Dragon 300 a bad idea

[JeffB]

Minor Rant....

Regardless of the content I found it pretty insulting to our intelligence...sealed this, vile that, blah blah blah..if they were trying to be so mature they wouldn't have made it such a big deal..bloodsplatters on the sealed section..puh-leez...Not that i was surprised by it, just after seeing it, it sunk in.

On a similar note..I thought it was a piss-poor 300th issue overall..Other than the former editor's telling their stories, I found it really not usefull..unless rules for flesh eating hobbits, and spells that require necrophelia are just what you needed to put the "spark" back in your game....

I let my sub run out last year... then the mrs. re-subbed for my B-day...I then let that lapse, but my RPGA sub transferred over (due to LGJ)..now I keep getting the final notices...no thanx...not until I see if Piazzo can get the mag back on it's feet...I think the folks at Piazzo should go take a look at the first 150 issues or so of the mag, I mean really take a look at them, and try to re-capture the usefullness the magazine had back then to all sorts of D&D gamers...not to those who just want the latest oddball PRclass or stats for the latest computer game in D&D terms...

Even the formerly EXCELLENT LGJ has more stats than anything these days....

sigh....

I like Dungeon/Poly though!

 

[Zaruthustran]

My primary complaint with the issue was not due to the fact that they dealt with "mature" themes, but that they chose to do so in such a juvenile way.

J

Man, you said it. Dragon 300 was a waste. It could have been a fascinating look at D&D/the RPG industry now compared to D&D/the RPG industry today, complete with a little history lesson for the new kids (700 Club, Mazes and Monsters, etc.). It could have had a campy fun "Where are they now?" segment on famous old-school NPCs (like the two guys from In Search of the Unknown). It could have predicted what we'd see in Dragon 600--where the industry is headed.

Instead, we got crap. Trash. Useless drivel. The small "looking back" story was completely overshadowed by pages and pages of utterly valueless spells, cults, and monsters. I wish I could ask for a refund. Actually, I think I will.

-z

PS: of course, I'm upset with Dragon in general. I'd like to see it become more of an industry journal, with fewer pages devoted to cheesy rules and more pages devoted to news and editorials.

 

[drnuncheon]

One thing I'm continually confused by in this entire discussion:

How does Monte's article "promote slavery" and the like any more than, say, the old A1-4 modules did? Is it the simple words "PCs might do this"? Does anyone really need a magazine article to give them permission to put such things in their game?

Does anyone seriously believe that someone out there is reading Dragon #300 and saying "Oh my God! I never knew I was allowed to have my PCs do things like this! I'm going to go start a vile game RIGHT NOW!"

J

 

[the Jester]

Couple of points-

First off, what we call "good" and "evil" in games is very relative. How many times has a "good" party sought out a cave complex without provocation, killed every orc within, MAN WOMAN AND CHILD, and looted the whole place? Isn't that murder and robbery? What about killing helpless prisoners? Granted, this stuff doesn't happen in every campaign, but it is very common.

What about killing the cleric whose only crime is worshipping the wrong god? Even if he associates with others that the pcs KNOW have murdered, enslaved, etc, how often do the pcs give each individual member of the evil cult a chance?

Another thing, while we're on the subject of role-playing evil making one turn evil... what about profilers? Yes, sometimes they end up with psychological problems, but would anyone really suggest we stop trying to profile serial killers? It helps stop them if we understand them. Personally, I have a great fascination with serial killers and I've read a lot about them. Does that make me a serial killer? Nope. Never even killed one person, myself.

For those of us who've actually played evil characters- and if you haven't, you really don't have any more business judging us than people who've never rp'ed have judging the whole hobby- do you think it made you more prone to violence, rape, kidnapping, etc.... or less prone to it?

One of the most fun (yes, FUN) characters I ever played was Chaotic Evil. Part of the fun (yes, FUN) was rp'ing things that I, as a real human being, would never, ever do. Never even consider doing.

Doesn't everyone have occasional violent fantasies? "Ooh, that guy cut me off, I missed my freeway exit! I'd like to shoot 'im!" -Followed by, "Oh well, I guess I better take the next exit and turn around." No harm done.

The people who turn into murderers are already messed up in the head. Playing an evil dnd character doesn't make you evil any more than listening to Ozzy or playing Grand Theft Auto or acting out the role of Macbeth does.

In my opinion, of course.

And I'd like the join the chorus saying that comparing the sealed section of Dragon 300, or people who rp evil characters, to terrorism is not only stupid and ridiculous, but in very poor taste. Same with the Columbine kids. Stupid, ridiculous, bad taste- hm. These are the same things some people are saying about the sealed section of Dragon 300, as well as about playing evil characters. Difference of opinion, I s'pose. That's okay.

And, just to join the 'disclaimer at the end of the post' posse, I'm not calling any person here stupid, ridiculous and in bad taste- just certain comparisons. No offense intended to anyone, especially SemperJase. I respectfully disagree with you; I'm not trying to flame you.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

He is basically a good and loving person and he said, "at one point, I finally said to myself, 'this is sick. Why am I even pretending to do these things? I don't want to do them.' When I realized that, I realized that if I didn't want to do them in real life, there was no point in doing it in a game."

I tend to agree with that sentiment. If you don't want to do them IRL, why bother with them in a game?

Ah, but I think that this actually illuminates one of the good reasons to play an evil character: it can lead to reflection on one's own morals, and deeper understanding of the true nature of fantasies that glorify evil and the actual seriousness of their object-material. I'd argue that that's what happened to the role-player in the example, and that it was probably an occasion for moral growth. It's possible (though I will not merely state so without supporting argument, but simply suggest it as a topic) that this is moral growth that would not have been available solely through role-playing characters engaged in good and noble actions.

Not the case for everyone, to be sure, but enough of a counterexample to neatly refute any broad characterization of the role-playing of evil as a categorically bad thing.

This is not to say that I endorse Dragon 300 specifically, as I haven't seen it. I can only address my comments to the actual arguments made about it, not to the material itself.

 

[Dave Blewer]

Spurn evil (i.e. terrorist) campaigns and play the good guys.

You are so right!

I shall never play Star Wars RPG again!

I shall also re-think that mutant superhero game I was planning!

Thank you for showing me the light!

 

[SemperJase]

you wish to state that attitudes developped in character breed bad personality traits, but only the evil ones. i don't think this is true.

I don't think it is true either. I also never said that. In fact, I did at least infer that positive roleplaying DOES promote positive behavior.

 

[bolen]

things I liked in #300

1) the demon dragons - good ideas
2) the return of the ecology articles. I'd love a book of these
3) the retrospective

But it was kind of ironic that the "mature" stuff was some of the most adolescent garbage I have seen. Especially the article which discusses rape. This offered no real content and gives ammo to those who think D&D is an "evil" game. Why Dragon would publish that I have no idea except to get the right wing mad

 

[annadobritt]

Minor Rant....

Regardless of the content I found it pretty insulting to our intelligence...sealed this, vile that, blah blah blah..if they were trying to be so mature they wouldn't have made it such a big deal..bloodsplatters on the sealed section..puh-leez...Not that i was surprised by it, just after seeing it, it sunk in.

On a similar note..I thought it was a piss-poor 300th issue overall..Other than the former editor's telling their stories, I found it really not usefull..unless rules for flesh eating hobbits, and spells that require necrophelia are just what you needed to put the "spark" back in your game....

I let my sub run out last year... then the mrs. re-subbed for my B-day...I then let that lapse, but my RPGA sub transferred over (due to LGJ)..now I keep getting the final notices...no thanx...not until I see if Piazzo can get the mag back on it's feet...I think the folks at Piazzo should go take a look at the first 150 issues or so of the mag, I mean really take a look at them, and try to re-capture the usefullness the magazine had back then to all sorts of D&D gamers...not to those who just want the latest oddball PRclass or stats for the latest computer game in D&D terms...

Even the formerly EXCELLENT LGJ has more stats than anything these days....

sigh....

I like Dungeon/Poly though!

I was very disappointed in issue 300. I renewed my subscription in the middle of June, and all the magazines I received up to issue 300 always had something in there that was useful, but not this one. Very disappointing overall. And is it my imagination or did the magazine seem thinner this time?

I only hope future issues of Dragon are better than this or I'll be cancelling my subscription.

 

[Zappo]

OTOH, NOT imagining yourself doing something is a pretty good way to ensure that you don NOT take a course of action.

Why? I think it's more logical that not imagining yourself doing something won't give you any information.

We almost always think before we act.

Agree 100%. And imagining one doing something, its consequences, whether I would be able to do it or not, whether I would want to do it or not, is part of that thinking.

Finally, again addressing the question of the DM, I personally think most DMs see their villains as much through the eyes of the heroic PCs as through the villains themselves. The DM keeps himself "arms-length" from his villains most of the time - with a PC, it's "I do this" - with a DM, it's "he does this." That difference, from first to third person, is huge.

Yeah, I agree. The DM has a totally different perspective. The reason for which I think it's fine for players to play evil PCs has nothing to do with the DM.

Here's the thing: If you want to hurt people, you will fantasize about it. You will play out potential scenarios. Just as we do with all the things we want to do.

Yes, but that doesn't imply the opposite (ie, that if you fantasize about hurting people then you want to do it.

I'm not saying there is no danger in exploring your "dark side" (assuming you have one). You may discover things about yourself you never wanted to know.

There's nothing about myself that I don't want to know. Knowledge is always better than not knowing.

You may in fact trigger off some repressed desire to cause pain. I admit this is a possibility.

But the desire had to be there to begin with. Role-playing won't put it there.

Yes, that's my opinion too. Roleplaying won't make you mad. It might trigger an already less than sane person... but then again, heaps of thing can do that.