D&D haters???

[Avatar_V]

Must not have upgrades to 3.5 and gotten access to SC.

Yea This story was pre-3.5 obviously.

 

[Darkwolf71]

I've just started reading a d20 modern core rule book and have talked whith my gamers about starting a campaign with it. Would it be appropriet? (I.E. are there many reffereances to dieties or magic us?)

(Yea, the spelling sucks, I can take the heat for that one )

I'd have to double check, but I don't think there are any such references in the core book. They come in optional add ons. The aforementioned Urban Arcana, for instance.

 

[Monkey Boy]

How do you guys/gals usually deal with the generic, unsupported, boarderline destain of D&D? Or DO you?

I haven't had to deal with this myself but if I did I would point out that the game is made by HASBRO. You know the company that makes monopoly, cluedo and my little pony. DnD is a game just like the many other games HASBRO produce. If Hasbro felt it would harm their repuation they would drop it in a second. The fact that they have held onto the liscence should speak volumes.

 

[Phlebas]

While on holiday a few years back, the couple sitting at the same table for dinner got talking to my partner and I. somehow we started talking about films and mentioned the new Harry Potter film as something we had just seen. there was a brief silence and the lady asked politely if we were worried about the satanic aspect.

My partner and I did a goldfish impression for a few seconds, and asked if they were serious. Apparently it was a big thing where they came from with demonstrations outside the theatre.
We got on well enough the rest of the evening (avoiding films) so no big deal.

anyhow, the point of the story is that every opinion is based on the information available to that person. If you have been told something is bad, you will need a lot of proof before even considering the alternative. Rather than try to redeem D&D my advice would be to go for a modern day game, or a game based on a video game (Warhammer FRP), or something silly like toon or paranoia. Dont sell it as 'like D&D', but after it gets accepted you can move onto D&D as a fantasy, LOTR version of whatever you were playing before.

However arguing that the person is wrong, when their belief is genuine (if misguided) will not work and be counter productive.

Above all don't make my mistake and hand over a monster manual as 'proof' its just a game because murphy's law says the book will immediately open on the page marked 'devil' and next thing you know theres a prayer meeting blessing your house to remove evil influences (True story from my time at university.......)

 

[Celebrim]

"anyhow, the point of the story is that every opinion is based on the information available to that person. If you have been told something is bad, you will need a lot of proof before even considering the alternative."

I think people really really need to understand that that is absolutely fundamental to the way humans work. We all do it, and none of us are immune. The best you can do is continually remain vigilant and try to remain aware of why you really believe something, but everyone basically believes everything for exactly that reason.

A typical situation works like this.

a) You've never heard anything about X.
b) Someone says something about X in an authoritative manner. Not wanting to appear ignorant, you agree with what they say so long as it doesn't violate anything else you've already come to believe because the alternative - potentially saying or acting in a way that will be percieved as ignorant - is embarassing.
c) Having come to held this opinion, you defend it. The longer you defend it, the more strongly you are motivated to believe it because the alternative is that you've been wrong all this time, and that is embarassing. The more passionately you defend something, the stronger you will feel embarassed for doing so, so the stronger you will hold on to the belief and the more powerfully you will latch on to anything you feel justifies that belief, and the more strongly you'll reject any evidence to the contrary.
d) For most people, this is the end of it. What ever opinion they first heard on a subject will be the one that the hold on to for the rest of thier life. For a small majority of people, something will happen to them that is the equivalent of being punched in the nose because of thier belief. It will physically and emotionally hurt. Then these people will reject what they formerly believed because the pain of believing it is greater than the embarassment they experience for having been 'wrong'. After that, they become passionate haters of whatever they formerly believed because in doing so it feels to them like it 'redeems' there former wrongness. The important thing to note is that these people are not better people for having changed thier minds. They are still just ordinary humans. They could literally have changed thier mind merely because they were tortured for believing it (Stockholm syndrome) or because they've changed social situations and now thier former beliefs are scoffed instead of validated.

Everyone acts this way regardless of intelligence. In fact, in my experience intelligence often enhances the problem, because it gives you the tools to rationalize just about anything. Most of the most stubborn, hardheaded people I've met were extremely intelligent. Most of the most openminded people I've met were fortunate enough to be stupid and know it. The important thing to keep in mind is that just about everyone holds thier beliefs for at least as rational of reasons as you do, and that if you are to escape the above trap the key to it is empathy for why other people believe as they do. That isn't to say that those other people are 'as right as you are', or even that they are right at all. It's just that without that attitude, you aren't doing anything productive for yourself or them.

 

[pawsplay]

Most of the most stubborn, hardheaded people I've met were extremely intelligent. Most of the most openminded people I've met were fortunate enough to be stupid and know it.


You have a strange definition of intelligence. I say that as someone being trained to assess it.


The important thing to keep in mind is that just about everyone holds thier beliefs for at least as rational of reasons as you do, and that if you are to escape the above trap the key to it is empathy for why other people believe as they do.

I disbelieve. Everyone holds their opinions for reasons at least as important as you do, but they might be irrational, and often are.

 

[Celebrim]

You have a strange definition of intelligence. I say that as someone being trained to assess it.

Hmmm. I suppose you are one of those people that designs intelligence tests? Or are you in human resources?

Einstein defined intelligence as being the trait of being able to persist at trying to solve a boring problem long after everyone else has given up. If you think about it, that is a rather strange definition of intelligence as well.

My experience with intelligent people is that most people who are intelligent greatly overvalue thier intelligence. In the same way, most people who are educated greatly overvalue thier education. Of course, most people who aren't educated greatly overvalue thier ignorance, so there is that, but my point being that there is a vast difference in being trained to assess intelligence and anything you seem to be implying by stating that you are.

In any event, I can very see this becoming a 'mine is bigger than yours' sort of argument. So lets just skip the playground puffing up, shall we?

I disbelieve.

Sure. You can disbelieve. What of it? Whatever turns out to be true, your belief or disbelief won't change it. I think you mean, "I challenge this claim." or "I do not agree." But it is very much my point that you do so because you'd rather not believe, and you come up with your reasons post hoc.

Everyone holds their opinions for reasons at least as important as you do, but they might be irrational, and often are.

I'm not sure where you are going with that either since important is terribly vague in context. What I just said could be said another way as people tend to be irrational precisely because they percieve terribly important reasons for being so, and that having done so say to themselves that they aren't being irrational. And you might be irrational and if you are anything like the rest of us, often are.

Intelligent people generally have considered opinions in the since that they've taken sometime to formally structure what they believe. They generally have informed opinions in the since that they've collected arguments from more people who think like they do. They generally have elaborate opinions because they can understand elaborate arguments. Sometimes they even have persuasive opinions in the since that formal, informed, elaborate opinions generally sound good regardless of whether they are. But they don't necessarily hold those opinions for more rational reasons than anyone else, because being intelligent like it our not doesn't get you out of the human condition. What intelligent people have is alot of reasons which they use to defend opinions that they initially came to hold for reasons alot like I described, and then even more strongly than normal believe based on the evidence of thier intelligence that they hold those opinions for much better reasons than everyone else does. On matters that are actually things people argue over, this is in my experience rarely the case.

I have no reason to suppose that you are not intelligent. In fact, you are probably very intelligent.

 

[Korgoth]

For example, this might be frank and honest, but it's not a particularly understanding (or productive) way to address the problem.

Good on you! You really kicked his adze.












(Hopefully whoever gets that joke will see why, in the context, it couldn't not be made.)

..........


Speaking for myself, I do not like occult material to show up in my gaming books. It makes me uncomfortable. I do believe that there are forces which seek the ruin of souls, and I don't like the idea of making a game out of them. Perhaps that's why I prefer Lovecraftian elements to Western occult elements when it comes to introducing otherworldly themes: they're inimical, alien and unintelligible (and so have the potential to be very fearsome), but also are entirely unconnected with occultism.

Granted, D&D has usually done a good job of making the overtly occult as something evil and to be opposed. But those elements detract from my enjoyment of the products. That's just where I stand as a consumer.

 

[WayneLigon]

I disbelieve. Everyone holds their opinions for reasons at least as important as you do, but they might be irrational, and often are.

Rather than the word 'rational', I prefer the term 'reasoned' or even 'lawful' from a hallmark statement in psychology that states that all behavior is lawful. In other words, there are no true random actions; everyone, even madmen, have an underlying reason behind what they do. It might not be 'rational' but everyone most certainly has a basis for their beliefs. Another way of saying it is that people do not hold opinions at random.

I think this might be what Celebrim is saying, as well.

Another word I think that would serve us better is 'reasonable'. Is it 'reasonable' for a person to have the belief that D&D could be harmful? That answer is generally 'no', but at the same time we can't read minds and we can't know the background of the person saying these things.

I will digress a bit into a personal and probably unprovable psychological observation as regards D&D.

I played D&D some time before The Incident, and maybe with one exception the people I saw playing the game were pretty normal sorts. Almost entirely college students or people who were of somewhat exceptional intelligence. After The Incident, once D&D's reputation for freakishness was well spread, I noticed that the quality of the company took a rather sharp nose-dive. People with marginal personalities and habits seem to be drawn to activites that are are peceived by the public to be marginal and somewhat unsavory. It's like they seek a form of re-affirmation of their own habits.

Once they heard that D&D was marginal and unsavory, something inside said to them 'I gotta get me some of that'. Before, if someone was a gamer, I'd consider them to automatically be both a more than average trustworthy person and probably an all-around Good Egg, as it were. After that point, we became very selective in who we invited into our houses or socialized with because of just the general unsavory vibes we'd get off a number of people, who later on would prove to have one of these crash-and-burn personalities.

So, back to the main point. Someone who is against D&D could very well be against it for very good reasons, because their only exposure has been to one of these maginalized personality types who sought acceptance through a marginal activity, thinking it would actually bring him acceptance of a sort. (And unfortunately, many times gamers are a little too accepting of the more marginal personality types because it's sometimes a situation of 'put up with some freakishness or not game, period').

People who are in other subcultures can certainly relate to this same phenomenon. Almost every subculture has a section of 'Please, don't help us' types whom you fervently hope are NOT out spreading the word about what you like.

 

[Darkwolf71]

I will digress a bit into a personal and probably unprovable psychological observation as regards D&D.

I played D&D some time before The Incident, and maybe with one exception the people I saw playing the game were pretty normal sorts. Almost entirely college students or people who were of somewhat exceptional intelligence. After The Incident, once D&D's reputation for freakishness was well spread, I noticed that the quality of the company took a rather sharp nose-dive. People with marginal personalities and habits seem to be drawn to activites that are are peceived by the public to be marginal and somewhat unsavory. It's like they seek a form of re-affirmation of their own habits.

Once they heard that D&D was marginal and unsavory, something inside said to them 'I gotta get me some of that'. Before, if someone was a gamer, I'd consider them to automatically be both a more than average trustworthy person and probably an all-around Good Egg, as it were. After that point, we became very selective in who we invited into our houses or socialized with because of just the general unsavory vibes we'd get off a number of people, who later on would prove to have one of these crash-and-burn personalities.

That's a very interesting perspective. IT had already occured before I started gaming, so that never occured to me.

I wonder if other Pre-Incident players had similar experiences.