PDA

View Full Version : Orc Holocaust



Tokiko Mima
2008-03-11, 11:13 AM
Link: Orc Holocaust, By Erik Sofge (http://www.slate.com/id/2186203/nav/ais/)

:smallfurious:

I concede that D&D is based on the kill/loot framework and yes, there are systems that work better than D&D, and yes, GURPS is great for generating characters. Aside from that, I think the author is trying to push the whole "Playing D&D makes you a sociopath" angle without an ounce of evidence. What I especially resent is the implication that I should embarrassed for being involved with D&D.

Besides, I think the author forgot that sneaking past creatures results in defeating the encounter, which is the same as if you slashed through it. What do you think?

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-11, 11:22 AM
Considering how modern console RPGs weren't around back then I thind that comment about it playing like a video game to be ironic. Besides, there are other ways of dealing with problems other then killing things anyway, and DMs can always encourage RPing by giving Exps for it (or taking Exps off for not RPing). Also, if D&D isn't that good, why is it so popular?

Brawls
2008-03-11, 12:10 PM
Sounds like someone had a bad DM. Seriously, I can't believe this guy has his panties in a twist over the fact that the first commercial RPG has some flaws. Sure, there are systems available that have a differnt mechanic or focus, but so what. Why is it somehow Gygax's fault that just about every other game system uses XP or some variant to describe character growth/progress. It's because it is a convenient means to model such experience numerically. Sort of how stats are based on a numeric range distribution. I don't see him complaining how stats are broken.

All I can say in conclusion is that this guy is either trying to be controversial for controversy's sake (and we've all met this animal before), or he's just a tool. Personnaly, I think he is both.

Brawls

AKA_Bait
2008-03-11, 12:51 PM
All I can say in conclusion is that this guy is either trying to be controversial for controversy's sake (and we've all met this animal before), or he's just a tool. Personnaly, I think he is both.


Agreed. I also wonder if this fellow happens to have friends or other connections with some competing companies...

Saph
2008-03-11, 01:00 PM
I'll put in a third vote for 'tool'. Looks like a standard journalistic hit-piece to me: a small dose of facts and a large dose of malice.

Reminds me of why I don't read MSM news columns much.

- Saph

Guildorn Tanaleth
2008-03-11, 01:09 PM
The violence isn't D&D's fault; it's humanity's fault. A plot requires conflict, and the oldest, basic, most universal means of conflict resolution is violence -- especially in a medieval setting and especially if you have god-like powers coming out the wazoo that you're just dying to unleash on something. I could go on, but I feel that this is already heading a bit too close to Flame War Land (which would support the theory anyway).

Tokiko Mima
2008-03-11, 01:50 PM
I don't think there's much of a chance of a flame war breaking out on this board over this subject, but the article is very hostile and IMO full of baseless assertions. I mean, mystery novels usually center around an act of violence, but no one considers their readers to be sociopaths.

I've checked out his other articles and it seems like the author of this piece likes to make snap judgement calls and apply them to every case and every situation. For example, he professed to be excited about the Nintendo Wii, then after it didn't work the way he wanted it to, he recommended no one buy it. (http://www.slate.com//id/2154157)

an kobold
2008-03-11, 02:26 PM
I was wondering when this would be posted.

Personally, I think he's going for the whole controversy angle, essentially a piece of journalistic trolling. I read it essentially as not only is 4ed is going to be like WoW, but all editions have been like WoW because all DnD is just RIP & TEAR to LEVEL UP, which is a common flame argument. The guy seems too well informed to be a tool IMHO, both about rpgs in general and how to hit the nerves in just the right way about DnD. Though it sounds like if he wants character complexity with every last detail decided at character creation he should look into FATAL :smallyuk: .

Burley
2008-03-11, 02:30 PM
Well, that's the internet for you. A bunch of people typing their ideas and sharing them with the world without regard for the feelings or ideas of others.
I agree that this guy has no clue what he's saying and just wants to be another speck on the internet. But, he's still got a right to say it, just like we've got a right to complain. We're all just specks on the internet.

[/devil's advocacy]

This guy is a total tool. He apparently missed the entire right side of the character sheet that has things like Hide, Move Silently, Diplomacy, etc. If the game is so combat based, why are there INT, WIS and CHA scores at all? I'll tell you why! I don't know! But, this guy doesn't know, either! And, it doesn't matter because the game isn't combat based!

~huffhuffhuffhuff~

I love you all.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-11, 02:42 PM
I personally have a beef about awarding experience for killing stuff. But this guy lost his argument by way of Godwin's Law. By referring to the Holocaust (I think he used Hobgoblin Holocaust) he compared it to the Nazis and thus lost his argument.

Hawriel
2008-03-11, 02:50 PM
Well I would call the kill on sight mentality for orcs and goblins genocide or ethnic clesnsing. There is no industial application to D&D slaughter of the Orcin peaple.

Edit: Joe the ninja is right. by using the term holocaust this guy is saying that D&D will turn you into a facist. If you going to use a word like that use it right. hence my opening sarcasm. end edit.

This guys is a tool. He's taking a hit on Gygax after he died because he cant defend himself. Its possable he might be assosiated with a competing game system or he got kicked out of afew D&D groups for being a tool. Saying D&D sucks because its old and there are some better games out there is like saying the Ford car company sucks because the model T is obsolete. They also suck because Honda and Toyota make better personal care. Dispite the fact Ford is still alive today and there comercial trucks are very good.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-11, 02:56 PM
Oh gosh! Somebody has made the totally original observation that RPGs involve violence! Not only that, they've managed to make the even more original observation that sometimes the targets of that violence tend to be of a particular "race"!

Zomg, zomg I say!

kamikasei
2008-03-11, 03:01 PM
I agree that this guy has no clue what he's saying and just wants to be another speck on the internet. But, he's still got a right to say it, just like we've got a right to complain.

I don't see anyone contesting that. Sure he's got a right to say whatever, but he's still a tool, and we can still be disappointed that Slate stooped to publishing the screed.

I realize you probably meant that to be tongue in cheek, at least somewhat, but it's a pet peeve of mine.

Anyway, this seems more like an RPG fan who wants to blame D&D's influence and visibility for the failings of his preferred systems. So, D&D is a poor game by his standards. He thinks it's shallow and combat-focused at the expense of roleplaying, which is a legitimate gripe that he illegitimizes by dressing it up in talk of "sociopathy" and "reprehensive morals". Other games are better at rewarding you for character depth, playing to motivations, immersion etc. That's all well and good and, from what I've heard from many on these boards, entirely correct (though I have no non-D&D experience myself). But you know what? That doesn't change the fact that Gygax was the "founding genius" of the gaming community, and it doesn't make dancing on his grave to cheerlead for your fandom any less crass and abhorrent.


But this guy lost his argument by way of Godwin's Law. By referring to the Holocaust (I think he used Hobgoblin Holocaust) he compared it to the Nazis and thus lost his argument.

Actually, "holocaust" is a perfectly cromulent English word, and you can speak of "a holocaust" without invoking Nazis.

sikyon
2008-03-11, 03:02 PM
Honestly this guy is just pretentious. Infact, like many others out there, he simply assumes that RPG's must be like stories and cannot be like videogames. I want to throw up everytime I see people like that. Some of us like playing D&D like video games. Big whoop. I find that hack and slashers are being constantly attacked when they bring their own viewpoint of RPG's to the table by people who start crowing about how that's not how RPG's are supposed to be played and they should go play a videogame instead.

I don't know where these people get off telling us that things like World of Warcraft are terrible because they are hack and slash, either. If it sucked so much, then people wouldn't play it. While they may be the cultural "elite" they are still outsiders to the greater masses, and their superior or more sophisticated ideals of "what things should be" can go on yelling loudly and die alone and unwanted.

/rant

kamikasei
2008-03-11, 03:10 PM
Infact, like many others out there, he simply assumes that RPG's must be like stories and cannot be like videogames. I want to throw up everytime I see people like that. Some of us like playing D&D like video games.

Even more astonishingly, some of us like videogames with stories and sometimes imitate them in D&D.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-11, 03:11 PM
Actually, "holocaust" is a perfectly cromulent English word, and you can speak of "a holocaust" without invoking Nazis.
The 'cromulent' English definition of holocaust (lowercase h) means a sacrifice by fire. In the context of the article, that is not the intention. The context squarely relates the Hobgoblin Holocaust to the Nazi extermination of Jews. Thus, he loses the internets by way of Godwin's Law.

horseboy
2008-03-11, 03:11 PM
Wait, wait wait. Is this one of those "He's not one of us, so not allowed to use that word" arguments? Granted, it's terribly tacky invoking The Holocaust and Gygax's death, but I've said pretty much every valid point he's said. So have many others here on this forum. Did he break the social faux paux of airing our dirty laundry in public? Possibly, I'm not familiar with Slate's readership. But yeah, this is completely the type of post that a non-D&D gamer gripes about the short comings of the lack of Role-playing in D&D. Why is it not wrong if we say it to each other, but it's wrong to say it just to the general public?

Citizen Joe
2008-03-11, 03:15 PM
Wait, wait wait. Is this one of those "He's not one of us, so not allowed to use that word" arguments?

No. Google or wiki Godwin's Law.

Weiser_Cain
2008-03-11, 03:16 PM
Does DnD have a ton of flaws? Yes.
Can you solve most if not all of your problems by killing something? Yes.
Are certain races set up just to be killed? Yes.
Do I have a problem to this day with Drow? Yes.
Will I discuss it now? No.
Did this article get green lit just because Gygax died? Yes.

Burley
2008-03-11, 03:21 PM
Actually, "holocaust" is a perfectly cromulent English word, and you can speak of "a holocaust" without invoking Nazis.

Yep. Holocaust means "Burnt Offering". It was a term coined after WWII, by a US journalist.
It just goes to show that the writer of this drivel was either uneducated and using words he doesn't know, or intentionally using the world under the pop-cultural definition to arouse negative feelings towards D&D and, more insultingly, Mr. Gygax himself.

I sent the guy an email. I doubt he'll read it, but I like to complain to the faces (albeit electronically, in this case) of the authors.
By the way, did anybody notice that he's an editor for Popular Mechanics? I'm suprised at that, mostly, because of how much "nerd" stuff is in the magazine, and how many "nerds" he insulted with that article.

Edit: So ninja'd, it's almost comical.

sikyon
2008-03-11, 03:31 PM
Wait, wait wait. Is this one of those "He's not one of us, so not allowed to use that word" arguments? Granted, it's terribly tacky invoking The Holocaust and Gygax's death, but I've said pretty much every valid point he's said. So have many others here on this forum. Did he break the social faux paux of airing our dirty laundry in public? Possibly, I'm not familiar with Slate's readership. But yeah, this is completely the type of post that a non-D&D gamer gripes about the short comings of the lack of Role-playing in D&D. Why is it not wrong if we say it to each other, but it's wrong to say it just to the general public?

Yeah he's not spouting anything new. It's just that when it gets thrown at a guy who recently died that it becomes distasteful.

However, I'm going to be glad to invoke nerd rage in my next "RPG's need to have more R" arguement.

Matthew
2008-03-11, 03:58 PM
Yeah, this was bound to happen eventually. He's just a Troll with a lair. Judging from the number of people who responded to his article by saying 'you are a tool', I would say he accomplished his task, which I suppose to be to capitalise on Gygax's death by courting controversy.

an kobold
2008-03-11, 03:59 PM
Wait, wait wait. Is this one of those "He's not one of us, so not allowed to use that word" arguments? Granted, it's terribly tacky invoking The Holocaust and Gygax's death, but I've said pretty much every valid point he's said. So have many others here on this forum. Did he break the social faux paux of airing our dirty laundry in public? Possibly, I'm not familiar with Slate's readership. But yeah, this is completely the type of post that a non-D&D gamer gripes about the short comings of the lack of Role-playing in D&D. Why is it not wrong if we say it to each other, but it's wrong to say it just to the general public?

Frankly, I'm fine with the criticisms of DnD, though they seem to be on the extreme examples side of the spectrum leaving no room for middle ground. I'm more nerd raging about the attacks on Gary Gygax less than a week after he died. The criticisms of DnD aren't really there to make a point about DnD, they are there to support the author's argument that Gygax was not all that and a bag of chips while completely avoiding the fact that with DnD, Gygax paved the way for GURPS, WoD, etc.

AKA_Bait
2008-03-11, 04:02 PM
I don't see anyone contesting that. Sure he's got a right to say whatever, but he's still a tool, and we can still be disappointed that Slate stooped to publishing the screed.

I realize you probably meant that to be tongue in cheek, at least somewhat, but it's a pet peeve of mine.

It's actually one of mine too. Everyone has the right speak their opinion. I also have the right to think that someone's opinion is not worth the pixels it is displayed upon and I have the right to say that too. There is a difference bettween freedom of speech (You have the right to say whatever you want), freedom from judgment (No one is supposed think you are a moron for what you said) and freedom from rebuke (No one telling you so).

Newtkeeper
2008-03-11, 04:05 PM
The violence isn't D&D's fault; it's humanity's fault. A plot requires conflict, and the oldest, basic, most universal means of conflict resolution is violence -- especially in a medieval setting and especially if you have god-like powers coming out the wazoo that you're just dying to unleash on something. I could go on, but I feel that this is already heading a bit too close to Flame War Land (which would support the theory anyway).

I dunno. I've roleplayed games where there might be one combat a session, maybe fewer. There's more to conflict than 'kill them and take their stuff', after all.


Like it or not, DnD does seem to cater to those who want only a small helping of plot/excuse with their 'kill them and take their stuff'. It's not the only option, but it does seem to be common (present company excluded, of course).

Like it or not, the targets do seem to get selected, as the (un)admirable Belkar Bitterleaf put it, "because they have fangs and green skin and we don't". Admittedly, that is quite a large part of the medieval mindset...

Other systems seem to have less of this, although this is more a matter of the type of people who play them than any innate problem with d20.

Really, there are other options. But it's not System dependent, it's group dependent. I have been an explorer, charting uncharted lands for my country and my glory. I have been an honorable king's musketeer, who does not kill except in open war. I have been a bandit of the woods, who robs from the rich and donates to the poor. You can be too, with a group that likes that sort of thing.


(And yes, I have been a 'professional dungeon clearer'. Sometimes, you just need to kill a few orcs to unwind. This, I suppose, is only natural. And better a speciesist against orcs than a racist against a group of humans!)

(And I agree that it seems a bit close to the admirable Gary's death to start belittling the corpse. I'm sure he was a kind chap, and, while RPGs would probably have developed anyway [there was LARPing, I'm told, before there was the Basic Set], he gets the credit, and justly so! I owe many a happy hour to the hobby he made, after all.)

EDIT: Regarding holocausts: the word, per Mr. Merriam and Mr. Webster, was used in the 13th century. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holocaust

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-11, 04:10 PM
He's just a Troll with a lair.

Are we sure that it is an actual lair and not just a bridge?

Newtkeeper
2008-03-11, 04:13 PM
Are we sure that it is an actual lair and not just a bridge?

Don't be silly. Any decent troll considers a bridge to be at least a decent lair. I mean, they don't wait under bridges because they hate it, and I'm sure that, if they wanted something better, they'd be more than capable of taking it.

CabbageTheif
2008-03-11, 04:20 PM
I think the author is trying to push the whole "Playing D&D makes you a sociopath" angle without an ounce of evidence.

there is an interesting article by stephen king, asking why we enjoy watching pain so much. in it he concludes that we are all insane, some more than others. we all have a craving for blood, lurking deep within. for some of us, watching a father be kicked in the balls by a three year old satiates that hunger. for others, horror movies dull the desire. and for me, having a well-build 9th level fighter in a room with 20 level 1 warrior orcs and not a single party member nearby to take the fun away keeps my monster well-fed.

if the author is trying to push the label of sociopath on us, that would be my reply.

LCR
2008-03-11, 04:24 PM
I don't think it's that bad an article. I enjoyed reading it and he makes some valid points (really, DnD is a lot about black/white morality and slaughtering everything evil ...). Sure, it's provocative, but I think his Hobgoblin Holocaust was merely used as an anaphora, because it sounds nice. I can't see how he compares playing DnD to fascism. I also can't see how he attacks Gygax personally. He's merely questioning whether DnD is as impressive an achievement of his as all the eulogies make it to be.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-11, 04:32 PM
Don't be silly. Any decent troll considers a bridge to be at least a decent lair. I mean, they don't wait under bridges because they hate it, and I'm sure that, if they wanted something better, they'd be more than capable of taking it.

I am not sure I agree. I know for a fact that Matthew hires Billy Goats to chase away trolls.

Enough commoners with pitchforks and torches might also make a difference. After all, the next generation of PCs has to come from somewhere.

Ulrichomega
2008-03-11, 04:35 PM
Does this guy realize that DnD was originally a war simulator, and the after-thought diplomacy was exactly what it was supposed to be? Probably, but tools being what they are...

kamikasei
2008-03-11, 05:14 PM
II also can't see how he attacks Gygax personally.

He calls him an "unrepentant hack". I suppose you could take that as a professional rather than personal insult, but it's still a direct attack on Gygax. That's the most direct, but the rest of the article is not exactly respectful of the dead.

Matthew
2008-03-11, 05:57 PM
Are we sure that it is an actual lair and not just a bridge?

Good question. Judging by the amount of advertising on that site, it may well just be a bridge he's living under.



Don't be silly. Any decent troll considers a bridge to be at least a decent lair. I mean, they don't wait under bridges because they hate it, and I'm sure that, if they wanted something better, they'd be more than capable of taking it.



I am not sure I agree. I know for a fact that Matthew hires Billy Goats to chase away trolls.

Well, no money changes hands, but they get well treated.

Newtkeeper
2008-03-11, 06:55 PM
I am not sure I agree. I know for a fact that Matthew hires Billy Goats to chase away trolls.

Enough commoners with pitchforks and torches might also make a difference. After all, the next generation of PCs has to come from somewhere.

So you think that people tolerate trolls under bridges, but not in buildings? Were I a landowner, I'd prefer my trolls away from the principle routes of travel...

horseboy
2008-03-11, 07:27 PM
Well, no money changes hands, but they get well treated.EEEAAAUUUUU! :smalleek:

ashmanonar
2008-03-11, 08:00 PM
I'll put in a third vote for 'tool'. Looks like a standard journalistic hit-piece to me: a small dose of facts and a large dose of malice.

Reminds me of why I don't read MSM news columns much.

- Saph

For real. Every time I read something in the "mainstream" news, I'm reminded why I usually ignore it. Am I that far out of the "mainstream?" Or is most of the rest of the world insane?

Lazy Zomb
2008-03-11, 08:07 PM
Well, its true that D&D focuses on combat, but really, that is all it needs to. Heck, the only reason I learned the rules was because freeforming combat sucks balls unless you do so with really good roleplayers.

Tam_OConnor
2008-03-11, 08:30 PM
This man has never heard of the Game That Must Not Be Named (FATAL). He thinks that D&D is well-suited for modeling anything other than combat (Diplomancy, go!) Moreover, from what I heard, GURPs is not friendly to new folk (mother of all character creations), and he still recommends it.

Ergo, he isn't a gamer, and I can ignore him.

Matthew
2008-03-11, 08:39 PM
In case nobody had the opportunity to read an earlier sideswipe at the 'nerd shame' that is feeling sad that Gary Gygax passed away last week, here it is: Matt Snyder's Blog (http://www.chimera.info/2008/03/06/a-guy-who-made-a-game-the-end/)

Newtkeeper
2008-03-11, 08:48 PM
Moreover, from what I heard, GURPs is not friendly to new folk (mother of all character creations), and he still recommends it.

Ergo, he isn't a gamer, and I can ignore him.

I dunno. I learned GURPS fairly easily (without help, no less), and I don't consider myself all that much of a prodigy. 'Tis fairly easy- roll under the skill and win.


And I'd say that you don't have much basis for calling him a 'non-gamer'. Very few non-gamers review games, in my experience.

Arakune
2008-03-11, 08:51 PM
I was wondering when this would be posted.

Personally, I think he's going for the whole controversy angle, essentially a piece of journalistic trolling. I read it essentially as not only is 4ed is going to be like WoW, but all editions have been like WoW because all DnD is just RIP & TEAR to LEVEL UP, which is a common flame argument. The guy seems too well informed to be a tool IMHO, both about rpgs in general and how to hit the nerves in just the right way about DnD. Though it sounds like if he wants character complexity with every last detail decided at character creation he should look into FATAL :smallyuk: .

Dude, don'tbring F.A.T.A.L. That thing was... horrible. I did a quick look at the system and was... gruesome.

EvilElitest
2008-03-11, 08:51 PM
I was wondering when this would be posted.

Personally, I think he's going for the whole controversy angle, essentially a piece of journalistic trolling. I read it essentially as not only is 4ed is going to be like WoW, but all editions have been like WoW because all DnD is just RIP & TEAR to LEVEL UP, which is a common flame argument. The guy seems too well informed to be a tool IMHO, both about rpgs in general and how to hit the nerves in just the right way about DnD. Though it sounds like if he wants character complexity with every last detail decided at character creation he should look into FATAL :smallyuk: .

1. The 4E is a different issue actually
2. FATAL is not a demonstration of character creation with detail. Please never make that comparison

That being said, this article strikes me as very uneducated and arrogant.
from
EE

deathbyhokie
2008-03-11, 09:39 PM
For more laughs, head to the comment section of the article. Then look in the tags at the bottom. amongst them?

Eric Sofge is a moron (http://fray.slate.com/discuss/tags/Erik+Sofge+is+a+moron/default.aspx)

Awesome.

Turcano
2008-03-11, 09:40 PM
I read this article when it came out, and I have three main objections:

Sofge ignores the fact that D&D evolved out of a wargame, so combat rules are going to be fairly well-developed.
Other gaming systems aren't intrinsically better than the d20 system, just different.
Style of play is affected much more by group dynamics than by the gaming system.*
This is added to the same accusations mad toward GTA games: the game makes you engage in certain kinds of behavior (as opposed to merely letting you do so).

*At the risk of perpetuating stereotypes, there tend to be two kinds of WoD players: emos and people who play like they're playing D&D (with the latter preferring Werewolf games).

GammaPaladin
2008-03-11, 09:49 PM
I do think there is one way in which the D&D rules tend to push players towards a hack and slash campaign. I'm not saying you can't have a wonderful, RP-centric campaign in D&D, with a good DM.

BUT... There's this one problem. Alignment rules. See, basically no other system has this... And there may be a good reason. What I mean is, it's all too common for players to just kill certain types of creature on sight. They're evil after all! It says so in the Monster Manual!

What have they done to you?

Well, nothing. But they're evil!

Uh huh. And do you have any knowledge of anything evil that they've done?

No, but they're evil!

So, you've killed them for no better reason than their race. Bravo. Please adjust your alignment one step towards evil.

WHAT????

Seriously though, if you don't houserule a little bit, and interpret heavily the alignment rules, they do kind of take the RP out of the game.

Which is why I use a houseruled variant. I'd honestly just strip the darn rules out altogether, but well, then you gimp everything with a class feature involving alignment. So I just... tweak it.

I change the law-chaos spectrum to law-liberty. Lawful means you cherish order, security, and rules-based living, and feel that it's far more important than individual freedom. You are a collectivist, rather than an individualist. Libertarian is the opposite. You cherish your freedom to act as you please, and think it's deplorable to sacrifice it for security and order. You are not necessarily anarchic (Although anarchists fit here too), but you strongly believe that if a question of individual liberty versus security comes up, liberty should prevail.

Neutral is somewhere in between.

I don't allow my players to choose good or evil. Everyone starts neutral on that scale, and in fact, the vast majority of people never become good aligned or evil aligned. Generally I'll apply evil points for very very evil actions, and good points for very very good actions. Actually having your alignment turn requires you to be either horrifically depraved, or saintly, however. The archetypical rogue who makes his living stealing from houses is not evil. A serial killer who lures children into his basement and butchers them is.

Similarly, to become good aligned you need to basically be a saint.

So generally detect evil or detect good just detect nothing, unless there's a demon or archon around, or someone who's REALLY twisted.

Lawful characters aren't allowed to kill people just because they're evil either. They have to find evidence of their evil actions, and at least make a token attempt to bring them to justice by arresting them. Assuming they're within reach of somewhere where a fair trial could be held.

Naturally I remove the "good" or "evil" requirements for class entry while I'm at it.

It works out fairly well, but it's serious houseruling just to get around a rule that tends to make players kill first and worry about plot second.

Serenity
2008-03-11, 10:02 PM
You mean the alignment rules that state that exceedingly few races are irrevocably and consistently evil? The alignment rules that state that alignment is not a straitjacket? D&D just gives you needed rules. What you make of them is entirely on the players and the DM.

Ponce
2008-03-11, 10:04 PM
The article itself is filled with the rage and bitterness of what appears to be a failed author. "Storytelling is important in RPGs. Why doesn't anyone like my storytelling!?!"


What's wrong with Dungeons & Dragons? It plays like a video game.

Actually, a quick historical reference would indicate that video games play like Dungeons & Dragons. I GUESS ALL VIDEO GAMES ARE BAD.

horseboy
2008-03-11, 10:26 PM
In case nobody had the opportunity to read an earlier sideswipe at the 'nerd shame' that is feeling sad that Gary Gygax passed away last week, here it is: Matt Snyder's Blog (http://www.chimera.info/2008/03/06/a-guy-who-made-a-game-the-end/)
:smalleek: Wow, I thought Mark Rein-Hagen was was the most pompous ass in gaming. This guy just stripped the title right off him.

Cyclone231
2008-03-11, 10:43 PM
I personally have a beef about awarding experience for killing stuff. But this guy lost his argument by way of Godwin's Law. By referring to the Holocaust (I think he used Hobgoblin Holocaust) he compared it to the Nazis and thus lost his argument.Sorry, but you're the one who lost the argument.

Ad hominem dismissal of argument = failed logic.

"He used the word holocaust! Thus he loses, instantly!"

Remember, dismissing someone's argument because they're insulting is just another form of ad hominem.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-11, 10:45 PM
You mean the alignment rules that state that exceedingly few races are irrevocably and consistently evil? The alignment rules that state that alignment is not a straitjacket? D&D just gives you needed rules. What you make of them is entirely on the players and the DM.
The rules state that... But then the monster manual is filled from end to end with "always evil" creatures and other such silliness. And PCs tend to take "It's evil!" as an excuse to kill it for no other reason.

an kobold
2008-03-11, 10:47 PM
To ryuan and EE, the FATAL comment was a joke, albeit one in poor taste, as all jokes involving that particular system are.

At EE, 4E is actually not a different issue. The guy calls all incarnations of D&D "vidya gaems without the graphics" and claims WoW is a direct descendant of the original. The implication is there. Anyway, pm if you want to keep discussing. This thread shouldn't be derailed into another discussion about bridges and lairs :smallwink: .

Serenity
2008-03-11, 11:10 PM
Let's make a little list of creatures that have the 'Always' alignment descriptor, shall we? Outsiders (incarnations of an ideal), Undead (twisted creatures fueled by anti-life), Dragons (I don't entirely agree with this one, but they are an Archetype), and Lycanthropes (taken over by possibly mystical instinct when they change). Oh and Animals, always Neutral because they lack the intelligence to be anything else. That's about it.Even the foulest Abberations like Mind Flayers and Aboleths are only Usually Evil. Meaning, per RAW, as few as 50%+1 could be evil, and the rest could be saints. Heck, Orcs, one of the most likely races for the DM to use for 'moral grey' are 'Often Chaotic Evil', only 40-50% are CE. Not an alignment system that's ever encouraged me to think 'it's always OK to kill the goblins.' Well, except when I'm playing a non-good character.

The Professor
2008-03-11, 11:22 PM
GammaPaladin, take into account character intent, and whether or not they're knowledgeable enough to know that Good and Evil are powers that define the cosmos, not merely philosophies. Being Evil is a crime against existence, and most of them aren't born Evil, they're Evil because they've done Evil things.

Serenity brings up the other point I was about to.

Back on topic... The article was there to be controversial, that's all that I can glean from his intent. He's standing on a fresh grave with a megaphone to attract attention to himself. This article (http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/post/965503.aspx) hit a lot of the points I would've made, so I can be lazy and link it instead.

Yahzi
2008-03-12, 12:41 AM
It was like listening to me! :smallbiggrin:

I don't think Gygax deserves quite that much of a rap - as others have pointed out, his starting point was miniatures combat. The real culprit here is Nitezsche and his wretched "That which does not kill us makes us stronger" nonsense, which Gygax just ran with (but so did most of the world).

But the objections about reducing sentient lives to merely means to an end is dead-on. It's what I keep complaining about. GURPS and other games, as he points out, does not make that equation quite so blatantly.

It's not even that I object to a game like that. You can totally have a game where power comes from eating other people's souls. I just object to the fact that D&D is like that, but pretends not to be.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-12, 02:26 AM
So you think that people tolerate trolls under bridges, but not in buildings? Were I a landowner, I'd prefer my trolls away from the principle routes of travel...

Of course, you might even prefer no trolls at all, but we know for a fact that there is trolls and bridges are sometimes located out in the wild (especially if we are in a points of light setting) even if it in in this instance has a shingled roof.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-12, 02:43 AM
In case nobody had the opportunity to read an earlier sideswipe at the 'nerd shame' that is feeling sad that Gary Gygax passed away last week, here it is: Matt Snyder's Blog (http://www.chimera.info/2008/03/06/a-guy-who-made-a-game-the-end/)

I had not seen that one.

My initial reaction after the death of Mr. Gygax was that of positive surprise over the responses that recognized the importance of his creations even if there was major disagreement about style and design philosophy etc.

I figured that people did not find the need to level attacks and obvious criticism against the legacy of a guy who had just died, especially not if the only purpose was to feed ones own bloated ego or take a swipe against a sub-culture.

But I guess positive surprises are like popcorn; they do not last long. :smallsigh:

Rutee
2008-03-12, 02:49 AM
Actually, a quick historical reference would indicate that video games play like Dungeons & Dragons. I GUESS ALL VIDEO GAMES ARE BAD.

What are you, new? :smallconfused:

They've been bad, evil, badong, and responsible for Cancer, AIDs, the Iraq War since the start.

Shalist
2008-03-12, 02:55 AM
*shrug* just some nobody trying to get people riled up to boost traffic. The only difference between him and other "violent games (not just D 'n D) => violent people" morons is that he throws in some lame "I'm one of you" remark every other line for 'credibility.' Other than that, it's just an exceedingly long-winded and redundant pile of garbage.

Please, please don't post links to that kinda crud, you're just giving them what they want when you do.

Another comic's take on his type:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2008/20080115.jpg

FoE
2008-03-12, 03:25 AM
You know, I think it's in poor taste to slag someone after their death, and I think this writer is kind of a ****. But I don't think he raised any criticisms of Dungeons and Dragons that we as readers of OoTS aren't already familiar with — that the XP system is a little goofy, in that it implies you can get stronger just by murdering people, and the 'greenskins bad, pinkskins good' mentality was flawed from the start.

But that's in the past. All games evolve, and sure enough, D&D has; we don't earn XP just for chopping up monsters and getting treasure anymore (though certainly that is an element of the game). And players are not restricted to certain rules or even a specific world; you can adapt D&D to whatever kind of campaign you wish to run. If you want moral ambiguity and undefined boundaries between good and evil, then go ahead and have them. Or not — make it one big orc killing-fest if you wish. No one's stopping you.

Really, I would wonder what was the last time this guy even played.

kjones
2008-03-12, 07:26 AM
It was like listening to me! :smallbiggrin:

I don't think Gygax deserves quite that much of a rap - as others have pointed out, his starting point was miniatures combat. The real culprit here is Nitezsche and his wretched "That which does not kill us makes us stronger" nonsense, which Gygax just ran with (but so did most of the world).

But the objections about reducing sentient lives to merely means to an end is dead-on. It's what I keep complaining about. GURPS and other games, as he points out, does not make that equation quite so blatantly.

It's not even that I object to a game like that. You can totally have a game where power comes from eating other people's souls. I just object to the fact that D&D is like that, but pretends not to be.

I think that D&D makes no pretensions as to what it is and is not. How, exactly, does D&D pretend to be non-combat focused? I mean, do you remember what the cover of the 1st edition PHB and DMG looked like?

Closet_Skeleton
2008-03-12, 07:32 AM
Old D&D did give you XP for stuff other than killing things. It gave rogues XP for picking locks, wizards XP for casting spells and XP for getting loot.

Premier
2008-03-12, 07:45 AM
... and, in fact, AD&D has treasures and monsters set up in such a way that the majority of the party's XP would usually come from acquiring treasure rather than from killing monsters. Add this up with the fact that 1E combat was still deadly and that death was still a serious impediment (roll to see if you're actually raised, if you fail, you're dead for good), and you'll see that 1E has, in fact, enouraged the players to avoid unnecessary fights.

Of course, understanding this requires a cursory examination some of the system's finer points, which apparently most detractors consider to be too much effort.

nagora
2008-03-12, 08:14 AM
and the 'greenskins bad, pinkskins good' mentality was flawed from the start.

I disagree. 1ed AD&D was about architypes and it has suffered as a game the more it has drifted from that. "Orcs are evil" is an architype. Once you move away from that you start to get into the whole "every race is just like humans, really" bland relativist style of play that seems to have been at the heart of 3ed.

The same thing goes for the whole "Oh, alignment is racism" crap - the game is predicated on the existance of good and evil as actual powers in the universe. That, you see, is what we call a "fantasy element", just like flying dragons or magical fireballs. You can, of course, take out alignment, just as you can play without magic, but it's not a sign of some spiritual superiority, it's just an arbitary and subjective decision to reject one fantasy element from the game while accepting others.

The moral ambiguity thing has been played to death for years; it's nice once in a while but it gets old very quickly.

Also, what is the logic in not only getting XP for, you know, experiencing things? I never give role-playing XP and I can't imagine ever wanting to. Your character grows as a character without any need for mechanics or mechanical solutions like XP.

Abilities are based on actions and practise; that's why 1ed gave XP for combat, success, picking locks, assassination and so on - DOING things. Role-playing XP is to me a sign of poor role-playing, ironically.

Renx
2008-03-12, 08:21 AM
Old D&D did give you XP for stuff other than killing things. It gave rogues XP for picking locks, wizards XP for casting spells and XP for getting loot.

That's AD&D. Still, thieves also got XP for gold -- 1 XP/GP if I recall correctly ;)

Also, the guy who wrote the article has almost 200 people commenting against him. Poor guy.

Oslecamo
2008-03-12, 08:33 AM
Anyone who says that D&D is the reason why roleplaying tabletop games have bad reputation doesn't know what he's talking about or had a really bad DM.

TempusCCK
2008-03-12, 08:39 AM
"How can I be a controverstial sack of crap today and still get away with it? I know, I'll criticize something that most media already gives a bad name too anyway. Then hundreds of people will flock to Slate to read my article!"

Seriously, I can only imagine that this guy stumbled through college, found his way out into the real world with a journalism degree and then went on to make pointless flaming for the sole purpose of generating views on his article. Nobody writes a serious article that way with as little research or understanding as he did. It's really in poor taste.

Ninjalitude
2008-03-12, 08:48 AM
*ahem* lets stop badmouthing him here (because it is obvious our criticisms will never reach him) and instead flame him all over his precious Slate? we should first make a long, long list of this fools crimes and then repetitively slap him in the face with said list. Who wants to begin making said list?

TempusCCK
2008-03-12, 08:51 AM
No, because I'm sure that's exactly what he wants. He wanted to write something controverstial so he could generate alot of movement on the Slate website.

In other words.

IT'S A TRAP!

Tokiko Mima
2008-03-12, 09:43 AM
If this was expressed just on someone's blog, I'd say to pay it no mind. But it was published in Slate, which gets it's blessing from MSN. Slate normally publishes some very good articles on fringe culture and views counter to the mainstream. I don't always agree with them, but they are thought provoking at least.

Anyway, the point is that they're supposed to be journalists, not bloggers, and are held to a certain standard of honesty, research and not kicking dead people because it will provoke a reaction. So our thoughts on this article do matter, because Slate gets plenty of publicity already and it doesn't need to go to the extreme of negative publicity just to get noticed. So if you do want to respond on Slate's forum, you aren't "giving the author what he wants" but rather voicing your view on a forum that's is actually there to collect information on what kind of stories you would like to see from Slate in the future. IMO, anyway. :smallsmile:

AKA_Bait
2008-03-12, 10:07 AM
My initial reaction after the death of Mr. Gygax was that of positive surprise over the responses that recognized the importance of his creations even if there was major disagreement about style and design philosophy etc.


Personally, I'm just happy that we haven't seen much of anything in the way of "He corrupted youth into becoming (literally) satan worshiping psycopaths and the world is better off without him". I'll take what I can get.


Once you move away from that you start to get into the whole "every race is just like humans, really" bland relativist style of play that seems to have been at the heart of 3ed.

This is not the thread to argue about it, but I happen to like bland semi-relativism. Archetypes bore me.


*ahem* lets stop badmouthing him here (because it is obvious our criticisms will never reach him) and instead flame him all over his precious Slate? we should first make a long, long list of this fools crimes and then repetitively slap him in the face with said list. Who wants to begin making said list?

Dude, it's good for us to vent here but responding at Slate will only help him. No one will care except for the fact that his page views and responses will go up. Can you say more advertising $$ because we are pissed and want to flame him back?


So if you do want to respond on Slate's forum, you aren't "giving the author what he wants" but rather voicing your view on a forum that's is actually there to collect information on what kind of stories you would like to see from Slate in the future. IMO, anyway. :smallsmile:

Honestly, I disagree. Within Slate itself I have no doubt that page views etc. effect things like articles published and compensation.

Edit:

In case nobody had the opportunity to read an earlier sideswipe at the 'nerd shame' that is feeling sad that Gary Gygax passed away last week, here it is: Matt Snyder's Blog (http://www.chimera.info/2008/03/06/a-guy-who-made-a-game-the-end/)

Holy shiznizzle. This guy really needs to get off of his horse. Part of me hopes that he creates something that gives millions of people joy and then when he dies everyone goes 'eh' rather than 'thank you'.

TempusCCK
2008-03-12, 11:02 AM
Dude, it's good for us to vent here but responding at Slate will only help him. No one will care except for the fact that his page views and responses will go up. Can you say more advertising $$ because we are pissed and want to flame him back?



Honestly, I disagree. Within Slate itself I have no doubt that page views etc. effect things like articles published and compensation.

Not to mention this guys personal reputation as a "Cutting Edge" Writer. He may have just sullied the Slate's reputation (in my eyes anyway) just to make a name for himself.

Honestly, I was alright with Slate before this, but now I see that they hire incompetant boobs to spew random articles with no forethough or research. Welcome to the Crud-Hole of Media Slate, I'm sure CNN welcomes your company.

Matthew
2008-03-12, 11:15 AM
:smalleek: Wow, I thought Mark Rein-Hagen was was the most pompous ass in gaming. This guy just stripped the title right off him.

Heh, heh. The RPG industry is full of such people; indie roleplaying games are especially prone from what I can tell, but it's fair to say that sometimes people just say stupid things or get caught up in their own self importance temporarily. I think that happened to Gygax from time to time in the mid eighties.



I had not seen that one.

My initial reaction after the death of Mr. Gygax was that of positive surprise over the responses that recognized the importance of his creations even if there was major disagreement about style and design philosophy etc.

I figured that people did not find the need to level attacks and obvious criticism against the legacy of a guy who had just died, especially not if the only purpose was to feed ones own bloated ego or take a swipe against a sub-culture.

But I guess positive surprises are like popcorn; they do not last long. :smallsigh:

Yeah, I was quite pleasantly surprised at the sudden outpouring of emotion and I even thought some of it was a bit over the top, but the sentiment was good. The backlash was bound to eventually come and, unfortunately, the sentiment involved seems to be more along the lines of petty minded jealousy, malice, bitterness, greed and a fair bit of vindictiveness. It's just human nature, though, we can only try to rise above it.



Personally, I'm just happy that we haven't seen much of anything in the way of "He corrupted youth into becoming (literally) satan worshiping psycopaths and the world is better off without him". I'll take what I can get.

Indeed. To be fair, the recent Slade article was someting of a response to a much more laudatory earlier one.



Holy shiznizzle. This guy really needs to get off of his horse. Part of me hopes that he creates something that gives millions of people joy and then when he dies everyone goes 'eh' rather than 'thank you'.

It was pretty poor form, I thought. Of course, he's not alone. Over on Dragonsfoot (an old school site that Gygax frequently posted on) somebody posted about a user called Necron 2.0 (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28101).

[Edit]
If you want to learn more about the author of the Slade article, you can visit his Myspace page: E. L. Sofge (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=3842855).

horseboy
2008-03-12, 11:21 AM
Really, I would wonder what was the last time this guy even played.I don't know, I still find it holds true, especially in 3.x.

But yeah, he shouldn't have dragged Gygax into it until at least two weeks after burial, that was tacky.

Behold_the_Void
2008-03-12, 11:37 AM
My father just sent that to me over email which I read recently after having woken up about 15 minutes prior, I wrote an impromptu rebuttal that I won't reiterate here.

I will say that this guy's not a very good journalist, he lacks support and the requisite understanding of what he's talking about. He's on the bad end of blogging, as it were.

At least he uses his own name though instead of hiding behind an online monichre. That counts for something.

Triaxx
2008-03-12, 12:02 PM
Since we've already acknowledged the last game he played was an early Computer version, I'd like to disect his example.

Were I to throw a party into an encounter with a family of sleeping orcs, I certainly would give them more experience for NOT killing the group than I would for taking them out. Now, whether this meant sending in the thief to steal as much as he could and sneak out, or Polymorph/Wildshaping into something with a Burrow Speed, and tunneling under them to retrieve the chest from below, is up to them.

Granted as a player, unless I know I'll get more XP fromt the non-lethal solution, I'm just as likely to walk in and turn anything in my way into a Briquet.

Matthew
2008-03-12, 12:05 PM
As somebody pointed out over on Dragonsfoot, you don't get experience points for killing sleeping Orcs, since your character wasn't actually in any danger. Apaprently, that very example appears in the 1e DMG as an illustration of when not to award experience points.

Person_Man
2008-03-12, 02:08 PM
Tool. And not the good kind either, the cruddy low quality high price type that you find in Sears. Pissing on Gygax's grave is just unforgivable.

The argument basically boils down to "This game is about killing things, and its dominant market share and game constructs crowd out better games."

Well guess what - some people enjoy rolling dice, pretending that they're killing things, and pretending that they get better at killing things the more they do it. Some people enjoy dressing up and living out elaborate roleplaying fantasies and resolving conflicts (if any) with rock paper scissors. Some people enjoy the middle ground of D&D. No one argues that Heroclix is preventing good LARPS from happening. It's absurd to argue that D&D is somehow preventing other better games from having a fair shot. If anything, D&D has become so ubiquitous that its made it far easier for other games to get a shot, because everyone has a point of reference to draw upon or rebel against when making their game. Spend five minutes studying art history, and you'll learn this basic fact - almost every artistic creation either apes off of a previous creation or exists specifically to reject or rebel against it.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-12, 03:39 PM
Troll


Tool.

Could we at least agree if he is a tool, fool, troll or some combination of those? :smalltongue:

Matthew
2008-03-12, 03:52 PM
Agreement? Well, that's asking a little much. Surely the community shall soon polarise into factions, each fantatically claiming that it's absolute label is the correct one.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-12, 04:01 PM
Agreement? Well, that's asking a little much. Surely the community shall soon polarise into factions, each fantatically claiming that it's absolute label is the correct one.

Ahhh yes, I see the predicament.

May I suggest we put it to majority vote then? Surely Roland or Rawhide would not mind putting up a poll for this noble purpose of labeling? :smallwink:

Newtkeeper
2008-03-12, 04:13 PM
Of course, you might even prefer no trolls at all, but we know for a fact that there is trolls and bridges are sometimes located out in the wild (especially if we are in a points of light setting) even if it in in this instance has a shingled roof.

But who builds bridges out in the middle of Nowhere? I know, I know, a wizard did it, but it still seems a bit odd. Where there are bridges, there are usually buildings. I think my point holds.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-12, 04:35 PM
But who builds bridges out in the middle of Nowhere? I know, I know, a wizard did it, but it still seems a bit odd. Where there are bridges, there are usually buildings. I think my point holds.

If the bridge is necessary for travel between two points of light it could very well be in the middle of nowhere and even unguarded.

In any case, if the community decides that we are not talking about a troll, but a shoddy tool used for slate roofs, this whole discussion is moot. :smallwink:

horseboy
2008-03-12, 04:44 PM
But who builds bridges out in the middle of Nowhere? I know, I know, a wizard did it, but it still seems a bit odd. Where there are bridges, there are usually buildings. I think my point holds.
Alaskan State government & US Corps of Engineers come to mind pretty quick.

FoE
2008-03-12, 04:53 PM
I disagree. 1ed AD&D was about archytypes and it has suffered as a game the more it has drifted from that. "Orcs are evil" is an archytype. Once you move away from that you start to get into the whole "every race is just like humans, really" bland relativist style of play that seems to have been at the heart of 3ed.

Every race should be like humans — some of us good, most of us neutral and some of us evil. True, orcs and ogres do tend to be more aggressive than most, and if a group of humanoids are raiding the local village, you should go out and stop them. But I don't think adventurers should be rewarded for finding a village of goblins and slaughtering them "because they're evil." If you want an example of what I'm talking about, read 'Start of Darkness,' and then try to convince me what the Sapphire Guard did to Redcloak's village was 'noble.'

In any case, there are still moral absolutes in D&D. Demons, devils, mind flayers, undead, certain elementals — these creatures are always evil (except in very rare circumstances) and must be destroyed.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-12, 05:31 PM
The original mythical goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears and kobolds were all evil spirits. If you reframe the goblinoids and kobolds as spirits, then you can side step many of the logistics and morality issues involving killing and maintaining them in the area.

Orcs on the other hand started with Tolkien and were designed as a marauding evil adversary. I think I've even seen genesis stories about how orcs are/were corrupted elves. So, IF you're going to cast aspersions on someone for promoting genocide, you should throw it in the direction of Tolkien. But those Tolkien orcs were very definitively evil and made more so by imbuing them with further evil. Up until the destruction of Sauron, there simply could not be anything but evil orcs.

I think the problem stems from, at some point, somebody made them people and not spirits/embodiments of evil. At that point, things got messy from a moral standpoint.

Matthew
2008-03-12, 05:51 PM
You should probably read this, Citizen Joe: The origin of the Orcs (http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?The__Origin__of__Orcs) There used to be a better article out there, but it's disappeared. i have it in word doc, but it's 16 pages...

In other news, Slate comments on the overwhelming response to a recent controversial article: http://www.slate.com/id/2186438/

Person_Man
2008-03-12, 07:52 PM
Could we at least agree if he is a tool, fool, troll or some combination of those? :smalltongue:

Perhaps he's all three? A foolish troll that's kept tied up and used as a garbage disposal, for example.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-12, 09:55 PM
You should probably read this, Citizen Joe: The origin of the Orcs (http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?The__Origin__of__Orcs) There used to be a better article out there, but it's disappeared. i have it in word doc, but it's 16 pages...

So, let us assume for a moment that I am not a Tolkien Nerd... :) Ya, that article seemed like it was written in Greek... It seems at the end they couldn't agree on squat.

Me, personally, I like the idea that there were some sort of proto-human/elf/orc people who in an attempt to make themselves better, stripped away all the nasty barbaric nature within themselves thus forming the elves... of course that barbaric nature had to go someplace, so it became the orcs. And thusly do elves and orcs become a manifestation of aspects of humanity. And thusly can humans interbreed with the other two species.

Should orcs be treated as some sort of genetic waste? Should elves be revered for their purified genes? I say Heck no... kill them both... then whack the dwarves while you're at it because they're hoarding all of our (human) gold. Halflings can stay, though... I need some place to rest my beer.:smallamused:

VetMichael
2008-03-12, 10:12 PM
Link: Orc Holocaust, By Erik Sofge (http://www.slate.com/id/2186203/nav/ais/)

:smallfurious:

I concede that D&D is based on the kill/loot framework and yes, there are systems that work better than D&D, and yes, GURPS is great for generating characters. Aside from that, I think the author is trying to push the whole "Playing D&D makes you a sociopath" angle without an ounce of evidence. What I especially resent is the implication that I should embarrassed for being involved with D&D.

Besides, I think the author forgot that sneaking past creatures results in defeating the encounter, which is the same as if you slashed through it. What do you think?

Thanks SO much for putting this here - I've tried to NOT think about it, remembering my boring, tasteless GURPS campaigns run by an egomaniacal "gamemaster" who LOVED to single out my character because I was "the D&D guy" - needless to say, I agree with your assessment of creating characters in GURPS, but the arbitrary play thing turned me off completely.


By the way, there were literally TONS of D&D players who took Mr. Sofge to task for his skewed opinion:


http://www.slate.com/id/2186438/