Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8614818" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Oh, absolutely. Early D&D is intensely adolescent. The random harlot table is probably the most pointed demonstration thereof. Lewdness purely to be lewd, not for any other purpose but to demonstrate lewdness, because adults can be lewd and children should not. It reflects, as Lewis put it, the fundamentally adolescent desire to appear "very grown up," as opposed to the actually grown up thing of doing things because you choose to and not caring tuppence about what others think (of course, only so long as you doing what you like doesn't harm others, but that's not particularly relevant here, methinks.)Just about the only really mature thing in early D&D is its emphasis on Law vs Chaos, rather than Good vs Evil. Because--as I think most of us would agree--the unfortunate trend with Good vs Evil conflicts is that both sides become deeply flanderized. Good becomes so flat, one-note, and lens-flare-heavy that it's just one glaring blob with no defining characteristics, and Evil becomes a mustache-twirling caricature, a Dick Dastardly that can't bear to win legitimately and must cheat, even if doing so increases the likelihood that he will lose. Law vs Chaos was, in part, an attempt to dodge those faults (which were rather prevalent due to the Comics Code Authority still being enforced, albeit weakening). Of course, the problem is that it almost immediately got just as flanderized as soon as it left the source, with Law being turned into either "the only place where people can actually live live" or "HORRIFIC FASCIST TYRANNY," and Chaos likewise being turned respectively into "HORRIFIC ANARCHIC BLOODBATH" and "the only place where people can actually live live."Despite my comments below: "Much" may be overstating the case. I just wish that more of those who weren't made unhappy by this would, y'know, speak up and share that "honestly this is fine" or "honestly this is fine even if it isn't for me." Which (since this post has taken me a while to write), it seems people are actually doing. So that's good!The thing is, it's always a vocal minority. It's always been a vocal minority that kicks up this kind of fuss. A vocal minority killed the Next playtest sorcerer. A vocal minority tore down 4e and tarred and feathered it for sins it never committed, solely because it was new and different. A vocal minority hated the warlord, and WotC was originally perfectly content to ignore them (they just burned themselves with their own sloppy, badly-handled schedule.)That it is a vocal minority is, if anything, the prime reason to speak up against it. Prove that there's more to the story!It IS just a few products, and even then, only a limited and (often) rather jaundiced interpretation thereof. E.g., several people have openly admitted to judging The Wild Beyond the Witchlight purely based on its cover and having been told that it is merely possible to overcome its challenges nonviolently. (I, myself, rarely--as in essentially never--buy adventure books regardless, so I paid it little mind, and what I saw made me think it was too dark for my tastes.)The problem, of course, is that "just a few products" is also most of what WotC will publish in a year. Amazingly, people are now seeing the dark side of "publish very very few things to avoid any possibility of excess." The very same people who were toasting 5e's commitment to "avoiding bloat" and (allegedly) only publishing things that were really worthwhile are now the people complaining about a sudden (or not-so-sudden) shift in tone and a dearth of options.It's the classic unpleasable fanbase. "Cut down the bloat," people complain if there's even a six-month period where they don't get products explicitly and solely catering to them and their interests, or the dearth of options, or both. Fail to "cut down the bloat," and those very same people will complain about the excess of options and how "unnecessary" so much of it is.If it had a more consistent form, I'd almost want to coin a new fallacy for it. Though I suppose a certain meme fits...<img src="https://i.imgflip.com/6dn82u.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /></blockquote>

Verification