Quote from: The Butcher;846117Most roleplaying game settings, D&D or otherwise, to the best of my knowledge, are officially silent on character sexuality and sexual mores [...]This means that any given D&D game's attitude towards sexuality is exactly as good as whatever the GM makes out of it.

If a D&D setting has a husband and wife (or other male/female romantic partners) then it's not silent on character sexuality. Not that I advocate any universal approach here, or even any particular approach including whatever DSA has.

Quote from: Arminius;846153If a D&D setting has a husband and wife (or other male/female romantic partners) then it's not silent on character sexuality. Not that I advocate any universal approach here, or even any particular approach including whatever DSA has.

Cool hairsplitting brah. :rolleyes: Went back and got a "mostly" in there.

Pretty sure my point stands.

Huh, I think that when making a decent point, it's important not to overstate it.

It's a fact that homosexuality not only existed in the middle ages but was important and well-attested. E.g., modern mainstream historians take seriously the likelihood that Edward II had a sexual interest in his courtier Piers Gaveston.

On the other hand, whether or not Edward & Piers really "did it", the contemporary response to their relationship didn't exactly demonstrate tolerance for homosexuality in 13th century England. (That is, the nobility was either alienated by the homosexual aspect, or Piers' enemies made it up to smear him.)

There's other evidence for homosexual practices in the middle ages at various times and places with varying degrees of tolerance and persecution.

So...how does DSA handle it? I have no idea. But it certainly could be a plus worth mentioning if it reflects an overall mature and nuanced portrayal of society that helps suspension of disbelief as igor says.

Quote from: Arminius;846153If a D&D setting has a husband and wife (or other male/female romantic partners) then it's not silent on character sexuality.

It acknowledges the standard, as its always been and always will be. It does not preclude anything.

Quote from: The Butcher;846117I feel obliged to respond to this one because I feel it's thoroughly asinine.

Most roleplaying game settings, D&D or otherwise, to the best of my knowledge, are officially mostly silent on character sexuality and sexual mores (though I realize Ed Greenwood has spoken on sexuality in the Realms in the past, I don't think this has ever been on record in an official gaming supplement). This means that any given D&D game's attitude towards sexuality is exactly as good as whatever the GM makes out of it.

Also, "homo" is kind of a derogatory term, isn't it?

I am one.

Also, I remember the TSR code of ethics which explicitly banned the mentioning in all circumstances of anything remotely lgbt+ and the mini internet riot over the fact that 5th edition D&D in 2014 had turned as inclusive as DSA was in 1988.

So no, your point does not stand.

Quote from: igor;846181Also, I remember the TSR code of ethics which explicitly banned the mentioning in all circumstances of anything remotely lgbt+

In fairness, if you're referring to this, the only thing I can find that touches on that in any way is

QuoteSexual themes of all types should be avoided.  Rape and graphic lust should never be portrayed or discussed. Explicit sexual activity should not be portrayed. The concept of love or affection for another is not considered part of this definition.

Maybe there was some other code of ethics which was more explicit?

Quote from: Arminius;846190In fairness, if you're referring to this, the only thing I can find that touches on that in any way isMaybe there was some other code of ethics which was more explicit?

No that's the one. Sexual themes must be avoided means that you cannot mention in passing that Bob the stable hand in the inn where the adventure starts is gay. It does not mean that you cannot say that Sally the barmaid is flirtatious and you can give her a huge rack and a deep cleavage in the artwork.
That is how it was interpreted.

But yes it does not explicitly say that. You are right, my mistake.

First of all, sorry Butch, sorry Tristam, sorry everyone for getting this thread bogged down in this side issue.

Quote from: TristramEvans;846169It acknowledges the standard, as its always been and always will be. It does not preclude anything.

Acknowledging the standard, but not acknowledging that exceptions exist, leads to invisibility, invisibility leads to 2nd class citizenship status and repression. (Just pretend I said it in a Yoda voice.)


Getting back to DSA.
Nowadays DSA just like most other rpg's is marketed to adults not 12 year olds. So the days of shouting magic spells at the table are mostly over. It is no longer encouraged in the official material and has not been since about 1987.

well in alll honesty im looking forward to this release and i hope it dose well enough to get some supplements released id probably never run the standard setting my self but the fact the game has kept around some very oldish ideas in its design makes me more then a little interested in running a game

Quote from: Brad;846044So, see if my conclusions make any sense...Aventuria is a great setting with ridiculous amounts of resources available, TDE system itself is clunky and not that inspiring, the production values for TDE are top-notch, modern German culture doesn't really like failure in an rpg.

Taking this into account, I'll probably get the English version because, much like The One Ring, I think there's a place for rpg coffee-table books.

"It's a coffee table book about coffee tables."

The wiki Aventurica is the big DSA wiki. It is in German, most of it is uninteresting to people who aren't fans.
But the following 3 pages are worth mentioning.

http://www.wiki-aventurica.de/wiki/Maske_des_Meisters
About the mask that came with the first DSA expansion box. (with picture)

http://www.wiki-aventurica.de/wiki/Abenteuer%C3%BCbersicht
Just to show the sheer quantity of adventures published (all the covers are pictured)

http://www.wiki-aventurica.de/wiki/Namenlose_Nacht
I'm reminded of White Wolf's Black Dog imprint.

Quote from: igor;846442http://www.wiki-aventurica.de/wiki/Maske_des_Meisters
About the mask that came with the first DSA expansion box. (with picture).

Haha so silly :rotfl:

But, well, points for being different.

Quote from: igor;846442http://www.wiki-aventurica.de/wiki/Abenteuer%C3%BCbersicht
Just to show the sheer quantity of adventures published (all the covers are pictured).

...wow. That's a lot. :eek:

Some of these covers are pretty awesome in a guilty pleasure kinda way

There is absolutely no guilt whatsoever associated  in appraising the covers of Ugurcan Yüce; his work is pretty amazing and is just filled with concentrated essence of adventure. Yüce was the unmatched master of creating covers for RPG products.
 Unfortunately, the covers are often a promise the contents of the adventure modules cannot deliver. But, hey, they are pretty amazing.

Do you see the shady guy in the back? Do you know what his agenda?

Can you think of a greater set piece than fighting a hungry allosaur in a mesoamericanic temple ruin (which may be infested with lizardmen)?

I love the pure 80s barbarian S&S/cheesecake/metal look of those covers :cool:

Quote from: The Ent;846443...wow. That's a lot. :eek:

Well, it's 30+ years of product! DSA really is the D&D of Germany.



Bigger version here.

Fantastic analysis of the cover designs, artists and logos here (but all in German).