D&D haters???

[Celebrim]

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.

Probably. The problem with pinning down exactly what I mean is that the word 'rational' is pretty slippery, since in normal usage it implies that you can usefully separate intelligence from emotion and that just isn't the case. 'Reasoned' works well for me as an alternative. This gets us into a circle though, because different people will disagree about what is 'reasoned' and 'reasonable'.

A simple version of what I'm saying is that in humans there is no direct correlation between someone's intelligence and how reasonable they are as you might intuitively suppose.

Otherwise, interesting observations (both in the post I'm replying to and earlier).

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.

Ain't that the truth. I'm particularly aware of this because I find myself floating in so many subcultures that are normally assumed to be in direct conflict with each other, and I get annoyed because so often the conflict seems to be invented by the most 'unreasoned' members of both groups.

 

[Desdichado]

The game came along way IMO under Tracy Hickman's influence. If it had started under his influence, there never would have been a D&D contriversy to speak of in the first place.

Wow, that's an interesting what-if. I wonder.

What specifically did Tracy Hickman add or take away from the game? I mean, he's famously conscientous about how D&D is portrayed, especially after his outspoken criticism of the concept of the Book of Vile Darkness but other than that, do we have any evidence that the removal of devils and demons was his idea, or something like that?

Honestly, I'm surprised to hear about incidents with "D&D is of the devil!" incidents much these days. Anyone who might have thought that in the 80s might still have that in the back of their mind, but at the same time, there are much bigger fish to fry. Who cares what D&D is doing when you could be complaining about the latest Grand Theft Auto instead?

 

[Desdichado]

I wish I had a hat of d02.

Well, you don't want diaglo's. I've seen it. It has... stains. Of questionable origin.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

That's a good question. I got into the game at a much younger age than WL - which I think is an important point - and did so sort of mid-incident, but I'm quite certain that part of my own parents responce to the game was influenced by the fact that the first group of players they knew about were drug abusers, vandals, and otherwise dysfunctional. To thier credit, they didn't immediately judge the whole game based on that one data point, but it almost certainly influenced there thinking as the incident unfolded.

There has been some defence of the contriversy as good for the game. I'm sure it undoubtably did pull in alot of people who were attracted to the anti-social reputation of the game, but I'm equally convinced that it was not good for the game. In fact, I think it pretty much tanked the product. I personally think that without the contriversy, D&D would have a toy/spinoff line on par with Transformers or GI Joe to this day, that the game line would be prominently marketed along side risk or monopoly in major department stores, and that the upcoming Dragon Lance movie would have a budget more on par with that of the recent LotR movie (cashing in on its success) rather than being a rinky dink embarassing badly animated straight to video sort of thing. Now you could reasonably think that would be bad for the game, but that's a different topic.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Honestly, I'm surprised to hear about incidents with "D&D is of the devil!" incidents much these days. Anyone who might have thought that in the 80s might still have that in the back of their mind, but at the same time, there are much bigger fish to fry. Who cares what D&D is doing when you could be complaining about the latest Grand Theft Auto instead?

They still happen, but at least in my experience the more rural you get in America the more likelihood there is of encountering it. Trends of any kind take longer to filter down to the truly rural areas, but also tend to stick more once they reach them. The borderline quasi-rural sprawl areas have mostly gone on to more immediate issues.

 

[palleomortis]

Originally Posted by Hobo
Honestly, I'm surprised to hear about incidents with "D&D is of the devil!" incidents much these days. Anyone who might have thought that in the 80s might still have that in the back of their mind, but at the same time, there are much bigger fish to fry. Who cares what D&D is doing when you could be complaining about the latest Grand Theft Auto instead?

This seems more like the earlier "It could be worse" scenario. Although true, it could be used for almost any argument.

 

[Celebrim]

What specifically did Tracy Hickman add or take away from the game? I mean, he's famously conscientous about how D&D is portrayed, especially after his outspoken criticism of the concept of the Book of Vile Darkness but other than that, do we have any evidence that the removal of devils and demons was his idea, or something like that?

This is second and third hand, but my understanding is that Hickman was one of the main forces behind moving D&D toward the comic book code, and that he was one of the first to recognize that using all of world's beliefs as merely grist for the imagination might not be the best approach to marketing the product.

If you look at his own body of work - Desert of Desolation, Ravenloft, Dragon Lance - it is remarkably unoccult and culturally neutral fantasy while still being I think quite obviously deeply influential examples of the craft of adventure creation and mature thoughtful works. I wonder which is really the more valuable intellectual property - Orcus or Dragon Lance? What value is having Belial in the game compared to say Strahd?

My personal feeling about Hickman's work is that he was the first prominent D&D writer to take the craft of RPG creation/playing as a mature and serious artform and not just a fun pasttime. And I also think he was the first prominent D&D writer who took the term 'adult themes' to mean something very different from 'contains nudity, obscenity, sacriledge, or the occult' and then did something about it. At least, that's the feeling I get looking at his work in context.

Of course, this is just a peiced together outsider's observation, and it doesn't deal with some of the harm that came to the game under 2nd editions revisions, and naturally anyone actually inside the company at the time will have a better perspective than I have.

 

[WayneLigon]

In fact, I think it pretty much tanked the product. I personally think that without the contriversy, D&D would have a toy/spinoff line on par with Transformers or GI Joe to this day

See, now I'd think exactly the opposite: the Egbert incident is what (I'm virtually positive I remember Gygax saying) boosted D&D sales by a thousand percent over what they had been, so it resulted in tons of free publicity and into getting the game out there in the hands of many more people than were previously playing. TSR's push to get it into the book trade pipeline was a big, big help as well.

I would think that without that 1000% uptick that it might have stayed a lot smaller than it became at the time. Of course, who knows how history might have gone. Without being seduced by the monetary possibilities, the Blumes and then later Williams might never have taken an interest in TSR.

Today, though, I mostly ignore any rants against D&D. These people are paper tigers who only create free publicity and can't really effect the sales of D&D at all. If an under-18-year-old wants D&D badly enough, he'll buy it anyway. Over 18, the point is moot, so WoTC gets his cash regardless of anyone's wishes. So on the whole, I have a serious doubt that the D&D nay-sayers have any real effect on the spread of or on the revenues of the hobby itself.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Heh, when I think of occult elements in RPGs I think of Cthulhu style stuff. Secretive cults of black magic seeking to summon up power from "inimical, alien" entities.

I never thought of summoning byakhee as significantly different from summoning a hezrou or osyluth.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I suppose you live in the US, right?
It's the only place in the world where that sort of thing would happen! Heheheheh

Actually, a friend who was visiting Uganda as a student met exactly the same 'D&D is EVIL' as the most knee-jerk D&D haters in the U.S..

The U.S. is likely the most highly developed nation that has this reaction though.

The Auld Grump