfectly consistent with Tolkien's upbringing in the 1890s. Lots of other contemporary fiction from the period have well-born heroes, even if they don't have medieval settings.
I think Tolkien's themes have more in common with others of his era than with medieval writers like Chaucer -- notably, environmentalism and the evils of industrialization (as reflected in the ents and Saruman's factories); but also other themes.
Gee, too bad you couldn't understand this kind of context when we were discussing Robert E Howard. Everything had to to be understood with the sensibilities of Modern Audiences for him, but not for Tolkien.
Fuck right off, jhkim.
Quote from: jeff37923 on June 06, 2024, 10:37:06 AMQuote from: jhkim on June 06, 2024, 09:39:05 AMI agree - but having gentry as heroes is perfectly consistent with Tolkien's upbringing in the 1890s. Lots of other contemporary fiction from the period have well-born heroes, even if they don't have medieval settings.
Gee, too bad you couldn't understand this kind of context when we were discussing Robert E Howard. Everything had to to be understood with the sensibilities of Modern Audiences for him, but not for Tolkien.
(I tried to reply in the Rascal article thread, but I got an error posting.)
I made it clear at several points that overt racism was common in R.E. Howard's society - specifically that Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws were popularly supported in many states at that time.
Even if they were common, though, one can still refer to anti-miscegenation laws as overtly racist. It doesn't make sense to say that anti-miscegenation laws weren't overtly racist because they were part of the sensibilities at the time.
I'd be fine saying the same thing there - that overt racism was perfectly consistent with Howards' upbringing in the 1910s.
In general, authors write for audiences of their time. They can still consistently portray their characters as if they are in a different age, but the themes of their work reflect their own times and views.
Quote from: Valatar on June 03, 2024, 02:20:09 PMThere's nothing fundamentally wrong with A message. Like jhkim pointed out, LotR was awash in the theme that humble nobodies saved the day while surrounded by immensely powerful badasses. The important distinction here is that Tolkien put out a good story that presented its theme with some elegance and didn't bludgeon the audience with it like a modern girlboss movie. A good DM should already be striving to avoid any sort of ham-fisted storytelling, so refraining from being overbearing with an aspect of the plot is part and parcel of that.
I think there is a difference between adding messages in a book/movie/etc. or inside a game. While messaging in book/movies/etc. can be annoying and (if done by a big corporation in a supposedly apolitical "franchise") deserves criticism, at least you can walk off the movie or stop to read the book if it get bad. Also there are lot of reviews, so if a movie is full with messages you can discover that before being subjected to it. You don't have the same defenses against a GM who can "surprise message" you. Also walking off to a game like that would have more consequences than simply stopping to watch a movie or a book.
In fact, I think it is a total disrespect to players if you don't know in advance that the players would like that (if GMing with people I know who lean right, I would feel free to mock leftists by making them the villains of my game, but not in a game with unknown people). It's similar than what many teachers do, by injecting biased political stuff in classroom where students can't leave easily (since by doing that they can receive an absence record).