Snoweel said:
Actually, Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel didn't enter this discussion on the issue of violence or adventuring. They entered after you denounced PCs who are 'elegant and even exquisite gentlemen of leisure' as 'bor-ing'.
So long as you feel free to respond to parts of my posts with an idiotic 'bor-ing' I will feel free to ignore parts of yours.
I can. You're the one who is complaining of being offended, and whining about my not treating your posts respectfully enough.
"Bor-ing" is not a reply to a point. You might as well, in fact better, have ignored my point that heroes can elegant, even exquisite, gentlemen of leisure (such as Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel) as dismiss such heroes as 'bor-ing'. And if your point was that you had not meant by 'lifestyle' what I had evidently understood it would have been more helpful to say so.
Okay, here goes. Again.
In a conventional D&D campaign the PCs have a series of unconnected or loosely-connected adventures. And trying to make this work is a real drag for the GM if the characters are not so constituted as to go into such affairs willingly and with their eyes open, time after time. Therefore, in such campaigns, PCs ought to be such folk as will resort to the use of force other than under pressing threats, even though most people will not. (That's a concession, if you like.)
However, although women who will so resort to violence may be uncommon, that is not a compelling reason why PCs should not be women, because even if uncommon such women are not non-existent and therefore not inconceivable, and there is no reason why a group of PCs need be a representative sample (of anything). So there is no reason on those grounds to forbid male players from playing female characters, still less to forbid female players from playing males characters. (I think we are on the same page so far.)
Now, the question arises "is it fun to play a character who can't summon the resolve to kill an orc because it has dependants?". When I point out the codes against killing common in PCs in Champions campaigns this may be weakened to something like "is it fun to play are character who is not so resolute that he would be prepared to resort to violence except under pressing threats?".
Answer: in the conventional D&D campaign of episodic adventures it is not. At least, not unless the character-player enjoys tormenting the GM, and I will certainly condone the GM to making table rules to protect himself from that. (You can take that as another concession if you like, but I will maintain that it has been my clearly-stated position since I joined this thread.) But we aren't limited to discussing the conventional D&D campaign because there are alternatives. These alternatives cannot be dismissed out of hand because we are not, despite you flip dismissal, agreed that these boring.
In the first place, there are unconventional D&D campaigns. For instance, a GM can run a campaign with strong continuity instead of the conventional episodic structure. In such a campaign a character who would not go willingly and open-eyed into adventure after adventure might be drawn unwillingly into what is in effect one long adventure run over many sessions, and forced to do, or to find an alternative to doing, or to face the consequences of not doing, things that are repugnant to his or her nature. I have run a couple of campaigns with this structure, and quite a few one-shot adventures for scratch games, although admittedly not in fact using D&D. They have been among the most intense and most fondly-remembered things I have ever run. (This is your cue to try to misrepresent my statement into a vain and pompous claim that I have run something that no-one else has done or could do. So to anticipate your point I will say this: I don't point out the success of these adventures because it indicates my ability, but because it indicates the viability of the kind of adventure. My point would not have been established if I had tried these things and had a miserable failure.)
In the second place, the scope of this board comprehends campaigns other than D&D campaigns. And other games than D&D certainly lack the combat focus that you point out in D&D. In d20 Modern, for example, one might imagine playing a mystery campaign in which the PCs were police detectives. It is true that police detectives have occasionally to resort to the use of force, but it is certainly possible to play a police detective who shrinks from the use of deadly force except when pressingly threatened. A PC in such a campaign certainly leads an adventurous lifestyle (insofar as police investigations are adventures) and is often violent (to the extent of using some force). But is it fun to play the kind of detective who does the equivalent of refusing to kill an orc on the basis that it has dependants? Yes, it is. Or one might imagine playing a miniseries campaign based on that genre of thrillers in which ordinary people are caught up for a while in intrigue and adventure. It is certainly possible in such a campaign to play a person who is forced to do, or to find an alternative to doing, or to face the consequences of not doing, things that are repugnant to his or her nature.
Answer any points I brought up above if you wish. But don't bother with flip dismissals of points you don't wish to discuss. If you thing something is boring feel free explain why: that we can talk about. "Bor-ing" is neither an answer, nor a rebuttal, nor an opening for further discussion. And where I claim to have done something and made the players enjoy it, if you have done the same, consider that as evidence that it is not 'bor-ing'.
Regards,
Agback
Last edited:
