I pretty much agree with everything Hocus said up there,
I dont think D&D will ever get back to the "That Johnny kid is BAAAAD... I bet he listens to satanic metal music, smokes pot, and plays D&D!" (and I did) though I do have nostalgia for the era...
by my teens my room was covered in DIO, Ozzy, and D&D posters, when I'd walk by in a biker jacket in school kids would make the sign of the cross with their fingers, and I'd use sharpies to draw upside down crucifixes on my palms to flash back... and this was in grade school... yeah D&D was part of the rebellion, and I'd agree it isnt really now... (and I'm not sure what is... republican party support? go green or death? no idea) and wont ever be again.
(PS. I once threatened a fat-camp counselor with a knife when he threw chewing tobacco and cooking oil all over my Gigax signed AD&D books, and got kicked out of fat-camp... had I known it was that easy I would have done it earlyer and maybe saved the books!)
BUT (back on topic..)
Evil parties (running them playing them etc) need to be covered in core, including hooks on how to keep the evils together (blackmail, magic contract, under penalty of death, etc).
Demons, devils, undead, summoning, and necromancy as well (assuming a monster manual is part of core)
Personally I think brothels and courtisans should have some minor coverage (an NPC class etc) but nothing much more than that.
and I would like to see some info on how marrages, political unions, churches etc each handle the topic of marrage (does god XYZ demand celebacy, are marrages open or monogamous, etc) even if this is handled from setting to setting.
Likewise I'd like to see how crime is handled from place to place. (judical champions? trials, high courts and low courts?) and what the crimes are and encur what penalties (death for adultry or not even a crime?) I have supplements that offer some good guidelines for these, but never really seen anything in D&D go into too much depth and wish they would.
but when it comes to splat books third party and otherwise... yeah I'd like it to be open, go ahead and cover pregnancy = death in ogre rape, litters of orks killing most of their weak brothers and sisters before they can walk etc. as well as everything else, sex magic, plague bringers, vile cult practices, rules for torture, gods and neither creatures making pacts for souls and sacrifice, devil worship for fun and profit etc.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
I dont think D&D will ever get back to the "That Johnny kid is BAAAAD... I bet he listens to satanic metal music, smokes pot, and plays D&D!" (and I did) though I do have nostalgia for the era...
Yeah, because the ebst thing for D&D right now is to get compared to satanic music and pot.
lol what do you have against people who use their religious freedom to choose to be pagan rather than the christian norm? and if I have a medical card and live in a state where it's legal for someone of my age, who are you to tell me what medication I can and cant use? do you consider yourself a biggot?
but the point of that statement was that those were the things people associated with D&D at one time, and some of us had to deal with a lot of crap for participating in this hobby. now days in a lot of places, medical marijuana, sweedish deathmetal, and D&D are all mainstream.
I love progress...
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
lol what do you have against people who use their religious freedom to choose to be pagan rather than the christian norm? and if I have a medical card and live in a state where it's legal for someone of my age, who are you to tell me what medication I can and cant use? do you consider yourself a biggot?
Not once did you mention Paganism, in your above post. Paganism is not in any sense Satanism. And even Satanism isn't particularly related to Black metal, besides the fact that artists borrowed from it to add "shock value," where many of the artists themselves did not adhere to that ideology, and were often simply atheists or agnostics.
But that's not even the point. You specifically mentioned those examples as things that were "rebellious." You can't just say something with one connotation, then feel insulted when the person responds to that.
but the point of that statement was that those were the things people associated with D&D at one time, and some of us had to deal with a lot of crap for participating in this hobby. now days in a lot of places, medical marijuana, sweedish deathmetal, and D&D are all mainstream.
I love progress...
So you'd prefer them to remain "rebellious?" I don't know about you, but to me, that seems the most childish approach. D&D shouldn't be something that you like because "the man" doesn't. If your enjoyment of D&D depends on how socially acceptable it is, then I have to question whether you actually like D&D for what it is, or whether you like it for being an outlet for rebellion in an ultra-traditionalist household.
I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.
1) satanism is paganism, as is any religion not christian. 2) but the point above was that D&D is no longer capable of getting to that "rebellious" status it once had. English's comment had missed the point entirely, the mention of paganism and metal and "medical marijuana" was outlining why things that were once rebellious are now acceptable even if some older folks and southern conservative republicans still hold on to traditional fears, and I dont think those people have changed much in their opinions on D&D either. 3) pattern recognition experts who work in marketing will tell you a product's "coolness" can be a big indicator of its potential and ongoing sales. a product that is percieved as rebellious is also often associated with being cool. so a little rebelliousness to D&D wouldent be a bad thing, and could lead to higher sales... not saying it has to become porn or anything like that.
by the way are you familiar with Zac Sabbath? The guy who wrote the Vornheim supplement that won all the origin awards? this is one of the coolest OD&D/AD&D blogs around, clearly he dosent have a problem with D&D being marketed as slightly rebellious...
1) satanism is paganism, as is any religion not christian.
Not even close. At its most restrictive, Paganism refers to all non-Abrahamic religions. Which makes Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Satanism non-Pagan. Satanists will disagree to distance themselves from their origins, but it is pretty clear that without Abraham, you wouldn't have Satanists. While they would be different in some ways, you would still have Wiccans, Neo-Pagans, and many other religions without Abraham.
1) satanism is paganism, as is any religion not christian.
Not even close. At its most restrictive, Paganism refers to all non-Abrahamic religions. Which makes Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Satanism non-Pagan. Satanists will disagree to distance themselves from their origins, but it is pretty clear that without Abraham, you wouldn't have Satanists. While they would be different in some ways, you would still have Wiccans, Neo-Pagans, and many other religions without Abraham. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism
Arguably Buddhism and Hinduism are excluded from "Pagan" as well I've seen it used to reference non-Abrahamic, Non-Big 5 (The Arbahamic + the aforementioned) or Non-Big 7 (Add Shinto and Zoroastrianism to the Big 5). As the word originally meant rural, it was used to describe religions prohibitted in Roman cities, Pagan faiths were practiced beyound the Pageus, which marked the outer limits of the City. In the earlier Empire, the Christian faith was Pagan for some time, at least the times when it was banned.
As for my own games, moth, I am more inspired by Grimm's Fairy Tales than anything else. But that is not a basis, it is inspiration. Just because characters migth have sensual relationships, does not mean rules are required for it anymore than rules are required for seeing if a character develops diabetes from eating sugary foods, or insomnia from wierd watch schedules. I understand your D&D is illustrated by Frank Frazetta, which is fine and dandy. I like some Edgar Rice Burroughs on occassion. You like gritty and dark Sword and Sorcery, also nothing wrong with that. However, that no more needs to be force fed in the core offering than Anime style, or Romantic Fantasy(Mercedes Lackey, Tamora Pierce and Diane Duane) style. If you want a special supplement to deal with all the special "Evil" stuff that helps you recapture your rebellious youth, fine, have your little black book. You ignore the mature themes people mention that aren't related to ways to aggrivate parents and conservatives, so I can only imagine you are more interested in being edgy than actually making a quality product.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
I agree with the general sentiment of the OP, DnD should not be afraid of having edge what can I say we have edge by default just look at the classes:
Fighter: the cleanest one in the book.
Wizard: sorcery = pacts with evil spirits in all the religions I know are abig no-no, if there is one where wizards not clerics are kosher please tell me.
Cleric: is he a cleric of my RL god X, no? but he does supranatural miracles ? clearly a devil worshipper in disguise.
Rogue: thou shall not steal pretty clear by default.
Warlock: like wizard with the added bonus of pissing of wiccans.
Warlord: you mean like those horrible tribal chiefs from africa ?
Druid: god damned hippies...spends 5 minutes researching... Caesar said they performed human sacrifices EVIL.
Bard: trying to enforce the liberal agenda "that being gay is ok", I mean showtunes the class, does not belong in a children's game.
Monks: ah so it's Budism the game, clearly this is aconversion tool, get's burned everywhere but in budhsit countries for the monk alone.
Just look at HP no matter how you cut it have spells in your book/game/thing it doesn't matter if you fluff it as their powers comming from loving bunnies, if their power doesn't explicitly mention [insert RL object/person of worship here] it's heresy.
ok to settle the first part... "From its earliest beginnings, Christianity spread much more quickly in major urban areas (like Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, Corinth, Rome) than in the countryside (in fact, the early church was almost entirely urban[citation needed]), and soon the word for "country dweller" became synonymous with someone who was "not a Christian,"giving rise to the modern meaning of "pagan."
@verd: I have given up gaming a few times, and after a 2yr long 4e campaign I decided never to play again and walked away from the kitchen and gamestore tables for about a year and a half. What brought me back? that 5.0 was being designed to re-embrace what D&D was to so many of us and bring the grogs back into the hobby...
so D&D next is supposed to embrace all gaming styles, it will be all things to everyone who has ever loved any edition of D&D. well... me and my peers grew up with AD&D we started playing at 10 and the group didn't break till our late 20's when new editions of the game came out, we stuck with AD&D but incorporated a few of the rules we liked but generally just kept playing the game we knew and loved.
now, we did incorporate the rolemaster crit charts (crush foe's skull, watch brains goosh out of eyes,etc) which were extremely fun, and we did make up rules for anything that wasnt covered by the rulebooks (chances for pregnancy, chances for disease for that barbarian who seemed to live at the brothel, etc)
but the one thing we didnt do with our games is dumb them down to a "teen" esrb rating. when our orcs, pirates, and vikings raided villages they raided villages. It was called "rape and plunder" for a reason. our orks didnt just set fire to a town and skip away singing nursery rimes, our orks were Evil with a capitol E.
Evil wasnt just something to dislike, it was someting worth hating, not just on a "my character dislikes people of evil alignments" but as players... you hated our DM's villians as a player, you felt good when you ended them, and I think thats sort of whats been found with these after 10:00 PM shows.
As a viewer you've become jaded "oh great another big bad villian, gee wonder what nefarious highjinks this one will get up to... yawn" but when the villian starts grabbing a hero's kids and lighting them on fire in front of them, or when they torture and dismember innocent victems just to make a point...
yes it shocks the hell out of you and yes the shock value is there... but thats not the only effect.... it makes you watch, it makes you interested, it draws you in in a way that skeletor or cobra commander never will, and it makes you as a person want to see justice done and feel good when it does.
so would I like rules for dismemberment? yup, do I want rules for torture? yup. Do I want rules for all kinds of things I havent even mentioned here? you bet. will this ruin the game for other people? not at all.
Will this harm D&D Next's public image? now that IS a big question, honestly I could care less.
D&D never had a good public image when the majority of us started playing it, and I dont really care if mothers dont want to buy D&D for their 9 year old kids at christmas. hopefully I wont be gaming with them anyways. I have had games I got invited to where there were 6, 30+ yr old gamers sitting around a table, and dad brought out his 6 yr old who every five minutes said "daddy up" and we had to stop using the bad language and pretend we were all playing fairytale games, and she got to roll the dice, taking about a minute a roll and half of em ending up on the rug... or later had the young child play a character "uh he's only 9 but he's going to be playing a barbarian named Thrudd".... ugg... no I really got no desire to engage in that again.
so why should I care about D&D's public image? convince me...
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
@verd: I have given up gaming a few times, and after a 2yr long 4e campaign I decided never to play again and walked away from the kitchen and gamestore tables for about a year and a half. What brought me back? that 5.0 was being designed to re-embrace what D&D was to so many of us and bring the grogs back into the hobby...
so D&D next is supposed to embrace all gaming styles, it will be all things to everyone who has ever loved any edition of D&D. well... me and my peers grew up with AD&D we started playing at 10 and the group didn't break till our late 20's when new editions of the game came out, we stuck with AD&D but incorporated a few of the rules we liked but generally just kept playing the game we knew and loved.
now, we did incorporate the rolemaster crit charts (crush foe's skull, watch brains goosh out of eyes,etc) which were extremely fun, and we did make up rules for anything that wasnt covered by the rulebooks (chances for pregnancy, chances for disease for that barbarian who seemed to live at the brothel, etc)
but the one thing we didnt do with our games is dumb them down to a "teen" esrb rating. when our orcs, pirates, and vikings raided villages they raided villages. It was called "rape and plunder" for a reason. our orks didnt just set fire to a town and skip away singing nursery rimes, our orks were Evil with a capitol E.
Evil wasnt just something to dislike, it was someting worth hating, not just on a "my character dislikes people of evil alignments" but as players... you hated our DM's villians as a player, you felt good when you ended them, and I think thats sort of whats been found with these after 10:00 PM shows.
As a viewer you've become jaded "oh great another big bad villian, gee wonder what nefarious highjinks this one will get up to... yawn" but when the villian starts grabbing a hero's kids and lighting them on fire in front of them, or when they torture and dismember innocent victems just to make a point...
yes it shocks the hell out of you and yes the shock value is there... but thats not the only effect.... it makes you watch, it makes you interested, it draws you in in a way that skeletor or cobra commander never will, and it makes you as a person want to see justice done and feel good when it does.
so would I like rules for dismemberment? yup, do I want rules for torture? yup. Do I want rules for all kinds of things I havent even mentioned here? you bet. will this ruin the game for other people? not at all.
Will this harm D&D Next's public image? now that IS a big question, honestly I could care less.
D&D never had a good public image when the majority of us started playing it, and I dont really care if mothers dont want to buy D&D for their 9 year old kids at christmas. hopefully I wont be gaming with them anyways. I have had games I got invited to where there were 6, 30+ yr old gamers sitting around a table, and dad brought out his 6 yr old who every five minutes said "daddy up" and we had to stop using the bad language and pretend we were all playing fairytale games, and she got to roll the dice, taking about a minute a roll and half of em ending up on the rug... or later had the young child play a character "uh he's only 9 but he's going to be playing a barbarian named Thrudd".... ugg... no I really got no desire to engage in that again.
so why should I care about D&D's public image? convince me...
Convince you that we don't need to spend space in the core book on torture rules? You ever seen a kid get lit on fire? You heard their screams, smelled the stench of smoldering hair and then flesh, seen their parents rush to them just to get thrown down and forced to watch? It loses a lot of it's magical appeal once you're not living in your ivory tower. So no, it doesn't shock me when some sheltered person plays out their torture fetishes in front of me. It doesn't make me want to watch, it isn't so horrible you can't look away, it's so horrible you look away, but you can never block out the sound. The reek of the charred body never leaves the nostrils. Nothing, no amount of "justice" ever makes it go away.
But no, I can't convince you that there doesn't need to be mechanics for how to keep a victim alive while you slowly dismember them. You obviously will need, for your gaming pleasure, rules for what the saving throw is to avoid waking up screaming for a decade after witnessing some act of atrocity. For you to gain your thrill, you need to have some standardized system to tell you, mechanically, how loud the virgin screams as you rape her, and what the chances are she will commit suicide afterwards.
You want torture porn, fine. I may not like Saw, but everyone else is free to watch it. But it's not common fare. You want to force feed your sick fantasies on the whole game. This is material that doesn't belong in the core books. Just like rules for menstration. It's not relevant to day to day adventuring. You want a game where you get to explore your darkest desires that you've been priviledged enough never to encounter in person. Find a gaming group and have fun. There are plenty of game systems custom made to cater to that sort of lust. Don't game in homes with children if it's an issue.
But you ask if this will ruin the game for other players. You've already gotten enough response in this thread to indicate it will. But you don't care. This is just about your very personal gratification. Your need to offend, and your need to play at horrors you can only imagine.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
