D&D = Colonial Genocide endorsement

[Juju EyeBall]

Stopped reading at "script immunity"

[blackprinceofmuncie]

I believe there is a place--a fun place, for a meta-game where players--if they want, can explore cultural conditioning and challenge ideas which aren't thought about. If someone wants their campaign to explore the racist and colonial violence of the Boer Wars, or run a game as metaphor for ante-bellum lynch mobs, have the orcs all wear nazi uniforms, or even bring in themes of the subjugation of the irish by the English (I mean JRRartin is using many real world themes in his song of ice and fire--the daerynies are the French, the fire god is christianity replacing the old/new gods etc).

That sounds like just about the complete opposite of the definition of "playing" as I understand the word. I challenge anyone engaging in a game with that focus to come up with a better and more accurate phrase for what they are doing than "playing" a game. I think "flagellating" a game or "Poking red hot needles in my eyes" a game might be more appropriate.

[Juju EyeBall]

Sounds like the guy wants "peace corps the RPG"

[godentag]

I blame Ed Greenwood.

[James Maliszewski]

I blame Ed Greenwood.

How so?

[Planet Algol]

.....

Matt Judge?? From Seattle?? If you are who I think you are, it's Blair from Vancouver.

[T. Foster]

I dunno, I've always run my games pretty similarly to what the guy in the quote is describing as his "fixed" version without feeling that I'm either "making a statement" or doing anything outside of the game-as-written. In my games PCs are never encouraged or expected to "leave no survivors" or wantonly slaughter non-combatants (and doing so is considered an Evil act), and avoiding combat (while still accomplishing your goals) is usually a better path to success than deliberately seeking it out, and as far as I can tell both of those are exactly what was intended all along. The quoted poster is setting up an artificially simplistic straw man misreading of D&D and then acting like he's uniquely morally and intellectually superior by knocking it down, which means his big essay is more just a waste of time than anything else.

[Juju EyeBall]

I dunno, I've always run my games pretty similarly to what the guy in the quote is describing as his "fixed" version without feeling that I'm either "making a statement" or doing anything outside of the game-as-written. In my games PCs are never encouraged or expected to "leave no survivors" or wantonly slaughter non-combatants (and doing so is considered an Evil act), and avoiding combat (while still accomplishing your goals) is usually a better path to success than deliberately seeking it out, and as far as I can tell both of those are exactly what was intended all along. The quoted poster is setting up an artificially simplistic straw man misreading of D&D and then acting like he's uniquely morally and intellectually superior by knocking it down, which means his big essay is more just a waste of time than anything else.

All the straw men must die!!!

[mjudge55]

.....

Matt Judge?? From Seattle?? If you are who I think you are, it's Blair from Vancouver.

Blair Goatsblood?! No way! PM'ing you...

[francisca]

If that guy feels that D&D, and the so-called "OSR", is all about genocide, I think he'd be better served by finding a rule set for a story game, building his world, and letting the other participants (note that I DO NOT call them players at this point) wander around, not killing stuff, nor doing anything else the creator of this panacea of roleplay has created finds repugnant.

Besides, his manifesto doesn't say anything new.

All of that stuff he blathers about in his diatribe has been hashed out by countless other gamers over the last (nearly) 40 years. People either get over the moral quagmire by realizing D&D is just a gawddamn fucking game, or follow my advice in the above paragraph and get their obligatory beret and cigarette holder, then start using terms like "bourgeois" and "rollplayers" to describe the rank and vile D&Ders, while moving over to "Angst and Amatuer Thespians (A&AT)" land.

[Juju EyeBall]

Sightseeing tourist the RPG

[godentag]

I blame Ed Greenwood.

How so?

Because he started the trend in The Dragon of "Ecology of the ..." articles getting official sanction by TSR. That monsters should have "ecologies" was an idea that developed organically through the mid-80's until the crappy crapfest that was the 2e Monstrous Manuals.

But do fantasy monsters really need "culture" as part of their ecology beyond killing humans and taking their stuff? What else is being a dragon/ogre/goblin/whatever really about? Oh, eating people, too, I guess. And perhaps some better-left-unsaid-in-publication hanky panky, as well.

Official publication of ecology and culture articles leads to "orcs are people too" rants. But it ain't necessarily so -- maybe orcs just want to enslave humans or rape them or kill them or eat them. Or all of the above. That's why they're frickin' monsters instead of demi-humans or alien races or whatever. Maybe being a monster is hardwired into their monstrous little brains?

Somewhere along the way DM's refused to enforce "evil means actually evil, not just misunderstood" and the ecology series was a great place to humanize monsters in order to make a "morally deep" imaginary world.

Plus, on a practical level, it's almost as satisfying to blame Elminster as it is to blame DragonLance.

[Steve]

This is the secular version of Jack Chick's Dark Dungeons. Minus the art.

It's evil, eeeeeeeevil I tell yas!

Funny stuff, but it really needs to be edited for length.

[Wheggi]

In my games PCs are never encouraged or expected to "leave no survivors" or wantonly slaughter non-combatants (and doing so is considered an Evil act), and avoiding combat (while still accomplishing your goals) is usually a better path to success than deliberately seeking it out

But if you don't kill 'em you don't get the EXP! All must die in the name of progress.

- Wheggi

[T. Foster]

In my games PCs are never encouraged or expected to "leave no survivors" or wantonly slaughter non-combatants (and doing so is considered an Evil act), and avoiding combat (while still accomplishing your goals) is usually a better path to success than deliberately seeking it out

But if you don't kill 'em you don't get the EXP! All must die in the name of progress.

- Wheggi

Non-combatants aren't worth XP. Also, you can capture and ransom intelligent monsters and get just as much XP as if you'd killed them. Also, if you can steal the monsters' treasure and get away without having to fight them you'll get probably 90% of the XP and stand way less chance of getting killed.