They actually think DND is dangerous?

[Gestahl]

Chick Tract time...

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp?repeatfrom3yearsago

DND turns 30 this month, and as all good Christians know, DND is the way for Satan to enter into young minds... that's how *I* learned to cast magic missile and how to control my familiar...

//rolls D20
//roll was succesful against intelligence stat
//Dismisses Chick tract
//wonders how low someone's INT stat has to be to fail this throw... damn GM never tells me...

[The GM]

The only evil thing D&D might propogate is the tendency to overeat Funions and drink too much Mountain Dew.

"I magic missle the darkness!"

[Beleth]

Jack Chick's understanding of D&D is just as shallow and biased as his understanding of every other social phenomenon and issue.

[The GM]

OMG! I have read this tract before! It's the one staring Alex Trebeck! I love it!

[Hexxenhammer]

Chick is right. D&D turned me into a hardcore satanist. It even made me dedicate an entire thread to roleplaying here at the JREF (see my sig).

Hail satan.

[triadboy]

There's a tract on Chutes and Ladders too.

[Checkmite]

Candy Land is also nothing more than an allegorical trip to Hell, in which children are encouraged to indulge in earthly pleasures instead of the living Word of God.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by The GM
The only evil thing D&D might propogate is the tendency to overeat Funions and drink too much Mountain Dew.



AKA "the breakfast of champions"

[Upchurch]

I have a friend that is training to be a Lutheran minister, believes the bible is divinely inspired, and believes that homosexuality is a sin. He's also playing a rogue/ranger elf in our up coming game.

Not every fundy misses their Wisdom check.


edited to add:
I just think that the ones roll a critical miss tend to also be the loudest...

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I have a friend that is training to be a Lutheran minister, believes the bible is divinely inspired, and believes that homosexuality is a sin. He's also playing a rogue/ranger elf in our up coming game.

Not every fundy misses their Wisdom check.


edited to add:
I just think that the ones roll a critical miss tend to also be the loudest...

I'll one up you. One of my players is a very devout Jehovahs Witness (though admittedly, just about the least pushy one I have ever met). Her take on the issue of whether RPG's are evil is that it's just a game, not very different than if she were playing Scrabble, and as long as she never forgets that fact, playing D&D is perfectly fine.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Does a person like Chick really think witches can cast spells, spells that can actually alter reality?

I mean, a “bondage spell” that could result in fathers spending $200 on D&D “figures and manuals”; that’s some pretty powerful sorcery.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Does a person like Chick really think witches can cast spells, spells that can actually alter reality?

I mean, a “bondage spell” that could result in fathers spending $200 on D&D “figures and manuals”; that’s some pretty powerful sorcery.

You know, I have often though along similar lines. The world that Chick and his ilk inhabit is a scary one, where witches and demons lurk around every corner waiting to get you and some omnipotent being is watching your every move and will torture you for eternity of you don't do things just right.

This is a much more scary world thatn I hve ever been able to conjure up in any of my games.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Does a person like Chick really think witches can cast spells, spells that can actually alter reality? Appears so. He also believes that angels and demons literally move around us unseen and whisper little things in our ears. He's the craziest of the crazies.

More Fundamentalist hilarity! (http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp)

[Hexxenhammer]

As I've said before, the biggest problem with this tract is how many girls are playing D&D.

(Yes, I know Chani and a few others play, but they're still the exception to the rule.)

[uruk]

Oo! I especialy loved the last frame. That takes me back to the good ol' days of book burnings.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Does a person like Chick really think witches can cast spells, spells that can actually alter reality?


That is the reason he fears D&D, he thinks it is all real.

And people say fantasy game players have a hard time telling reality from fantasy. :rolleyes:

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Appears so. He also believes that angels and demons literally move around us unseen and whisper little things in our ears. He's the craziest of the crazies.

More Fundamentalist hilarity! (http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp) Don't have too much fun, we'll have to move this thread to humor.

And we always need more geeks in the gaming thread...

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Don't have too much fun, we'll have to move this thread to humor.

And we always need more geeks in the gaming thread...

I know, it seems that you, Bluegill and I make 90% of the posts to that thread. I KNOW we have more gaming geeks that that.

[/derail]

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Don't have too much fun, we'll have to move this thread to humor.No danger there. My sarcasm is rarely funny.

[Rosencrantz]

I'd seen this before, but I was utterly creeped out by the "D&D: It's More Than Just A Game. William Schnoebelen Explains Why. (http://www.chick.com/articles/dnd.asp)" link at the bottom. This guy is insane! He maintains that he was a Satanist before he converted to Christianity, and claims he worked with TSR in that capacity to make the magic of D&D as "real" as possible. His arguments that D&D causes suicides and Satanism are unbelieveable. His article genuinely scared me to the center of my being, that someone could have this twisted a belief system. Even after having had thousands of people write to him to explain his misconceptions, he still believes D&D is evil and that these people are misguided or corrupt, as he writes in his followup article, Should Christians Play D&D? (http://www.chick.com/articles/frpg.asp). Gah! Save us!

[AtheistArchon]

- Yeahhhh, that's always been a strange thing to me, but if you think about it it tends to make sense.

- Fundies really, really, really do believe in white magic. God, angels, heaven, miracles, prayers answered, and so on. To some degree, every self-professed Christian must believe some of this, IMO. It only makes sense then that a fundy takes the heads with the tails... dark gods, evil magic, curses, demons, devils, imps, possession, and so on. After all, what use is good magic if there is no such thing as bad magic? They compliment each other.

- People who "use" prayer and miracles in everyday speaking have to have something to direct them at. After a while, god answering prayers by helping people find car keys or helping a sports team score gets kinda boring; the best stories are the spooky ones where someone spends the night at a strange house and is "spiritually threatened" by something (a wooden totem from Africa, a Chinese chess piece, a piece of modern art, you know, something like that), and they have to kneel down and pray for the evil spirits to leave. Put a copy of the bible on top of the offending item, and *whoosh* go the demons, and the relief they feel is very real. (That's actually a patchwork of a few different stories I've actually heard from fundies.)

- It makes sense that the more devout one is, the more hardcore your beliefs are, the easier it is to accept the kooky dark powers on the flipside of the coin.

- Aw dang, who is the wacko who preaches about Halloween being Satanic and all that? He's kinda bald... gah, I forget his name. Ken something?

[Chanileslie]

There are so many things wrong with that Chick Track, I don't even know where to begin!

Dagnabit!! My GM didn't initiate me or my Sorceress into the Coven when she reached 8th level. Is it higher for Sorceresses than for Clerics? I mean, my Sorceress is now 13th level, and still no invitation into the coven!! I feel so very cheated!! I think this is class discrimination!!

I just can't believe people fall for this crap! Even my sister, who is a pretty smart cookie thinks that D&D will lead us into evil. It just kills me.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I'll one up you. One of my players is a very devout Jehovahs Witness (though admittedly, just about the least pushy one I have ever met). Her take on the issue of whether RPG's are evil is that it's just a game, not very different than if she were playing Scrabble, and as long as she never forgets that fact, playing D&D is perfectly fine.

And yet, a LARP *is* evil!! Imagine that. Of course, I think she just used that as an excuse because she had no desire to go LARPing.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Does a person like Chick really think witches can cast spells, spells that can actually alter reality?

I mean, a “bondage spell” that could result in fathers spending $200 on D&D “figures and manuals”; that’s some pretty powerful sorcery.

Ah ha!! I have figured it out!! My children have cast an evil spell on me and that is why I play D&D!! I knew it was all my evil children's fault!!

:D

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


And yet, a LARP *is* evil!! Imagine that. Of course, I think she just used that as an excuse because she had no desire to go LARPing.

LARPs are evil;)

But I better cut out the humor now, I wouldn't want to get this thread moved.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
As I've said before, the biggest problem with this tract is how many girls are playing D&D.

(Yes, I know Chani and a few others play, but they're still the exception to the rule.)

Oh, I definitely agree. Also, I got into D&D not because I sought it out for myself, but because my significant other played and I joined him. Of course, I did play a couple of time (2 times to be exact) when I was in High School with one of my sisters' boyfriends, and I would have continued playing (I loved it) had I known how to find a group or knew anyone else besides my sister's boyfriend (who couldn't stand me) who played.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
As I've said before, the biggest problem with this tract is how many girls are playing D&D.

(Yes, I know Chani and a few others play, but they're still the exception to the rule.)

Of course now that you mention it, our gaming group has 4 guys and 4 girls. Of course at least two of the women there are there only because their significant other is there.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


Of course now that you mention it, our gaming group has 4 guys and 4 girls. Of course at least two of the women there are there only because their significant other is there. Moreover, one of the women is the DM. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't think of a single time I've played under a female DM. (Not that I'd mind, ya'understand, its just never happened in my experience.)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Moreover, one of the women is the DM. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't think of a single time I've played under a female DM. (Not that I'd mind, ya'understand, its just never happened in my experience.)

Nope, in our group I am the DM. She is married to the DM but, despite my urgings, has never tried her hand at DMing herself.

I have played under a female GM, but it was Vampire: The Marketing (yech) so I can't say anything positive about the expereince, though I don't balme it on the fact that it was a female GM

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Nope, in our group I am the DM. She is married to the DM but, despite my urgings, has never tried her hand at DMing herself.

I have played under a female GM, but it was Vampire: The Marketing (yech) so I can't say anything positive about the expereince, though I don't balme it on the fact that it was a female GM Vampire is the only game where I can even conceive of a female GM. Maybe Changleing.

[Fade]

Speaking of DND, and Pen and Paper games:

Anyone play Exalted? Little more complex than DND, but very very fun.

A friend of mine even drew a picture of the character I'm playing:

http://home.comcast.net/~eurikins/butterfly.jpg

[Hexxenhammer]

Fade, get over here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36969&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) right now and tell us all about your character in Exalted. We're geeks and we love you.

[Quester_X]

Hah! This again. Gives me a chance to link to this:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/90046

VERY funny, and so relevant.

[The GM]

>>Vampire is the only game where I can even conceive of a female GM. Maybe Changleing.<<

How about Hunter? Or Shadowrun? Or Earthdawn? Or Riddle of Steel? Or WW? All of which I have run long standing campaigns for, and the last one I've actually freelanced for. (Got paid money and everything for it!)
Tonight my pals and I will dance the forbidden Satanic rite and I will once again teach them how to cast real spells as we play a Hunter/Sorcerer hybrid. I'm also willowy and kewl looking like the GM in the Chick tracts. Got my witches habit and razor sharp black nails!

On a serious note, I have a relative who is a staunch Christian who was very concerned about my D&D ways. In order to quelch this fear, I invited her to watch a session or two. She proclaimed it boring, non satanic, and a tad geeky. Dispelling one misconception at a time, just another service I provide...

[Hexxenhammer]

The GM is a chick! We need more female input on the ultimate RPG thread!

|
|
V

[RandFan]

For a short period of time when I was the most active in my church I saw evil every where. Movies, books, music, etc. I even went to a church meeting that was devoted to exposing the evil in rock music. Fortunately I got a grip on life. The more "spiritual" a person becomes the more evil that the individual will identify in others and other things.

I liked the scene in footloose where the towns people decide to burn books that they think are evil and the pastor tells them that any evil is in their hearts and not the books. I saw the movie when I was still a believer. It had an impact on me and I stoped trying to agresively find "evil" in the world. Yeah, there are some pretty bad people in this world but they are the exception and not the rule.

[The GM]

Rand Fan's story reminds me of a Muslim man I had the chance to sit down and talk to. He was a great host while I was in his home and offered me a bite to eat (pork sausage he'd made) and something to drink (whiskey, three fingers high.) I have another Muslim friend who would touch neither and so I asked him about it. His reply to me became something I found so much truth in that I've adopted it into my own code for living. He said, "Sin is not what goes into your mouth, but what comes out of it." He then talked about tolerance and a whole lot of other issues relating to respecting each other as people. I didn't expect something like that to come from a Muslim as we more often see the fanatical side of that faith. I learned something important from him that day, and I've always been grateful that we had a chance to talk.

[c4ts]

My guess is that the whole thing really started when a few people decided to play D&D instead of go to church, which turned into a rumor that it was devil worship and it spread like wildfire among paranoid fundies.

[HarryKeogh]

as an aside; worst class ever...Illusionist

no please, don't attack me with your color spray!!!!! argghhhh!

[Chanileslie]

I actually think that churches villify games such as D&D not because the leaders really think they are evil or the spawn of Satan, but rather because they realize that D&D can teach one critical thinking and to question their small, narrow world. I think it is also what leads to book burnings and such because if people started to actually think and critically assess the religion, they might just decide it is a bunch of hooey and leave.

It is also a control mechanism - control who one has sex with, control what one reads, control how one views the world, and these people are easy to manipulate. Sadly there are way to many people who get off on this type of control, and since so many people make it so easy, it happens a lot.

Unfortunately there exists in this world a lot of stupid people who are willing to go to the extremes in the name of ignorance and fanaticism.

Also, every day religious people confuse fantasy with reality in the belief in a god, and so it doesn't surprise me in the least that they can easily have that confusion cross over into other things, such as confusing a simple game of being an invention of demons. It is all rather sad, IMO.

[RandFan]

Hey,

I watched a movie once where Tom Hanks gets lost in the fantasy of D&D and almost dies. This proves that D&D is dangerous.

Mazes and Monsters (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084314/)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hey,

I watched a movie once where Tom Hanks gets lost in the fantasy of D&D and almost dies. This proves that D&D is dangerous.

Mazes and Monsters (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084314/)

The sad thing is, I have heard that statment at least twice in real life and the person wan't being sarcastic.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
as an aside; worst class ever...Illusionist

no please, don't attack me with your color spray!!!!! argghhhh!

If you dare attack me with your fearsome color spray I shall use my lute and sing in your general direction! Bwahahahah!

[Jabberwock]

From Schnoebelen, linked earlier and here http://www.chick.com/articles/dnd.asp

" In the late 1970's, a couple of the game writers actually came to my wife and I as prominent "sorcerers" in the community.
These two guys sat in our living room and took copious notes from us on how to make sure the rituals were truly right 'from the book,' (this meaning that they actually came from magic grimoires or workbooks). "

"Back in 1986, a fellow appeared on The 700 Club who was a former employee and game writer for TSR. He testified right on the show that he got into a wrangle with the management there because he saw that the rituals were too authentic and could be dangerous"

Granted, I haven't DnD'd for quite a few years, but as I remember it, our "magikal rituals" consisted mostly of:
"I cast a +5 fireball at the kobolds and dimension walk back to the glade." <sigh> "ok, roll" <dice sound> "*#@%$ it!!! You ALWAYS roll the dice into the pizza and you almost knocked my pop (soda for non-midwestern types) over!" <Yawn> "So did he hit or what?" "I don't know I'm looking for the chart, just a sec" <rapid page turning> "uhhhh, ummmm, nope, you just missed the kobolds and that rattled you so much you concentrate enough to dimension walk." "OH BS!!!! NO WAY I MISSED IT'S A #$@*!@ FIREBALL! HOW DID I MISS?" "I'm the DM and I say you missed!! "YOU SUCK! I'm NEVER playing any other game with you as a DM." <repeat ad infinitum for hours, every week> :D

Edited to add:
In six years of DnD'ing NONE of my games ever included women. Female DnDers were like Bigfoot, everyone knew someone who had played DnD with a woman, but you personally had never done it ;)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
The sad thing is, I have heard that statment at least twice in real life and the person wan't being sarcastic. Yeah, me to. And the story isn't even true.

Mazes and Monsters (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1017854/reviews.php?critic=all&sortby=default&page=1&rid=16446)

Mazes and Monsters is based on a book which is based on a true story [which the author later admitted was made up to sell copies]...

It is true that the dialog and acting are very weak in Mazes and Monsters, but we must remember that the emphasis of the movie is on the warning. We cannot dismiss the message just because all the students contain more distilled preppiness than an army of stockbrokers. We cannot ignore the dangers of role-playing just because their dark god is depicted as speaking through a sewer pipe with a strobe light behind him.

I for one am grateful to the film makers for warning us of the terrible dangers that are lurking within role-playing games. I hope that no one I know will ever become afflicted with their terrible curse.
[/b]

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Jabberwock
From Schnoebelen, linked earlier and here http://www.chick.com/articles/dnd.asp

" In the late 1970's, a couple of the game writers actually came to my wife and I as prominent "sorcerers" in the community.
These two guys sat in our living room and took copious notes from us on how to make sure the rituals were truly right 'from the book,' (this meaning that they actually came from magic grimoires or workbooks). "

"Back in 1986, a fellow appeared on The 700 Club who was a former employee and game writer for TSR. He testified right on the show that he got into a wrangle with the management there because he saw that the rituals were too authentic and could be dangerous"

Granted, I haven't D -n- D'd for quite a few years, but as I remember it, our "magikal rituals' consisted mostly of:
"I cast a +5 fireball at the kobolds and dimension walk back to the glade." <sigh> "ok, roll" <dice sound> "*#@%$ it!!! You ALWAYS roll the dice into the pizza and you almost knocked my pop (soda for non-midwestern types) over!" <Yawn> "So did he hit or what?" "I don't know I'm looking for the chart, just a sec" <rapid page turning> "uhhhh, ummmm, nope, you just missed the kobolds and that rattled you so much you concentrate enough to dimension walk." "OH BS!!!! NO WAY I MISSED IT'S A #$@*!@ FIREBALL! HOW DID I MISS?" "I'm the DM and I say you missed!! "YOU SUCK! I'm NEVER playing any other game with you as a DM." <repeat ad infinitum for hours, every week> :D

I cast... magic missile. At the darkness!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Jabberwock
From Schnoebelen, linked earlier and here http://www.chick.com/articles/dnd.asp

" In the late 1970's, a couple of the game writers actually came to my wife and I as prominent "sorcerers" in the community.
These two guys sat in our living room and took copious notes from us on how to make sure the rituals were truly right 'from the book,' (this meaning that they actually came from magic grimoires or workbooks). "

"Back in 1986, a fellow appeared on The 700 Club who was a former employee and game writer for TSR. He testified right on the show that he got into a wrangle with the management there because he saw that the rituals were too authentic and could be dangerous"

Granted, I haven't D -n- D'd for quite a few years, but as I remember it, our "magikal rituals' consisted mostly of:
"I cast a +5 fireball at the kobolds and dimension walk back to the glade." <sigh> "ok, roll" <dice sound> "*#@%$ it!!! You ALWAYS roll the dice into the pizza and you almost knocked my pop (soda for non-midwestern types) over!" <Yawn> "So did he hit or what?" "I don't know I'm looking for the chart, just a sec" <rapid page turning> "uhhhh, ummmm, nope, you just missed the kobolds and that rattled you so much you concentrate enough to dimension walk." "OH BS!!!! NO WAY I MISSED IT'S A #$@*!@ FIREBALL! HOW DID I MISS?" "I'm the DM and I say you missed!! "YOU SUCK! I'm NEVER playing any other game with you as a DM." <repeat ad infinitum for hours, every week> :D

Your memory is pretty accurate. There has never been anything more to the spells in D&D beyond "Okay, I throw a fireball at the orcs". I suppose an individual player might decide to get fancy and descriptive and say "I pull out the ball of sulphur and chant the mystic syllables while gesturing with my hands, casting a my fireball spell at the onrushing horde of orcs", but that is an individula player thing, in the books, all it tells you is what the spell does and what special materials (if any) you need to cast it. It nowhere mentions rituals, from real life grimoires or otherwise. This is the best evidence of all that Mr. Schoenbelen is full of it.

Besides, do satanists even have fireballs, polymorphs, etc? If so remind me never to piss them off, since I don't want them polymorphing my cat into a hydra.

[c4ts]

I dunno... going through all the steps of some made up ritual in order to cast a spell would make for interesting D&D, although it might become tedious in a party full of casters.

But then again that would be lending credibility to these absurd clams, wouldn't it?

[Jabberwock]

I agree with Nyarlathotep. This alone pretty much disqualifies much of what Mr. Schoenbelen says and proves he's never really seen a game. Unfortunately, he seems to have some cachet as an authority (at least to Mr. Chick) and there are more than enough people to believe him. I wonder what Mr. Schoenbelen would make of Katherine Kurtz's Deryni novels. One of the things that I liked about it was the "realism" of the magic (rituals to unlock powers with a heavy medieval Christian/Talmudic flavor instead of merely waving a twig around and unleashing swarms of fireballs).

I also seem to remember a room sized gelatinous creature that seemed to be invented solely to clean dungeons. My DM used them mainly to block us off of areas he didn't want to go. :p

Oh, c4ts, magic missile causes 2D4 HP damage to the Darkness which limps back to its lair to heal. You gain 10 Exp Pts! :D

[c4ts]

Yay! 9990 more and I can level up.

[scribble]

D&D is dangerous. The more rules you have memorized, the less likely you are to ever get laid. I have a marveouls poof of this, but it's too lengthy to fit in this post.

[c4ts]

I AM LIVING PROOF OF THAT FACT! But then I've gotten used to sleeping with the dice.

[Riddick]

Christians play Counter-Strike.

<-- Tournament Counter-Strike player since 1.0. First played in Russia.

[Nyarlathotep]

Oh my goodness look at the strawman.....

In fact, the Dungeon Master's Guide gives the celebrated Adolph Hitler as an example of a real historical person that exhibited D&D charisma! The values contained in the game are, at the very best, "might makes right."

(from the Chick article linked to earlier)

As I recall, the 1st edition DMG did indeed mention that Hitler would have had a high charisma, as an example to show that Charisma in game terms meant the ability to sway people and had nothing to do with being nice. From that point of view, Hitler would indeed have a high charisma.

The more I read of this, the more convinced I am that Mr. Schoenbelen isn't misunderstanding the game, he is willfully lying.

[Z]

D&D IS EVIL! It causes gamers to hate Palladium Books.

RIFTS FOR LIFE! HEROES, UNLIMITED! PFRPG!!!!

yay

Actually, I could never get into D&D - no matter which 'edition' I try, my stupid wizard always gets killed in the first melee. And memorizing spells? Puh-leeze - us REAL wizards KNOW our spells, thank you very much.

Besides, there's no mention of sacrificing homeopaths to get the magic rolling...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Oh my goodness look at the strawman.....



(from the Chick article linked to earlier)

As I recall, the 1st edition DMG did indeed mention that Hitler would have had a high charisma, as an example to show that Charisma in game terms meant the ability to sway people and had nothing to do with being nice. From that point of view, Hitler would indeed have a high charisma.

The more I read of this, the more convinced I am that Mr. Schoenbelen isn't misunderstanding the game, he is willfully lying.

Or maybe he just glanced at the manual because he didn't want to be tricked by the Devil or something.

[Electron #1]

Oh but D& D IS evil ! .... Good normal people gather together in angry mobs to burn books.......




Dm : " Ok , everybody finish making characters? Go ahead and tell me your stats.."
Guy in every group: " strength 18 , intelligence 18 , wisdom 18..,,,,"




My 25th lvl Wizard marches down the beach with ligthing bolt spell at the ready looking for muscle bound jerks kicking sand...

[jaderook01]

I received this D&D tract once. It disturbed me at the time. I didn't want to go back to church for a time.

[jaderook01]

Having received the D&D Chick Tract when I was nine, I can say that it disturbed me. I certainly didn't want to go back to Sunday School for a time there.

Oops! I hate double posts. I thought I'd lost the first one. Sorry!

[Yahweh]

So witches are real, D&D = Satan worshipping, D&D causes suicide...

Who says 2 1/2 inches of paper cant seperate you from reality...

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yeah, me to. And the story isn't even true.



Well not only that, but if you watch the movie, it actually shows that the game isn't what was hurting the guy, in fact it kept him saner longer. He was just severly schizophrenic.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
D&D IS EVIL! It causes gamers to hate Palladium Books.

RIFTS FOR LIFE! HEROES, UNLIMITED! PFRPG!!!!

yay

Actually, I could never get into D&D - no matter which 'edition' I try, my stupid wizard always gets killed in the first melee. And memorizing spells? Puh-leeze - us REAL wizards KNOW our spells, thank you very much.

Besides, there's no mention of sacrificing homeopaths to get the magic rolling... Come on dude, RIFTS sucks. Every party is juicers and Glitter-boys, glitter-boys and juicers. No one has ever EVER played another character class.:p

[RandFan]

Originally posted by scribble
D&D is dangerous. The more rules you have memorized, the less likely you are to ever get laid. I have a marveouls poof of this, but it's too lengthy to fit in this post. :D My teenage son is a moderator for an RPG forum. This won't give him allot of hope.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by RandFan
:D My teenage son is a moderator for an RPG forum. This won't give him allot of hope. Don't worry. Some of us managed to get married and actually reproduce.

[Z]

Actually, I can tell you with certainty, the last party I GM'd in Rifts consisted of an elven bowman, a Rahu-Man gunslinger, a dragon hatchling, a temporal wizard, and a mutant Human. BUT - I'll still agree Rifts sucks - the mega-damage system bites.

That's why I'm running After the Bomb right now for an Elephant technician, a Swan wizard, and a Mouse - well, she hasn't decided what she's playing, but it's a mouse.

[AtheistArchon]

Come on dude, RIFTS sucks. Every party is juicers and Glitter-boys, glitter-boys and juicers. No one has ever EVER played another character class.

- You have a good point... but I played a Crazy. I loved the fact that as you leveled, you slowly got more insane! There was a random table you had to roll on for psychoses!

- My favorite was the Popeye syndrome: you cannot use any of your powers unless you first eat (something like) celery dipped in yogurt.

- And phobias were always cool. You are now terrified of... grass.

- The problem with Rifts was they got way too far away from the sourcebook. The original sourcebook was awesome, but they just kept adding crap... juicers never die now, etc etc.

[Z]

Amen to that... I mean, Rifts Quebec? Rifts New Jersey? Rifts Bombay? Where does the madness end? And each book is all about 'bigger, better, faster, more' - to the point that the uber-weapon of Rifts - the Glitter-Boy - is now an obsolete piece of junk. Ridiculous.

I definitely prefer PFRPG - it still maintains the nice game mechanics without going over the top every supplement. Or Heroes, Unlimited, where you can be whatever you like, powerful or not, and where rules are made to be broken and tweaked.

I just can't deal with D&D.

[The GM]

I’ve been doing this GM thing wrong all along. Good thing the Schnoebelen article teaches me how to do it right.

1. Fear generation-via spells and mental imaging about fear-filled, emotional scenes,


Check! I’ll go out and purchase some eye of newt as soon as possible to really ratchet up the impact of our fictional game set in a fictional world with fictional characters and fictional abilities. My players will be totally in awe and fright of me and my all encompassing influence.


2. Isolation-psychological removal from traditional support structures (family, church, etc.) into an imaginary world.


Oooh! I hadn’t thought of that. No more pregame talk about how everyone is doing, how their family is getting along and so forth. Also, no outside of game social interaction. The game is all that matters. My grip over the lives of my well adjusted pals just got stronger.


3. Physical torture and killings-images in the mind can be almost as real as the actual experiences.


Hmmm…this is going to take some work on my part. Maybe instead of rolling dice we can sacrifice the neighbor’s dog to simulate real killin’. The damn thing barks all night long anyway…


4. Erosion of family values-the Dungeon Master (DM) demands an all-encompassing and total loyalty, control and allegiance.

Yes! And well they should worship me. They should also do my laundry, wash my car and mow my lawn! I’m making up a honey do list for our next session!


5. Situational Ethics-any act can be justified in the mind of the player,


Well, we’ve always played good guys vs bad guys scenarios, but I can fix this, somehow, I guess. Suggestions from the other controlling masochistic GMs out there?


6. In addition, defilement is urged in many ways, such as excrement or urinating to "defile a font."


Hey, you piss on my floor in an attempt to LARP out a defilement, and you’re getting the boot from my house. End of discussion.


7. Loss of Self-control-authority over self is surrendered to the DM. Depending on the personality and ego-strength of the player, this loss can be near absolute.


Yes! Now how do I get my players to submit to my absolute authority? I know, I’ll pit them against a herd was grazing trasks! That’ll do it.


8. Degradation-pain and torture are heavily involved in sadistic, sexual situations that graphically appeal to visceral impulses.


Yeah, because rape is so f^@#ing titillating. Thanks Schnoebelen, the minds and souls of my players are soon to be mine.

[Filippo Lippi]

I once spent an hour of game time having my gnome illusionist/thief creep on a stick. If wasting time is a sin, then the game is evil.

[Filippo Lippi]

There have been a lot of evil things go on at our table (Background: I game with two friends, Jim and Steve)

- I had the pretty boy PCs attacked by a party of "same-sex oriented" pirates. Well, 'the party' were invited to join 'the party,' if you see what I mean.

- Or there was the time that Steve's character impregnated a mother and a daughter on the same night. Jim went round telling a lot of people that knew Steve that Steve had got a mother and a daughter pregnant. Steve is still living it down; the stories haven't reached his wife or kids yet, thankfully.

hmmm, perhaps Jack Chick has a point

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Vampire is the only game where I can even conceive of a female GM. Maybe Changleing.

Why did you have to say that? Why? I really like you and I really don't want to have to berate you for sexist behavior. Tell me that I just misunderstood what you wrote because such an intelligent man with usually very good taste can't actually be so small and stupid and insecure as to think that a woman is unable or not as capable of GMing any game but Vampire as a man.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Fillipo Lippi
I once spent an hour of game time having my gnome illusionist/thief creep on a stick. If wasting time is a sin, then the game is evil.

Yeah!! You could have been wasting your time hacking at that nasty Gazebo or Green Divan*!! :p




* A Nights Of the Dinner Table Reference - which if you are ever at GenCon and have a chance to go to a live reading, go!! It is a blast!! You will laugh so hard, you will pee your pants!

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


Why did you have to say that? Why? I really like you and I really don't want to have to berate you for sexist behavior. Tell me that I just misunderstood what you wrote because such an intelligent man with usually very good taste can't actually be so small and stupid and insecure as to think that a woman is unable or not as capable of GMing any game but Vampire as a man. I'm not trying to be sexist Chani! I haven't been exposed to all you gaming-liberated womyn ;) . I just thought that if any game was going to appeal to a female crowd enough for them to GM it, it would be Vampire. I wasn't talking about ability, just interest. Now I'm going to take that back because I've remembered the last time I was at the gaming store there were some teenage girl anime fan types who were talking about running some Anime game. Big Eyes, Small Mouth I think.

[The GM]

Ah, so now females are pidgeon holed into either liking gothic romance or cute little cartoons?!? You're in trouble, Hex...
:D

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by The GM
Ah, so now females are pidgeon holed into either liking gothic romance or cute little cartoons?!? You're in trouble, Hex...
:D I'm used to it. It happens all the time with Mrs. Hex.
"Do you like my hair?"
"Yeah, sure."
"But I haven't done anything to it."
"..."
"So you're saying you like it better when I don't do my hair."
"No."
"So you don't like my hair."
"No...Yes...wait...I love you, baby. Want a foot rub?"

You girlzez are sssso tricksy, preciousssss...

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by Jabberwock
From Schnoebelen, linked earlier and here http://www.chick.com/articles/dnd.asp

" In the late 1970's, a couple of the game writers actually came to my wife and I as prominent "sorcerers" in the community.
These two guys sat in our living room and took copious notes from us on how to make sure the rituals were truly right 'from the book,' (this meaning that they actually came from magic grimoires or workbooks). "

"Back in 1986, a fellow appeared on The 700 Club who was a former employee and game writer for TSR. He testified right on the show that he got into a wrangle with the management there because he saw that the rituals were too authentic and could be dangerous"

Granted, I haven't DnD'd for quite a few years, but as I remember it, our "magikal rituals" consisted mostly of:
"I cast a +5 fireball at the kobolds and dimension walk back to the glade." <sigh> "ok, roll" <dice sound> "*#@%$ it!!! You ALWAYS roll the dice into the pizza and you almost knocked my pop (soda for non-midwestern types) over!" <Yawn> "So did he hit or what?" "I don't know I'm looking for the chart, just a sec" <rapid page turning> "uhhhh, ummmm, nope, you just missed the kobolds and that rattled you so much you concentrate enough to dimension walk." "OH BS!!!! NO WAY I MISSED IT'S A #$@*!@ FIREBALL! HOW DID I MISS?" "I'm the DM and I say you missed!! "YOU SUCK! I'm NEVER playing any other game with you as a DM." <repeat ad infinitum for hours, every week> :D

Good one, Jabberwock! That had me laughing out loud, because I've been there so many times myself. That Schnoebelen kook is definitely talking out of his ass. He's obviously never even seen the inside of D&D book, as there are no "rituals" of any sort printed in the books. The so-called "spells," as you pointed out are little more than descriptions of the spell's purpose and use. There are no incantations or anything like that. And even though there is a spell called "Demon-Summoning" (Fundies love to seize on that one!), it's so complicated, and the description runs on for several columns, and it's so fraught with risks to the user, that I have never seen it used in any game I've ever participated in.

Ironically, most of the people I have played D&D with have been born-again Christians, plus several catholics, and even priests and ministers. I still get a chuckle when I recall one game with a priest who was playing a cleric (!) and had occasion to use the Commune spell. His phrasing of his instruction to the DM was, in total character, "I'm going to commune with my God." He did not say, "With God," but "with my God," thereby suggesting that the god of his player-character was not necessarily the same god that he himself believed in. How remarkable that he was able to separate the ficticious religion of the game from the religion of his real life. He did not seem to have any problem with this at all. Oh, and this game was taking place at a seminary school where he taught (most likely theology). In fact, it was a school-sanctioned tournament.

BTW, that Chick Tract is one of my favorites. It's a classic.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I'm not trying to be sexist Chani! I haven't been exposed to all you gaming-liberated womyn ;) . I just thought that if any game was going to appeal to a female crowd enough for them to GM it, it would be Vampire. I wasn't talking about ability, just interest. Now I'm going to take that back because I've remembered the last time I was at the gaming store there were some teenage girl anime fan types who were talking about running some Anime game. Big Eyes, Small Mouth I think.

Well now you know you are wrong. We women have a huge variety of interests and not always does it include vampires or Anime, both of which I am not particularly fond.

Now say you're sorry and all will be forgiven*


*I of course reserve the right to recall this event and no matter how much time has passed since this event took place, I can recall it and use it against you - why? Because that is what so many men seem to think we women do. Might as well give you something.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I'm used to it. It happens all the time with Mrs. Hex.
"Do you like my hair?"
"Yeah, sure."
"But I haven't done anything to it."
"..."
"So you're saying you like it better when I don't do my hair."
"No."
"So you don't like my hair."
"No...Yes...wait...I love you, baby. Want a foot rub?"

You girlzez are sssso tricksy, preciousssss...

Mmmhmmm, I think we need to verify with Mrs. Hex if this is true!! We are skeptics, you know. :p

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
Now say you're sorry and all will be forgiven*
Ok.

:p "You're sorry." :p

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Ok.

:p "You're sorry." :p

Oh, someone is spoilin' for a fight!! Bring it on!! :D

[Checkmite]

That's great...pretending to cast a magic spell is evil, yet (supposedly) casting a real spell to "bind a demonic force" is okay, as long as it's done in Jesus' name. :confused:

Something caught my attention in that little tract, by the way.

http://www.geocities.com/jkorosi/tract.jpg

Acts 19:13-17 reads

13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.

15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

17 And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

So there's always a chance that when you try to cast out demons, the "possessed" subject can just say "F*** off" and beat the living crap out of you. I'm guessing that's happened to more than one fundamentalist before... :D

[odorousrex]

Thank Yog-Sothoth the fundies don't know about Call of Cthulhu.

If they think DND is bad...the body count in CoC is roughly 123231 times higher.

[seayakin]

I played DnD a long time and some other RPGs and then I moved on to the harder stuff like Evercrack, DAOC and SWG.

I had a DnD friend who played with this one group of kids from a Jehovah's witness kids until the parents took away the books and burned them (and they were first editions in good condition, I could have cried).

BTW, I have tried to cast fireball and lightning bolt in real life and have not yet succeeded. I have tried to commune with the devil and have not yet succeeded. So, if any fundies out there want to point him out, i'd like to have a little talk. ;)

[c4ts]

Has anyone ever seen this movie Gamers? I've always wanted to do a Dark Dungeons parody movie in a similar style, except in black and white.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by c4ts
Has anyone ever seen this movie Gamers? I've always wanted to do a Dark Dungeons parody movie in a similar style, except in black and white. Oh, hell yeah. The Gamers is freakin' hilarious. I bought it at Gen-Con last year.
"Dude! You're still asleep!"
"Oh yeah." *character falls over*

[ehbowen]

Many moons ago, back in high school, I briefly participated in a DnD group. When rolling ability scores for my first character, I threw a natural 17 for wisdom. Instant cleric.

I got into the game okay and enjoyed it for the most part, until the DM told me I had to choose a deity. I felt uneasy about that, worshipping and calling on the name of some other god, even though I knew it was fictional and in fun. The DM told me that if I didn't pick out some god to worship I couldn't play with them anymore. So I stopped showing up for the game sessions and, in my absence, he killed off my character.

I think that, at that time, I made the right decision. While I can imagine the hoots and catcalls, I will say that I am convinced of the reality of demonic forces; even more convinced today, in fact, than I was twenty years ago. And I believe that those demons will grab at any straw they can find in order to get leverage against the life and witness of a believer. At the time, I wanted to wholeheartedly follow my God. And so I think that I made the right choice.

Today, with twenty-three years more experience under my belt, I would probably choose differently. I'm secure enough now in my beliefs and in my relationship with the true God that I would experience no qualms in role-playing allegiance to some other suitable deity. Actually, I picked up a set of 3.0 manuals a few years back to see what I had been missing. I haven't tried to find or join a game yet, but maybe in time.

In my own mind, I see the situation as being comparable to Paul's instruction regarding eating meat sacrificed to idols. If it troubles your conscience, you shouldn't do it. If you have no problem with it, but your action troubles someone else or induces them to go against their conscience, then you shouldn't do it. But if no one else is adversely affected, and you are mature enough to realize that an idol is nothing, then enjoy.

[Oleron]

Haven't played an RPG in years, except for computer RPG's (big fan of Baldurs Gate series - but Neverwinter was pants).

When I played I never actually did DnD, much to my regret now. I was a MERP fan, until my fundy church rained on my parade.

What the Xians forget is that, far from damaging kids, RPG's actually develop creative skills in players.
The guys (all male unfortunately) who I played with are still well-balanced people, not wand-toting psycho's.

They have families and responsibilities now, otherwise they would probably still be playing! The closest I get to an RPG now is reading fantasy novels.

BTW, when girls play DnD, do they always choose sorcerer-type characters or do some choose to be gnarly old dwarf fighters?

[Z]

Oleron, my wife has played since I dragged her into my obsession 11 years ago - For her, it's winged Elven characters all the way. Oddly, though, she leans more towards optional classes, like noble or scholar, or if we're playing something modern, some sort of gizmoteer or techie. I've managed to convince her to play a sorceror only once, and be darned if she didn't make that into a scholar, too.

Her longest running character, though, had to be the Courtesan (Elven, yes, but no wings) who turned out to be heir to the High Throne of Elvenkind... Oh, and she had a pretty successful Paladin for a while.

Our next game (in the works) looks like she's going for an anthropomorphic mouse scholar (After the Bomb, fyi) teamed up with an Elephant mechanic and a Swan sorceror. Ought to be worth a laugh or two...

[Oleron]

Zaayrdragon,
I'm a bit rusty on all the class variations. DnD must have just about every character imaginable - I remember MERP being a bit more limited than that.

My wife loves all the artwork and imagery of the fantasy genre but I couldn't talk her into a game. Pity.

After the Bomb sounds bizarre!

Nice dragon BTW.

[Ossai]

Seayakin
BTW, I have tried to cast fireball and lightning bolt in real life and have not yet succeeded. I have tried to commune with the devil and have not yet succeeded. So, if any fundies out there want to point him out, i'd like to have a little talk. ;)

Then you aren't doing it right. ;) The old 1st edition D&D books and the 1st edition AD&D that listed material components hid the spells. For example lightning bolt required a crystal rod and wool. Now if you actually manage to acquire said items and rub the wool vigorously against the rod you can ZAP someone (static charge) . Likewise fireball required for natural sources of sulfur and salt peter (I don't remember if a source of charcoal was included).

odorousrex
If they think DND is bad...the body count in CoC is roughly 123231 times higher.
I think you should include the characters that go insane as well.

Ossai

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by ehbowen
Many moons ago, back in high school, I briefly participated in a DnD group. When rolling ability scores for my first character, I threw a natural 17 for wisdom. Instant cleric.

I got into the game okay and enjoyed it for the most part, until the DM told me I had to choose a deity. I felt uneasy about that, worshipping and calling on the name of some other god, even though I knew it was fictional and in fun. The DM told me that if I didn't pick out some god to worship I couldn't play with them anymore. So I stopped showing up for the game sessions and, in my absence, he killed off my character.Sounds like the DM was an A-hole. Currently in DnD, if I was playing with someone with your concerns, I'd suggest playing a cleric of Pelor, god of light and sun. Yahweh comes from that tradition anyway.

Hey, actually, maybe you should check out Testament (http://www.greenronin.com/cgi-bin/product.cgi?prodid=1019) by Green Ronin publishing. Old Testament roleplaying with DnD 3rd ed rules. Be a cleric of Yahweh, a Babylonian wizard, etc. This is a cool book whether you're a christian or atheist or jew or whatever since it focuses on the history and mythologies of all the culutures of the time with out any kind of religious agenda. But, of course, all cultures gods are real, monsters run around, etc, just like regular DnD.

[seayakin]

Originally posted by Ossai
[b]Seayakin


Then you aren't doing it right. ;) The old 1st edition D&D books and the 1st edition AD&D that listed material components hid the spells. For example lightning bolt required a crystal rod and wool. Now if you actually manage to acquire said items and rub the wool vigorously against the rod you can ZAP someone (static charge) . Likewise fireball required for natural sources of sulfur and salt peter (I don't remember if a source of charcoal was included).



I guess my intel isn't there yet because I forgot about components. Time to reroll.

Actually, the DMs I played with oftend didn't bother tracking spell components so the pretty much didn't exist in the games we played.

Anyone ever see the Dr. Who role playing game. I have a copy but I could never get any of my friends to try it. Another fun PnP one is Paranoia if you have a good GM.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by seayakin


Anyone ever see the Dr. Who role playing game. I have a copy but I could never get any of my friends to try it. Another fun PnP one is Paranoia if you have a good GM.

I used to own it, I even got my group to try it a few times but alas, no one really liked it.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by ehbowen
Many moons ago, back in high school, I briefly participated in a DnD group. When rolling ability scores for my first character, I threw a natural 17 for wisdom. Instant cleric.

I got into the game okay and enjoyed it for the most part, until the DM told me I had to choose a deity. I felt uneasy about that, worshipping and calling on the name of some other god, even though I knew it was fictional and in fun. The DM told me that if I didn't pick out some god to worship I couldn't play with them anymore. So I stopped showing up for the game sessions and, in my absence, he killed off my character.



Yeah, I have to agree with Hex, your GM was a jerk. I have had several players of various degrees of religious faith over the years, and I have found that the best way to deal with concerns like yours is to not make any player play out anything, including religious concerns, in more depth than they are comfortable with. Once, when I had a religious player and the group needed a cleric, I simply told him that his cleric could simply worship "good" and he could play that in as much or as little depth as he wanted. He seemed satisfied with that compromise.

One of my current players is Jehovah's Witness, I am pretty sure she would be uncomfortable having to play a cleric to some deity but oddly she has no compunctions about playing a sneak thief (in fact, it's her favorite type of character). I've always scratched my head over that one. Sometimes (and not just with religious types) I wish I were a psychologist because I would love to figure out why some people pick the types of characters they do

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Oleron
HWhat the Xians forget is that, far from damaging kids, RPG's actually develop creative skills in players.

Most Christians don't have any beef with roleplaying - not even the ones that know what it is. There is a small number of fundamentalistic Christians who does have issues with it, but they're the exception (even among fundamentalists) and not the rule. In fact, the only times I've ever heard about anyone considering roleplaying evil, is when discussions such as this one crops up in roleplaying forums.

To generalise with "What the Xians forget" is just as bad as saying something like "Roleplayers are all socially inept nerds." Sure, there's some of those out there, but they're not representative.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
To generalise with "What the Xians forget" is just as bad as saying something like "Roleplayers are all socially inept nerds." Sure, there's some of those out there, but they're not representative. I don't know, man. In high school "socially inept nerd" would have been a perfect description of me. And have you been to a gaming store lately? That stuff about gamers and showering wouldn't be a stereotype unless it was partly true. Phew!

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I used to own it, I even got my group to try it a few times but alas, no one really liked it.

Even better, has anyone played the Arkham Horror board game?

Used to play it back in college: CoC monsters are rampaging thru Arkham, and you've got to cooperate with the other players to close down all the gates. And if you don't: Arkham is doomed!

Lots of sanity roll checks.

It's been out of print for years, but I hear it's being re-released.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by bignickel


Even better, has anyone played the Arkham Horror board game?

Used to play it back in college: CoC monsters are rampaging thru Arkham, and you've got to cooperate with the other players to close down all the gates. And if you don't: Arkham is doomed!

Lots of sanity roll checks.

It's been out of print for years, but I hear it's being re-released.

Okay, now I am really beginning to feel like one of those old time grognards that haunt hobby shops but I've played that too. I rather enjoyed it.

My current favorite board game is "Kill Dr. Lucky". It's Clue in reverse as the players run around an old mansion trying to kill off Dr. Lucky without any witnesses. Of course since everyone wants to be the one bumping him off, they all have to thwart each other. It's a blast.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Oleron
Haven't played an RPG in years, except for computer RPG's (big fan of Baldurs Gate series - but Neverwinter was pants).

When I played I never actually did DnD, much to my regret now. I was a MERP fan, until my fundy church rained on my parade.

What the Xians forget is that, far from damaging kids, RPG's actually develop creative skills in players.
The guys (all male unfortunately) who I played with are still well-balanced people, not wand-toting psycho's.

They have families and responsibilities now, otherwise they would probably still be playing! The closest I get to an RPG now is reading fantasy novels.

BTW, when girls play DnD, do they always choose sorcerer-type characters or do some choose to be gnarly old dwarf fighters?

I've played two thieves, a kick-a$$ cleric, bard/wizard, and a halfling fighter who could kick some major a$$. Imagine 3'1" tall Magnolia, the Giant Slayer. My cleric also waded into battle with her trusty mace to smite those that needed it.

I've planned another character, a female dwarf fighter named Buttercup. She'll have a full beard, neatly combed and braided.

Plus another woman in our party played Ergo, a half orc barbarian. Imagine a huge football (or rugby) player with gray skin, body hair, and boobs.

[Hagrok]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
My current favorite board game is "Kill Dr. Lucky". It's Clue in reverse as the players run around an old mansion trying to kill off Dr. Lucky without any witnesses. Of course since everyone wants to be the one bumping him off, they all have to thwart each other. It's a blast.
I used to play that game all the time.. ya know, I think I actually have a copy of it somewhere. A friend in my old gaming group gave it to me when I left DC.

Man, I havn't done any real Roleplaying in years... I was never very good at it, I pretty much just played myself every character.

--Dan

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Oleron

BTW, when girls play DnD, do they always choose sorcerer-type characters or do some choose to be gnarly old dwarf fighters?

Well, there are four women in my group. When we play regular D&D my wife plays a sorceress, one plays a halfling thief, one plays a former paladin who is now slowly slipping to evil and the fourth is brand new to our grou and hasn't played regular D&D with us yet.

In our Oriental Adventures campaign (players in the same order) my wife plays a monk, the next plays a Samurai, the next plays a ranger/rogue, and the last plays a ninja.

So from my experience, they are pretty varied.

[wollery]

Originally posted by seayakin
Another fun PnP one is Paranoia if you have a good GM. Couldn't agree more. In fact it's extremely fun being GM for paranoia. You get to really mess with the players heads!

[wollery]

Originally posted by seayakin
Another fun PnP one is Paranoia if you have a good GM. Couldn't agree more. In fact it's extremely fun being GM for paranoia. You get to really mess with the players heads!

[Bear]

Let's see...

I've been playing D&D and assorted other systems since 1976, when my best friends older brother brought it home from college.

For the record, my wife (who was then my girlfriend) started playing the game with us back in 1977. We've always had at least one - and sometimes several - female players in our games.

Finally, anyone remember Pat Pulling and BADD? If not, here's a very good source for some background.

http://www.rpg.net/sites/252/quellen/stackpole/pulling_report.html

Bear-

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Sounds like the DM was an A-hole. Currently in DnD, if I was playing with someone with your concerns, I'd suggest playing a cleric of Pelor, god of light and sun. Yahweh comes from that tradition anyway.

Pelor would be okay, but if I were to get back into it, I think I'd lean towards Heironeous. I've seen some material on the Living Greyhawk campaign, and it sounds interesting. In the campaign, my home state has been assigned to the Bandit Kingdoms, which are occupied by the Empire of Iuz.

I'm thinking about creating a character with the following backstory. He was an apprentice weaponsmith who was conscripted into the army to fight against a neighboring kingdom. In the battle, he was severely wounded and left for dead. An enemy paladin rescued him and took him to the nearest temple of Heironeous, where he was treated and healed. He returns to the Bandit Kingdoms as an undercover missionary: a village weaponsmith by day, a cleric/adventurer by night.

Seems like it should have some interesting possibilities. Just a few things holding me back. For one, I'd need to get some more DnD experience; these Living Greyhawk people sound serious. Secondly, I have an unusual work schedule; I work nights and weekends, which is when most of the gaming action takes place.

I will think about it, though. Could be fun to get back into it.

[Riddick]

One of my personal favorites, this is the absolute definition of dork. Nothing is dumber than these *******. It's *******. hilarious.
Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! (http://www.netflamewar.com/movies/DnDGeeks.mpeg)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Riddick
Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! (http://www.netflamewar.com/movies/DnDGeeks.mpeg) OMG, LARP's. The geek's geeks. :nope:

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Riddick
One of my personal favorites, this is the absolute definition of dork. Nothing is dumber than these *uckers. It's *ucking hilarious.
Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! (http://www.netflamewar.com/movies/DnDGeeks.mpeg) Pretty funny.

[Scot C. Trypal]

That settles it. DND is dangerous.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
OMG, LARP's. The geek's geeks. :nope:

Yeah, except the vampire LARPers are even geekier because they, unlike these people, for the most part do no realize just how geeky they are.

[Indy418]

Sorry to dig up this really old thread, but I didn't want to start a new one on the same topic. I was talking to my mom today and she said that she was getting rid of my younger brother's D&D 2nd edition books. I told her I wanted them. She told me that this super holy, touched by the holy spirit priest told her about how evil D&D is and how people were doing spells. I assured her that it was just a game and it couldn't teach people how to do spells, mostly because that sort of magic doesn't exist. She was unconvinced and said the priest had told her about a house being all possessed because the kids were playing D&D and doing spells. Sigh.

The books are in my parents' garage (after being in the house for over a decade and never causing any trouble). My mom said she'd think about letting me have them. I'm tempted to invite my mom over for D&D night to show her that it's just nerdy people drinking Mt. Dew, eating junk food, and making up a story about fighting monsters.

[Tricky]

Sorry to dig up this really old thread, but I didn't want to start a new one on the same topic. I was talking to my mom today and she said that she was getting rid of my younger brother's D&D 2nd edition books. I told her I wanted them. She told me that this super holy, touched by the holy spirit priest told her about how evil D&D is and how people were doing spells. I assured her that it was just a game and it couldn't teach people how to do spells, mostly because that sort of magic doesn't exist. She was unconvinced and said the priest had told her about a house being all possessed because the kids were playing D&D and doing spells. Sigh.

The books are in my parents' garage (after being in the house for over a decade and never causing any trouble). My mom said she'd think about letting me have them. I'm tempted to invite my mom over for D&D night to show her that it's just nerdy people drinking Mt. Dew, eating junk food, and making up a story about fighting monsters.
I'm afraid there is little you can do, Indy. If you are under age then your parents have the legal right to make these kinds of decisions. No, it's not fair, and that's a damn shame.

But it worries me more that your parents seem to be falling under the sway of a charasmatic but insane person. I worry about what they might next decide is "evil". If you have a school counsellor, you should probably talk to them about your parents' odd behavior. Or lacking this, a trusted adult friend.

I wish you good luck and welcome to the boards.

[godless dave]

If he's old enough to have AD&D second edition, I imagine he's out of the house. Those came out when I was in college, and that was a long time ago.

[Tricky]

If he's old enough to have AD&D second edition, I imagine he's out of the house. Those came out when I was in college, and that was a long time ago.
Yeah, but these things get passed around.

[Madalch]

If the younger brother has had the books in the garage for a decade, I doubt that the older brother is still underage.

Go to your mother's house when she's at church and dig up her lawn. Tell her a priest informed you that grass is evil, and you had to save her.

I joke, of course, because she'd use that as proof that you'd been possessed by D&D demons.

[Simon39759]

I'm afraid there is little you can do, Indy. If you are under age then your parents have the legal right to make these kinds of decisions. No, it's not fair, and that's a damn shame.

But it worries me more that your parents seem to be falling under the sway of a charasmatic but insane person. I worry about what they might next decide is "evil". If you have a school counsellor, you should probably talk to them about your parents' odd behavior. Or lacking this, a trusted adult friend.

I wish you good luck and welcome to the boards.


Good point.
On the other hand, seeing what D&D actually is and how silly the preacher's uber over-reaction was might help her 'break the spell', succeed on her will-save, so to speak...

As a compromise, maybe she could sell the books on ebay and either keep the money or give it to the church, for a 'good cause', that way, no books would be burn... Book burnings make me a sad panda...

[Achán hiNidráne]

My fundie uncle (well, ONE of my fundie uncles) claims that he gotten involved in "Satanism" in college. Of course, to him, "Satanism" constitutes playing D&D along with other college activities (i.e. pot, beer, and co-eds). After he was "saved," he left the evil secular state university he was attending and enrolled in an Illinois Christian diploma mill (Trinity Univeristy or something), and has tried to do his best to renounce the gaming life. (Although he lets his homeschooled Stepford Brats read Tolkein and play LotR-based computer games.)

Anyway, it was enough to convince my mother that D&D was evil, and thus my parents barred me from playing it. (Dad just wanted to keep mother quiet, so he went along.) I think part of my current interest in "Old-school" RPGs is to make up for all the fun I missed. That, and rebellion against my Bible-humping relatives.:D

[Marduk]

"you have been trapped in a dungeon of bondage"
mmmmmmmmmm
:D

[The Greater Fool]

I understand this is a very old thread, but it's new to me, and it was resurrected by someone else, so...

I'll one up you. One of my players is a very devout Jehovah's Witness (though admittedly, just about the least pushy one I have ever met). Her take on the issue of whether RPG's are evil is that it's just a game, not very different than if she were playing Scrabble, and as long as she never forgets that fact, playing D&D is perfectly fine.

Your players 'take' on Dungeons and Dragons is very Un-JW. JW's take is that games (and entertainment generally) should follow the same standards as 'real' life. Playing such games (or watching such movies, or reading such books) invites evil spirits into your life. To the WTBS (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) a game is not just a game... Scrabble does not evoke demonic imagery, D&D does.

I don't recall if the WTBS states that participation in such games, movies, etc. are explicitely forbidden, though I think they do. They may just strongly make the case against such things, and call it a "personal concience" issue (Which is code for "The Bible doesn't say 'No' explicitely, but 'No' is the right answer).

In any case, the player would not share participation with other JWs. JWs learn early on to keep their private lives private (from other JWs).

Broader to the thread:

Religious folk believe in God and Satan, so the idea that demons exist and exert influence on our lives is a given. The Bible is loaded with examples of demonic influence, and the righteous fights against such influence.

[godless dave]

Broader to the thread:

Religious folk believe in God and Satan, so the idea that demons exist and exert influence on our lives is a given. The Bible is loaded with examples of demonic influence, and the righteous fights against such influence.

I have two responses to this:

1. Well, yeah. And that's why we're laughing at them. But on the other hand:

2. Occasionally here at JREF, and far more often at, say, Huffington Post comment sections, you will find people claiming that religious people do not, in fact, believe in God and Satan, let alone demons. They will claim that this is a simplistic view of religion, and that traditionally religion was about morals and behavior, not about supernatural beliefs.

[Halfcentaur]

Fantasy geek to the max here. I illustrate and create monsters and other things for fantasy and scifi games.

[JFrankA]

(Sung to the tune of "Deck the Halls")

Deck the Kobald with the Holy Sword
D and D and D and D and D!

Let's go get that dragon's hoard,
D and D and D and D and D!

Come along now
Don't be "drag-in'"
D and D, D and D, D and D!

Cart the loot home in a wagon
D and D and D and D and D!

(Sung to the tune of "O Holy Night")

Oh Holy Sword,
Thy blade is brightly shining
It is the glow
of the "plus one to hit"

(Sung to the tune of "Oh Little Town of Bethlehem")

Oh little tavern at the inn
that's where we'll meet tonight.
To get some info on the lich
and put this town to right.

....we called them "Dragon Carols" when we played in college. I'm trying to remember some of the others and more lyrics we made up......

[Pure Argent]

Sorry to dig up this really old thread, but I didn't want to start a new one on the same topic. I was talking to my mom today and she said that she was getting rid of my younger brother's D&D 2nd edition books. I told her I wanted them. She told me that this super holy, touched by the holy spirit priest told her about how evil D&D is and how people were doing spells. I assured her that it was just a game and it couldn't teach people how to do spells, mostly because that sort of magic doesn't exist. She was unconvinced and said the priest had told her about a house being all possessed because the kids were playing D&D and doing spells. Sigh.

The books are in my parents' garage (after being in the house for over a decade and never causing any trouble). My mom said she'd think about letting me have them. I'm tempted to invite my mom over for D&D night to show her that it's just nerdy people drinking Mt. Dew, eating junk food, and making up a story about fighting monsters.

My gaming group had an issue like this a few months back.

One of our players' parents are extremely devout Christians. I'm not sure whether they're YECs or not, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

When we first started playing D&D on a regular basis, his parents threw a fit. They didn't want him playing with us, because D&D was demonic and exposed him to all kinds of evil magic and stuff.

Not their fault, and I don't hold it against them. They're very nice people, really. They just got taken in by some guy spouting off about something that he knew nothing about.

But we did manage to bring them around. I don't know if this will work with your parents, but this is what we did:

- Showed them the contents of the Player's Handbook, particularly the sections on magic, demonstrating that it contained no instructions for spellcasting more detailed than "cross the spell off your list and make a touch attack roll".
- Explained to them how a usual play session went.
- Downloaded a podcast of a recorded play session and let them listen to it.
- Gave them web addresses for several sites containing information about the game.

In the end, they realized that they had been wrong about the game, and the player in question is now a Dungeon Master himself.

I can't guarantee that this will work on your parents, though. First of all, they have to be willing to listen, and not all parents are. Secondly, you have to be very diplomatic about it, and they have to be willing to be very patient. You aren't just arguing against a misconception concerning a game. You're arguing against something that they believe in very strongly: that this man, who was "touched by the holy spirit", speaks for God in some capacity, and that the therefore must be right. In the end, they'll hopefully realize that he was lying.

Welcome to the boards, and I wish you luck.

[Myriad]

Scrabble does not evoke demonic imagery...


That depends on how you play it. (And what letters you draw.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Vortigern99]

Moreover, one of the women is the DM. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't think of a single time I've played under a female DM. (Not that I'd mind, ya'understand, its just never happened in my experience.)

My wife DMs our Wednesday night game. Rather than relying on pre-packaged game-worlds (like Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms), she's created an entire custom world from the writings of Dave Duncan and her own imagination. All the players agree it's pretty special and unique, full of mystery and intrigue, and loads of fun. :cool:

[Vortigern99]

(Sung to the tune of "Deck the Halls")

Deck the Kobald with the Holy Sword
D and D and D and D and D!

Let's go get that dragon's hoard,
D and D and D and D and D!

Come along now
Don't be "drag-in'"
D and D, D and D, D and D!

Cart the loot home in a wagon
D and D and D and D and D!

(Sung to the tune of "O Holy Night")

Oh Holy Sword,
Thy blade is brightly shining
It is the glow
of the "plus one to hit"

(Sung to the tune of "Oh Little Town of Bethlehem")

Oh little tavern at the inn
that's where we'll meet tonight.
To get some info on the lich
and put this town to right.

....we called them "Dragon Carols" when we played in college. I'm trying to remember some of the others and more lyrics we made up......

Delightful lyrics! Unfortunately, you've put Christmas music in my head and I'm afraid its a week or two too early for that! /Casts fireball at JFrankA's face/ :D

[Hellbound]

Delightful lyrics! Unfortunately, you've put Christmas music in my head and I'm afraid its a week or two too early for that! /Casts fireball at JFrankA's face/ :D

Hey!
*Huntsman casts Mordenkanen's Embrassing Rash in a Private Place on Vortigern99*

No spellcasting in the thread!

;)

[JFrankA]

Delightful lyrics! Unfortunately, you've put Christmas music in my head and I'm afraid its a week or two too early for that! /Casts fireball at JFrankA's face/ :D

SAVING THROW!!!!! SAVING THROW!!!!! I'M ROLLING FOR A SAVING THROW!!!!




*sound of dice rattling*



:D

[Vortigern99]

Religious folk believe in God and Satan, so the idea that demons exist and exert influence on our lives is a given. The Bible is loaded with examples of demonic influence, and the righteous fights against such influence.

So is D&D! Most players' (though not all) play good-aligned characters who oppose evil monsters such as demons and devils. The vast majority of D&D players play "righteous" characters who "fight against [evil] influence" and monsters.

There are a few evil-aligned campaigns out there, in which the characters may be allied with demons and perform evil and wicked acts. But these are by far in the minority. I DM'd an evil campaign many years ago, and my main player in that game is now a civil rights lawyer who does a lot of good for a lot of people. He was not touched by any "evil influence" or demonic spirit.

Since the entire construct of the game is purely fictional, an outlet for creative thought, the alignment of the characters is ultimately immaterial.

[Vortigern99]

SAVING THROW!!!!! SAVING THROW!!!!! I'M ROLLING FOR A SAVING THROW!!!!




*sound of dice rattling*



:D

You need to roll a 17 to take half damage from my fireball! If you fail the throw, you take 22 hit points of damage; if you succeed, you take 11.

Either way, your flammable possessions (scrolls, clothing, etc.) will have to make saves to avoid being incinerated!

:p

[Vortigern99]

Hey!
*Huntsman casts Mordenkanen's Embrassing Rash in a Private Place on Vortigern99*

No spellcasting in the thread!

;)

Do I get to save vs. rash? What's the DC? :confused:

;)

[Hellbound]

Do I get to save vs. rash? What's the DC? :confused:

;)

No save. It doesn't affect your hit points, but it does cause a -20 to any DC check for social skills in any situation where you must undress. And a -1 to attack rolls and AC due to distraction from the itch.

Oh, and your name and Astral Plane contact information will start appearing on the sides of Chamber Pots in taverns, along with notations such as "Fore ye gud olde tyme" and "is aye cheep laye"

:D

[Vortigern99]

In six years of DnD'ing NONE of my games ever included women. Female DnDers were like Bigfoot, everyone knew someone who had played DnD with a woman, but you personally had never done it ;)

D&D is dangerous. The more rules you have memorized, the less likely you are to ever get laid. I have a marveouls poof of this, but it's too lengthy to fit in this post.

Okay, I realize the above quotes were written six years ago, but regardless, I'd like to dispel some persistent and pernicious myths here.

In high school (in the 80s) I played in a regular campaign in which one of the players, named Cheryl, was the girlfriend of the DM.

In college (late 80s/early 90s), my girlfriend Marianna and I played one-on-one D&D sessions, with myself as the DM and M. playing a multi-class cleric/magic-user.

In my first marriage, my late wife Dana and I played occasional sessions in which she played an apprentice wizard.

My new wife Joanna and I play at least once a week, sometimes twice, and have done for several years. In our big-group Sunday games, Joanna plays an elven wizard and another lady, Jennifer, plays an elven bard.

Throughout this entire time, starting in college, I have had regular and very satisfying sex. LET THE MYTHS END HERE. :rolleyes:

[Vortigern99]

No save. It doesn't affect your hit points, but it does cause a -20 to any DC check for social skills in any situation where you must undress. And a -1 to attack rolls and AC due to distraction from the itch.

Oh, and your name and Astral Plane contact information will start appearing on the sides of Chamber Pots in taverns, along with notations such as "Fore ye gud olde tyme" and "is aye cheep laye"

:D

Ouch. Good thing I'm a Paladin, which class is immune to disease of any kind! :p

[Pure Argent]

You need to roll a 17 to take half damage from my fireball! If you fail the throw, you take 22 hit points of damage; if you succeed, you take 11.

Either way, your flammable possessions (scrolls, clothing, etc.) will have to make saves to avoid being incinerated!

:p

Thank you, Improved Evasion. I knew going pure Rogue was a good idea.

[AvalonXQ]

Is D&D dangerous? It certainly is.
The players are engrossed in a world, the very nature of which is controlled by the DM. For several hours at a time, the players are essentially a captive audience to the DM's storytelling -- although not a passive audience, as they too contribute to the story.
But the reality is that if a DM has certain values or a way of thinking about the world, he has more opportunity than any mere novel or show to convey those to the players. In the long term, players can be greatly influenced by any agenda the DM might have -- especially if the players are impressionable high schoolers or younger.
I can't immediately think of any event with more ability to deeply influence a youngster than an RPG session. As a Christian parent I would be very wary of my kids gaming with a non-Christian GM; I will probably do what my father did when I was growing up. He offered to GM our group himself.

[GreyArea]

How much of the religious opposition to D&D is about the dice?

I think I heard somewhere that games of chance are prohibited by some of the more uptight denominations. So, even if they saw that the spells aren't real and the demons are the bad guys, they might still be upset that "gambling" is happening.

[Pure Argent]

Is D&D dangerous? It certainly is.
The players are engrossed in a world, the very nature of which is controlled by the DM. For several hours at a time, the players are essentially a captive audience to the DM's storytelling -- although not a passive audience, as they too contribute to the story.
But the reality is that if a DM has certain values or a way of thinking about the world, he has more opportunity than any mere novel or show to convey those to the players. In the long term, players can be greatly influenced by any agenda the DM might have -- especially if the players are impressionable high schoolers or younger.
I can't immediately think of any event with more ability to deeply influence a youngster than an RPG session. As a Christian parent I would be very wary of my kids gaming with a non-Christian GM; I will probably do what my father did when I was growing up. He offered to GM our group himself.

Why is it that Bioshock sprang immediately to mind when I read this?

[AvalonXQ]

Why is it that Bioshock sprang immediately to mind when I read this?

Actually, when I was writing it, I was thinking quite a bit about Ayn Rand novels -- just as a great example of how fiction can be a vessal for communicating ideals to impressionable minds.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm a huge fan of RPGs. I just recognize that they're very powerful, and therefore very dangerous -- especially when it comes to imaginative youngsters. I have no doubt that many new-agey-type adult DMs have used D&D to help get teenagers thinking about paganism.
The game content itself is not in any way harmful to players. But the values potentially taught as part of the plot of the game and the game world can be a meaningful influence.

[AvalonXQ]

How much of the religious opposition to D&D is about the dice?

I think I heard somewhere that games of chance are prohibited by some of the more uptight denominations. So, even if they saw that the spells aren't real and the demons are the bad guys, they might still be upset that "gambling" is happening.

Yes. Similarly, some groups that don't mind D&D have an issue with CCGs like Magic because they prohibit all sorts of card games.

[Madalch]

SAVING THROW!!!!! SAVING THROW!!!!! I'M ROLLING FOR A SAVING THROW!!!!

Why am I picturing JFrankA yelling, "I'm wearing Boots of Escaping! I'm wearing Boots of Escaping!!"

[ZirconBlue]

My wife DMs our Wednesday night game. Rather than relying on pre-packaged game-worlds (like Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms), she's created an entire custom world from the writings of Dave Duncan and her own imagination.

Based on a particular world of his? I really like how he fleshes out unique worlds and magic systems for each of his series.


Is D&D dangerous? It certainly is.
The players are engrossed in a world, the very nature of which is controlled by the DM. For several hours at a time, the players are essentially a captive audience to the DM's storytelling -- although not a passive audience, as they too contribute to the story.
But the reality is that if a DM has certain values or a way of thinking about the world, he has more opportunity than any mere novel or show to convey those to the players. In the long term, players can be greatly influenced by any agenda the DM might have -- especially if the players are impressionable high schoolers or younger.
I can't immediately think of any event with more ability to deeply influence a youngster than an RPG session. As a Christian parent I would be very wary of my kids gaming with a non-Christian GM; I will probably do what my father did when I was growing up. He offered to GM our group himself.

This is so absurd, I don't even know where to start.

[AvalonXQ]

This is so absurd, I don't even know where to start.

You could start with the most important point that you disagree with, and go from there.
Alternatively, you could start by addressing the first statement you disagree with, and go from there.
Or, heck, we're gamers -- just list 20 things about the post you disagree with and roll a d20 to decide where to start.

[Vortigern99]

[1]Based on a particular world of [Dave Duncan's]? I really like how he fleshes out unique worlds and magic systems for each of his series.

[2]This is so absurd, I don't even know where to start.

1. Yes -- The Magic Casement series. The map of the world, called "Sulen", is from her imagination, as are the details of nations and towns, but the milieu is derived from Duncan's, in which four Wardens of Magic control all the wizardry in the Empire... and get royally pissed off with you if you use it outside of their purview.

Just the other day, my 7th-level sorcerer went ahead and cast four fireballs in a row (at a group of religious zealots who were going to convert us to our extreme annoyance), which spellcasting drew the Warden of the South/Fire to our location. He was all crimson and red and copper, and ordered us to come with him -- an order we could not defy, as he is some kind of epic-level (20th-level-plus) wizard. Scary!

2. Agreed. Avalon's belief that puppet-master DMs with religious agendas can paganize or de-Christianize weak-willed youths is as paranoid as it is entirely unsupported by evidence.

[Filippo Lippi]

This is so absurd, I don't even know where to start.

Start in the following thread, AvalonXQ arrives at post 21

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=159742&highlight=indoctrination

[ZirconBlue]

Alternatively, you could start by addressing the first statement you disagree with, and go from there.

OK:

Is D&D dangerous? It certainly is.

No, it's not. Maybe for people that have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Other than that? Maybe papercuts. Or kids choking on dice.

1. Yes -- The Magic Casement series. The map of the world, called "Sulen", is from her imagination, as are the details of nations and towns, but the milieu is derived from Duncan's, in which four Wardens of Magic control all the wizardry in the Empire... and get royally pissed off with you if you use it outside of their purview.

My wife's reading that series currently. I read it and the follow-up series a few months back. Duncan is fast becoming one of my favorite authors.


Just the other day, my 7th-level sorcerer went ahead and cast four fireballs in a row (at a group of religious zealots who were going to convert us to our extreme annoyance), which spellcasting drew the Warden of the South/Fire to our location. He was all crimson and red and copper, and ordered us to come with him -- an order we could not defy, as he is some kind of epic-level (20th-level-plus) wizard. Scary!

Sounds like a lot of fun!

[Pure Argent]

Agreed. Avalon's belief that puppet-master DMs with religious agendas can paganize or de-Christianize weak-willed youths is as paranoid as it is entirely unsupported by evidence.

Well, no, I don't think so.

First of all, AvalonXQ has at least some experience with Dungeons & Dragons. I actually ran a game for him (and several other JREF members) over Skype a few months back. So this isn't someone who has never picked up a d20 that we're talking about here.

Secondly, I can't find anything wrong with his reasoning. No matter the vessel of communication, messages are powerful. If you read lots of books that say one thing about a subject, they're going to influence your opinion on the subject one way or the other. The same goes for RPGs, and movies, and discussions on forums like these.

I don't think that Avalon is saying that D&D is incredibly dangerous in this way. In fact, it's no more dangerous than simply talking to someone about the same subject would be, or reading a book on it. But it can very much influence your ideas on certain subjects. If, for example, someone is running a d20 Modern game set in the Biblical end times, and fills it with Bible quotes illustrating how nasty the Christian god is, it could very well influence the religious beliefs of the players. It's not a guaranteed thing, and the effect isn't necessarily that large, but it is entirely possible.

Now, is this a good reason to stop your children from playing Dungeons & Dragons with a non-Christian DM? I don't think so. Number one, campaigns like the one I described above are extremely rare. Number two, when they do exist, they're often the stumbling efforts of someone who doesn't know how to get their point across in an eloquent way, and as such are unlikely to have much impact. And number three, if you're going to decide what your child can do on that basis, you may as well lock them up in the basement to keep them from ever being exposed to a non-Christian viewpoint.

Is it a logical reason to keep your child from playing the game? No. Do some people use it anyway? Yes, because they don't realize how unlikely it is that the game will influence their child.

[ZirconBlue]

Start in the following thread, AvalonXQ arrives at post 21

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=159742&highlight=indoctrination

I've read that thread, but Avalon XQ is usually pretty level-headed, IMO.

[AvalonXQ]

Start in the following thread, AvalonXQ arrives at post 21

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=159742&highlight=indoctrination

... I don't really see the relevance of that discussion to this discussion, other than some commonality about impressionable youth. But since nobody here has even mentioned kids young enough to be in that early uncritical stage, I really do fail to see the relevance.

[quixotecoyote]

2. Agreed. Avalon's belief that puppet-master DMs with religious agendas can paganize or de-Christianize weak-willed youths is as paranoid as it is entirely unsupported by evidence.

Well, no, I don't think so.
...
if you're going to decide what your child can do on that basis, you may as well lock them up in the basement to keep them from ever being exposed to a non-Christian viewpoint.


I think you may think so after all. :p

[RobRoy]

No, it's not. Maybe for people that have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Other than that? Maybe papercuts. Or kids choking on dice.

If parents are legitimately concerned about this, and/or a non-Christian DM, then they should also be conducting background research on the shows your children watch to make certain no Jews or not-your-flavor-of-Christianity writers, actors, producers, etc are behind its creation. Also, do you research on the games your children play. Plenty of those Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Californian coders, writers, producers, etc. are probably trying to get their agenda shoved down your throat without you even noticing it. Books are another dangerous source of this kind of agenda-shoving. Talk about your captive audience and creating an entire universe which the potential to influence young minds! We have to watch out for the lessons that younger master Harry Potter or Bella and the Cullen family are teaching our kids.

Actually, check that last one. I don’t normally advocate for book burning, but I’m willing to make an exception in this case.

All kidding aside, I think D&D/AD&D/RPG are just like any other form of entertainment that children are exposed. Parents should be aware, be knowledgeable and go from there. Role-playing games can be as simplistic and innocent or as dirty and “evil” as anything else in the world. But they aren’t inherently dangerous by any measure. They have the potential for abuse, but then so does film, television, literature, etc. Good parents know what they're kids are into and understand the potential influence. Bad ones make snap judgments and slap on labels.

[AvalonXQ]

Pure has got it -- I'm not hating on RPG's. But I recognize that these games are extremely immersive. They involve deep and persistent story-telling. If these compelling stories have absolutely no effect on how you see the world, my gut reaction would be to say that you're not doing it right. Heck, I would not expect a teenager to go through a season running track or rehearse a play without somehow growing and changing from the experience. How much more, then, for immersion in an RPG?

[ZirconBlue]

Secondly, I can't find anything wrong with his reasoning. No matter the vessel of communication, messages are powerful.

What "messages", powerful or otherwise, are common or likely to be conveyed in a D&D game? Which are worse than the basic violence and looting of a typical D&D game? If the messages pretty much inherent in the game (it's ok to judge other creatures by their race, kill them, and take their stuff) don't have a big impact on their character, then what subtle, pernicious messages are this mastermind DM going to brainwash them with?

And the DM is presumably going to be one of your kid's peers, right? Someone who already has influence on them outside of the game. I don't buy that this influence will be any stronger being snuck in between Monty Python quotes than it will at school.

Besides, the charismatic, manipulative leader kid is probably not playing D&D. He's hanging with the jocks. Or in Sunday School.

If you read lots of books that say one thing about a subject, they're going to influence your opinion on the subject one way or the other. The same goes for RPGs, and movies, and discussions on forums like these.

What "one thing" does D&D say?

I don't think that Avalon is saying that D&D is incredibly dangerous in this way.

Oh, just regular "dangerous", not "incredibly dangerous".

In fact, it's no more dangerous than simply talking to someone about the same subject would be, or reading a book on it.

So, not at all dangerous, then.

But it can very much influence your ideas on certain subjects.

O NOES!!! Being influenced by something outside your home and church! The horror!!!

If, for example, someone is running a d20 Modern game set in the Biblical end times, and fills it with Bible quotes illustrating how nasty the Christian god is, it could very well influence the religious beliefs of the players. It's not a guaranteed thing, and the effect isn't necessarily that large, but it is entirely possible.

But highly improbable. And you had to transport the discussion outside of D&D itself to even make that leap.

Now, is this a good reason to stop your children from playing Dungeons & Dragons with a non-Christian DM? I don't think so. Number one, campaigns like the one I described above are extremely rare. Number two, when they do exist, they're often the stumbling efforts of someone who doesn't know how to get their point across in an eloquent way, and as such are unlikely to have much impact. And number three, if you're going to decide what your child can do on that basis, you may as well lock them up in the basement to keep them from ever being exposed to a non-Christian viewpoint.

Is it a logical reason to keep your child from playing the game? No. Do some people use it anyway? Yes, because they don't realize how unlikely it is that the game will influence their child.

We're agreed on most of this.

[AvalonXQ]

If parents are legitimately concerned about this, and/or a non-Christian DM, then they should also be conducting background research on the shows your children watch to make certain no Jews or not-your-flavor-of-Christianity writers, actors, producers, etc are behind its creation.

If my child were going to spend severals hours at a sitting on a weekly or monthly basis in front of a television show that was written, produced, and performed by just one person and tailored specifically to my child, you're darn right I would want to know something about that person and the content of that show. I can't imagine any parent wouldn't.
It's the intense and personal nature of D&D that makes it compelling, and hence also influential. Trying to prevent your kid from playing it is a mistake; having a decent understand of what your kid is getting into and wanting to have some input into it is good parenting.

[AvalonXQ]

All kidding aside, I think D&D/AD&D/RPG are just like any other form of entertainment that children are exposed. Parents should be aware, be knowledgeable and go from there. Role-playing games can be as simplistic and innocent or as dirty and “evil” as anything else in the world. But they aren’t inherently dangerous by any measure. They have the potential for abuse, but then so does film, television, literature, etc. Good parents know what they're kids are into and understand the potential influence. Bad ones make snap judgments and slap on labels.

Strong agreement with this. I wasn't trying to say much beyond this.
As I said earlier, it's not the inherent content of the game that's dangerous -- it's the medium that can have an influencing message (or just as often no real message other than kill monsters and take their stuff).

[AvalonXQ]

What "one thing" does D&D say?

A well-run campaign says, "Decisions have consequences." This is, in fact, one of the very best principles that D&D can teach kids (and why I support them trying the game).

[ZirconBlue]

If these compelling stories have absolutely no effect on how you see the world, my gut reaction would be to say that you're not doing it right.

I've been playing D&D and other tabletop RPGs for over 25 years, and I can't really see any major influence other than reinforcing my interest in SF, Fantasy, and Comics. Being able to participate in some of those stories rather than just watching or reading them is fun, but it's lead to no grand epiphanies or soul-searching. I hardly ever even kill people for their loot, nowadays.

[AvalonXQ]

I've been playing D&D and other tabletop RPGs for over 25 years, and I can't really see any major influence other than reinforcing my interest in SF, Fantasy, and Comics. Being able to participate in some of those stories rather than just watching or reading them is fun, but it's lead to no grand epiphanies or soul-searching. I hardly ever even kill people for their loot, nowadays.

Your social group doesn't use situations in D&D as an opportunity to explore moral/ethical/social issues that have sparked discussion among the players?

[EdipisReks]

D&D is a hell of a lot less dangerous than the Bible. the Bible actively encourages violence.

[RobRoy]

If my child were going to spend severals hours at a sitting on a weekly or monthly basis in front of a television show that was written, produced, and performed by just one person and tailored specifically to my child, you're darn right I would want to know something about that person and the content of that show. I can't imagine any parent wouldn't.
It's the intense and personal nature of D&D that makes it compelling, and hence also influential. Trying to prevent your kid from playing it is a mistake; having a decent understand of what your kid is getting into and wanting to have some input into it is good parenting.

Well, I was mostly joking, but the counter to this should be quite obvious. Video games, by their graphic nature, are much, much, much more immersive than any paper-and-pencil RPG could ever be, and they capture hours and hours of attention from children, teens, even adults. Most are designed and distributed by groups whose motives are probably not direct parallels of Christianity.

I won’t ask if you’ve done the background research on each writer, programmer etc. I would guess that you have not, but rather have relied on the rating system for the games like most parents do, and err on the side of caution. This, then, suggests that you are over-reacting to the negative press D&D garnered back in the 80s, rather than to a legitimate concern.

Strong agreement with this. I wasn't trying to say much beyond this.
As I said earlier, it's not the inherent content of the game that's dangerous -- it's the medium that can have an influencing message (or just as often no real message other than kill monsters and take their stuff).

This, then could be said of any entertainment medium, and is not a measure of the dangerous nature of D&D/RPGs in general.

Heck, I would not expect a teenager to go through a season running track or rehearse a play without somehow growing and changing from the experience. How much more, then, for immersion in an RPG?
I've been playing D&D and other tabletop RPGs for over 25 years, and I can't really see any major influence other than reinforcing my interest in SF, Fantasy, and Comics. Being able to participate in some of those stories rather than just watching or reading them is fun, but it's lead to no grand epiphanies or soul-searching. I hardly ever even kill people for their loot, nowadays.

This. I’ve been gaming at least this long, and while I used to fireball Christian fundies almost every weekend, recently I’ve been feeling my mage-age, and just don’t find it nearly as entertaining.

[ZirconBlue]

Your social group doesn't use situations in D&D as an opportunity to explore moral/ethical/social issues that have sparked discussion among the players?

No. Why would we?

[RobRoy]

No. Why would we?

We have, but the impact is minimal-to-nothing. Four weeks ago I shot a monk (neutral monk) out of the air, and he was dead before he hit the ground. What I took from the game was that my archer is hella-good with his bow. Not that shooting monks out of the air is a good thing. I'm not now feeling guilty, or motivated to start donating to Franciscan monks.

However, I do buy Chimay beer made by Belgium Trappists. Nothing says faith like 9% ABV!

[Lyrandar]

Your social group doesn't use situations in D&D as an opportunity to explore moral/ethical/social issues that have sparked discussion among the players?

In my experience, campaigns or adventures like that are rare. They also have a tendency to seriously damage friendships when not handled well, in much the same way that discussing politics or religion with anyone but a very good friend tends to be a bad idea.

I have gotten into moral/ethical issues discussing the game on online forums, but rarely in the game itself - there's no time for extended debate when the time comes to make a decision, usually. There's been some grumbling afterward about the decisions made, but we usually just say that our characters are good enough friends to ignore some things. Social issues have just about never come up, even on forums.

[Mark6]

Okay, I realize the above quotes were written six years ago, but regardless, I'd like to dispel some persistent and pernicious myths here.

In high school (in the 80s) I played in a regular campaign in which one of the players, named Cheryl, was the girlfriend of the DM.

In college (late 80s/early 90s), my girlfriend Marianna and I played one-on-one D&D sessions, with myself as the DM and M. playing a multi-class cleric/magic-user.

In my first marriage, my late wife Dana and I played occasional sessions in which she played an apprentice wizard.

My new wife Joanna and I play at least once a week, sometimes twice, and have done for several years. In our big-group Sunday games, Joanna plays an elven wizard and another lady, Jennifer, plays an elven bard.

Throughout this entire time, starting in college, I have had regular and very satisfying sex. LET THE MYTHS END HERE. :rolleyes:
Agree.

I was always annoyed by the stereotype of RPG gamers and/or SF/fantasy fans as "nerds who never get laid". I wish people who believe this stereotype could see the amount of sex which went on at gaming conventions.

But that's exactly the problem -- they do not go to gaming conventions, and more generally, do not know any gamers. If you don't know anyone who plays RPG's, then you don't know anyone who plays RPG's and has a sex life. Ergo, people who play RPG's can't have a sex life.

[ZirconBlue]

We have, but the impact is minimal-to-nothing. Four weeks ago I shot a monk (neutral monk) out of the air, and he was dead before he hit the ground. What I took from the game was that my archer is hella-good with his bow. Not that shooting monks out of the air is a good thing. I'm not now feeling guilty, or motivated to start donating to Franciscan monks.

However, I do buy Chimay beer made by Belgium Trappists. Nothing says faith like 9% ABV!

What was the monk doing in the air anyway? I'm now imagining you launching monks via trebuchet for some medieval skeet shooting.

[Mark6]

Your social group doesn't use situations in D&D as an opportunity to explore moral/ethical/social issues that have sparked discussion among the players?

In my experience, campaigns or adventures like that are rare. They also have a tendency to seriously damage friendships when not handled well, in much the same way that discussing politics or religion with anyone but a very good friend tends to be a bad idea.
Seconded. I remember one time DM prepared a campaign for exactly that purpose, and the result was so bad my then-girlfriend swore she'll never play D&D again. She changed her mind eventually, but I agree that D&D is not a place for that kind of discussion.

[AvalonXQ]

In my experience, campaigns or adventures like that are rare. They also have a tendency to seriously damage friendships when not handled well, in much the same way that discussing politics or religion with anyone but a very good friend tends to be a bad idea.

I get the impression that we game very differently than the other posters, then.
I agree that if your game plays more like an action movie than a good novel, there's really no danger. Deep emotional and moral issues have always been part of my games.

[AvalonXQ]

What was the monk doing in the air anyway? I'm now imagining you launching monks via trebuchet for some medieval skeet shooting.

If you want high-difficulty skeets, monks with Deflect Arrows would be the way to go -- you have to get two hits in the same round to do anything.

[ZirconBlue]

If you want high-difficulty skeets, monks with Deflect Arrows would be the way to go -- you have to get two hits in the same round to do anything.


:D

[Pure Argent]

What "messages", powerful or otherwise, are common or likely to be conveyed in a D&D game?

None any more than they are in other media. That was my point. D&D can be a vehicle for expressing an opinion. It doesn't have to be, any more than an episode of Star Trek has to be a commentary on the social issues of the day.

If the messages pretty much inherent in the game (it's ok to judge other creatures by their race, kill them, and take their stuff) don't have a big impact on their character, then what subtle, pernicious messages are this mastermind DM going to brainwash them with?

"Brainwash"? Where did I say that? I said repeatedly that the effect does not have to be large, and there is not guaranteed to be one. It's simply possible, in the same way that playing a video game can influence your thoughts on politics or culture. It doesn't have to, and the vast majority of games don't, but there are games which get a lot of their punch from being a vehicle for some kind of social message. For an illustration, see Bioshock.

I'm not saying that Dungeon Masters are trying to brainwash their players. There might be one or two out there who are, because there are some seriously insane (and stupid) people out there. But that's beside the point. All I'm saying is that any message on any subject in any medium - including role-playing games - has the potential to affect one's thoughts on a subject.

And the DM is presumably going to be one of your kid's peers, right? Someone who already has influence on them outside of the game. I don't buy that this influence will be any stronger being snuck in between Monty Python quotes than it will at school.

And I didn't say that it would. You're reading bits into my argument that aren't there.

What "one thing" does D&D say?

That depends entirely on the Dungeon Master. A campaign could say absolutely nothing. Most of them don't. They're simply a way to have fun and stab goblins. Some do. They generally flop, but they exist.

Dungeons & Dragons, as a whole, says nothing, because Dungeons & Dragons is simply a system of rules. It's the game that the Dungeon Master creates that might carry a message.

Oh, just regular "dangerous", not "incredibly dangerous".

So, not at all dangerous, then.

Yes, essentially. If you read the rest of my post, you'll see that that's precisely my point: D&D is no more dangerous than a casual discussion, but to deny that it has any power to shape one's thoughts is silly.

But highly improbable.

Yes.

And you had to transport the discussion outside of D&D itself to even make that leap.

I didn't have to. I just did, because I don't particularly feel like writing up a campaign which might carry an anti-religious message simply to get a fairly obvious point across. And my point isn't exclusive to anti-religious messages, for that matter - or to D&D.

Well, I was mostly joking, but the counter to this should be quite obvious. Video games, by their graphic nature, are much, much, much more immersive than any paper-and-pencil RPG could ever be

Debatable. I'm the group's designated Dungeon Master. The sign of a good gaming session is having the player's entirely immersed in the world that I've built for them.

But I see your point. It's really just my GM's pride that makes me want to say "Well, hey now, I've built some pretty good games in my day-". Ignore me.

and they capture hours and hours of attention from children, teens, even adults. Most are designed and distributed by groups whose motives are probably not direct parallels of Christianity.

I won’t ask if you’ve done the background research on each writer, programmer etc. I would guess that you have not, but rather have relied on the rating system for the games like most parents do, and err on the side of caution. This, then, suggests that you are over-reacting to the negative press D&D garnered back in the 80s, rather than to a legitimate concern.

He might be overreacting, but it isn't to D&D itself. It's to the anti-Christian messages (whatever they might be) that a DM might choose to use his game as a vehicle for.

Again, Avalon's got no problem with the game itself. I've played several sessions with him.

This, then could be said of any entertainment medium, and is not a measure of the dangerous nature of D&D/RPGs in general.

Yes.

In my experience, campaigns or adventures like that are rare.

Yes.

They also have a tendency to seriously damage friendships when not handled well, in much the same way that discussing politics or religion with anyone but a very good friend tends to be a bad idea.

Yep. Which is why most DMs learn to keep politics and religion away from the table. People play All Flesh Must Be Eaten because they want to stab some zombies, not because they want insightful religious commentary.

But it can and does happen. Do I think that it's a legitimate concern for parents when considering if they should allow their child to play D&D? No, because it's very rare. If their child comes home and starts spouting Commie mutant traitor propaganda, though, they might have a reason to worry.

Again, it is not common, and even in games where there is a message, it's unlikely to have an effect. But it is possible.

[RobRoy]

What was the monk doing in the air anyway? I'm now imagining you launching monks via trebuchet for some medieval skeet shooting.

Dying. :D

Actually, he had some kind of ring that let him leap ninja-like when he was about to lose to our tank. That's when I shot him with a minus-four penalty. My archer is actually known for pulling these crazy shots off. In normal combat, I'm mediocre, but give me a trick shot, and apparently I rise to the challenge.

Debatable. I'm the group's designated Dungeon Master. The sign of a good gaming session is having the player's entirely immersed in the world that I've built for them.

But I see your point. It's really just my GM's pride that makes me want to say "Well, hey now, I've built some pretty good games in my day-". Ignore me.

And I’m sure you’re an excellent DM and people find themselves losing hours under the spell of your voice! Be careful to use your power responsibly, and not insert a hidden agenda that will turn your PCs into minions of the Dark One.

Actually, that might be pretty cool. Need any help with a rough draft? I’ve got some ideas. :D

He might be overreacting, but it isn't to D&D itself. It's to the anti-Christian messages (whatever they might be) that a DM might choose to use his game as a vehicle for.

Right, but this isn’t inherent to D&D any more than it is in any other medium. This totally comes down to the DM, as it would the film maker, the screenwriter, or the book author. There is absolutely nothing within D&D that would make it easier or more prone to deliver a message/agenda for or against any cultural, religious or social issue.

Again, Avalon's got no problem with the game itself. I've played several sessions with him.

His words say differently:

Is D&D dangerous? It certainly is.

[AvalonXQ]

People play All Flesh Must Be Eaten because they want to stab some zombies, not because they want insightful religious commentary.
Ironically, we play All Flesh Must Be Eaten because, like the original Night of the Living Dead, it involves highly emotional personal interactions and compelling social commentary.
I didn't know anybody played that game for its action elements.

[sadhatter]

Many moons ago, back in high school, I briefly participated in a DnD group. When rolling ability scores for my first character, I threw a natural 17 for wisdom. Instant cleric.

I got into the game okay and enjoyed it for the most part, until the DM told me I had to choose a deity. I felt uneasy about that, worshipping and calling on the name of some other god, even though I knew it was fictional and in fun. The DM told me that if I didn't pick out some god to worship I couldn't play with them anymore. So I stopped showing up for the game sessions and, in my absence, he killed off my character.

I think that, at that time, I made the right decision. While I can imagine the hoots and catcalls, I will say that I am convinced of the reality of demonic forces; even more convinced today, in fact, than I was twenty years ago. And I believe that those demons will grab at any straw they can find in order to get leverage against the life and witness of a believer. At the time, I wanted to wholeheartedly follow my God. And so I think that I made the right choice.

Today, with twenty-three years more experience under my belt, I would probably choose differently. I'm secure enough now in my beliefs and in my relationship with the true God that I would experience no qualms in role-playing allegiance to some other suitable deity. Actually, I picked up a set of 3.0 manuals a few years back to see what I had been missing. I haven't tried to find or join a game yet, but maybe in time.

In my own mind, I see the situation as being comparable to Paul's instruction regarding eating meat sacrificed to idols. If it troubles your conscience, you shouldn't do it. If you have no problem with it, but your action troubles someone else or induces them to go against their conscience, then you shouldn't do it. But if no one else is adversely affected, and you are mature enough to realize that an idol is nothing, then enjoy.

I never understood this logic, as a player and dm ( not to mention writer) who has encountered it it honestly boggles my mind.

YOU are not calling out to anything. You are describing the actions of a fictional person you thought up. You are no more calling out to a god than a writer is being racist if they write a racist character.

All of my favorite characters, are little to nothing like myself. And that can range from people who feel no guilt in killing someone over a snide comment, to a devoted cleric who spends the vast majority of his time trying to convince people of his god's existence ( to clarify a non standard god, so people tend to not believe that it exists.). The game is meant as an escape from reality, not to put you into a fantasy scenario.

And to expand upon that last bit, i find the worst d and d players, are those that follow the " my character is me with a sword/wand/martial arts training." rule. Not only does it end up in boring characters, but these tend to be the people who take the game way too seriously.

To me this just goes to show the effect a religion can have on someones mind. To be concerned that a god may get angry because you describe the actions of a person that does not exist, is just paranoia in the extreme.

[Pure Argent]

Actually, he had some kind of ring that let him leap ninja-like when he was about to lose to our tank. That's when I shot him with a minus-four penalty. My archer is actually known for pulling these crazy shots off. In normal combat, I'm mediocre, but give me a trick shot, and apparently I rise to the challenge.

Heh. I've got the same thing going, but with a rogue/sorceror rather than an archer. Maestro of the Black Dagger II is my character of choice. Just a little halfling guy. He's the party's trap monkey. As such, he isn't exactly a combat powerhouse. And yet he is always - always, as in there has never been an exception - the last man standing at the end of the fight, and he is always the one who pulls the rest of the party's fat out of the metaphorical fire.

He is, to date, the only character to have survived one of our friend Dan's campaigns without requiring a resurrection (or other similar spell). Dunno why. He's just a tenacious little bugger who is determined not to die. In the end, Dan actually built a dungeon which he told us beforehand was specifically designed to kill Maestro.

...Maestro lived. The others died.

Right, but this isn’t inherent to D&D any more than it is in any other medium. This totally comes down to the DM, as it would the film maker, the screenwriter, or the book author. There is absolutely nothing within D&D that would make it easier or more prone to deliver a message/agenda for or against any cultural, religious or social issue.

Right. That's exactly what I'm saying.

His words say differently:

Given the fact that he later said that I had interpreted his post correctly, and that the rest of his post was dealing with the fact that DMs could insert whatever messages they like into the game, and that he apparently plays fairly regularly, I'd say that either he misspoke (miswrote?) or that you have misinterpreted it.

I can't speak for him, though, and may be entirely off the mark, so I'll let him respond to that bit.

Ironically, we play All Flesh Must Be Eaten because, like the original Night of the Living Dead, it involves highly emotional personal interactions and compelling social commentary.
I didn't know anybody played that game for its action elements.

You have one weird gaming group, man. I'm all over meaningful personal interactions in games like World of Darkness, and even more casual games like Dungeons & Dragons and Deadlands: Reloaded, but All Flesh? Our group uses that strictly for zombie-stabbing, gory, mayhem-filled, nuke-it-from-orbit goodness.

[AvalonXQ]

And to expand upon that last bit, i find the worst d and d players, are those that follow the " my character is me with a sword/wand/martial arts training." rule. Not only does it end up in boring characters, but these tend to be the people who take the game way too seriously.

In my experience, few of those players really take the game that seriously. If they did, they'd try being someone else.

[RobRoy]

Heh. I've got the same thing going, but with a rogue/sorceror rather than an archer. Maestro of the Black Dagger II is my character of choice. [snip]

Our groups contains an NPC that has become a PC, Borthian. He’s also a Halfling, and he wasn’t intended to last at all. He was just an NPC who kept living. He became a kind of group mascot, and the DM allowed us to donate XP to help him survive. Then, the DM decided he might as well have his own player sheet, and yeah, he’s taken some serious blows for the group, but he’s outlived some much stronger combat characters.

Right. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Okey dokey then. :D

I can't speak for him, though, and may be entirely off the mark, so I'll let him respond to that bit.

I’m willing to sit corrected.

You have one weird gaming group, man. I'm all over meaningful personal interactions in games like World of Darkness, and even more casual games like Dungeons & Dragons and Deadlands: Reloaded, but All Flesh? Our group uses that strictly for zombie-stabbing, gory, mayhem-filled, nuke-it-from-orbit goodness.

We have a DM who has pushed us to develop our characters with a little more depth, having back stories, relationships, issues, etc. Some of it he based on the new “Dresden Files” RPG, although I forget right now what those character trait/flaws are.

Mention not “World of Darkness” in my presence. Awesome concept, but the one guy who DMd it for us did such an awful job of it that I swore to never play it again.

Ok, I didn’t swear it, but still, it was the worst gaming experience of my life, and that’s saying something.

[Vortigern99]

I'd like to request from Avalon some evidence -- anecdotal, of course, as it must be in this case -- that Christian youths have been, or are in danger of being, "paganized" or "de-Christianized" as a result of playing in a campaign in which the DM was a manipulative puppet-master who managed to foist his own religious viewpoint onto his players through the process of playing the game.

Go ahead, one or two stories is all I'm asking for here -- first-hand or anecdotal/

Otherwise, any fears concerning the "dangers" of D&D (as if religious conversion, if it even happens in the context of RPGs, is somehow "dangerous" :rolleyes:) are totally spurious and without merit or foundation in reality.

[Pure Argent]

Our groups contains an NPC that has become a PC, Borthian. He’s also a Halfling, and he wasn’t intended to last at all. He was just an NPC who kept living. He became a kind of group mascot, and the DM allowed us to donate XP to help him survive. Then, the DM decided he might as well have his own player sheet, and yeah, he’s taken some serious blows for the group, but he’s outlived some much stronger combat characters.

I love when stuff like that happens.

It's like Colin in my games. It's a kind of running joke amongst my regular gaming group. The first adventure that I ever ran for them involved them taking a cart ride through duergar-infested woodlands, and they hired a peasant kid to drive the cart. I had to come up with a name for him on the spot, and just said "Colin". He died soon afterwards when the duergar attacked, and the group forgot about him.

Then, in the next adventure, they met a farmer who needed a name as well, and I had forgotten that I had already used the name "Colin". So I named the farmer Colin, and all of a sudden I had to explain the screw-up, and fixed it by making Colin his last name, and the kid who had died his cousin or something. Of course, the farmer died at the end of the adventure.

So, from then on, whenever I wanted a throwaway NPC, I'd name him Colin. Just as a kind of joke. So, when the PCs met a traveling military company, they introduced themselves as "Frank, Bob, Joe, and this is our company medic, Colin". It always got a chuckle.

After a while, the campaign ended, and we started a new one involving a war against some invading ant-people. The PCs were drafted into the military, and got inserted into a company with a few other people. The captain of the unit was quickly established to be on a Rambo level. He repeatedly saved the party from certain destruction and was eventually promoted for valor in the field. Then, during one huge battle, the party wizard was gravely wounded in mid-battle. He was out in the open with no cover, and the rest of the party couldn't get to him. So the captain comes running out of nowhere and starts dragging him back to cover, fighting off the ants one-handed the entire time, and the wizard says, "You know, after all this time I don't even know your name."

The answer? "Colin".

Captain is suddenly hit by a maximized fireball and vaporized on the spot.

Belly laughs all around.

Mention not “World of Darkness” in my presence. Awesome concept, but the one guy who DMd it for us did such an awful job of it that I swore to never play it again.

Ok, I didn’t swear it, but still, it was the worst gaming experience of my life, and that’s saying something.

Sorry to hear it, because World of Darkness is a great system if you have a Storyteller who knows what they're doing.

[ZirconBlue]

"Brainwash"? Where did I say that? I said repeatedly that the effect does not have to be large, and there is not guaranteed to be one. It's simply possible, in the same way that playing a video game can influence your thoughts on politics or culture. It doesn't have to, and the vast majority of games don't, but there are games which get a lot of their punch from being a vehicle for some kind of social message. For an illustration, see Bioshock.

I'm not saying that Dungeon Masters are trying to brainwash their players. There might be one or two out there who are, because there are some seriously insane (and stupid) people out there. But that's beside the point. All I'm saying is that any message on any subject in any medium - including role-playing games - has the potential to affect one's thoughts on a subject.



And I didn't say that it would. You're reading bits into my argument that aren't there.


I'm going to shortcut this and say that (A) I generally agree with you, and (2) I know those aren't your arguments. But, you were defending AvalonXQ's statements that did allude to manipulative DMs. ("Brainwashing" being a little hyperbole on my part.) I wasn't arguing against your position, I was arguing against your support of AvalonXQ's position as it was presented.

[Jono]

They're just jealous that the most common pen'n'dice rpg isn't from the Bible.

John: Crap, why does my role always fail when I try to walk on water.
Game Master: You drowned.
Mark: Isn't there a sea serpent in the material somewhere that you could thrown into the mix?
Game Master: Noted, now let's...
Thomas: I want to conjure up unlimited stores of food and wine from a basket, where do I role for that?

[RobRoy]

[QUOTE=Pure Argent;6573759]I love when stuff like that happens.

It's like Colin in my games. It's a kind of running joke amongst my regular gaming group. The first adventure that I ever ran for them involved them taking a cart ride through duergar-infested woodlands, and they hired a peasant kid to drive the cart. I had to come up with a name for him on the spot, and just said "Colin". He died soon afterwards when the duergar attacked, and the group forgot about him.

Then, in the next adventure, they met a farmer who needed a name as well, and I had forgotten that I had already used the name "Colin". So I named the farmer Colin, and all of a sudden I had to explain the screw-up, and fixed it by making Colin his last name, and the kid who had died his cousin or something. Of course, the farmer died at the end of the adventure.

So, from then on, whenever I wanted a throwaway NPC, I'd name him Colin. Just as a kind of joke. So, when the PCs met a traveling military company, they introduced themselves as "Frank, Bob, Joe, and this is our company medic, Colin". It always got a chuckle.

After a while, the campaign ended, and we started a new one involving a war against some invading ant-people. The PCs were drafted into the military, and got inserted into a company with a few other people. The captain of the unit was quickly established to be on a Rambo level. He repeatedly saved the party from certain destruction and was eventually promoted for valor in the field. Then, during one huge battle, the party wizard was gravely wounded in mid-battle. He was out in the open with no cover, and the rest of the party couldn't get to him. So the captain comes running out of nowhere and starts dragging him back to cover, fighting off the ants one-handed the entire time, and the wizard says, "You know, after all this time I don't even know your name."

The answer? "Colin".

Captain is suddenly hit by a maximized fireball and vaporized on the spot.

Belly laughs all around.


Ok, I laughed. Truly, I am a gaming nerd.

[Cactus Wren]

I never understood this logic, as a player and dm ( not to mention writer) who has encountered it it honestly boggles my mind.

YOU are not calling out to anything. You are describing the actions of a fictional person you thought up. You are no more calling out to a god than a writer is being racist if they write a racist character.

All of my favorite characters, are little to nothing like myself. And that can range from people who feel no guilt in killing someone over a snide comment, to a devoted cleric who spends the vast majority of his time trying to convince people of his god's existence ( to clarify a non standard god, so people tend to not believe that it exists.). The game is meant as an escape from reality, not to put you into a fantasy scenario.

And to expand upon that last bit, i find the worst d and d players, are those that follow the " my character is me with a sword/wand/martial arts training." rule. Not only does it end up in boring characters, but these tend to be the people who take the game way too seriously.

To me this just goes to show the effect a religion can have on someones mind. To be concerned that a god may get angry because you describe the actions of a person that does not exist, is just paranoia in the extreme.

This reminds me of two things:

1. The director of Fireproof having to hire Chelsea Noble as Erin Bethea's stunt kisser, because Kirk Cameron refused to kiss any woman other than his wife.

2. An account in a discussion at Fred Clark's Slacktivist (http://slacktivist.typepad.com): one poster described a player in his RPG who refused to have his character bow to anyone, even royalty, because he -- the player -- was a Christian and an American. He thought having his character smile at the Faery Queen of Winter would be sufficient. (She thought otherwise.)

[The Norseman]

Let's Hunt Some Devils!!! (http://www.holylands.net/)

[The Norseman]

Seriously, I've been gaming since 1980. There are soooo many more games out there these days besides crusty old D&D (even though it's on what, 4th edition by now). There are tons of games that are far more collaborative and some which have no DM/game master/storyteller/leader at all.

I mention this because of the talk upthread of how one person has all of this power and influence over the others only by virtue of their being the DM.

AvalonXQ even mentions All Flesh Must Be Eaten, a decidedly non-D&D game if there ever was one! I grew up on D&D and though I don't care for it any longer, I still think it gets a lot more flack than it deserves.

[Filippo Lippi]

... I don't really see the relevance of that discussion to this discussion, other than some commonality about impressionable youth. But since nobody here has even mentioned kids young enough to be in that early uncritical stage, I really do fail to see the relevance.

I suspect that you would veto any game that didn't follow the official AXQ party line as you would not want to see 10 years of indoctrination wasted. How about a campaign where the gods are illusory and priests are largely impotent hedge-wizards who maintain their position by casting long-lasting charms on infants who receive large negative modifiers to their saving throws due to their age? Those in society who break the charm later in life are either too terrified to speak out or are hunted down as "pagans."

Let's keep the tone civil and on topic, please.

[westprog]

Seriously, I've been gaming since 1980. There are soooo many more games out there these days besides crusty old D&D (even though it's on what, 4th edition by now).

4th edition is at least 6th edition. It's the 4th edition of Advanced D&D.

Throw in Greyhawk, 3.5, Eldritch Wizadry and numerous add-ons and the different versions are almost uncountable.

[catsmate1]

Okay, I realize the above quotes were written six years ago, but regardless, I'd like to dispel some persistent and pernicious myths here.

In high school (in the 80s) I played in a regular campaign in which one of the players, named Cheryl, was the girlfriend of the DM.

In college (late 80s/early 90s), my girlfriend Marianna and I played one-on-one D&D sessions, with myself as the DM and M. playing a multi-class cleric/magic-user.

In my first marriage, my late wife Dana and I played occasional sessions in which she played an apprentice wizard.

My new wife Joanna and I play at least once a week, sometimes twice, and have done for several years. In our big-group Sunday games, Joanna plays an elven wizard and another lady, Jennifer, plays an elven bard.

Throughout this entire time, starting in college, I have had regular and very satisfying sex. LET THE MYTHS END HERE. :rolleyes:

Yep. My gaming group has a majority of female members, though we play mostly Call of Cthulhu, GURPS and homebrew Traveller.

Someday the chronicles of our Traveller/Ivor the Engine campaign will be written.:)

[catsmate1]

Is D&D dangerous? It certainly is.
The players are engrossed in a world, the very nature of which is controlled by the DM. For several hours at a time, the players are essentially a captive audience to the DM's storytelling -- although not a passive audience, as they too contribute to the story.
But the reality is that if a DM has certain values or a way of thinking about the world, he has more opportunity than any mere novel or show to convey those to the players. In the long term, players can be greatly influenced by any agenda the DM might have -- especially if the players are impressionable high schoolers or younger.
I can't immediately think of any event with more ability to deeply influence a youngster than an RPG session. As a Christian parent I would be very wary of my kids gaming with a non-Christian GM; I will probably do what my father did when I was growing up. He offered to GM our group himself.

So playing games can be dangerous to people who are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality?
Better keep such people away from religion lest they develop into misogynistic homophobic bigots.

[The Norseman]

4th edition is at least 6th edition. It's the 4th edition of Advanced D&D.

Throw in Greyhawk, 3.5, Eldritch Wizadry and numerous add-ons and the different versions are almost uncountable.


I didn't realize that Greyhawk was considered a separate version (for lack of a better term). Would Ravenloft fit, or Oriental Adventures and those other similar books count? I actually bought TSR/WotC's main book products through D&D 3e, then turned around and promptly sold the hardbacks of 3e. I never did get any of those Al Quadim type books or Greyhawk either. Or Spelljammer. So I honestly don't know what the rulesets were like. In fact, I never did buy any of the Complete Rogue/Priest/Fighter/whatever books either.

I guess I never really stuck with D&D specifically -- just got my start and quickly branched out to other ones as they came along (in no particular order): Buck Rogers, Star Frontiers, Star Trek (FASA as well as several other versions), Cyborg Commando (yech!), Top Secret, Toon, James Bond 007 (Victory Games), Runequest (3rd ed I think), Call of Cthulhu, Merc, Aliens, Swords Path: Glory, Phoenix Command, GURPS (3rd ed.), Paranoia, Vampire: The Masquerade (and many of those spinoffs), Legend of the 5 Rings, Middle Earth Roleplaying, Space Opera, Gamma World, Traveller (various versions), Over the Edge, Judge Dredd, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Witchcraft, Elric!, World of Cynnibar, Star Wars (WEG 1st & 2nd ed), Bushido, Usagi Yojimbo (Gold Rush version), Superworld, Hero (5th ed), Psi World, Villians and Vigilantes, Car Wars (mainly referring to the Champions crossover), Champions, Feng Shui, TORG, DC Heroes (and later DC Universe), FUDGE, FATE2.0, Indiana Jones (TSR and WEG versions), Masterbook, Shatterzone, Tales from the Crypt, Fuzion, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Palladium Fantasy, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Ninjas and Superspies, Rolemaster, Boot Hill, The Arcanum (1st ed), Stormbringer, Warhammer Fantasy (1st ed), Amber Diceless, Diaspora, Legends of Anglarre, Starblazer Adventures, Aftermath!, Timemaster, Justifiers, Twilight 2000, Mechwarrior, Ghostbusters, Robot Warriors, 2300 AD, Ars Magica, Cyberpunk, CP2020, Macho Women with Guns, Shadowrun, Dream Park, Pandemonium! : Adventures in Tabloid World, Everway, Men in Black, Trinity, Fantasia, and others which I can't remember off the top of my head.

I've owned, played or ran (or both) every game in that list. I've played probably a half-dozen games that I never owned.

This does not include pdf's which I've purchased and downloaded in more recent years, but only because I've not played those particular ones yet.

Wow. Looking back at my gaming career/hobby, I'm surprisingly well-adjusted.

[Kopji]

Hey if anything, being DM might give you some empathy for the frustration a god must go through in dealing with stupid believers.

DM: The last Zombie dies after emerging from the pool of glistening fluid.
Dave the Bard: Cool. I jump in for a swim.
DM: Really?
Dave the Bard: Yeah!
DM: Ok, your're dead. That was necrotizing fluid.
Dave the Bard: Really?
DM: (Rolls D20) Yeah.
Dave the Bard: But don't I get to come back as a Zombie?
DM: Sorry, they were being animated by the necromancer you just killed. You are just dead.

The other players eagerly took his gear and cool bass guitar.

[Pure Argent]

Throw in Greyhawk, 3.5, Eldritch Wizadry and numerous add-ons and the different versions are almost uncountable.

Those aren't new rule sets.

[RobRoy]

Those aren't new rule sets.

Well 3.5 is. :D

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think the order goes something like this:

Original D&D edition
1st D&D Revision
AD&D
2nd D&D Revision
3rd D&D Revision
AD&D 2nd Edition
D&D 3rd Edition
AD&D 2.5 Edition
D&D 3.5
D&D 4th Edition

[westprog]

I didn't realize that Greyhawk was considered a separate version (for lack of a better term). Would Ravenloft fit, or Oriental Adventures and those other similar books count?

That's the original Greyhawk I'm talking about, around 1977. Whether it counts as a new set of rules or not, I'm not really sure. D&D didn't really have rules as such until AD&D, and even then there were holes big enough to drive a truck through. In a way, that was the appeal of the game.

[westprog]

Those aren't new rule sets.

No, but they had new rules. The difference in playing with the original three booklets, and the original three plus the three additional ones was considerable.

[westprog]

Well 3.5 is. :D

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think the order goes something like this:

Original D&D edition
1st D&D Revision
AD&D
2nd D&D Revision
3rd D&D Revision
AD&D 2nd Edition
D&D 3rd Edition
AD&D 2.5 Edition
D&D 3.5
D&D 4th Edition

D&D and AD&D were on parallel tracks for a long while, as incompatible simple and advanced editions. This became fairly pointless when there were so many extensions to D&D that it was just as complicated as AD&D.

It was similar in many ways to the way Microsoft had Windows NT/2000/XP as the professional product, with 95/98/Me as the cheap and nasty variant.

[RobRoy]

D&D and AD&D were on parallel tracks for a long while, as incompatible simple and advanced editions. This became fairly pointless when there were so many extensions to D&D that it was just as complicated as AD&D.

Right, although to be quite honest, I’ve never really noticed the difference that much. The mechanics of character generation and leveling etc. are different, but the actual gameplay seems same-same to me.

[Madalch]

Right, although to be quite honest, I’ve never really noticed the difference that much. The mechanics of character generation and leveling etc. are different, but the actual gameplay seems same-same to me.
The biggest difference was that in AD&D, non-humans were allowed to choose their classes. In Basic, a dwarf wasn't a fighter, thief, or cleric- he was a dwarf. An elf could wear armour and cast spells, but wasn't a magic-user or a fighter, he was an elf.

[westprog]

The biggest difference was that in AD&D, non-humans were allowed to choose their classes. In Basic, a dwarf wasn't a fighter, thief, or cleric- he was a dwarf. An elf could wear armour and cast spells, but wasn't a magic-user or a fighter, he was an elf.

Thieves weren't even in the original rules. Hobbit thieves were allowed in the upgrades - pretty much the only realistic option for them, as Hobbit fighters were only allowed to 4th level. (And they were Hobbits in the original rules - no doubt changed to Halflings for obvious copyright issues). The restrictions were so odd and random that I think they took it for granted that everyone would play a wide range of house rules.

[westprog]

Right, although to be quite honest, I’ve never really noticed the difference that much. The mechanics of character generation and leveling etc. are different, but the actual gameplay seems same-same to me.

I ran the same characters through three different rule systems, lots of variant rules and a whole lot of stuff I made up myself, and you're undoubtedly right.

The simple fixes in 3.5 to avoid pointless complication helped a bit. The mechanics became a lot less fiddly, though I must admit not to have played it live so there might be some quirks I haven't seen yet.

[RobRoy]

I ran the same characters through three different rule systems, lots of variant rules and a whole lot of stuff I made up myself, and you're undoubtedly right.

The simple fixes in 3.5 to avoid pointless complication helped a bit. The mechanics became a lot less fiddly, though I must admit not to have played it live so there might be some quirks I haven't seen yet.

There are. One of the things I don’t like about 3.5 is the rule for attacks of opportunity (AOO). In 3.5 if you move close enough to attack an enemy (and there is no such thing as “facing” rules), then they get an attack on you. It doesn’t matter how many people move close enough to attack the enemy, or how high/low their initiative, technically they still get an AOO. So if your group of five moves in to attack another fighter, he can have five AOOs plus his regular attack. Once you’ve engaged an enemy, you can’t withdraw or you face another AOO no matter how many other people are standing around pounding the guy. This forces most combat to be completely static until either you or the enemy is defeated. Only then can you move on to attack another enemy.

I get the AOO rule and what it’s trying to accomplish. There is some realism behind it and that’s groovy. Some thief moves past me I should get a chance to take a swipe at him. But as its written, it bugs quite a bit, and it requires a decent DM to set up a fair and reasonable AOO system rather than allow a single enemy to hit everyone that comes within range based, front, side or back, on this rule system. It can also slow down the initial combat to mind-numbing levels.

[westprog]

There are. One of the things I don’t like about 3.5 is the rule for attacks of opportunity (AOO). In 3.5 if you move close enough to attack an enemy (and there is no such thing as “facing” rules), then they get an attack on you. It doesn’t matter how many people move close enough to attack the enemy, or how high/low their initiative, technically they still get an AOO. So if your group of five moves in to attack another fighter, he can have five AOOs plus his regular attack. Once you’ve engaged an enemy, you can’t withdraw or you face another AOO no matter how many other people are standing around pounding the guy. This forces most combat to be completely static until either you or the enemy is defeated. Only then can you move on to attack another enemy.

I get the AOO rule and what it’s trying to accomplish. There is some realism behind it and that’s groovy. Some thief moves past me I should get a chance to take a swipe at him. But as its written, it bugs quite a bit, and it requires a decent DM to set up a fair and reasonable AOO system rather than allow a single enemy to hit everyone that comes within range based, front, side or back, on this rule system. It can also slow down the initial combat to mind-numbing levels.

That's an interesting one. I like the idea that combat should be a bit more regulated - in the original rules it was almost incomprehensible, since it relied on the Chainmail rules which weren't actually included. Even AD&D left it largely a matter of interpretation. However, that seems like something in need of some creative reinterpretation.

[RobRoy]

That's an interesting one. I like the idea that combat should be a bit more regulated - in the original rules it was almost incomprehensible, since it relied on the Chainmail rules which weren't actually included. Even AD&D left it largely a matter of interpretation. However, that seems like something in need of some creative reinterpretation.

Yeah, as Kirk said, “There’s always something.” I’d say most of the mechanics in 3.5 are more straight forward, but some lend themselves to greater complications. I’m more an AD&D 2.5 fan myself, but that’s probably because it’s the system I’m most familiar with, rather than an objective comparison.

[Pure Argent]

There are. One of the things I don’t like about 3.5 is the rule for attacks of opportunity (AOO). In 3.5 if you move close enough to attack an enemy (and there is no such thing as “facing” rules), then they get an attack on you.

Your Dungeon Master doesn't understand the rules.

You don't get an AoO against someone who moves into one of your threatened squares. You get an attack against someone who moves out of your threatened area, or takes more than a five-foot step while in your threatened area, or attempts to perform a complex action (such as casting a spell) while in your threatened area. There's nothing in the rules about getting an attack against someone who has just entered your threatened area.

It doesn’t matter how many people move close enough to attack the enemy, or how high/low their initiative, technically they still get an AOO. So if your group of five moves in to attack another fighter, he can have five AOOs plus his regular attack.

Yeah, your Dungeon Master needs to read up on his SRD material (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm). You only get one attack of opportunity per round, unless you have a feat or ability that grants you extra. You also can't make attacks of opportunity when flat-footed, so if someone beat you in the initiative roll, you don't get a free attack against them until the next round.

Once you’ve engaged an enemy, you can’t withdraw or you face another AOO no matter how many other people are standing around pounding the guy.

Unless you take the withdraw (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#withdraw) action.

[Ixion]

There are. One of the things I don’t like about 3.5 is the rule for attacks of opportunity (AOO). In 3.5 if you move close enough to attack an enemy (and there is no such thing as “facing” rules), then they get an attack on you. It doesn’t matter how many people move close enough to attack the enemy, or how high/low their initiative, technically they still get an AOO. So if your group of five moves in to attack another fighter, he can have five AOOs plus his regular attack. Once you’ve engaged an enemy, you can’t withdraw or you face another AOO no matter how many other people are standing around pounding the guy. This forces most combat to be completely static until either you or the enemy is defeated. Only then can you move on to attack another enemy.

I get the AOO rule and what it’s trying to accomplish. There is some realism behind it and that’s groovy. Some thief moves past me I should get a chance to take a swipe at him. But as its written, it bugs quite a bit, and it requires a decent DM to set up a fair and reasonable AOO system rather than allow a single enemy to hit everyone that comes within range based, front, side or back, on this rule system. It can also slow down the initial combat to mind-numbing levels.

I think you are mis-interpreting how attacks of opportunity work. First of all, a creature only gets an attack of opportunity from a movement if a creature moves out of their threat range as a standard move action. Approaching a creature to attack it does not provoke an attack of opportunity unless the creature's threat range is larger than your threat range (ie you have to get closer to it to attack than it needs to be to attack you). This only usually happens with creatures of much greater size than you. Secondly, a creature only gets one attack of opportunity a round unless they have the feat "Combat Reflexes". Therefore, if multiple people moved out of threat range, it would only get an attack of opportunity against one of them. Combat Reflexes allows for the creature to make a number of attacks of opportunity per round equal to their Dexterity bonus. Furthermore, they can only take an attack of opportunity when they are not flat-footed.

To prevent an attack of opportunity from an opponent through movement, you have several options:
1) Take a 5 foot step movement. Instead of a normal movement, you only move 5 feet in any given direction. By doing this, you avoid attacks of opportunity, even moving away from a threatened square.
2) Make a full action withdrawal. Instead of taking a move and standard action, or a full round attack, you can withdraw, allowing you to move up to your standard movement rate without provoking any attacks of opportunity. This action must "withdraw" you from the enemy (ie, you are retreating).
3) You may tumble away using your tumble skill. Basically, you somersault past the aggressor. You can do this as a standard action. Tumbling only allows you to move at half your normal movement speed, but you do not provoke attacks of opportunity. If you fail the check, then you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal.

I have only outlined the rules for attacks of opportunity from movement, as there are other actions that also provoke attacks of opportunity. Also, as a long-time DM, I have altered some of the rules in my own campaign about movement and attacks of opportunity to make more logical sense. However, the rules I listed above are the basic 3.5 rules.

ETA: I expanded Pure_Argent's explanation.

[RobRoy]

Your Dungeon Master doesn't understand the rules.

Actually not. Any failing of my explanation falls on me, not on my DM who isn’t here and didn’t make the statements I’ve just made. Further, I was just going for a very simplistic overview of the AOO concept and what I consider to be a technical failure of AOOs.

Yeah, your Dungeon Master needs to read up on his SRD material. You only get one attack of opportunity per round, unless you have a feat or ability that grants you extra. You also can't make attacks of opportunity when flat-footed, so if someone beat you in the initiative roll, you don't get a free attack against them until the next round.

I don’t know what SRD is and I can’t click on your link from my office. Is this supplemental?

So far you haven’t said anything that contradicts my understanding of the AOO rule in 3.5 as it’s written. But again, any failures are mine, not my DMs.

[Newtons Bit]

Try Pathfinder. It's a modified set of 3.5 rules and it works REALLY well.

[RobRoy]

I think you are mis-interpreting how attacks of opportunity work.

This is entirely possible. :)

Also, as a long-time DM, I have altered some of the rules in my own campaign about movement and attacks of opportunity to make more logical sense.

And this is what my point was, and what my 3.5 DM has done as well. As they're written, they can complicate things . . . which was the whole point of my post.

Any other failings of description are mine and mine alone.

[Pure Argent]

I don’t know what SRD is and I can’t click on your link from my office. Is this supplemental?

SRD stands for "Standard Reference Document". After the release of v4.0, Wizards of the Coast made the entirety of the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide, as well as much of the Epic Level Handbook, for v3.5 available online, free of charge. You can find it at

http://www.d20srd.com/

So far you haven’t said anything that contradicts my understanding of the AOO rule in 3.5 as it’s written.

You don't get attacked for moving toward someone.

It does matter if you beat your opponent in initiative, because they can't take attacks of opportunity until after their first turn.

It does matter if you rush them en masse, because any given character can only take one attack of opportunity per round. If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can make a number of extra attacks of opportunity per round equal to your Dexterity modifier, but unless said creature is incredibly dextrous (in which case it's most likely a high-level monster, and lots of attacks should be expected), it can still be overwhelmed by five or six people.

You can get away from an opponent without taking an attack of opportunity via the withdraw action, which allows you to move up to double your speed.

[Ixion]

And this is what my point was, and what my 3.5 DM has done as well. As they're written, they can complicate things . . . which was the whole point of my post.
Any other failings of description are mine and mine alone.

You post on a skeptics forum and didn't think that someone was going to be pedantic about the rules of a game that are notorious for generating debate about the rules? :p

Seriously though, there is no doubt that some of the rules of 3rd and 3.5 edition are more complicated than 2nd edition (or 2.5). In other respects, they are less complicated. It is a trade-off. I played 2nd edition for about 20 years until switching to 3.5, which I have played for about 5 years. However, the alterations I have added in no way fundamentally change attacks of opportunity. The original post you made about attacks of opportunity simplified the rules to the point that they were incorrect. Pure_Argent and I independently just pointed out where the errors are made. I am sure it is just through a misunderstanding about how they work, but the simplification ended up being incorrect. It is kind of like saying "Evolution is survival of the fittest". Although this gets tossed around a lot, it is simplified to the point of not being correct. In other words, the devil's in the details. :D

[Pure Argent]

Try Pathfinder. It's a modified set of 3.5 rules and it works REALLY well.

HackMaster is also very good when it comes to combat. It's much, much more brutal than D&D, though. Getting hit with a sword actually matters.

[Pure Argent]

You post on a skeptics forum and didn't think that someone was going to be pedantic about the rules of a game that are notorious for generating debate about the rules? :p

Sorry. Can't help m'self. I'm a hardcore gamer. I spend the vast majority of my free time either playing these games or writing up adventures to play later, and I plan to do so professionally if at all possible. So... yeah. It was just a kind of reflexive reaction.

[RobRoy]

You post on a skeptics forum and didn't think that someone was going to be pedantic about the rules of a game that are notorious for generating debate about the rules? :p

Well . . . ummm . . . maybe. :)

The original post you made about attacks of opportunity simplified the rules to the point that they were incorrect.

And I think I've admitted as much. Any errors were on my side. I'd attempt to explain them out based on my understanding, but that wouldn't be of much interest and I'd likely get other things wrong too. I'm just not in the mood to be crushed under someone's +2 Boots of Logical Stomping. :D

[Ixion]

And I think I've admitted as much. Any errors were on my side. I'd attempt to explain them out based on my understanding, but that wouldn't be of much interest and I'd likely get other things wrong too. I'm just not in the mood to be crushed under someone's +2 Boots of Logical Stomping. :D

Personally, I was making the correction more for WestProg's benefit than for yours. No offense I hope. Anyways, this little derail is done, I think.

Back to the original topic, I have had several players come from fundamental Christian backgrounds. After explaining to their parents what the game was about and showing them the rule books, they became more open with it. On another note, my gaming groups almost always have a few female players.

[RobRoy]

Personally, I was making the correction more for WestProg's benefit than for yours. No offense I hope. Anyways, this little derail is done, I think.

And this. No offense taken whatsoever. I was wrong, I admit it. I'm admitting my error, not trying to back myself into some kind of corner when it's clear that I'm both out of my depth and have made grievous errors of fact.

Back to the original topic, I have had several players come from fundamental Christian backgrounds. After explaining to their parents what the game was about and showing them the rule books, they became more open with it. On another note, my gaming groups almost always have a few female players.

I have two groups I play with. One group is all guys, and I love it. It’s as much an excuse to drink beers, smoke socially, and be completely un-PC about anything and everything.

The other group is for my wife. She would love to come play with the first group, but that would change the entire dynamic of the evening, and it’s not something either of us would want. So the same friend that introduced me to the first group is the DM for this group. His wife also plays and another female friend of ours plays. The group is thus mostly female.

[Filippo Lippi]

HackMaster is also very good when it comes to combat. It's much, much more brutal than D&D, though. Getting hit with a sword actually matters.


No kidding. The other night/morning my feeble elf scored an attack roll of 40 (on a d20) and then I rolled 33 (thirty three) points of damage with my short sword (2d6).

Exploding dice are fun.

[Madalch]

Thieves weren't even in the original rules. Hobbit thieves were allowed in the upgrades - pretty much the only realistic option for them, as Hobbit fighters were only allowed to 4th level. (And they were Hobbits in the original rules - no doubt changed to Halflings for obvious copyright issues). The restrictions were so odd and random that I think they took it for granted that everyone would play a wide range of house rules.
But that's "Old" D&D- we (or at least I) were discussing the differences between the Basic and Advanced version that were being published at the same time.

(Also, in Basic, they used the childish "chaotic=evil", three-alignment system.)

[Vortigern99]

Parallel publications and inconsistent naming practices can make it difficult to distinguish between the different editions of D&D. That said, there are essentially 10 versions (Chainmail, Blackmoor, Greyhawk, Basic, AD&D, 2nd Edition, 2.5 Edition, 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, 4th Edition), but there are only very minor variations among some of these.

The history of D&D is as follows:

1971 -- Gary Gygax develops a fantasy supplement -- including rules for magical spells and monsters as well as one-to-one combat -- for his tabletop miniature war-game Chainmail, which Gygax has co-created with Jeff Perren.

1971 -- Dave Arneson develops a role-playing fantasy game called Blackmoor, derived from the Napoleonic tabletop "Braunstein" campaigns of David Wesely. The Braunstein campaigns and Blackmoor included the use of a neutral referee, and improvised conversations between the players and imaginary characters. Arneson first used rock-paper-scissors to resolve combat, but then switched to Gygax and Perren's Chainmail rules. Blackmoor was unique in that players could keep the same characters from session to session, and the characters' abilities advanced over time.

1972 -- Arneson shows Blackmoor to Gygax, who, thrilled with the marketing potential, created first the Castle, then the City of Greyhawk to play-test at home with his family and friends. This campaign grew over the next several years into the World of Greyhawk.

1974 -- The first edition of D&D published in a small box set. It consists of three booklets written in a somewhat amateurish, gamer-friendly style. This was extremely popular, with 5000 units sold in 1974 and 1975, and went through many printings over the next several years.

1975 -- D&D Supplement I: Greyhawk published, a rule expansion with spells and classes. D&D Supplement II: Blackmoor also published.

1977 -- Basic D&D set published. This set cleaned up the presentation of the essential rules, made the system understandable to the general public, and was sold in a package that could be stocked in toy stores. The basic set directed players who exhausted the possibilities of that game to switch to the advanced rules (QV below). J. Eric Holmes, the editor of the basic game, preferred a lighter tone with more room for personal improvisation.

1978 -- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) published. This brought together the various published rules, options and corrections, then expanded them into a definitive, unified game for hobbyist gamers. Gygax wanted an expansive game with rulings on any conceivable situation which might come up during play. As a result, the advanced and basic games included rules and concepts which contradicted comparable ones in the advanced game.

1979 -- Basic rules take their own path, as AD&D is considered a different game from the Basic. The core rule books of AD&D are published -- Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual.

1981 -- The Basic set revised by Tom Moldvay and split into several versions. This game was promoted as a continuation of the original D&D tone, whereas AD&D was promoted as advancement of the mechanics. Although simpler overall than the Advanced game, it included rules for some situations not covered in AD&D. There were five sets: Basic (1977, revised in 1981 and again in 1983), Expert (1981, revised in 1983), Companion (1983), Master (1985), and Immortals (1986, revised in 1991). Each set covered game play for more powerful characters than the previous.

1989 -- 2nd Edition, sometimes referred to as AD&D2 or 2nd Ed, published, again as three core rulebooks by primary designer was David "Zeb" Cook. AD&D2 excluded some aspects of the game that had attracted negative publicity; references to demons and devils, sexually suggestive artwork, and playable, evil-aligned character types – such as assassins and half-orcs – were removed. The edition moved away from a theme of 1960s and 1970s "sword and sorcery" fantasy fiction to a mixture of medieval history and mythology.

The Monster Manual was replaced by the Monstrous Compendium, a loose-leaf binder that was subsequently replaced by the hardcover Monstrous Manual in 1993. In 1995, the core rulebooks were slightly revised, although still referred to by TSR as the 2nd Edition, and a series of Player’s Option manuals were released as optional core rulebooks.

2000 -- D&D 3rd Edition published. This folded the Basic and Advanced lines back into a single unified game. It served as the basis for a multi-genre role-playing system designed around 20-sided dice, called the d20 System.. The 3rd Edition rules were designed to be internally consistent and less restrictive than previous editions of the game, allowing players more flexibility to create the characters they wanted to play. Skills and feats were introduced into the core rules to encourage further customization of characters. The new rules also standardized the mechanics of action resolution and combat.

2003 -- 3.5 Edition published. This release incorporated hundreds of rule changes, mostly minor, and expanded the core rulebooks.

2008 -- 4th Edition published. This release streamlined the game into a simplified form and introduced numerous rules changes. Many character abilities were restructured into "Powers". These altered the spell-using classes by adding abilities that could be used at will, per encounter, or per day. Likewise, non-magic-using classes were provided with parallel sets of options. Wizards of the Coast is releasing other supplementary material virtually through their website, including player character and monster building programs.

Source 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons)
Source 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyhawk)
Source 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmoor)

[westprog]

But that's "Old" D&D- we (or at least I) were discussing the differences between the Basic and Advanced version that were being published at the same time.

(Also, in Basic, they used the childish "chaotic=evil", three-alignment system.)

Part of the problem with the 1,2,3,4 versioning is that it's not obvious which of the other versions you're working with.

Basic was mostly a tidying up of the original rules, but had significant differences. IIRC, it came out a little before AD&D - because I remember switching to the Basic set, and then to AD&D a little after.

[Vortigern99]

Somehow my post has been rendered invisible. :p

Let's hope it's not a globe of invisibility! :eek:

Meanwhile, for the record, though I've been playing D&D since 1982, my favorite version is 3rd ed. -- it absorbs Basic and AD&D (1st and 2nd ed.s) and implements taut combat and movement rules into one masterful, endlessly flexible gaming system.

3rd ed. is also far more like 1st ed. (my nostalgic touchstone) -- and is thus infinitely more engaging -- than 4th ed., which changes several key distinguishing elements of what I consider crucial to D&D.

[ArmillarySphere]

I pierce the darkness, doing 5 damage.

If the god-botherers want to be concerned about an RPG, I have to say there are better targets than D&D. There's Ars Magica for instance, which has a much more obvious connection to the real world than most others, and includes somewhat embarrasing details about how "well" the medieval church functioned. If some people have difficulty telling reality from the real world, best hope they're not playing Call of Cthulhu or any other horror game, since magic there tends to be pretty grisly. (In Sweden, there was a lot of material for the Kult game coming out at one time, much of it somewhat disturbing). On the other hand, fans of graphic horror usually get much more vivid imagery in the nearest video rental.

In my experience, the moral dilemmas posed by RPGs tend to be fairly trivial. If parents are concerned with the messages posed, they have a much better chance at brainwatching teaching their kids by simply discussing the games. They could even ask the kid about what happened during sessions, though I suspect most kids wouldn't be very informative.

[ZirconBlue]

In Sweden, there was a lot of material for the Kult game coming out at one time, much of it somewhat disturbing

I love Kult. I assume only a small portion of their products were translated into English, since there didn't seem to be much available in the US at the time I was running a campaign. Speaking of translations: the Kult GM screen had a hit location chart, which, instead of "abdomen" had "women". "Ouch, I've been shot in the women!"

[Tolls]

1981 -- The Basic set revised by Tom Moldvay and split into several versions. This game was promoted as a continuation of the original D&D tone, whereas AD&D was promoted as advancement of the mechanics. Although simpler overall than the Advanced game, it included rules for some situations not covered in AD&D. There were five sets: Basic (1977, revised in 1981 and again in 1983), Expert (1981, revised in 1983), Companion (1983), Master (1985), and Immortals (1986, revised in 1991). Each set covered game play for more powerful characters than the previous.


Missed a bit.
Moldvay was only Basic and Expert.
Mentzer, from 1983, was BECMI (the famous red box). There's a few differences between Moldvay and Mentzer in terms of progression (thieves come to mind).

[Indy418]

Well, I went by my parents' house over the weekend and was able to get the books before they were thrown away. Sure I could have bought some online, but these were free. Luckily, I am almost 30 and have my own house where I can have all of the 'evil' things I want. But it does worry me that my parents are so easily led by some of the priests they encounter. Of course they worry about my skepticism and logic.

[Pure Argent]

I pierce the darkness, doing 5 damage.

Well, I cast magic missile at the darkness.

If the god-botherers want to be concerned about an RPG, I have to say there are better targets than D&D.

Yup. World of Darkness, for instance. The core idea behind that game is that the players are slowly becoming the monsters that they fight. Or Vampire: the Requiem, an expansion to World of Darkness wherein the players start out as monsters and have to avoid getting worse.

[AvalonXQ]

Meanwhile, for the record, though I've been playing D&D since 1982, my favorite version is 3rd ed. -- it absorbs Basic and AD&D (1st and 2nd ed.s) and implements taut combat and movement rules into one masterful, endlessly flexible gaming system.

This is my preferred system as well -- although 3.P (Pathfinder) is definitely my preferred version of the rules.
And the next time I have a physical group together, I'm probably going to give Burning Wheel a shot.

[Sledge]

I cast Summon Bigger Fish.

Has anyone linked to The Spoony One's review of Mazes & Monsters yet?

[RobRoy]

Someone reviewed that? Awful, awful movie.

How about Darths & Droids (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0001.html)?

[catsmate1]

Would this be a good time to bring up the TV series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons_%28TV_series%29)? :D

[RobRoy]

Would this be a good time to bring up the TV series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons_%28TV_series%29)? :D

I've always wanted Hank's bow!

[AvalonXQ]

The release of the D&D boxed set gave stats for each of the main characters, including Venger, and a mini-adventure in the back. One of these days I'll have to run it as a one-shot!