Dungeon Crawl Classics What is cool to you from a player perspective?

Something cool that I discovered today:

The softcover version of the core rulebook that I have has a different adventure in it than the hardcover version.

The softcover that I have contains "The Portal Under the Stars" (the same funnel that is in my hardcover). However, the other adventure in my softcover is "Keep Off The Borderland," a 2nd level adventure.

Looking into it further, the softcover is the 10th printing, but the hardcover that I have is the 12th printing.

I had previously assumed that both copies I owned were the same (aside from one being a softcover and one being a hardcover).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Have you and @Voadam considered simply not engaging with fiction you don't like?
You seem to be under the misapprehension that because I do not like an element of a piece of fiction and I am critical of that element that I don't like the fiction as a whole.

I really like Firefly, Deadlands, Wheel of Time, etc. though I am not a fan of the elements of them that romanticizes the Confederacy. Deadlands for instance with the Weird West, huckster card magic, demon lords feeding off of fear, steampunk weird mad scientists, are all cool stuff to me. I am glad that I have engaged with the fiction despite the elements that I do not like.

I am hoping DCC turns out to have enough good points for me to be something I enjoy even though I know there are elements of the funnel and easy death game ethos I do not care for.

Fiction I overall do not expect to like, say the torture focus of the Saw and Hostel movie franchises or a lot of full on horror movies, I do avoid. :)
 


I fail to see how not being critical of flawed (and ultimately failed) ideas like the Confederate leads anywhere good.
So one is required to call out any piece of storytelling that might be suggestive of a moral failing, or something bad happens? I think people are allowed to enjoy fiction without feeling obligated by internet strangers to pick apart the story elements.
 

So one is required to call out any piece of storytelling that might be suggestive of a moral failing, or something bad happens? I think people are allowed to enjoy fiction without feeling obligated by internet strangers to pick apart the story elements.
I don't think anyone suggested that, no. I think was more making a point about how being deliberately uncritical about bad things and evil ideas can have negative consequences.

Besides that, one can often make useful inferences from what things a person chooses to romanticize and what historical figures or causes they portray as heroic or worthy of emulation.
 

I don't think anyone suggested that, no. I think was more making a point about how being deliberately uncritical about bad things and evil ideas can have negative consequences.

Besides that, one can often make useful inferences from what things a person chooses to romanticize and what historical figures or causes they portray as heroic or worthy of emulation.
What does "deliberately uncritical" even mean? Who gets to determine that someone's else's appreciation for a work of fiction is too "deliberately uncritical" to pass moral judgement?

And your second comment about "useful inferences" is a not-so-subtle way of saying this is an easy way to pass moral judgement on a content creator and those who like their work.
 

What does "deliberately uncritical" even mean? Who gets to determine that someone's else's appreciation for a work of fiction is too "deliberately uncritical" to pass moral judgement?

And your second comment about "useful inferences" is a not-so-subtle way of saying this is an easy way to pass moral judgement on a content creator and those who like their work.
I suppose, it's complicated and it's complicated. People are going to judge for all sorts of reasons, some valid, some not. I know people judge me poorly for some of my opinions. At least online, they don't really know me, so that's ok with me. And likewise, I don't know them or what events in their life make them respond a particular way. If they did have a bad experience and don't want to engage with me because of it, it's all good.
 

So one is required to call out any piece of storytelling that might be suggestive of a moral failing, or something bad happens? I think people are allowed to enjoy fiction without feeling obligated by internet strangers to pick apart the story elements.
I mean, if someone talks about The Turner Diaries as a simple dystopian story, yeah, that's a problem. And yes, something bad does happen. For example, I love the stories of Robert E. Howard, but there's a whole lot of racism and sexism in them, full stop. Not discussing those issues marginalizes people, creating a hostile environment for them in the fandom. You can enjoy stuff while still being critical of it.
 

What does "deliberately uncritical" even mean? Who gets to determine that someone's else's appreciation for a work of fiction is too "deliberately uncritical" to pass moral judgement?

And your second comment about "useful inferences" is a not-so-subtle way of saying this is an easy way to pass moral judgement on a content creator and those who like their work.
If someone writes fan fiction making the pro-slavery and the anti-slavery sides of a conflict morally equivalent, or, worse, the pro-slavery side the good guys, and we choose to completely suspend judgement and shut our eyes to the implications there, that's a moral abdication. As Neil Peart wrote, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Desmond Tutu had some words as well, about people who are neutral regarding injustice.

Your choice to take personal insult to a general point is your own. Your choice to assume the most hostile possible interpretation is your own. It's one I've seen you make a lot. Which is a bummer.

It's a big world, there are a lot of different types and degrees of depictions of unsavory content. I'm not saying that it's always an easy black and white line or that liking fiction with morally-dubious stuff in it is inherent immoral, by any means. But ignoring history and context rarely gets us anyplace good. If someone makes their Space Nazis or their Space Confederacy heroic, barring other data to the contrary, you can reasonably infer some things about their worldview. If they make their Space Federation one where slavery is explicitly protected by interplanetary law, likewise.
 

Besides that, one can often make useful inferences from what things a person chooses to romanticize and what historical figures or causes they portray as heroic or worthy of emulation.
I don't know about that, in many things I would really want at least a little more data.

I am put off by both the Confederacy romanticizing of both fiction that whitewashes the Confederacy by making them not really about slavery (I believe the Deadlands version has them naturally move past slavery and give it up on their own and Firefly's Browncoats are very space Confederacy versus space Union but without slavery being a thing at all) but also with the Wheel of Time's Seanchan who are sort of a glorified mythic fantasy Confederacy who are slavers and brilliant military people and administrators and full of honor and the results of their conquering and enslaving people is portrayed as an overall positive thing.

I loved the Dukes of Hazard TV show as a young kid. It was an action show about Robin Hood type good old country boys pulling fast ones on dirty cops and corrupt local government officials. I would play Bo and my brother would play Luke. I had no real context for the Confederate flag on the car named the General Lee that played Dixie as its horn when I watched it. Looking back on it now with context for the Confederate flag and General Lee and Dixie and the whole history and context of glorifying and whitewashing of the Confederacy and the ongoing effects of the Confederacy it is quite disheartening and distasteful.

On the other hand I have romanticized vikings since I was a little kid and read Daulaire's Norse Myths and Thor comics (and I loved the art for the Norse Gods in the 1e Deities and Demigods). I often play good guy viking characters in D&D who fight evil and have nothing to do with slavery (I have played pirates who raid evil slaver empire stuff and freed the slaves). Even after learning about historical viking slave raiding and slave trade stuff, and modern White supremacist movements associating themselves with viking stuff, I continue to play fairly mythical viking hero types and enjoy viking history and myths and fiction. This could be viewed as me whitewashing the cruelty and slave taking elements of actual viking history or the current white supremacist stuff. I have a friend in my gaming group who thinks it is a bit dissonant for me to play good guy viking characters and for me to be into viking stuff.

There are people who romanticize viking stuff because of the White supremacy angles or such. There are also a ton though who are into viking stuff because of Marvel movies and such.

As for inferences, even with things like Deadlands, I do not know enough about the authors or the actual specifics of the lore to say whether it was a conscious whitewashing of the Confederacy, or just was an effort to come up with stuff for a Weird West alt history game world that ended up with implications from their choices. I could see different author motivations leading to some similar end points. My Deadlands knowledge is mostly on the Western end though and the gunslinging Weird West and critter elements I found fun. I have not played in a game or fully read any of the books. More specifics of the lore, which may be out there in stuff like the Back East: The South sourcebook or even in the corebooks, could certainly push more one way than the other, particularly in glorifying specific people or ideas.
 

Remove ads

Top