Twilight Forums

Then there's that tract about D&D. I mean, that's so unrealistic!



What level 8 would be attacking a zombie? That's pretty much instant destruction when turning at that point! Jeeze!

Yeah, that last one is so crazy I don't eve know where to begin. When you read stuff like that, and it has so little to do with the actual game, the ability to argue just kind of breaks down, because it's so far off base. I really don't understand where the author is coming from, but if the author had actually read any of the materials of those games, they'd know it's not accurate.

It leaves me wondering: did TSR start out searching for realism but give up on it? Is the author deluded? Is the author lying? Are there earlier versions of the game that were significantly different from what I've ever seen? I just don't know.

What I do know is people will read the author's post and for whatever reason they'll believe him without bothering to check facts themselves, and that's what really pisses me off.

Referring to my original quote, I can still understand why people might not feel comfortable fighting something called, say, an "angel" because their religion says an angel isn't something you should fight with, because it comes from God and is supposed to be good, so you'd have to be evil to fight it, even in a pretend scenario. I'm less certain, but also maybe able to see, why someone might feel uneasy pretending to be good and fighting a devil or the like, though that seems like an admirable enough thing to do, even in the religious perspective--fighting the devil is a good thing, right?

I am completely and utterly unable to understand the claim that D&D contains within it "actual real rituals that will summon evil spirits." That's simply and factually completely untrue, at least in any incarnation of the game that's existed in the last 25 years.

Ross wrote:Are there earlier versions of the game that were significantly different from what I've ever seen? I just don't know.

I've played D&D Red Book, and the difference between it and 2nd edition (or third) is a lack of detail. In second, you might get (say) a Long Sword +2 (+4 vs. Giants). In Red Book, you got a Sword +2. Things were a lot more limited and that's about it.

I've never played ChainMail (the game that eventually became D&D), but I wager the differences are similar: less detail.

And, really, Gary Gygax was just your typical nerd. I seriously doubt he knew a damn thing about "witchcraft". It's just paranoid delusions on Jack's part. Of course, he's also convinced that Catholicism is the work of "The Whore of Babylon", so he's not all there, ya know?

Referring to my original quote, I can still understand why people might not feel comfortable fighting something called, say, an "angel"<etc.>

Well, possibly. My mother worked retail, and there are still people who freak out if their bill comes to some varient of 666.

I'm less certain, but also maybe able to see, why someone might feel uneasy pretending to be good and fighting a devil or the like, though that seems like an admirable enough thing to do, even in the religious perspective--fighting the devil is a good thing, right?

Depending on the viewpoint, that isn't acceptable either. You are to turn your back on the devil, not fight him; that's God's job.

I am completely and utterly unable to understand the claim that D&D contains within it "actual real rituals that will summon evil spirits." That's simply and factually completely untrue, at least in any incarnation of the game that's existed in the last 25 years.

Same here. Of course, we were never inducted into the real D&D or something. I have no idea where those books came from, though. The most disturbing thing I've ever seen in D&D is the Book Of Erotic Fantasy (which is nauseating... "Perform a CON check to see how long you can fuck.")

I have heard somewhat rational complaints about D&D, though, but those tend to focus on the fact that a D&D character is, generally, living for herself or for her country, etc. and not for God. I don't agree with that view, but at least it doesn't make me want to check their medication.

Amusingly enough, I know several people who were introduced to D&D by their chruch youth leaders. Heh.

Devant wrote:And of course, the pointer about the Author of the discussed article, being a past satanist and having witnessed what "the Necronomicon can do", is the final absolute shot to his lack of comprehension of this world (wisdom 2? Maybe 3?).

Oh, man, I totally missed that part. Yeah, totally gone from this world. Saying you know what "the Necronomicon can do" is like saying you know what "De Vermis Mysteriis can do" or what "the Book of Eibon can do". Non of those books are even real, so they certainly can't do a damn thing.

Unless he's referencing the Simon Necronomicon printed in the 70's. Then, he's just a bloody moron. I have a copy, and I've read it, and it's pure claptrap and nonsense.

-Cristiona, Lovecraft fanatic who knows what the Unaussprechlichen Kulten can do.

You know, I have to disagree with you and tell you that that article does have a point. Sort of. That would be to be careful of what you're playing (don't we all know that already?). Everything else is just icing on the cake, very much argumentative, and I'd like to see the studies proving his point, and the actual D&D quotes that he's talking about.

Now, I don't play D&D myself, never have and never will, but I'm not especially inclined to believe everything that guy said. Written too many argumentative essays for that. And I'm part of the same religion he is (or appears to be from that article). I'm aware that this (the not playing D&D) makes me somewhat less reliable on the subject, but what the heck, I might as well post.

Oh, and Devant? I don't need a dictionary to tell you where you've gone wrong, with regards to spelling and grammar.