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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5117414" data-attributes="member: 4937">Oh, good grief.  Give me some credit.  When I want to criticize something, I usually do a more thorough job than that.  Here's some criticism though, such as I can muster.I don't personally think much motivated WotC other than a chance to link D&D to some T&A.  I don't feel that that this creates nearly as positive of a perception as some think.  All this does out in the larger world, is associate D&D even more with basement dwelling, porn watching, permanently immature people who've never had sex in their lives.  I don't know if you realize this, but for most people, 'porn stars' are no more cool than the people who watch them.  I think that its cool that there are some porn stars who are nerds, but they are cool because they are nerds - not because they are porn stars.  The number of people who associate either 'porn stars' or 'nerds' with cool is pretty small.  I just don't see 'D&D with Porn Stars' as doing anything particularly positive for the image of the hobby, much less an interview that begins: "I played RPGs and wargames when I was a kid because it was the '80s and I liked Iron Maiden, and you were required to do that in the '80s if you liked Iron Maiden: arson, petty theft, and D&D." This does not associate D&D in most peoples minds with 'the cool people'.  It's very close to the amphetamine/marijauna use, satanism, and juvenile mysogyny that was the sterotype of D&D in the early 80's.Most of all, I don't see this sort of interview as being particularly smart corporate relations for a subsidiary of Hasbro, or at least, I'm really surprised that Hasbro sees it as smart public relations.  Sure, it's excellent advertising for the porn stars who'll probably get alot of exposure out of this, but I'm not sure how positively this impacts WotC's image to suggest that the game is associated with pornography and criminal behavior.  I seriously doubt that there will be any fallout from it, because well, no one but us is paying attention and you probably couldn't more demonize D&D in the public eye than it is, but you never know.  However, all that being said, I don't really have a problem with the interview.  I find it abit suprising and mildly worrisome given D&D's already shaky public perceptions as an anti-social activity that encourages murder and suicide, but I've got no real problem with interviewing Zak.  I read through Zak's blog when it first was being talked about on EnWorld, and he seemed like a good solid DM who wrote intelligently about the craft.  He also linked to alot of good work, which left me surfing gaming blogs for hours.  Plus we got alot in common as DMs.  We both prefer to play a heavily houseruled version of 3.X with heavy 1e influences, we both enjoy playing with new players, and both of us believe in tough love as a DM.  Moreover, I'm not a huge fan of modern art, but Zak's work is pretty darn good (I'd put some of it on my walls) and critically comes off as the work of someone using these techniques by choice and not (as so often seems to be the case with 'modern art') because they lack the talent to do anything else.  It's good work.  He should be proud of it.  And, I'm sad to hear that his girl is sick, and I hope that she gets better.  But, I can't help but feel that Zak's notoriaty is not due to his obvious skill as a DM or a painter, but rather to what is actually little more than voyerism.  And I consider that a shame, because he can't be recognized for his talent, but he can get attention with sex.  And I really find that sad.   I mean, I haven't seen his other work, so maybe he's a really talented porn star, but I personally think his work as a painter, a DM, and apparantly a person is far more important than the fact that he has had sex and apparantly some people like to watch him do it.  What struck me most from his blog was how good of a friend he was being.  That seemed to me to be what was important; not naked chicks.Admin here. What just got Celebrim booted from the thread was the next paragraph:And, maybe when some of you have had sex, you'll understand that as well and the whole idea of sex won't seem quite so novel.  (Partially kidding there, but this thread really does reinforce that sterotype heavily, to the point that for the first time, I'm seriously considering it relevant.)I have a general guideline when evaluating posts that I like to call my "don't be a jerk" guideline (although "jerk" is generally replaced by a more amusing synonym.). If I read something and think "do I think the person is just trying to be a jerk?" and the answer is yes, I usually intervene. That's where this insult comes in. It's fine to express an opinion, but the gratuitous slam causes me to reject the entire post. When you're discussing this topic, folks, use good judgment and a sense of decorum -- and respect other peoples' opinions. Thanks. ~ PCat</blockquote>

Verification