Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Terramotus" data-source="post: 4213425" data-attributes="member: 7220">First of all, I was originally going to respond to a couple of posts in another thread with this, as I mentioned before.  My lack of cited posts doesn't mean that it's a strawman argument.  Furthermore, I don't post here that much, so I don't think I could have required much of a reputation for mendacity here.  I have an opinion, but I wanted to hear that of others.  And yes, the title of the thread is sensational.  That's how this thread didn't get buried.But actually, I think you're pretty close on about the crux of the issue when you say that...It seems to be a very similar sentiment to this...I think that's an interesting point.  But my question is why does D&D as an "engine of wealth creation" automatically negate some or part of its intrinsic value?  Why can't it be both?  Or, in other words, were the products really better in an objective sense before RPGs became a business?  To my mind, not really.  RPGs going large mean that books are easier to come by a nd cheaper, players are more plentiful, and books are, theoretically, useful to a large number of people, motivated by a desire to make this money.  On other other hand, I think that there are some idiosyncrasies that get "ironed out" when profit is more of a motivating factor.  So there are some losses, but on balance, I don't think there's much comparison between the end products.  I'd be interested in hearing a counter-opinion.  Is it the state of the products that people miss from that era, or is it more the atmosphere of the hobby group?As to the "moral imperative to profit", I can assure you that it's not moral at all, but quite actual.  I have a wife, and will have kids in the future.  I have an obligation to work to support them.  If I stop doing that, bad things happen.  It's no different from a pre-industrial farmer - if he stops farming, he starves.  It's quite simple.  I would love quit my job to sit around creating all day, but that's just not realistic.  As someone who intends to, hopefully, make a career of creative works, I also intend on profiting by them.  I feel no "responsibilities of societal membership" to do anything other than sell my work at the prices people will pay.  Moral obligations are personal.  I can't have a moral obligation to someone I've never met, because they've done nothing to invoke it.  Any "moral imperative" that is attempted to be imposed on individuals who one has never met seems to me to take on more of the character of a mafia protection racket making an offer one can't refuse.  Or the tax man.  And I think this holds true whether one chooses to be self-employed or to work for a corporation.If you meant another kind of obligation I apologize, but any other interpretation doesn't really seem germane to the discussion.I think there's probably a lot of truth to that as well.You know, it's ironic that you mention that in this thread, considering that Terry Goodkind is known to be heavily influenced by the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, who was known as an ardent capitalist.</blockquote>

Verification