Dungeon Craft: Critical Role, Pokemon, and the Future of D&D

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
arjunstc said:
If you are referring to me, I did not say that death is the only failure state.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. To be honest, I've never encountered a player who wants nothing bad to ever happen to their character. (There are players who have certain things as off limits, but that is always fair). It's why I always find the response of "well if they can't fail!" a little weird. Cause I haven't found anyone who thinks that their character should always succeed.

Every time I've encountered the "victory means nothing without a chance of failure" it has been in response to lower lethality in games being painted as "zero consequence" games. (which is what was being discussed in the thread when I brought up the whole thing of playing powerful characters). That was what I was talking about.
 
CRKrueger said:
Yeah, Tenbones is right, Rob. As I’ve already said, everyone has done Gonzo Heavy Metal campaigns, and everyone has done one offs. That’s different than Tieflings walking down Main Street. In Greyhawk, you might expect to see Tieflings in Iuz, the Horned Society, The Great Kingdom, The Pomarj, etc. but in most places where humans dwell, they would be Kill On Sight. The same with the Forgotten Realms. The idea that Balrog characters are normal is just ludicrous on it’s face.
Click to expand...
It looks to be more than that but...

CRKrueger said:
When every setting becomes Rifts, that’s not entertaining, that’s the most boring thing of all.
Click to expand...
As I stated to tenbones tenbones my issue was the contention it was some post-modern things of the present era. That why we are seeing it now is because finally there somebody on staff who like that style who is allowed to write about it.

The implications of that (in my opinion of course)
  • We don't know how many people actually like that style as the RPG industry is not noted for its award winning customer surveys.
  • My instinct says that it will go as about as well as when the staff had the dude who thought D&D was all about being fantasy superheroes doing the writing. Which to be clear, it won't last and won't be received well over the long term for the reasons you and other mentioned.
  • That I think Jon approach is about as solid we can hope for and we need to do this for other decades to get a better picture. Before we say that X is a result of the present generation attitudes.*
  • To be clear I am very much not a fan of kitchen sink milieus.
Read the Elusive Shift. I think it turning out to be more relevant than Playing at the World. As the issue it describes and documents persist to the present. That it not a bunch of one offs or obscure campaigns.

*I think a good think to look at would be how slavery was treated as that would have been an issue regardless of decade. When I first started playing in the 70s there were players who didn't like the idea of slavery in the campaign. And it wasn't just the odd guy either in my neck of the woods.
 
Last edited:
CRKrueger said:
If Gronan ever actually did say Balrog PCs were normal, I would take his word on that. But since he’s never said anything of the sort, I can’t take his word on it, can I?
Click to expand...
However, when we add to that this from OD&D

Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as, let us say, a “young” one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee
Click to expand...

It's very clear that "you can play anything you want" was common enough to be hardbaked into the rules. Gygax's concern there is power levels, not a lack of verisimilitude.
 
Black Leaf said:
For me, I run both very narrow (you all need to be characters who would be hired for an expedition into the North Pole) and very broad (of course you can play an animated suit of armour, I'll stat that up now) campaigns.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm open to anything you want in B that also fits what I want in A. But I also trust my players. If they have an oddball concept, I know they're not just screwing with me. Just like they know I don't just screw with them.
 
robertsconley said:
No it not a singular example but you are better off reading the Elusive Shift by Jon Peterson and following his references than taking my word for it. He had done the work going through the various documentation to pieces together the picture of what happened back then.

The result he states on the OD&D discussion forum.

View attachment 25651
Click to expand...

No I'm fine taking your word for it. But this doesn't address my point - rather it makes it. By using these outlier examples, it only pitches a fence around the real question which is what works in theory vs. actual practice. Those two points shift over time. One of the elusive and intellectually lazy part of being a Post-Modernist is to simply take a position outside of any established norms. While that alone isn't necessarily intellectually lazy it has become very popular these days to mistake taking this position as being something of some intellectual claim unto itself.

So saying people can/do gonzo things with their RPG's doesn't mean those gonzo things are accepted as normative engagement free of context. That's the whole point. As the poles of what "works" in theory and practice change - see: narrative games are a thing, decohesion of traditional settings is now a thing - then the discussion of what those things are should occur. Whether they're good or not is to be determined.

But the only relevant thing being said here is: People have done traditionally WEIRD things in their games in the history of D&D at their table. In the applied practical examples of their published settings - those things were extreme outliers in the past. And less so now. The existence of those settings are an indicator of the degree of change has now moved from theoretical to practical. It remains to be seen if it is a beneficial or malignant mutation.

robertsconley said:
Yes but what more important what is published or what people do at home? Did the published work represent the normal state of play in an era whether it is today or back in the day? Is the state of published work a reflection of the times or rather a reflection of how the writing staff liked to play?
Click to expand...

That is the question, and the point we're making. I'll try to be careful here because of forum rules - the political sensibilities of the time and the people currently writing D&D are definitely on display. I won't single them out free of the rest of the current cultural zeitgeist, but it is more than apparent based on those creators social media statements that they certainly have an agenda for certain things. Is it more important? I don't know. I do know that it has left me uninterested in their products. My group, likewise has no desire to engage with the current material. And it's equally because of changes they made to the setting conceits, as well as the system itself. They don't offer content for *me*. I totally get that. I want sandbox material - and frankly, that's not a priority for them.

As for what people do at their own table? Well, you know as well as I do, homebrewed campaigns are the foundational sand upon which the dreams of Fantasy Heartbreaking Castles are built. And more glory to the GM's that do so - but we both know fully realized homebrewed settings among GM's are more rare than GM's are among Players. Are they important? Absolutely? Are we both going to sit here and pretend that homebrewed settings are normal and what keeps the masses consuming gaming products? Please tell me you're not seriously asking me that?

Homebrewed content is important because in the hands of skilled person, there's a chance that content might become polished enough to become published for mass consumption. YOU already know this, Mr. Wilderlands, heh. I know of no players that stuck in this hobby specifically because of a homebrewed campaign that wasn't actually published. That is purely my anecdotal example, but I'm comfortable enough to stand on it.

robertsconley said:
I beginning to think what published not a conclusive as people making it out to be. Of course to make a convincing case we need more work done like the Elusive Shift but for later decades.

Also the campaign was not just run by anybody it was one ran by Greg Costikyan an individual who went on to write many influential RPGs. And it not the only example of this type of campaign.
Click to expand...

Sure! But it's still an outlier. I've had players with PC's that were quadripelegic, blind, vampire hunters that had a custom wheelchair that could do 50mph, and he staked vampires with a sharpened pool-cue. Does that mean it's normal for the conceits of Vampire, or any other kind of game *not* implicitly trying to be silly? I'm saying call the dog a dog, and the spade a spade.

robertsconley said:
My point of debate whether it is a result of a post-modern shift. I am contending it there all along. It just happened that in this generation it got published by the IP holder of D&D. It not a result of a post-modern shift. It a result of people who liked this form of tabletop roleplaying finally being on the staff and getting to publish what they like.
Click to expand...

And my counter-contention is pseudo-intellectuals have long hid in this hobby, by dint of it attracting outsiders that happen to be nerds. Post-Modernism has been with us *forever* most people don't know they even engage in it when they do; its so ubiquitous today. What makes conversations like this difficult is when people (not you) are being contrary to the norm, for the purposes of being argumentative as if the outliers have value higher than they do, they conflate this to being normal.

A lot of these people that engage in this form of discussion are unwilling to simply accept the generally reasonable definitions of anything because they are so used to being contrarian that is the only form of discussion they're capable of. Again - I'm not saying you're doing this, I'm saying this point about "Gonzo being there all along" is not even something I'm debating. I'm literally saying, like the video, that 5e is pushing the implied assumptions of D&D beyond the traditional printed material for the last 40+ years.

As to whether it's good or not depends on your perspective. D&D left me a couple of editions ago. She's an old girlfriend that went astray from my goals. We visit and have drinks, but we've grown apart. And that's fine.
 
Last edited:
Ladybird said:
...which is funny, because I actually like Rob and Vulmea's posts, and I have a lot of time for their points of view even when I don't necessarily agree with them, because they're able to express their opinions without going into tribal mentality; they actually engage with the poster and the discussion, rather than attributing negative traits to folk based on rough similarities to folks who they still have chips on their shoulder about.

But you're clearly having yourself a good time, so keep on going off.
Click to expand...

Wait... no one said we don't like each other's posts. Just that we definitely fall into our general camps of perspective. I like a lot of your posts LB. I don't agree with you (or Norton, or a lot of people) on various things, but that doesn't mean I don't like you or your posts.

I don't agree with my wife on a LOT of stuff. But we still love each other.
 
I sincerely don't understand this thread. We're living in the most eclectic era of the hobby, where it's easy to find a game that suits your tastes no matter how specific they are.

We should be celebrating not fighting.
 
silva said:
I sincerely don't understand this thread. We're living in the most eclectic era of the hobby, where it's easy to find a game that suits your tastes no matter how specific they are.

We should be celebrating not fighting.
Click to expand...

This is how I feel about the state of the hobby right now. I don't think I've ever seen so much variety just available to everyone. There feels like there is something out there ready made no matter what your style or genre preference.

... Except a mecha game that matches my tastes perfectly because I have at some point in the past offended the Deities and they don't want me to have it.
 
EmperorNorton said:
This is how I feel about the state of the hobby right now. I don't think I've ever seen so much variety just available to everyone. There feels like there is something out there available no matter what your style or genre preference.

... Except a mecha game that matches my tastes perfectly because I have at some point in the past offended the Deities and they don't want me to have it.
Click to expand...

I mean, I still can't find a Star Wars game I COMPLETELY like, either. But my players won't seriously play Star Wars anyway, so that's probably fine.
 
Black Leaf said:
However, when we add to that this from OD&D



It's very clear that "you can play anything you want" was common enough to be hardbaked into the rules. Gygax's concern there is power levels, not a lack of verisimilitude.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and there’s a Vampire Lord Mayor of Hommlet and the Paladin King of Furyondy is married to Asmodeus’ daughter and the Circle of Eight are all polymorphed dragons, and the Shield Lands are full of Slaad mercenaries and their Githzerai concubines and...oh wait.

Nevermind

It says there’s no reason you couldn’t have a Dragon PC.
There’s nothing that says Dragon PCs therefore are the norm, and they are 100% accepted by everyone in the setting and certainly nothing about DMs having to cater to players whims and allow every possible combo.

D&D history supports 3-4 generations. There’s bound to be shifts in player culture just like there have been in every other human culture.

You don’t need to validate yourself and others by taking every possible criticism of newer games and proclaim “OD&D/AD&D did it too!!!”
 
EmperorNorton said:
... Except a mecha game that matches my tastes perfectly because I have at some point in the past offended the Deities and they don't want me to have it.
Click to expand...


What about that one by the guy who did the 6 billion demons webcomics?
 
See that's the weird thing. *I* am not fighting. Heh I don't know how much more I can emphasize that.

I'm just talking shop. Its in my nature to dig into topics to see where they go. When people start feeling "it's personal" - from my end, it is *extremely* rare that I intend for anything to be personal. But I know it's easy for many, especially these days, to read words on the screen and take it as such. Such are the times.

I agree that this is a gaming Golden-Age. There is an RPG for everything. And I've walked into it embracing it every step of the way. But conversely, I've let go of some very dear friends (D&D being chief among them) because its changed, and I've changed too. I don't hate people that love it, but I'm certainly down to talk about those changes good/bad and why I believe those things are good/bad.

And I assume anyone wanting to engage with me on those ideas is doing so in good faith. Because I find great novelty in a good take on something I believe differently.
 
EmperorNorton said:
This is how I feel about the state of the hobby right now. I don't think I've ever seen so much variety just available to everyone. There feels like there is something out there ready made no matter what your style or genre preference.

... Except a mecha game that matches my tastes perfectly because I have at some point in the past offended the Deities and they don't want me to have it.
Click to expand...
We’ll always have Jovian Chronicles. :heart:
 
CRKrueger said:
It says there’s no reason you couldn’t have a Dragon PC.
There’s nothing that says Dragon PCs therefore are the norm, and they are 100% accepted by everyone in the setting and certainly nothing about DMs having to cater to players whims and allow every possible combo.
Click to expand...

I mean, I've rarely been a guy to bar much from my games...but I've always treated the more esoteric D&D elements as just this...exceptions.

It allowed me to have the fantasy world I was comfortable running and allowed my players to veer outside the lanes if that's what they wanted to play. Win-win.

(And I'm not even getting into shit like playing dragons, but newer options like tieflings and the like.)
 
An observation the point I was trying to make earlier.

Back around 2000, the consensus of the hobby that OD&D, B/X, and AD&D were old broken editions of D&D. There was a small group of hobbyists who knew otherwise but were hardly heard from. So if anybody popped in and say that no OD&D is fun and it works and tries to explain why, they would invariably debated to death what that wasn't so.

And likely the person making that point about OD&D, B/X, or AD&D wouldn't have it completely right by glossing over the weaknesses that those editions have.

So the Internet comes along and allows the small number of hobbyist interested in those editions to get together and talk. That in turn later evolves into the OSR which takes advantage of various opportunities to start publishing new material for these edition in a way far more expansive than what was available before.

With the concurrent rise of scholarship into the origins of the hobby, a more clearer picture of what the strength and weaknesses of OD&D and the other classic edition emerged. The good news that they were as fun to play today as they were back in the day when they ignited a new hobby. However they had their quick and shortcomings and as a result not everybody cup of tea so to speak for the present. But enough like it so new niche of the hobby was born and sustained to the present.

This didn't change the fact many other hobbyists had misconception and criticisms. But those who were interested and willing to do a little digging (instead of a lot) the information was there how to use OD&D and the classic edition for a campaign. Multiple sources.

So this thread.
Are the things we are talking about present in the hobby the whole time. Or it is a result of how things in society and the hobby today? Or it is a mix and if so what the proportion?

With out going into details certainly society has an impact on what got shared and publication both in type and quantity. What we saw in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s, and now the 20s, reflects in part what the hobby found interesting and to a lesser extent what society at large found interesting. So I think how society was at the time had some impact but.....

Those of you who read my post, know that more than a few time I would figuratively roll my eyes say something along lines of "Well it always been an issue, I seen since I since started roleplaying in rural NW PA". I admit because of that, what I read so far in the Elusive Shift plays right into that sentiment.

But the reason I gave that opinion is that I been involved in organized gaming at various time throughout the decades. Not just participating but organizing things like game clubs, cons, LARP chapters. What I did wasn't a big deal mostly confined to Western PA. There were many hobbyists who lived there who did far more than I .

But it did give me enough contact with other hobbyist to see how attitudes played out over time. And I tell while specifics varied it was pretty much variations on a theme. The same class of problem and interests cropped up over and over again. I had to caution myself from making too many assumption in later years because of this. Because individual hobbyist were never this or that, but a bunch of things. So my observations didn't excuse me from having to get to know each individual hobbyist I met if I wanted to learn what interest them.

So when somebody like tenbones tenbones say that reason we are seeing a kaleidoscope Waterdeep being published is a result of post-modern attitudes, I disagree. I agree that people publishing kaleidoscope settings have been few and far between and almost never the main IP holder of D&D. But my view that chance and circumstance has led to somebody being on the writing staff who likes kaleidoscope setting with enough influence to see it published. And as stated earlier I think it will last a long as making a D&D edition all about fantasy superheroes did. Which to say it won't last.

But where things could be better we understood this aspect of our hobby better as well as the other different viewpoints of how to present adventures and settings. Then like with OD&D we can get a clearer picture of its strengths and weaknesses to come up with new stuff that is fun and interesting to play.
 
TristramEvans said:
What about that one by the guy who did the 6 billion demons webcomics?
Click to expand...
I've read Lancer. I don't dislike it but something about it just doesn't hit that sweet spot for me.

I'm honestly starting to wonder if the reason I can't find it is that my brain wants so many different exact things and some of them may even be contradictory.
 
EmperorNorton said:
I've read Lancer. I don't dislike it but something about it just doesn't hit that sweet spot for me.

I'm honestly starting to wonder if the reason I can't find it is that my brain wants so many different exact things and some of them may even be contradictory.
Click to expand...
Maybe its the absence of mecha sex moves...
 
CRKrueger said:
It says there’s no reason you couldn’t have a Dragon PC.
There’s nothing that says Dragon PCs therefore are the norm, and they are 100% accepted by everyone in the setting and certainly nothing about DMs having to cater to players whims and allow every possible combo.
Click to expand...

It says there's no reason you shouldn't allow players to play one, that's a fair bit stronger.

D&D history supports 3-4 generations. There’s bound to be shifts in player culture just like there have been in every other human culture.
Click to expand...

And this thread is about those shifts.

You don’t need to validate yourself and others by taking every possible criticism of newer games and proclaim “OD&D/AD&D did it too!!!”
Click to expand...
But this thread is specifically about claims that not only is the "play anything you want" attitude new, but that it's specifically new to D&D. At that point what OD&D did is completely relevant.

(And I know we're mostly middle aged men on here, but considering most of the games I talk about on here are from the 80s and 90s I'm sadly not sure they count as newer games anymore).
 
robertsconley said:
An observation the point I was trying to make earlier.
Click to expand...

Thoughtful post... but of course I have responses! heh.

robertsconley said:
Back around 2000, the consensus of the hobby that OD&D, B/X, and AD&D were old broken editions of D&D. There was a small group of hobbyists who knew otherwise but were hardly heard from. So if anybody popped in and say that no OD&D is fun and it works and tries to explain why, they would invariably debated to death what that wasn't so.

And likely the person making that point about OD&D, B/X, or AD&D wouldn't have it completely right by glossing over the weaknesses that those editions have.
Click to expand...

Sure. But these were mechanical debates (which still go on and on). None of which is worth debating - there are so many systems out there this debate is rendered as silly as debates about which shoe is better to walk on. (the answer of course is the one that fits your foot best). D&D is no longer even about system to me.

robertsconley said:
So the Internet comes along and allows the small number of hobbyist interested in those editions to get together and talk. That in turn later evolves into the OSR which takes advantage of various opportunities to start publishing new material for these edition in a way far more expansive than what was available before.

With the concurrent rise of scholarship into the origins of the hobby, a more clearer picture of what the strength and weaknesses of OD&D and the other classic edition emerged. The good news that they were as fun to play today as they were back in the day when they ignited a new hobby. However they had their quick and shortcomings and as a result not everybody cup of tea so to speak for the present. But enough like it so new niche of the hobby was born and sustained to the present.

This didn't change the fact many other hobbyists had misconception and criticisms. But those who were interested and willing to do a little digging (instead of a lot) the information was there how to use OD&D and the classic edition for a campaign. Multiple sources.
Click to expand...

I'll be perfectly honest - I don't really care about the intent or history of D&D. I mean, I get it's important to some people (maybe you), but for me it's nominally interesting. I'm intellectually interested in the same way I'm interested in how to grow coffee in low-altitude, and I am a coffee lover, much like I'm an RPG lover. Certainly people have taken advantage of the situation, as you pointed out, and had their revelation about OD&D - I'm not one of them. I played through that era and frankly, it does nothing for me. By rights I *should* love OSR products. There are certainly a lot of sensibilities I hold from that era, even today that informs my style. But running OSR games? Zero interest. I feel I did my time there when it was new. But I love that others have rediscovered it and ran with the ball.

robertsconley said:
So this thread.
Click to expand...
robertsconley said:
Are the things we are talking about present in the hobby the whole time. Or it is a result of how things in society and the hobby today? Or it is a mix and if so what the proportion?

With out going into details certainly society has an impact on what got shared and publication both in type and quantity. What we saw in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s, and now the 20s, reflects in part what the hobby found interesting and to a lesser extent what society at large found interesting. So I think how society was at the time had some impact but.....
Click to expand...

I maintain it's both. But I also maintain homebrewed games don't count because if they did there would be zero coherence to anything. When people think of D&D they think of warriors, wizards, fighting dragons, orcs and monsters for gold. Note: I'm not mentioning clerics or thieves or races - but if I did I would say "elf" because that's what comes to mind. That's probably something we could agree on... but let that post sit for a hot five-seconds before someone posts behind me "Well that's not what *I* think of in MY D&D!!"

robertsconley said:
Those of you who read my post, know that more than a few time I would figuratively roll my eyes say something along lines of "Well it always been an issue, I seen since I since started roleplaying in rural NW PA". I admit because of that, what I read so far in the Elusive Shift plays right into that sentiment.

But the reason I gave that opinion is that I been involved in organized gaming at various time throughout the decades. Not just participating but organizing things like game clubs, cons, LARP chapters. What I did wasn't a big deal mostly confined to Western PA. There were many hobbyists who lived there who did far more than I

But it did give me enough contact with other hobbyist to see how attitudes played out over time. And I tell while specifics varied it was pretty much variations on a theme. The same class of problem and interests cropped up over and over again. I had to caution myself from making too many assumption in later years because of this. Because individual hobbyist were never this or that, but a bunch of things. So my observations didn't excuse me from having to get to know each individual hobbyist I met if I wanted to learn what interest them..
Click to expand...

So curiously, while I didn't organize events. I've definitely been staff at major events. But while you were in rural PA, I grew up playing D&D in the 'hood of Los Angeles (Inglewood/Hawthorne represent!... well I guess Hawthorne represents SpaceX now...) where the vast majority of my players were black/hispanic/asian with one white guy. And in the conventions you'd see massive amounts of people - not *once* in two decades of participation, did I ever sit down at table in tournament, or in the free-gaming area and ever have an experience with someone's game homebrew or not where the conceits of D&D weren't present in their traditional context. Outlier snowflakes? Sure! But they were always contextualized to the game's setting - even the homebrewed ones. Especially the homebrewed ones.

What allowances do you make for your observations given your location? For me, I got to play with people literally from all over the world - including staff at TSR, and they certainly ran "traditional D&D" with zero weirdness (ironically because the four times I played with staff - we played Spelljammer... where you'd think it would be off the rails. Nope... it was D&D in flying ships fighting monsters, taking gold from them).

I ask because I'm wondering what the general makeup of people you gamed with comprised of. LA is a weird town in that regard - I know more ethnic gamers than white gamers and I know that's a huge outlier to the gaming community - and by today's standards they'd be judged very traditional. Their attitudes of modern 5e are similar to mine, but they still play it, but my three groups I ran with use older material for their 5e games (2e Realms and Greyhawk).

robertsconley said:
So when somebody like tenbones tenbones say that reason we are seeing a kaleidoscope Waterdeep being published is a result of post-modern attitudes, I disagree. I agree that people publishing kaleidoscope settings have been few and far between and almost never the main IP holder of D&D. But my view that chance and circumstance has led to somebody being on the writing staff who likes kaleidoscope setting with enough influence to see it published. And as stated earlier I think it will last a long as making a D&D edition all about fantasy superheroes did. Which to say it won't last.
Click to expand...

This may be the case. But I don't think it's chance when the dice are loaded. Look a lot of the major IP's out there, where this perspective is currently seeping into their content: D&D, Warhammer, Pathfinder, specifically. And you have new IP's that embrace it by design. The Kaleidoscope you've coined is another way of saying "decohesion". I'm wanting a telescope not a kaleidoscope. That's what those original settings where - they gave us defined cultures, people, places meshed coherently where the emergent game where our PC's played in could interact with those things. GM's had the ability to recontextualize those elements though the game - rather than have it presented for him in a way they may not like.

Until very recently - the last five years or so, but I've seen it creeping up - I've *never* had players (that weren't already batshit crazy) that were offended by my games when I'm running things based off of actual material I didn't write. I had a player lose his shit over slavery in Calimport. Yes, there's slavery in Calimport! (You know it's not real right?) Apparently that was an issue (among other things). And of course the new players that ask to play extreme snowflakey stuff (and I'm usually REALLY cool about it) - but when I contextualized it they balked as if I was banning them from playing something mundane.

Mind you - I live in DALLAS - not exactly a liberal-post-modern mecca. And these attitudes about D&D 5e/Pathfinder specifically are now pretty normal out here. It's very post-modern in its presentation - because they're too ignorant to know they're co-opted by it. But it is what it is. Will it go away? I dunno. This video indicates it probably won't anytime soon. 5e is pretty popular as they say.

robertsconley said:
But where things could be better we understood this aspect of our hobby better as well as the other different viewpoints of how to present adventures and settings. Then like with OD&D we can get a clearer picture of its strengths and weaknesses to come up with new stuff that is fun and interesting to play.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. But I'm of the opinion that "good" isn't easy to do. It takes time, effort, and desire for people with skill and talent to pull off. I don't see that coming out of D&D circles. I'm sure it exists... but the post-modern sensibilities we see in those circles tend to be antithetical to such pursuits because of ulterior needs.
 
Last edited:
TristramEvans said:
That would be Bliss Stage...
Click to expand...

You know, despite the writer being a giant douche and a certain level of squick I'm not comfortable with, if you ejected the real squicky stuff, I found the game actually was pretty good.
 
EmperorNorton said:
You know, despite the writer being a giant douche and a certain level of squick I'm not comfortable with, if you ejected the real squicky stuff, I found the game actually was pretty good.
Click to expand...

FWIR, the big issue with the rules was that through some quirk of the design, a big loophole existed that granted characters massive bonuses for engaging in incest.

Doesn't seem like it would take more than an additional sentance to eject that at least
 
TristramEvans said:
FWIR, the big issue with the rules was that through some quirk of the design, a big loophole existed that granted characters massive bonuses for engaging in incest.

Doesn't seem like it would take more than an additional sentance to eject that at least
Click to expand...

Well, not really. You powered up based on intimacy with other characters, and the highest rank was rank 5 which was sex, but you had an automatic +1 to intimacy above what your rank would normally be with anyone you were blood related to. You couldn't go above rank 5 so yeah.

... That said there was only 1 adult that was still living/conscious and it seemed really to insist that that character probably was having a sexual relationship with another character.

It's one of those cases where I got the game, read it, kind of felt ick about it, and probably would not have bought it had I had an idea of all the content. That said, I already own it at this point, so I will at least say it had an interesting design.
 
EmperorNorton said:
I've read Lancer. I don't dislike it but something about it just doesn't hit that sweet spot for me.
Click to expand...
I'll be playing Lancer in the next week or so. I'll report back my impressions.
 
Interestingly enough, my current group wants MORE grittyness in our new campaign. They insisted on weapon and armor breakage, and even though they're essentially Witchers, and were going to be immune to disease, they told me to change that and let them get diseases.

And these are the type of players that The RPG Pundit would projectile vomit upon! Humans are more complex than we give them credit for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top