|
Plutonis posted:You mean the only people who buy Pathfinder. partially, yea. Can't deny they didn't absolutely court the grog "ARE YOU SICK OF BABY D&D?!" market pretty drat hard to start with. Not surprising if that's still viewed as their core demo.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
What makes this slightly more maddening is that it all just comes from a place of brand loyalty and a culture of hating change. If the situation was altered - if Paizo instead had never printed the child rapist demon or loving whatever and instead said right off the bat that they didn't want that kind of material - I guarantee the vast majority of fans who are now kicking their feet and acting disappointed would've completely backed them on it. What happened instead is that Paizo allowed this poo poo to become "canonical" in their brand, meaning now all their trufans have already added it to their list of sacred bullshit that can never be changed (ie everything in their chosen brand), and now...well, it can never be changed. None of them actually care. Well, ok, maybe one or two are legitimately hosed individuals that actively want their dumb child rape demon. But for most of them, the actual content doesn't matter. All they care about is that Their Company is backpedaling, which is inexcusable, because they are already and always perfect, and backpedaling means they're capable of making mistakes. They're angry that they're being asked to actually examine their hobby critically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
rape half-orcs are a direct result of doubling down on the "always chaotic evil" alignment descriptor used frequently in old-school D&D. See, if an orc is always evil, then how could an orc and a human have a loving parental relationship? It would mean the parents of half-orcs are always evil, see, because obviously nobody not evil could love a chaotic evil orc! Nevermind that old-school D&D was never consistent about poo poo like that, including orcs specifically being always chaotic evil, and also including the idea that the chaotic evil alignment completely precluded behavior that wasn't both chaotic and evil. Not that any of this is an excuse for explicitly injecting or preserving rape as a theme in a supposedly family-friendly game for teens and adults. Or hell, any game of any stripe that doesn't specifically say on the box "warning: contains rape themes" on it. But there's this terrible legacy of D&D-style alignments and labeling entire species/races with a specific alignment that a lot of grognardy old-school fans feel is intrinsic to the game, and a lot of the shittier conclusions drawn from that system seem to draw from it. e. The reaction against "backpedalling" isn't just because they see their brand as always perfect: it's also people who see any sign of backpedaling as giving ground to the "SJWs" who they have decided are the enemy trying to destroy their hobby. Nevermind if they'd actually agree on any specific point, it's the general principle as symptomatic of a culture war in which they see themselves as the aggrieved victims.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:rape half-orcs are a direct result of doubling down on the "always chaotic evil" alignment descriptor used frequently in old-school D&D. See, if an orc is always evil, then how could an orc and a human have a loving parental relationship? The ... human is also chaotic evil? I guess what I'm saying is, if two orcs, who are always chaotic evil, are in a relationship, is that still an abusive relationship to each other, just because they're both chaotic evil? You know what? Never mind. This doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
My setting idea: Orcs frequently get captured by horny female elves who have no male counterparts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
orcs need love too
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Nevermind that old-school D&D was never consistent about poo poo like that, including orcs specifically being always chaotic evil, and also including the idea that the chaotic evil alignment completely precluded behavior that wasn't both chaotic and evil. Old-school Basic D&D orcs were chaotic, because the good-evil axis didn't exist (though it was usually implied). Old-school AD&D orcs were lawful evil, because they were based on LotR orcs who were super militaristic. They didn't become chaotic evil until 3E. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
wow, alignment was always dumb and bad
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Eric Mona has made an official stance regarding the demon Folca found in the Book of the Damned sure is nice of them to apologize after they'd already published it twice and made all the money they could off of it
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Hey, NTRPGCon is somehow still imploding!quote:Just found out that, evidently I have been banned from NTRPGcon, for "attacking" them. I'm not sure if it's because I stated I would never attend again, or for saying that they were one of my favorite conventions, lol. I do note however that I'm now on a list that does not include serial harassers, ISIS members, or America's Most Wanted. /is that an attack? quote:I never would have known, except 1 partner contacted me to tell me he disagreed with the other partner banning me. OK...
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:Hey, NTRPGCon is somehow still imploding! I get that first item on the list but why did he bring up the other two?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Kavak posted:I get that first item on the list but why did he bring up the other two? The guy running the con kicked this all off by saying something like "I don't care if you're loving ISIS or whatever you've done outside my con, as long as you act cool at my con, we're all just gamers." This was in response to concerns that two recently revealed harassers would be guests at his thing. I probably quoted that one way back in this thread when it happened, but I'm phone posting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:Hey, NTRPGCon is somehow still imploding!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Your definitely much more likely to be called a cuck at one of them. Ironically, not the one about that fetish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:In that thread, Erik Mona flat out says, the one line he has for content at this point is 'sexual abuse of children'. Normal rape stuff, that he sees no need to get rid of. Yeah. Not that the half-orc is alone there by any stretch, I just figure as long as that's in the core rules, nothing else has changed in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:rape half-orcs are a direct result of doubling down on the "always chaotic evil" alignment descriptor used frequently in old-school D&D. [useless nitpick] Pre-3e, orcs were lawful evil. [/useless nitpick] For some odd reason you rarely hear grogs about that. I don't know how they did it, but for tons of people I know, both in the meatscape and online, "nostalgia" is synonymous with 3e/PF.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Third Edition used actual magic to erase the collective memories of Second Edition and prior from everyone's minds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:For some odd reason you rarely hear grogs about that. I don't know how they did it, but for tons of people I know, both in the meatscape and online, "nostalgia" is synonymous with 3e/PF. It's 17 years old. If you started playing D&D when you were 12, you can be 27 and have played nothing but 3.x edition. If you started when you were 18, you could be in your thirties. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Nov 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:You know I read that as NTR RPGcon which would be a very different event. The thinking man's fetish!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
I have no such excuse because I'm 42 and although I started with red box basic D&D, I went to AD&D pretty quickly. And I still have my books. But yes also like half the "old school" D&D stuff is actually just 3rd edition stuff, but this goes hand in hand with how like 95% of people who played AD&D when they were teenagers were not in fact playing the AD&D game as-printed, because rules misunderstandings and house-rules were more or less universal. So I'll excuse myself by saying in the most memorable campaign I played in (lasted three or four whole sessions!), orcs were chaotic evil. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
I don't think AD&D (and earlier) had the same brain-searing tribalism because there wasn't much competition in the early days of fantasy gaming. Which makes sense in the context of how the "nostalgia" crowd doubled down after the D20 glut. Plus nostalgia is more effective for things that never were, like rolling your attributes in order or the 1950s as presented on television.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
moths posted:I don't think AD&D (and earlier) had the same brain-searing tribalism because there wasn't much competition in the early days of fantasy gaming. I'm not sure about that. If you look at some of the editions of "Forum" from Dragon during those days, you see a lot of submissions that wouldn't sound out of place in edition wars today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
moths posted:I don't think AD&D (and earlier) had the same brain-searing tribalism because there wasn't much competition in the early days of fantasy gaming. Also, most of us were in contact with no more than a handful of other people who played D&D. If we had a tribe, it was no different from any other small group of friends who had a shared interest. The broad, "we're a society and we're different" stuff maybe applied more to adults who, even in the late 1970s, were already forming larger associations, attending conventions, etc. My first convention was the Golden Demon Awards in 1991, and my first contact with a broader "society" of D&D-playing nerds was when I first got access to Usenet in ~1993. If I go back and look at the letters columns in Dragon magazine, etc., I can find evidence of the brain-searing tribalism already at work, but I think it hadn't fully metastasized until there were hundreds of D&D players associating together online. From those conversations evolved a shared mythology of what D&D and D&D-playing and D&D-players were, with all the usual collective wall-building and inclusion/exclusion cultural constructions that tend to come from those kinds of communities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:[useless nitpick]
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Third Edition used actual magic to erase the collective memories of Second Edition and prior from everyone's minds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
FMguru posted:One of the most annoying things about the 3E/4E transition was the way that so many grogs thought 1E -> 2E -> 3E was this smooth, gradual evolution that was completely disrupted with 4E (when actually 3E was the massive break from tradition and 4E was, if anything, a return to form). Lots of D&D super-traditionalists going on about Gygax's table and murderhobos have never actually played anything before 3E. Yea that was probably my least favorite talking point that for some reason got treated as fact. The idea that from red box to the end of 3.5 things were a very smooth chain of building blocks that big mean 4E suddenly slapped down
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Idran posted:I'm not sure about that. If you look at some of the editions of "Forum" from Dragon during those days, you see a lot of submissions that wouldn't sound out of place in edition wars today. You haven’t truly experienced old D&D until you’ve read a two page long letter from some 14-year old nerd in rural Wyoming explaining in great detail why the XP penalty for half-orc fighter/thieves is thoroughly unrealistic and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Also, most of us were in contact with no more than a handful of other people who played D&D. If we had a tribe, it was no different from any other small group of friends who had a shared interest. The broad, "we're a society and we're different" stuff maybe applied more to adults who, even in the late 1970s, were already forming larger associations, attending conventions, etc. I’d love to know what gaming periodicals the average player was subscribed to back in the 80s and how they affected gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
FMguru posted:One of the most annoying things about the 3E/4E transition was the way that so many grogs thought 1E -> 2E -> 3E was this smooth, gradual evolution that was completely disrupted with 4E (when actually 3E was the massive break from tradition and 4E was, if anything, a return to form). Lots of D&D super-traditionalists going on about Gygax's table and murderhobos have never actually played anything before 3E. Well it's more that every version is a big disruption but 1E 2E 3E definitely have more in common with each other than they do with 4E.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Well it's more that every version is a big disruption but 1E 2E 3E definitely have more in common with each other than they do with 4E. 4e as-written is waaaay closer to 3.5 than 3e is to 2e. BAB changed to proficiency bonus, 10 extra levels, saves are now static, the rest plays pretty much the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Yeah, 2E > 3E is the big divide. It becomes a bit smaller if you include the unofficial 2.5E (Combat & Tactics), but it's still pretty massive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Well it's more that every version is a big disruption but 1E 2E 3E definitely have more in common with each other than they do with 4E. Book of 9 Swords is 3.5 and is basically a preview of 4E martials, 2nd edition to 3rd was a vast difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Piell posted:Book of 9 Swords is 3.5 and is basically a preview of 4E martials, 2nd edition to 3rd was a vast difference. Yea Book of 9 Swords exists as proof that the core 4E framework could be supported by 3.5. There's nothing even near that to show the same is true for 3E and 2E
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
There is a lot of Combat and Tactics in 3.0.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:4e as-written is waaaay closer to 3.5 than 3e is to 2e. BAB changed to proficiency bonus, 10 extra levels, saves are now static, the rest plays pretty much the same. Yeah, 4E is basically 3E with some balance changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:There's nothing even near that to show the same is true for 3E and 2E AD&D 2e's Combat and Tactics was the supplement that reduced the scale to 5-feet-per-square, introduced the full-move/half-move action economy (that would later turn into the standard/move dichotomy), created the 5-foot-step, formalized the flanking rules, and introduced the trip/bull-rush/disarm/etc. combat maneuvers. There's still a fairly large shift in the adoption of unified mechanics, an all-ascending number system, and converting the skill system from roll-under to something that resembled Rolemaster's design, but C&T is the closest we got to a preview of 3e, at least in its combat rules. (the kicker is that 3e didn't adopt C&T's fairly complex phased-movement system, which would have done quite a bit to rein-in caster power)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
I did forget C&T was a thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Piell posted:Book of 9 Swords is 3.5 and is basically a preview of 4E martials, 2nd edition to 3rd was a vast difference. How many groups do you think actually played 3.5 with the Bo9S, though? Like, sure, today thinking of things in terms of comprehensive catalogues of every option ever published makes sense, with no regard for what people can afford or access because half of everything is in official SRDs and the rest is instantly available in .pdf one way or another -- but vanilla 3.0 came out in 2000; the bit torrent protocol wouldn't even be developed for another year. 
Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Nov 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Old-school Basic D&D orcs were chaotic, because the good-evil axis didn't exist (though it was usually implied). The axis was implied in both directions! In the 'normal' universe, chaos was corrupted, but in the shadow universe where the halflings came from, law was corrupted, so chaos was implied good. It was surprisingly awesome, in a way that the shadow elf nuclear reactor was... not so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
Still remember the 2e -> 3e character conversion guide where you were basically starting over from your ability scores. And spell list, conveniently enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 04:34
|
|
