Quote from: Itachi;978721Thanks for the input folks. After reading your comments and the stuff linked by Pjamesstuart above I made my decision to get the pdf soon.

Regarding the "pretension" bit, I'm a fan of stuff usually associated with it around here and on other boards (Eg: Planescape/Everway/Nobilis/Apocalypse World/etc) then this label is actually a plus to me.

If you like Planscape etc you'll dig MotBM.

Quote from: Zak S;978646Regardless of which one you like better, they're really different.

Saying "The Licheway" is like Death Frost Doom is like somebody seeing Alien and then going OH MY GOD YOU GUYS I FOUND THIS SHOW CALLED MORK AND MINDY AND ALIEN IS A TOTAL RIP!!!!

Like nobody who reads both adventures and actually runs games for human players in real life could actually think they're similar. They both feature the same monster: the Sussurus, which the Licheway guy made up and which Raggi got from the fiend folio, but beyond that you'd have to be blind to literally every other thing about the structure mood and detail of the adventure to think they're the same.

I think back in the "Everyone get grumpy that a new post appeared on Grognardia" days, someone noticed this adventure Malisezewski positively reviewed had a sussurus just like Licheway, and then James-haters piled on like it was the Nixon tapes. You know how the internet is: when the other guy is in first place, everything looks like a Blue Shell.

PLEASE read them both--hell, I'll email anyone who wants a copy of Licheway. Nobody who claims they're the same is someone you should trust about anything. You just have to promise to block them once you find out I'm right.

I'm almost tempted to take you on your offer. But I'm not sure whether I own Death Frost Doom...
(And admittedly, I don't think I've got whoever said this on my G+/FB lists, so I can't block anyone even if I find you to be right:)).

QuoteOh, and of course Maze of the Blue Medusa is nihilistic: it's fucking D&D.

Since when does D&D come pre-packaged with a philosophy? Isn't pushing your views on the player a major failure of the new games, in your own opinion?
(Apologies in advance if I'm mixing up your opinions with someone else's).

Quote from: Zak S;978648It's strange that anyone would find these things strange.

Didn't the first floor of Castle Greyhawk have a fountain of snakes?

What's in your dungeons?

Never had a fountain of snakes, now that I think about it. I've had fountains of fire, acid, and/or living shadows, but snakes?
I should probably try that;).

Quote from: AsenRG;978974Since when does D&D come pre-packaged with a philosophy? Isn't pushing your views on the player a major failure of the new games, in your own opinion? (Apologies in advance if I'm mixing up your opinions with someone else's).

You can't push views on someone through a game. You have me confused with someone stupid. Advance apologies accepted.

Quote from: Zak S;978987You can't push views on someone through a game. You have me confused with someone stupid. Advance apologies accepted.

Then how come D&D equals nihilistic (which is a kind of view, too)?

Quote from: AsenRG;978992Then how come D&D equals nihilistic (which is a kind of view, too)?

Just because there is a view doesn't mean you're pushing it on someone.

D&D is nihilistic precisely because it doesn't push toward a meaning. There is no overarching hand which gives the narrative an outcome in line with any given philosophy. A session or campaign is 3+ people plus randomness pushing the thing this way and that way largely without regard to any moral that could be drawn when it's all over.

It is, like so many of the best things in life, a raw experience, not a lesson.

Quote from: Zak S;978999Just because there is a view doesn't mean you're pushing it on someone.

D&D is nihilistic precisely because it doesn't push toward a meaning. There is no overarching hand which gives the narrative an outcome in line with any given philosophy.

Wait.
So, in your view, unless there is an overarching hand giving the narrative an outcome in line another philosophy, the game is nihilistic? Am I getting your meaning right?

Quote from: AsenRG;979000Wait.
So, in your view, unless there is an overarching hand giving the narrative an outcome in line another philosophy, the game is nihilistic? Am I getting your meaning right?

Nihilism--first definition on Google:

"the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless."

The life of a D&D character conforms to no religious or moral principles and their life is meaningless. They exist only to entertain us and do whatever it takes to get that to happen.


in PHILOSOPHY

"extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence."

Nothing in D&D has a real existence. It is, by definition, fiction.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1183[/ATTACH]

For the record, in case anyone reads this in the future;

I don't think anything I've made is nihilistic and that includes MotBM. Zaks opinions and analysis are his own.

Quote from: Zak S;979002Nihilism--first definition on Google:

"the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless."

The life of a D&D character conforms to no religious or moral principles and their life is meaningless. They exist only to entertain us and do whatever it takes to get that to happen.

So, you could have just said "yes". A system that doesn't conform to religious or moral principles is an expression of nihilism, in your point of view.

Funny, because that's something I've argued with [STRIKE]The Outrage Squad[/STRIKE] some people you really seem to dislike. You know them - they're the ones who claim that "systems that don't conform to religious or moral principles are an expression of nihilism/right-wingism/whateverism", and conclude that "therefore, systems should include/stipulate morality".

For the record, I think both you and them are wrong (though they're wronger, because they also think that one can push views through games;)). Why?
Because the life of a D&D character, a Flashing Blades character, a CP2020 character, a Twilight: 2000 character or a Feng Shui character isn't necessarily "rejecting all religious and moral principles", even if the system doesn't even mention those. They might be doing so...but nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to go for the easiest way. If you believe the character's life had no meaning other than entertaining you - it was your choice to be entertained in this way.
Me, on the other hand? I'd rather play my characters in those same systems* as people who follow religious and/or moral principles, thank you very much. Even if that was a net negative in game terms.

(I'm not planning to debate the part about "a D&D character's life is meaningless", because the definition of nihilism that you quoted doesn't assume that it matters - you're either rejecting all principles, or you're not. My characters don't reject them, as pointed above. Therefore, it's not true that all D&D characters/games are nihilistic - it's merely the way you have, presumably, chosen to play - I'm assuming here that you can easily determine whether your own games fit the criteria for being nihilistic, and that your conclusion is based on your own experience.

The characters themselves might be just as meaningless, but that, in itself, doesn't make them nihilistic. Unless, of course, nihilism is the moral/philosophical bend that I've decided a given character should have).


*As a total aside, I've come to believe that those are the only systems where making the moral decision would matter:D.
As one of the Outrage Brigade claimed on RPG.net, "if the designer is making one option easier than others, he should have known you'd pick it - and if that options is to be immoral, you can draw your own conclusions" - I'm quoting by memory, because I can't be bothered to look for the thread, but that was the general gist of it.
My answer was something flippant, but IIRC it amounted to "doing the right thing shouldn't be the easiest thing by the system, or you doing the right thing is meaningless".
That's right. Only in systems that don't incentivize following the moral and/or religious principles can characters actually follow those same priciples. In systems that do so, you're merely playing to the system - even if the characters were basically taking the same actions.

Quote from: pjamesstuart;979012For the record, in case anyone reads this in the future;

I don't think anything I've made is nihilistic and that includes MotBM. Zaks opinions and analysis are his own.

Rest assured, whenever I'm discussing any product with Zak, Pundit, Gronan, or a host of other people, I know that I'm discussing about their view of it. The products, MotBM included, has its own existence which is not necessarily related to the impressions people have about them.
And for the record, I do own MotBM, but my GM warned me not to read it, because she's planning to use it in her game:D.
Where the characters would also be motivated by moral and/or religious principles;).

Quote from: AsenRG;979090Why?
Because the life of a D&D character, a Flashing Blades character, a CP2020 character, a Twilight: 2000 character or a Feng Shui character isn't necessarily "rejecting all religious and moral principles", even if the system doesn't even mention those. They might be doing so...but nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to go for the easiest way. If you believe the character's life had no meaning other than entertaining you - it was your choice to be entertained in this way..

Me, on the other hand? I'd rather play my characters in those same systems* as people who follow religious and/or moral principles, thank you very much. Even if that was a net negative in game terms.

You're not making any sense at all.

I didn't say ANYTHING about what the imaginary character thought they were doing in the story or what the PC's philosophy is. Thats not relevant at all.

I didn't say a stupid, obviously untrue, simplistic thing like "Characters in games don't believe things". Nobody would ever say that: Clerics and paladins by definition believe things.

Please try to pay more attention before typing.

I said a true thing, not a stupid thing:

They could be mormons, they could worship a fish god, they could follow the strictest morality imaginable, it doesn't mean that their life and fate follow that principle.

Like just because my character thinks his fate is the result of a pig goddess' whims or that Faith Will Be Rewarded, the fact is it doesn't at all and he's wrong: his fate is the result of d20 rolls and what players decide. Always. It is the result of no moral or supernatural agency at all.

Characters' fates are determined by whim, not by moral principle, regardless of what the character thinks determines their fate.

There is, therefore, no moral lesson you can draw from their lives.

Quote from: Zak S;979138 his fate is the result of d20 rolls and what players decide. Always. It is the result of no moral or supernatural agency at all.

But if the player makes decisions based on either his personal or his character's imaginary moral principles, doesn't that mean his fate is determined by moral principle, within the bounds of those pesky d20 rolls?

Well, this thread sure took an interesting turn.

I find it interesting that LotFP has so much hate these days around here.  I think the description made in this thread of it as just 'slightly modified' is highly unfair. In its time, it was an absolutely revolutionary step in the OSR.  It's still way more revolutionary in terms of its mechanics than many other OSR rule-sets. It is pretty much the definition of 2nd wave OSR.

The changes in the rules change the whole way the game plays.

Yes, there's a tone of pretentiousness (and "nihilism") in LotFP products and their adventures tend toward "negadungeons". But the rules themselves were groundbreaking.


Unfortunately, having not read Maze, I can't really comment on it as such.

Just curious Zak, would you call a novel nihilistic because the characters and world depicted in the novels are fiction?  It seems like you're getting into the area of something like "anything not real is by objective definition nihilistic" (that's my quote, I'm not claiming you said it), which I think is why some people are balking at your definition.

Great topic for conversation btw.

Quote from: under_score;979140But if the player makes decisions based on either his personal or his character's imaginary moral principles, doesn't that mean his fate is determined by moral principle, within the bounds of those pesky d20 rolls?

Hmm, it does seem like many players or characters make choices that the dice and probability cannot save them from, they essentially choose their Fate knowing what it is going to be due to religious or moral principles.  How does that factor in, Zak?

Quote from: under_score;979140But if the player makes decisions based on either his personal or his character's imaginary moral principles, doesn't that mean his fate is determined by moral principle, within the bounds of those pesky d20 rolls?

The monsters don't obey the player's principles .

You can believe in whatever you want, if you end up in an owlbear's belly, it all came to nothing and Jesus didn't save you.

If you break your principles, and yet you still level up, Jesus didn't punish you.