Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9703479" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I never said it was bad D&D. Far from it. I consider it D&D--without quality qualifier. It simply <em>is</em>. Whether you <em>like</em> that it is or not is irrelevant. We cannot deny that the Dragonlance modules are D&D; we cannot pretend that their approach was somehow utterly unacceptable to anyone who played; in fact, we can't even deny that it had a long-term impact on the hobby, because it <em>one million percent DID</em>, just (generally) not in that specific area of "scripted to the point of almost being a theatrical performance".</p><p></p><p>And <em>because</em> we cannot deny those things, it isn't the case that death is a necessity, structural or otherwise, to being "D&D".</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think threats are the only, or even best, way to motivate people. I find that persuading them to care about something is dramatically more motivating. Fear simply makes people run. That's what it's for; fight-or-flight, after all, defaults to flight unless you don't think flight is possible. But people who care? They'll run into the fire willingly, even if they know they'll be burned, because they have discovered what C.S. Lewis wrote about friendship: “Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival.” They have discovered that survival without the things that give it value is worthless.</p><p></p><p>And that, in my not-so-humble opinion, is where the <em>best</em> roleplay occurs. Since I know my way isn't for everyone (and, indeed, is as much a minority as the meatgrinder early-edition style), I've never said that everyone should think this. I do, however, think that people have an inappropriately high appreciation for death <strong>and only death with absolutely nothing else</strong> as the thing that gives games meaning, while rejecting to the point of open disdain the possibility that maybe something else could be more appropriate <em>for some specific groups</em>. (Different things for different groups, most assuredly!)</p><p></p><p></p><p>You have it backwards. I am saying the players are invested <em>before the characters are finished</em>. Even if we were doing OSR-style games--which I have no interest in running--I know my players well enough to know that they WOULD invest before the character sheet was complete. Hence, in order to do what you told me to do--kill the character before the player has invested into it--I would need to kill their characters before they were even created.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As most folks on here who love the meatgrinder early-edition style seem to believe, but as you say, let us carry on. I really don't think much good will come from dwelling on this disagreement.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And yet you've said that such players are boring. This is hard to square!</p><p></p><p></p><p>But this <em>is</em> real life. The real-life risk of one's investment and participation in the experience (I would say "story" but I know that has baggage a bunch of people here outrightly hate.) And, for me? There's a bunch of players who have been browbeaten into being pure murderhobos who can't conceive of actually <em>caring</em> about anything other than survival and mounds of GP. I'll continue doing the antithesis of what you're doing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Translation: You'll be kicking out everyone like me, and you think that that is a good thing for the hobby. You'll have to pardon me for not really wanting to be kicked out of the hobby just so <em>you</em> only have people <em>you</em> like playing with.</p><p></p><p>And this, right here, is precisely what I've been talking about. It isn't enough for you to get respect for your preferences. Your preferences must be <em>enshrined</em>. They must be <em>enforced</em> on the playerbase. And the players who reject that enforcement? You laugh them out of the room as unfit to play in <em>your</em> game.</p><p></p><p>You can see how I might find this attitude rather disdainful and exclusionary.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Or, we teach people to care about things other than brute survival, so that they take risks, not because survival is on the line, but because they actually care about achieving something, doing something that truly matters to them.</p><p></p><p>Dunno. Seems like maybe pushing hardcore eliminative materialism as the only value characters should ever have might not be the best thing for the hobby. Having some characters, indeed some <em>playstyles</em> that do that? Sure, have at it. But excluding everything other than that? Nah. Not gonna happen, or at least you can expect me to fight tooth and nail against it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9703479, member: 6790260"] I never said it was bad D&D. Far from it. I consider it D&D--without quality qualifier. It simply [I]is[/I]. Whether you [I]like[/I] that it is or not is irrelevant. We cannot deny that the Dragonlance modules are D&D; we cannot pretend that their approach was somehow utterly unacceptable to anyone who played; in fact, we can't even deny that it had a long-term impact on the hobby, because it [I]one million percent DID[/I], just (generally) not in that specific area of "scripted to the point of almost being a theatrical performance". And [I]because[/I] we cannot deny those things, it isn't the case that death is a necessity, structural or otherwise, to being "D&D". I don't think threats are the only, or even best, way to motivate people. I find that persuading them to care about something is dramatically more motivating. Fear simply makes people run. That's what it's for; fight-or-flight, after all, defaults to flight unless you don't think flight is possible. But people who care? They'll run into the fire willingly, even if they know they'll be burned, because they have discovered what C.S. Lewis wrote about friendship: “Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival.” They have discovered that survival without the things that give it value is worthless. And that, in my not-so-humble opinion, is where the [I]best[/I] roleplay occurs. Since I know my way isn't for everyone (and, indeed, is as much a minority as the meatgrinder early-edition style), I've never said that everyone should think this. I do, however, think that people have an inappropriately high appreciation for death [B]and only death with absolutely nothing else[/B] as the thing that gives games meaning, while rejecting to the point of open disdain the possibility that maybe something else could be more appropriate [I]for some specific groups[/I]. (Different things for different groups, most assuredly!) You have it backwards. I am saying the players are invested [I]before the characters are finished[/I]. Even if we were doing OSR-style games--which I have no interest in running--I know my players well enough to know that they WOULD invest before the character sheet was complete. Hence, in order to do what you told me to do--kill the character before the player has invested into it--I would need to kill their characters before they were even created. As most folks on here who love the meatgrinder early-edition style seem to believe, but as you say, let us carry on. I really don't think much good will come from dwelling on this disagreement. And yet you've said that such players are boring. This is hard to square! But this [I]is[/I] real life. The real-life risk of one's investment and participation in the experience (I would say "story" but I know that has baggage a bunch of people here outrightly hate.) And, for me? There's a bunch of players who have been browbeaten into being pure murderhobos who can't conceive of actually [I]caring[/I] about anything other than survival and mounds of GP. I'll continue doing the antithesis of what you're doing. Translation: You'll be kicking out everyone like me, and you think that that is a good thing for the hobby. You'll have to pardon me for not really wanting to be kicked out of the hobby just so [I]you[/I] only have people [I]you[/I] like playing with. And this, right here, is precisely what I've been talking about. It isn't enough for you to get respect for your preferences. Your preferences must be [I]enshrined[/I]. They must be [I]enforced[/I] on the playerbase. And the players who reject that enforcement? You laugh them out of the room as unfit to play in [I]your[/I] game. You can see how I might find this attitude rather disdainful and exclusionary. Or, we teach people to care about things other than brute survival, so that they take risks, not because survival is on the line, but because they actually care about achieving something, doing something that truly matters to them. Dunno. Seems like maybe pushing hardcore eliminative materialism as the only value characters should ever have might not be the best thing for the hobby. Having some characters, indeed some [I]playstyles[/I] that do that? Sure, have at it. But excluding everything other than that? Nah. Not gonna happen, or at least you can expect me to fight tooth and nail against it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
Top