In the world's most popular roleplaying game, whether you play a wizard, a paldin, or a druid ... you play as someone who rolls bodies and takes their stuff.
There's this article going around on how anything we say is inherently political, and it is absolutely right. I've said similar things in the past, but delivery is everything!
In Dragon World -- my love letter to D&D, using a lot of material from Dungeon World, The Watch and DNA from Night Witches -- by default you play as murder hoboes, sure.
But, three things about that.
First, combat is both fast and terrible; as you do more terrible deeds, you are rewarded more for being a terrible person until you are no longer a player character. Healing is hard. Combat missions are resolved with a single dice role per person, and you always become more jaded. (This is totally stolen.)
Second, and more ... originally? ... a couple classes have different ways to avoid combat. The Wizard can cast a ritual that everyone participates in, and the Thief can lead a heist. Both of these options don't make you become a worse person, though you can choose that as a complication.
Thirdly, the hobo part. If you put down roots, you can start relying on the morale support of NPCs to help with those combats. I'm working on a small scale keep management bit as well, bringing in followers.
Each of these represents how I view the world in major ways: punching people is bad for you, healing is hard. There are alternatives to fighting. Being a part (or leading!) a community is good for you.
Pinging in a few people who have seemed interested in the past: Brandes Stoddard, Andrew Medeiros, Tony Lower-Basch, Adam Dray, Gustavo Iglesias, David Rothfeder, Misha B, Lena Marvin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for the tag! Life's been hectic for the last few days and I have yet to read the text you've kindly shared in the previous post. I will though!
ReplyDeleteThough I admit my lack of familiarity with all of the quoted games other than D&D — a bit trad in my tastes, I'm afraid :o — I'm looking forward to reading it!
Add me to interested list.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Bryant Absolutely! At some point, I should make a community and invite everyone.
ReplyDeleteSo if i say quack its also political? Nope, it aint. I want politics out of my games, it doesnt belong there. Its a recreational, creative activity i love, and i dont want to be bothered by the political zeal of some.
ReplyDeleteDid you read the article, Roland P ?
ReplyDeleteRoland P these are not the politics you are not looking for. ;)
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteI adore it when comments to the contrary unconsciously prove an underlying point; privilege is unconscious.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's why my game has six options for gender. The barbarian might not get "cis male" and "cis female" as options, because they are not from the society. I'm not sure about that, it seems very sketch to me.
That was an interesting article. The notion that the boilerplate theory isn't up for argument comes into conflict with Slavoj Žižek's presence in the slides/pictures. I laughed out loud at the "sorta like arguing with Darwin. It's not up for argument." It is not something that author or I'm keen to argue, but it is something that is debated, and it is actually deeply ideological & political in nature.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am up for arguing some of the 'boiler plate' theory alluded to in the piece, I don't think I disagree with the author deeply on anything with the exception of the point that one can't argue the boiler plate theory that was present.
Again, I'm not keen to argue the theory of evolution but being from Kansas, raised in school during an era when evolution was taken out of curriculum, I'm pretty damn sure people argue it, and that those arguments and the fallout from them impact lives. I think pretending people can't argue the very underpinning of the theory the presentation was hinged on weakened the rhetoric of the piece for me.
TL;DR I like arguing theoretical underpinning of things and you can't stop me, even if I'm agreeing with what you're saying
Interesting, Lena Marvin .
ReplyDeleteAnd, sure, one can argue with Darwin. Hell, what was it, 2 months ago when a rapper said the world was flat?
I think the rhetorical point here is that it isn't within the bounds of the argument, that deciding on that is a precursor to this particular argument. It is taken as a given for this argument.
Example case: Say I'm in a math class on, I don't know, trig. And I wonder in and say that root 2 is a rational number, because all numbers that occur in natural must be rational. I'd be told its not up for debate, and to shaddup. The debate on root 2 is (mostly) settled, and that debate doesn't happen in a trig class anyway. It is the wrong domain.
Domain specificity of what can and ought be argued is pretty important.
William Nichols If Ingham had said 'I won't argue this' I wouldn't have mentioned it, but proclaiming that it 'can't' be argued is poor rhetoric, in programming terms, the variable is made global. I do agree that domain specific arguments are totally a thing, but Ignham didn't present it that way, and my bet is didn't mean it that way.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDelete