I prefer to let people play the kinds of games they want to play and not judge them publicly for not liking the kind of game I like. I do not enjoy blandly heroic games (which is not to say I don't enjoy heroic games, I just don't find unchallenged heroism interesting), nor do I enjoy game-first or simulation-first (as opposed to story-first) role playing. But I find it within myself to not draw conclusions or cast aspersons on those who do in public fora.Celebrim said:
BoVD Thoughts
- Thread starter Omega Lord
- Start date
Henry
Autoexreginated
Celebrim said:
To be brief, I actually thought this a strong point of the game, rather than a weakness. Evil's hallmark, as evinced by watching far too much Star Wars for my own good, is that it is seductive, quicker, and easier in the short term. Hungry? Grab that street bum for a snack! Tired of having your clan elders berate you all the time for not being a "good vampire?" Diablerize them, and call the shots! If you had any hope of "staying human," you had to RESIST the call and take the harder path. The goal of the storyline of vampire to me was not "be a better monster", but "Come to terms with who you are, don't be something you're not."
Celebrim
Legend
RobNJ: Huh? I don't see how what you said follows from the quote and I feel like you are misreading me (my fault or yours I don't know yet). I don't know where you are coming from with that but I'll try to cover a few broad bases.
1) I have no problem with mature people covering serious topics in a serious fashion. This includes evil.
2) I don't like the sound of whatever 'blandly heroic' is, but don't believe that my games fall into that category. Indeed, when people raise objections about how standard D&D doesn't deal with mature themes (like for example Good vs. Good or truly heinous villany), I wish they would append the remark with IMC, because I've never noticed that problem in my campaign or in any that I've ever played in.
3) I don't have a problem with evil PC's, though I'll qualify that by saying that I've seen certain players be really annoying about it (generally those that think evil is k3wwwwwl). But that is the same as saying I have a problem with annoying people and immature play. In fact, I've run several all evil campaigns focused solely on demi-humans. In fact, I find doing so adds depth to the good guys so that they begin to realize that IMC, even the poor thugs that work for the villian have some depth.
I long remember an early session when the players discovered that which they knew if they thought about it - that Hobgoblins had wives and children too, and that mostly they had the same basic desires as the townsfolk. Albiet some of these desires led them to murder and pillage the townsfolk.
4) I consider my campaigns RP first, gaming second. I much prefer that players in my campaign do not know the rules (at first). This leads them to role play instead of roll play. That said, I don't consider there to be all that sharp of divide between the game first and the role play first crowd. Exactly what did I say that you found so disperging of those that enjoy tactics, puzzle solving, and combat?
Henry: To be brief (which is hard for me), the problem was not that evil provided a way to quick power (of some sorts) - which is fine - but that that power came at no price. If RPing a monster is to serve any really deep purpose at all, it seemed to me that it served the purpose of reflecting upon not just that which you gain, but that which you give up. Unfortunately, under the system, you really didn't have to give up anything, even humanity. Willpower typically was so high that you didn't have to give up a portion of your free will either. Things only got worse when they introduced systems that completely replaced humanity and had all of its benifits and none of its restrictions, and if you really wanted to ignore that you were a monster there were advantages available that cured all your ills.
One of the most annoying elements to me was Glocunda (sic), which basically gave you a path back to humanity without stopping being a monster. Have your cake and eat it too. Why would you want anything else? Struggling to regain your (full) humanity? Just how many players did you see trying to do that? And give up all there nifty keen super powers? I think not.
1) I have no problem with mature people covering serious topics in a serious fashion. This includes evil.
2) I don't like the sound of whatever 'blandly heroic' is, but don't believe that my games fall into that category. Indeed, when people raise objections about how standard D&D doesn't deal with mature themes (like for example Good vs. Good or truly heinous villany), I wish they would append the remark with IMC, because I've never noticed that problem in my campaign or in any that I've ever played in.
3) I don't have a problem with evil PC's, though I'll qualify that by saying that I've seen certain players be really annoying about it (generally those that think evil is k3wwwwwl). But that is the same as saying I have a problem with annoying people and immature play. In fact, I've run several all evil campaigns focused solely on demi-humans. In fact, I find doing so adds depth to the good guys so that they begin to realize that IMC, even the poor thugs that work for the villian have some depth.
I long remember an early session when the players discovered that which they knew if they thought about it - that Hobgoblins had wives and children too, and that mostly they had the same basic desires as the townsfolk. Albiet some of these desires led them to murder and pillage the townsfolk.
4) I consider my campaigns RP first, gaming second. I much prefer that players in my campaign do not know the rules (at first). This leads them to role play instead of roll play. That said, I don't consider there to be all that sharp of divide between the game first and the role play first crowd. Exactly what did I say that you found so disperging of those that enjoy tactics, puzzle solving, and combat?
Henry: To be brief (which is hard for me), the problem was not that evil provided a way to quick power (of some sorts) - which is fine - but that that power came at no price. If RPing a monster is to serve any really deep purpose at all, it seemed to me that it served the purpose of reflecting upon not just that which you gain, but that which you give up. Unfortunately, under the system, you really didn't have to give up anything, even humanity. Willpower typically was so high that you didn't have to give up a portion of your free will either. Things only got worse when they introduced systems that completely replaced humanity and had all of its benifits and none of its restrictions, and if you really wanted to ignore that you were a monster there were advantages available that cured all your ills.
One of the most annoying elements to me was Glocunda (sic), which basically gave you a path back to humanity without stopping being a monster. Have your cake and eat it too. Why would you want anything else? Struggling to regain your (full) humanity? Just how many players did you see trying to do that? And give up all there nifty keen super powers? I think not.
I can see that I was misunderstood, though I'm not sure if it's my fault or notCelebrim said:
.You seemed to be saying that games involving splatterpunk elements (or maybe focusing almost exclusively on them) were immature and bad games.
I went on to list several things I don't like (gameism over everything else, etc.), but wouldn't label as bad gaming.
Great Umbrage
First Post
Hmm, this discussion somehow got a lot more exposure when Tracy Hickman threw in his two coppers...
Frankly, I really don't have a clear view, from all of the hype, about what BoVD will contain and whether it will be worth buying. Depending on if it is good or not, that can be considered good or bad advertising.
But the detractors of the book seem to fixate on the fact that it deals with evil and ickyness...I know TH's view on RPGs and stories in general should be such that good always triumphs in the end over evil, blah blah blah. That's nice. He also used to write pretty good DL novels.
In truth, there really shouldn't be any boundaries on what we RP, though what WotC markets should not stretch the boundaries of decency. Does BoVD do this? It seems to merit a "Mature" label, though whether this is marketing or not is beyond me. A lot of content out there with a Mature label usually involves either violence or graphic sex...and occasionally language.
D&D already has half-naked chicks in chainmail, but I doubt they'd venture into porn...too much competition there already. Violence? That already exists in the typical D&D campaign.
If not violence or graphic sex, then dare we believe that the book actually deals with "mature" themes in the real sense of the word, rather than in the juvenile? Are the people disturbed by the impending release of the book the very ones that are opposed to the depiction of evil in general?
I know, for a fact, that a good deal of gamers look forward to this book simply for the statistics of archdevils and demon lords...that thread topic was rampant on these boards a few months ago when the book was announced. Whether they want to pit their characters against these baddies or worship them is a silly question, or should be.
I don't expect BoVD to glorify evil. It's an RPG supplement. It's not real life. It's not a primer on terrorism or rape. What it might do, however, is to help DMs generate a villain more realistic and interesting than the evil conqueror stereotype who captures the heroes and has to detail his evil plans for taking over the world while the heroes make good their escape and defeat the villain in grand fashion.
Frankly, I really don't have a clear view, from all of the hype, about what BoVD will contain and whether it will be worth buying. Depending on if it is good or not, that can be considered good or bad advertising.
But the detractors of the book seem to fixate on the fact that it deals with evil and ickyness...I know TH's view on RPGs and stories in general should be such that good always triumphs in the end over evil, blah blah blah. That's nice. He also used to write pretty good DL novels.
In truth, there really shouldn't be any boundaries on what we RP, though what WotC markets should not stretch the boundaries of decency. Does BoVD do this? It seems to merit a "Mature" label, though whether this is marketing or not is beyond me. A lot of content out there with a Mature label usually involves either violence or graphic sex...and occasionally language.
D&D already has half-naked chicks in chainmail, but I doubt they'd venture into porn...too much competition there already. Violence? That already exists in the typical D&D campaign.
If not violence or graphic sex, then dare we believe that the book actually deals with "mature" themes in the real sense of the word, rather than in the juvenile? Are the people disturbed by the impending release of the book the very ones that are opposed to the depiction of evil in general?
I know, for a fact, that a good deal of gamers look forward to this book simply for the statistics of archdevils and demon lords...that thread topic was rampant on these boards a few months ago when the book was announced. Whether they want to pit their characters against these baddies or worship them is a silly question, or should be.
I don't expect BoVD to glorify evil. It's an RPG supplement. It's not real life. It's not a primer on terrorism or rape. What it might do, however, is to help DMs generate a villain more realistic and interesting than the evil conqueror stereotype who captures the heroes and has to detail his evil plans for taking over the world while the heroes make good their escape and defeat the villain in grand fashion.
Furn_Darkside
First Post
Great Umbrage said:
I think Buttercup and others, in this very thread, did a good job detailing why people are opposed/disturbed by the book.
Why do we need to go through the reasons once again?
FD
The Traveler
Explorer
I know I'll pick it up. Regardless of the presentation, it'll have something I've wanted for some time: a 3e revision of the Archdevils and Demon Princes.
Let's face it, Monte was one of the better writers on Planescape, a setting that was already known for great writing. He wrote Hellbound, and now he's revisiting that territory. That alone should be enough to sell this book.
Let's face it, Monte was one of the better writers on Planescape, a setting that was already known for great writing. He wrote Hellbound, and now he's revisiting that territory. That alone should be enough to sell this book.
Similar Threads
