Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Building fantasy cultures underuses scientific knowledge - Discuss

Neanderthal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,626
Location
Granbretan
Most on em, few rare gems i've mostly already mentioned.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Most on em, few rare gems i've mostly already mentioned.

Well, you mentioned "usual tired old ARPG shit". That's quite specific and barely covers "most" RPGs and is most likely the sub-division of the genre where you wouldn't expect all of that anyway, hence the moniker of "action"...
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
6,680
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
But why are you content with games being made with only the "uninformed" players in mind ?

What games?

Uninformed about what?
You tell me. You said it. You wrote about "uninformed players". So you don't even know what you are talking about yourself ? Why i am not surprised. :roll:
You said that most games* being made are good enough for - again - "uninformed" (read = retarded and/or without education) players. So the question is - why does it matter ? Why do you care about those kind of players ? Why aren't You questioning if games for "informed" players are being made instead ? And why not.

* CRPGs remember ? Pay attention this time, it's the genre in question. I won't help you every time a word is used with a meaning that is obvious from the context.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
But why are you content with games being made with only the "uninformed" players in mind ?

What games?

Uninformed about what?
You tell me. You said it. You wrote about "uninformed players". So you don't even know what you are talking about yourself ? Why i am not surprised. :roll:
You said that most games* being made are good enough for - again - "uninformed" (read = retarded and/or without education) players. So the question is - why does it matter ? Why do you care about those kind of players ? Why aren't You questioning if games for "informed" players are being made instead ? And why not.

* CRPGs remember ? Pay attention this time, it's the genre in question. I won't help you every time a word is used with a meaning that is obvious from the context.

That was AwesomeButton who wrote about that, I'd rate you Participation Award but I've had that rating removed from my options for reasons unknown. So I'll just go with the good old fashioned :retarded:
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
6,680
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
But why are you content with games being made with only the "uninformed" players in mind ?

What games?

Uninformed about what?
You tell me. You said it. You wrote about "uninformed players". So you don't even know what you are talking about yourself ? Why i am not surprised. :roll:
You said that most games* being made are good enough for - again - "uninformed" (read = retarded and/or without education) players. So the question is - why does it matter ? Why do you care about those kind of players ? Why aren't You questioning if games for "informed" players are being made instead ? And why not.

* CRPGs remember ? Pay attention this time, it's the genre in question. I won't help you every time a word is used with a meaning that is obvious from the context.

That was AwesomeButton who wrote about that, I'd rate you Participation Award but I've had that rating removed from my options for reasons unknown. So I'll just go with the good old fashioned :retarded:
I am not interested in AwesomeButton opinion on the subject but in Yours. I asked You what You meant by using those words in Your post. Your stance in this thread was - as i understand it - consistently that all this world building using actual knowledge and education is bullshit and unnecessary and CRPGs don't need it. Or did i misunderstood You this whole time ? If i did then please try to make one non-"hurr durr i am an idiot" answer and help me with my confusion about it. Or is it too much to ask ? Pretty please.
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
6,680
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
AwesomeButton didn't say "uninformed" (read = retarded), he specifically wrote

Are you a spastic?

as I have previously said, in order to produce something that will be consistent, but still appear original to the uninformed player/reader/viewer.
What - what are you quoting. Where did i say this ? Instead of quoting something i haven't said - please could you make a real answer. You just made another "hurr, durr, me be idiot" one. Despite me specifically politely asking you not to.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
I am not interested in AwesomeButton opinion on the subject but in Yours. I asked You what You meant by using those words in Your post. Your stance in this thread was - as i understand it - consistently that all this world building using actual knowledge and education is bullshit and unnecessary and CRPGs don't need it. Or did i misunderstood You this whole time ? If i did then please try to make one non-"hurr durr i am an idiot" answer and help me with my confusion about it. Or is it too much to ask ? Pretty please.

I've already answered that question. And without you giving examples of games that don't meet your world building criteria I have nothing to address. I have never said world building is unimportant or not needed, what people have to do, and what I'm saying, is that "what's actually wrong with current world building standards?" You might think a game is 'better' because you think XYZ sub-culture within the game is supposedly 'more fleshed out', but this is utterly subjective. Further, the whole point of fantasy is to get away from cultures that represent too much realism, so overstating a lack of something that's both subjective and largely irrelevant is ludicrous. But the conversations start when you mention some games, and if your only example is some AAA well known garbage-tier RPG then that hardly represents an 'issue' within the whole genre.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
AwesomeButton didn't say "uninformed" (read = retarded), he specifically wrote

Are you a spastic?

as I have previously said, in order to produce something that will be consistent, but still appear original to the uninformed player/reader/viewer.
What - what are you quoting. Where did i say this ? Instead of quoting something i haven't said - please could you make a real answer. You just made another "hurr, durr, me be idiot" one. Despite me specifically politely asking you not to.

Yes, superb editing there, shame I caught you in the act, eh...
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
6,680
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
AwesomeButton didn't say "uninformed" (read = retarded), he specifically wrote

Are you a spastic?

as I have previously said, in order to produce something that will be consistent, but still appear original to the uninformed player/reader/viewer.
What - what are you quoting. Where did i say this ? Instead of quoting something i haven't said - please could you make a real answer. You just made another "hurr, durr, me be idiot" one. Despite me specifically politely asking you not to.

Yes, superb editing there, shame I caught you in the act, eh...
Not "superb editing" - i corrected my mistake instantly and since it didn't show as "last edited" under my post i thought it wasn't seen by anyone. Most of the time it works like that unless someone is REALLY quick to read and answer. Still, sorry about that - ok ?
Besides, that doesn't explain why you concentrated on my irrelevant nitpick instead of answering the question at that time. Which - you finally did now, so kudos to you.
 

AwesomeButton

Proud owner of BG 3: Day of Swen's Tentacle
Patron
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
16,153
Location
At large
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
For the record, I too don't know what IncendiaryDevice's argument is. Every time he looks like he is trying to make an argument, he goes off on some tangent, and the argument gets lost in the eloquent shitposting and personal insults.
 

Freddie

Savant
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
717
Location
Mansion
The average player has zero competence in the fields of archaeology, antropology, etc. so the designer (not "developer") doesn't need to spend "a lifetime" to become good enough for the kind of audience he is targeting with the game.

It's enough to have a good general knowledge, as I have previously said, in order to produce something that will be consistent, but still appear original to the uninformed player/reader/viewer.

I can easily bring out good examples from both books, films and games, but I will not do so, to prevent from nitpicking and sidetracking the conversation.

Walls of text battling strawmen which were never raised as arguments are as always welcome, and will be carelessly ignored.
I agree in principle, but I wouldn't shy away also using experts if budget allows it. I would like to return to something I wrote early in thread. I think it would be beneficial if management commits to this too and there are positions where just 'excel guy' may not be enough. If for nothing else, we may be talking quite different cultures here and I don't know, just thinking out loud here. Going in environment where there are people whom culture is influenced a lot by fantasy books, comics, other games, it might be tempting to give 45 min presentation which would be very easy going, very good experience, only that intellectual substance would be like 5 minutes.

And there is other side of the coin too. Like we had static game worlds in 80's. Not there's been computers for quite a long time, yet, even minor improvements has happened, for me it still looks like settings are mostly static. Makes one wonder why is that?
 

Iznaliu

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
3,686
Going in environment where there are people whom culture is influenced a lot by fantasy books, comics, other games, it might be tempting to give 45 min presentation which would be very easy going, very good experience, only that intellectual substance would be like 5 minutes.

Knowing publishers, they will listen to the presentations and proceed to ignore them.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,756
I just want a PC RPG set in Tekumel

thank you
Considering every tabletop version of Tékumel sold poorly, it's not surprising that no-one ever attempted a CRPG Empire of the Petal Throne. The combination of influences from Pre-Columbian Central America, ancient Egypt, and the Indian subcontinent are simply too alien to the foundations of D&D in classical mythology, medieval legends, faery tales, and the fantasy literature derived from them.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I just want a PC RPG set in Tekumel

thank you
Considering every tabletop version of Tékumel sold poorly, it's not surprising that no-one ever attempted a CRPG Empire of the Petal Throne. The combination of influences from Pre-Columbian Central America, ancient Egypt, and the Indian subcontinent are simply too alien to the foundations of D&D in classical mythology, medieval legends, faery tales, and the fantasy literature derived from them.

Morrowind sold really well though despite being alien as fuck.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
I really dont think unusual settings are off-putting with regards to sales, particularly long-term sales, just off-putting to excessive sales, the 10million sales target, but even then thats not a factual position to take, its just one thats assumed by overly paraniod number crunchers. Unusual settings have made lots of people wealthy over the years.
 

Freddie

Savant
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
717
Location
Mansion
Few things discussed in this topic earlier.

Bar fights
How does bar fight differ from other fights? What people expect from bar fights.

This is something fellow DM once told me from one of his P'nP campaign.

So his group of adventurers had completed some minor quests. They were celebrating their victories and getting drunk in some tavern. For a reason or another there is a provocation or something, fight happens.
At some point one of the players decided to take a chair and hits one of the villagers with it, villager drops to the floor. Pretty soon there is silence. Party's cleric goes to check the situation, villager is dead, side of his head fractured. There is nothing he can do, small village, no priest there who could help either. I don't recall for sure what happened next, villagers starting to panic, yells outside, some of villagers trying to gather a mob and reach for whoever was the law there, maybe but anyway party realises that they better leave, fast and so they escaped to the night.

So what happened in the fight. When guy took the chair as weapon, it became in AD&D terms short club. So successful attack was 1d4 for damage and +1 or 2 to damage from characters strenght. Villager might have survived from it (2-6 damage), but they had house rule to use (unofficial) critical tables if attack roll was natural 20 (on d20) so after the attack roll DM rolled for critical, which was pretty high, x2 or x3 for damage. So even if damage roll were been just 1+(1-2), it became x2 or x3. In this case much more. NPC's like villagers or well, general folks in AD&D had 1d6 or 1d8 hitpoints.

Guy who told me this, said that it was quite interesting turn. Party of beginning adventurers were now fugitives, wanted for murder wondering how to deal with the situation. I never get to know how their campaign ended, but it was interesting situation indeed. I hope it also tells something about freedom of pnp.


There is also something regarding magic. This was just a rumour that was circulating back in the day. Guys were starting to play AD&D Ravenloft. DM had teleported mid to high level party there. So he describes surroundings and players get interested about the castle. One player starts to get very interested, pesters DM from lot of questions about the surroundings and people are start asking if we could start getting inside or something.
No, says the player whom had asked lot of questions, whom happened to be a mage. We should rest, I need to memorise my spells.

So they do, and mage says, we should take another look at the cliff. So they do that and then he tells the DM and party, that he is going to drop the castle to the sea. So everyone is like that's silly. So he had rock to mud spells and quite some other stuff memorised. DM says, cliff is too solid, this is silly. Player crafts the note, gives it to DM, it's math about how much he can convert rock to mud. Guys math appears solid. So game sessions ends. DM says he get back to it, then nobody sees him for moths.

It was a rumour, but there were that sort of players. It's not something that happened because of computer games and I would actually be surprised if nobody didn't tried something like that.

To sum this up:
- Some scenarios in cRPG's in comparison to pnp might be difficult to achieve. For bar fights, contextual ruleset for brawling could be used in theory. However, then brawling should be available for every encounter. It's silly considering UI design. Same way people drawing weapons in tavern is quite difficult scenario too. How to solve this?
- Freedom where players entire campaign changes because of one decision or even an accident is interesting but I don't see how to make it work on cRPG without making it shallow.
- Spells, items or abilities that look pretty harmless can actually cause lot of trouble. I have mentioned Shadowrun games many times, I think their set was quite balanced, then I didn't paid that much attention.
 

SophosTheWise

Cipher
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
522
The issue is leftism stifling art. In order to be a non-hated successful artist you have to have left wing ideology, and that ideology is based on a cult philosophy of join us. Anyone can join, you just need to think as they do accept what your betters tell you to think. Of course elves and dwarves would be hated because humans hate everything and are bad. Of course 90% of the stories are about saving the earth mother from the evil humans who haven't been woke. Of course Vikings had a society filled with warrior women Shield Maidens, and the non-evil Vikings loved homosexuals and transsexuals and had perfect Christian values but don't call it Christian because Christians are evil but some of their values are current woke values.

Left wing entertainment is about the surface, the superficial, and about how to be a good cultist. It will always be devoid of complex imaginations and will always reflect modern society as it must celebrate wokeness and recruit the gullible.

Sci-fi and fantasy took a big shit in the 60s. Look at the stark difference between "The Mote in God's Eye" and the sequel to see how joining the fellow travelers can change writers from real sci-fi to fluff girls.
I am skeptical towards the view that everything has some political motive, and even more skeptical towards the conspiracy theory that "leftists are trying to influence our culture by inserting their message into videogames". This is just too reminiscent of other scares risen in other periods and just as baseless.

I think these two posts illustrate this whole cultural battle very well.

I don't think either that everything has some political motive. But everything we do, how we act and what we say is an expresssion of internalized ideology. Everything is inherently ideological. Gamergate is a very nice example of that. Anti-gamergaters realised that a lot of the content in gaming opposes their political standpoint, so they are challenging this status quo. But the status quo is not apolitical since the status quo has been achieved through political means. Not wanting to change the status quo is, of course, not inherently bad, but it's also a political stance, even if you don't recognize it immediately This itself is even more proof that the status quo is some sort of political consensus. What many perceive as being political is changing the status quo and direct politics i.E. laws etc. This makes it difficult to talk about how ideology influences our culture, because subversiveness is a lot easier to spot, especially if you're status-quo-blind. It's interesting to see how some people on the Codex complain about the inclusiveness of Bioware RPGs as politically charged but idealize a game like Age of Decadence even though both have very distinct approaches to ideology. The latter glorifying distrust and a Hobbesian But it seems to some Codexers that only Bioware RPGs seem to be influenced by ideology.

Elves and dwarves are probably hated often in games because discrimination of race is an omnipresent occurence in human history. Western studios are bound to draw from themes from their own culture and history in some ways, because stuff doesn't just appear out of thin air. Wars, race politics and other conflicts simply were there as long as humans are on earth. And RPGs are always conflict scenarios. Most of those conflict scenarios are inherently political, see for instance Dragon Age: Origins. A power struggle, electing kings, animosities in face of greater adversities. If that's not politics I don't know what is. The only reason why it wasn't more political was that the Darkspawn are the most cliché enemy ever.

The viking thing is also easily explainable. Vikings are worshipped by conservatives because the romantiscised version of vikings in literature has always been that of manly men with beards, of women as mothers and homemakers, of easy conflicts (you die or you don't), of hero cults and so on. Vikings have always been a conservative favourite power fantasy. Now when, for example, there are suddenly more female warriors in a game about vikings, this counters the conservative interpretation of viking culture. To them, a traditional family structure is more important than other features of viking culture. Maybe leftists on the other hand just like the aesthetic of viking symbolism or the fact that vikings were an oppressed people in times of christianization. It's always a struggle of what's more important to your interpretation of the world, what's more ingrained into you ideology-wise. A culture is complex and you can draw vastly different conclusions. A leftist interpretation of a viking culture is just different from a rightwing interpretation. And no fictional interpretation will ever be close enough to reality to have a debate over what interpretation is more correct, since we weigh facts very differently.

Since fantasy settings are based on historical settings, it's a lot easier to explain prevalent conservative values with "historical accuracy" even though it's not really about accuracy. This is why I want to rebuke the claim that leftist entertainment is "devoid of complex imaginations". Leftist imaginations simply take place on a different level than the imaginations of a rightwinger. I'm not even saying there's one that's better than the other, inherently. Entertainment is, in one way or another, always a reflection of us. Building RPGs first and foremost aesthetics, and secondly needs, yearnings, hopes and emotions of our current time.
 
Last edited:

YES!

Hi, I'm Roqua
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
2,088
The issue is leftism stifling art. In order to be a non-hated successful artist you have to have left wing ideology, and that ideology is based on a cult philosophy of join us. Anyone can join, you just need to think as they do accept what your betters tell you to think. Of course elves and dwarves would be hated because humans hate everything and are bad. Of course 90% of the stories are about saving the earth mother from the evil humans who haven't been woke. Of course Vikings had a society filled with warrior women Shield Maidens, and the non-evil Vikings loved homosexuals and transsexuals and had perfect Christian values but don't call it Christian because Christians are evil but some of their values are current woke values.

Left wing entertainment is about the surface, the superficial, and about how to be a good cultist. It will always be devoid of complex imaginations and will always reflect modern society as it must celebrate wokeness and recruit the gullible.

Sci-fi and fantasy took a big shit in the 60s. Look at the stark difference between "The Mote in God's Eye" and the sequel to see how joining the fellow travelers can change writers from real sci-fi to fluff girls.
I am skeptical towards the view that everything has some political motive, and even more skeptical towards the conspiracy theory that "leftists are trying to influence our culture by inserting their message into videogames". This is just too reminiscent of other scares risen in other periods and just as baseless.

I think these two posts illustrate this whole cultural battle very well.

I don't think either that everything has some political motive. But everything we do, how we act and what we say is an expresssion of internalized ideology. Everything is inherently ideological. Gamergate is a very nice example of that. Anti-gamergaters realised that a lot of the content in gaming opposes their political standpoint, so they are challenging this status quo. But the status quo is not apolitical since the status quo has been achieved through political means. Not wanting to change the status quo is, of course, not inherently bad, but it's also a political stance, even if you don't recognize it immediately This itself is even more proof that the status quo is some sort of political consensus. What many perceive as being political is changing the status quo and direct politics i.E. laws etc. This makes it difficult to talk about how ideology influences our culture, because subversiveness is a lot easier to spot, especially if you're status-quo-blind. It's interesting to see how some people on the Codex complain about the inclusiveness of Bioware RPGs as politically charged but idealize a game like Age of Decadence even though both have very distinct approaches to ideology. The latter glorifying distrust and a Hobbesian But it seems to some Codexers that only Bioware RPGs seem to be influenced by ideology.

Elves and dwarves are probably hated often in games because discrimination of race is an omnipresent occurence in human history. Western studios are bound to draw from themes from their own culture and history in some ways, because stuff doesn't just appear out of thin air. Wars, race politics and other conflicts simply were there as long as humans are on earth. And RPGs are always conflict scenarios. Most of those conflict scenarios are inherently political, see for instance Dragon Age: Origins. A power struggle, electing kings, animosities in face of greater adversities. If that's not politics I don't know what is. The only reason why it wasn't more political was that the Darkspawn are the most cliché enemy ever.

The viking thing is also easily explainable. Vikings are worshipped by conservatives because the romantiscised version of vikings in literature has always been that of manly men with beards, of women as mothers and homemakers, of easy conflicts (you die or you don't), of hero cults and so on. Vikings have always been a conservative favourite power fantasy. Now when, for example, there are suddenly more female warriors in a game about vikings, this counters the conservative interpretation of viking culture. To them, a traditional family structure is more important than other features of viking culture. Maybe leftists on the other hand just like the aesthetic of viking symbolism or the fact that vikings were an oppressed people in times of christianization. It's always a struggle of what's more important to your interpretation of the world, what's more ingrained into you ideology-wise. A culture is complex and you can draw vastly different conclusions. A leftist interpretation of a viking culture is just different from a rightwing interpretation. And no fictional interpretation will ever be close enough to reality to have a debate over what interpretation is more correct, since we weigh facts very differently.

Since fantasy settings are based on historical settings, it's a lot easier to explain prevalent conservative values with "historical accuracy" even though it's not really about accuracy. This is why I want to rebuke the claim that leftist entertainment is "devoid of complex imaginations". Leftist imaginations simply take place on a different level than the imaginations of a rightwinger. I'm not even saying there's one that's better than the other, inherently. Entertainment is, in one way or another, always a reflection of us. Building RPGs first and foremost aesthetics, and secondly needs, yearnings, hopes and emotions of our current time.

I disagree completely with everything after your first paragraph, and partially with that.

Vikings are. Period. They are worshipped by conservatives. Where did you get this nonsense? I don;t know many conservatives but most of them are not Viking loving madmen. The fact you think this makes you either retarded or so brainwashed it literally makes me sad.

Vikings of various periods had specific cultures and mindsets. Any attempt to acrostically to impose modern morals on this historical culture is political. AoD was an attempt to create a more realistic culture based on history and common sense. How would things have been if x and y happened. Not how should things be if my politics ruled this make believe world. From what I've read Tolkien set out to create a rich mythology for his British culture which was mythologically poor compared to that of other cultures. Even though his age was filled with crazy racial issues, he still managed to create vast works without Elves and Dwarves being crushed under the boot heels of the Evil White Man.

Howard was a Southerner in a very racist time and his Conan works still paint a far less racist world. Cimmerians were barbarians but white. Picts the same but considered dark. Then there where the black countries, some worshipped Set, others were still civilized and filled with tougher people than the Mitra worshipping white pussies. And he used black in the most offensive way in sentences for modern sensibilities.

Since left-wingers are indoctrinated to believe skin color is super important and a super relevant issue, and that conservatives hate people of different skin color, you can't help but to impose your enlightened truths into anything made - the same as all left-wingers. For all the real conservatives I know, skin color isn't an issue. It isn't a big deal. It is like eye or hair color. Superficial nothing that means nothing and has no magic properties. All these little kids on this sight spewing racist gibberish and left-wingers. The will grow up unemployed, or underemployed, and nothing to society, and think the thoughts of retards and left-wingers about skin color and it's perceived importance.

Conservatives, real first world conservatives, believe in merit and culture. There are good and bad people and good and bad cultures. Bad cultures treat women as second class citizens and kill gays for being gay. Them not wanting people from bad cultures who do not accept the culture of their own country to move to their country isn't racist - it is normal. No sane person wants a person with savage views on pretty much everything to move to their land in great numbers. Anyone, of any skin color, who wants to bust their ass to achieve a dream, and accepts their new culture as correct, that women are equal, and no one should die over religious beliefs or gender preference, is welcome and expected to be mannerly and thankful. Or at least not huge pricks that whine and take and do shit to earn shit.
 

SophosTheWise

Cipher
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
522
The issue is leftism stifling art. In order to be a non-hated successful artist you have to have left wing ideology, and that ideology is based on a cult philosophy of join us. Anyone can join, you just need to think as they do accept what your betters tell you to think. Of course elves and dwarves would be hated because humans hate everything and are bad. Of course 90% of the stories are about saving the earth mother from the evil humans who haven't been woke. Of course Vikings had a society filled with warrior women Shield Maidens, and the non-evil Vikings loved homosexuals and transsexuals and had perfect Christian values but don't call it Christian because Christians are evil but some of their values are current woke values.

Left wing entertainment is about the surface, the superficial, and about how to be a good cultist. It will always be devoid of complex imaginations and will always reflect modern society as it must celebrate wokeness and recruit the gullible.

Sci-fi and fantasy took a big shit in the 60s. Look at the stark difference between "The Mote in God's Eye" and the sequel to see how joining the fellow travelers can change writers from real sci-fi to fluff girls.
I am skeptical towards the view that everything has some political motive, and even more skeptical towards the conspiracy theory that "leftists are trying to influence our culture by inserting their message into videogames". This is just too reminiscent of other scares risen in other periods and just as baseless.

I think these two posts illustrate this whole cultural battle very well.

I don't think either that everything has some political motive. But everything we do, how we act and what we say is an expresssion of internalized ideology. Everything is inherently ideological. Gamergate is a very nice example of that. Anti-gamergaters realised that a lot of the content in gaming opposes their political standpoint, so they are challenging this status quo. But the status quo is not apolitical since the status quo has been achieved through political means. Not wanting to change the status quo is, of course, not inherently bad, but it's also a political stance, even if you don't recognize it immediately This itself is even more proof that the status quo is some sort of political consensus. What many perceive as being political is changing the status quo and direct politics i.E. laws etc. This makes it difficult to talk about how ideology influences our culture, because subversiveness is a lot easier to spot, especially if you're status-quo-blind. It's interesting to see how some people on the Codex complain about the inclusiveness of Bioware RPGs as politically charged but idealize a game like Age of Decadence even though both have very distinct approaches to ideology. The latter glorifying distrust and a Hobbesian But it seems to some Codexers that only Bioware RPGs seem to be influenced by ideology.

Elves and dwarves are probably hated often in games because discrimination of race is an omnipresent occurence in human history. Western studios are bound to draw from themes from their own culture and history in some ways, because stuff doesn't just appear out of thin air. Wars, race politics and other conflicts simply were there as long as humans are on earth. And RPGs are always conflict scenarios. Most of those conflict scenarios are inherently political, see for instance Dragon Age: Origins. A power struggle, electing kings, animosities in face of greater adversities. If that's not politics I don't know what is. The only reason why it wasn't more political was that the Darkspawn are the most cliché enemy ever.

The viking thing is also easily explainable. Vikings are worshipped by conservatives because the romantiscised version of vikings in literature has always been that of manly men with beards, of women as mothers and homemakers, of easy conflicts (you die or you don't), of hero cults and so on. Vikings have always been a conservative favourite power fantasy. Now when, for example, there are suddenly more female warriors in a game about vikings, this counters the conservative interpretation of viking culture. To them, a traditional family structure is more important than other features of viking culture. Maybe leftists on the other hand just like the aesthetic of viking symbolism or the fact that vikings were an oppressed people in times of christianization. It's always a struggle of what's more important to your interpretation of the world, what's more ingrained into you ideology-wise. A culture is complex and you can draw vastly different conclusions. A leftist interpretation of a viking culture is just different from a rightwing interpretation. And no fictional interpretation will ever be close enough to reality to have a debate over what interpretation is more correct, since we weigh facts very differently.

Since fantasy settings are based on historical settings, it's a lot easier to explain prevalent conservative values with "historical accuracy" even though it's not really about accuracy. This is why I want to rebuke the claim that leftist entertainment is "devoid of complex imaginations". Leftist imaginations simply take place on a different level than the imaginations of a rightwinger. I'm not even saying there's one that's better than the other, inherently. Entertainment is, in one way or another, always a reflection of us. Building RPGs first and foremost aesthetics, and secondly needs, yearnings, hopes and emotions of our current time.

I disagree completely with everything after your first paragraph, and partially with that.

Vikings are. Period. They are worshipped by conservatives. Where did you get this nonsense? I don;t know many conservatives but most of them are not Viking loving madmen. The fact you think this makes you either retarded or so brainwashed it literally makes me sad.

I'm not saying every conservative worships vikings. What I was trying to say is that a certain breed of conservative worships vikings because it's easy to see vikings as an embodiment of qualities and you deem virtuous and desireable. So certain aspects of viking culture get undoubtedly overexaggerated and romanticised. The same happened to Native Americans that are instrumentalised by certain eco-lefties.

Vikings of various periods had specific cultures and mindsets. Any attempt to acrostically to impose modern morals on this historical culture is political.
I never said otherwise. Every interpretation of a world and culture is inherently ideological. Cultures are complex and that it's nearly impossible to weigh which things are important to a cultural representation and which things are not. Again, ideology is the determining factor. There are a lot of things wrong with the fictional representation of vikings. Yet most complaints come from the morals and gender department. You could complain about various other things too. The reason why these get singled out: ideology. It bothers people with conservative values to see something go against their values, even moreso if they concern things that they believed to be strongholds of their ideology. Same goes for leftists, I just don't have a good example. And vikings are really easy.

AoD was an attempt to create a more realistic culture based on history and common sense.
Common sense sounds so easy but try to define that.

How would things have been if x and y happened. Not how should things be if my politics ruled this make believe world.
I don't see ANY difference here. Especially because imagining "how things happen" is always a product of your ideology. You can't escape it, even if you think you do.

From what I've read Tolkien set out to create a rich mythology for his British culture which was mythologically poor compared to that of other cultures. Even though his age was filled with crazy racial issues, he still managed to create vast works without Elves and Dwarves being crushed under the boot heels of the Evil White Man.
Though, in fairness, there is a lot of criticism surrounding the depiction of race in Tolkien's world. Some people don't take to kindly to the Easterners/Haradrim/and so on being inherently evil. Elves were an embodiment of the good, Dwarves are basically a direct port from nordic mythology.

Howard was a Southerner in a very racist time and his Conan works still paint a far less racist world. Cimmerians were barbarians but white. Picts the same but considered dark. Then there where the black countries, some worshipped Set, others were still civilized and filled with tougher people than the Mitra worshipping white pussies. And he used black in the most offensive way in sentences for modern sensibilities.
I honestly can't comment too much on Conan because I haven't read enough of it.

Since left-wingers are indoctrinated to believe skin color is super important and a super relevant issue

Well, maybe you're brainwashed to think it's a non-issue? Maybe you just don't see it?

and that conservatives hate people of different skin color

Come on.

you can't help but to impose your enlightened truths into anything made - the same as all left-wingers.
But conservatives do exactly the same. Exactly the same. And it's okay! It's okay to portray fiction in whatever way you like. You will ALWAYS be subjected to criticism. But it's still fiction. I don't see whya Fantasy game with women and black people in there is so freaking bad so people throw a tantrum about it.

For all the real conservatives I know, skin color isn't an issue. It isn't a big deal. It is like eye or hair color. Superficial nothing that means nothing and has no magic properties. All these little kids on this sight spewing racist gibberish and left-wingers. The will grow up unemployed, or underemployed, and nothing to society, and think the thoughts of retards and left-wingers about skin color and it's perceived importance.

Conservatives, real first world conservatives, believe in merit and culture. There are good and bad people and good and bad cultures. Bad cultures treat women as second class citizens and kill gays for being gay. Them not wanting people from bad cultures who do not accept the culture of their own country to move to their country isn't racist - it is normal. No sane person wants a person with savage views on pretty much everything to move to their land in great numbers. Anyone, of any skin color, who wants to bust their ass to achieve a dream, and accepts their new culture as correct, that women are equal, and no one should die over religious beliefs or gender preference, is welcome and expected to be mannerly and thankful. Or at least not huge pricks that whine and take and do shit to earn shit.

Wow, now you're completely off the rails. I mean what does this have to do with anything? I simply wanted to say that people of all political beliefs will have their fiction influenced by their ideologies.
 

YES!

Hi, I'm Roqua
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
2,088
I'm not saying every conservative worships vikings. What I was trying to say is that a certain breed of conservative worships vikings because it's easy to see vikings as an embodiment of qualities and you deem virtuous and desireable. So certain aspects of viking culture get undoubtedly overexaggerated and romanticised. The same happened to Native Americans that are instrumentalised by certain eco-lefties.

What breed of conservatives? Do you mean dumb, young people with no real education other than revised history and indoctrination? I think you mean a certain type of liberal. Conservatives want to conserve their own heritage and culture, and since the only countries beheading people for being heathens and treating women live slave shit are loved by liberals there is literally no country that can have a breed of conservatives that love Vikings. Vikings are raiders, pillagers, slave takers, and rapists. None of those are conservative values even a little. I think the breed of conservative you are talking about are the young dumb racists of northern and western Europe, and study after study shows these fucking morons either grow out of it to liberals by slightly changing their mindset, or become criminals and vote liberal and think only slightly different than main stream left-wingers.

Actual conservatives do not give a shit about skin color. Period. It is culture. The far right religious conservatives are the same but get most of their disagreeable nonsense from a book instead of reason. Left-wingers get it from brainwashing and forth estate one ideology controlled media propaganda and infiltrated educational institutes.

Well, maybe you're brainwashed to think it's a non-issue? Maybe you just don't see it?

As a part-black I had to unbrainwash the brainwashing society forced on me, and that is constantly bombarding everyone with. This is how liberals get votes. What I see is me and other people of darker skin hues excelling when we apply ourselves. Malcom X said real men don't ask for anything. They take it. I've taken by hard work and sacrifice. Same with the Orientals in my country. The same with the Indians and African immigrants and all peoples of all superior mindsets. We take because we can. Its ours, earned by our own blood, sweat, and tears. We have far more in common with hard working whites and Mexicans in Rural America than we do with the lazy ass whiny bitches that have taken over US cities. When I've lived in Red States no one talked about racism or cared. The only issue was people being overly nice to me to show how non-racist they were. In my home city I'm more of an Other block checker since we have tons of super dark immigrants that kind of skew the scale. And I'm telling you, go to Massachusetts or RI. You will meet a ton of black immigrants from all over the world doing exactly what the Orientals and Indians have been doing. Taking the wealth from lazy ass whiny whites and the true victims of their racist propaganda campaign. The left-wings racism is our gain, be we all want to live in the dream MLK where skin is recognized for being as irrelevant as it is. Left-wingers now hate MLKs dream. I wonder why that is?
 

YES!

Hi, I'm Roqua
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
2,088
I don't see ANY difference here. Especially because imagining "how things happen" is always a product of your ideology. You can't escape it, even if you think you do.

Nonsense. That is what any fair, non-indoctrinated mind does. That is the difference between science and nonsense. Things were. If there are lots of literature from that time period any fair minded person can try and figure out their general beliefs and mindsets without imposing their own on it.

Though, in fairness, there is a lot of criticism surrounding the depiction of race in Tolkien's world. Some people don't take to kindly to the Easterners/Haradrim/and so on being inherently evil. Elves were an embodiment of the good, Dwarves are basically a direct port from nordic mythology.

And how does this apply to dwarves and elves? The main bad guy was an elf. I don't see anyone criticizing that.
But conservatives do exactly the same. Exactly the same. And it's okay! It's okay to portray fiction in whatever way you like. You will ALWAYS be subjected to criticism. But it's still fiction. I don't see whya Fantasy game with women and black people in there is so freaking bad so people throw a tantrum about it.

I think, do to the nature of the indoctrination, non-left-wingers have an easier time creating anything that isn't imbued with their moral and ethical beliefs. My moral and ethical beliefs are fluid. The more I learn, the more I experience, the more they change. Left-wingers are like religious conservatives. Different God, but it holds the same center of importance and all the righteous indignity.

Wow, now you're completely off the rails. I mean what does this have to do with anything? I simply wanted to say that people of all political beliefs will have their fiction influenced by their ideologies.

How so? You started off saying conservatives love and hold on a pedestal Vikings because they love to hate women and rape and pillage and behead and other horrible things.

And I say a non-left winger, non-religious-conservative have a very easy time understanding that things are or could be and don't have to be their personal view of good or moral. I can think the Predator is awesome without thinking that travelling the galaxy hunting sentient life is moral. If I were to create the culture and norms and mors of the Predator home world I would want to explicitly not have my personal morals and ethics influence it. I would want it to be sensible and interesting and believable and completely alien. Completely devoid of what my current ethical and moral leanings lead me to think something is right or wrong.

This is exactly what separates independent thinkers from cultists. Are there smart cultists? Sure. But just as some great thinkers throughout history have been blunted and shackled by the oppressive beliefs of their time that they also subscribed to, they all wear the yoke of THE RIGHTOUES TRUTH!!!!!

The only truth is that everyone is wrong and everyone is fucking stupid. The only difference is a few people like me come up with our own stupid, and everyone else gets their stupid relegated through their brain dead, retarded cult of sycophancy. At least my stupid is mine and fluid and I know it well.
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
7,938
The problem with needing actual real life experience to make something accurate is experiences are very limited. I doubt anyone alive has been in a large battle with hand weapons. And if anyone has been involved on either side of a cavalry charge they are most likely living in a society with limited computer access and little knowledge of rpgs.

Also, people experience things differently. I have been in combat, but my experience is nothing like that of storming a beach in WW2. Or being at constant, brutal war for years like in WW1 and 2 for various European countries. My experiences are nothing like Alls Quiet on the Western Front. Modern day combat is usually short lived and for most of the time you are in relative safety without the oppressiveness people living in trenches for years, under constant threat of death almost all the time.

People also react differently in combat. I got tunnel vision which kind of blanket out everyone but me and my target and time was weird. It slowed down but not in a good way. This hurt me as I was supposed to be directing my team or squad, not in my own world oblivious to what was going on around me and outside my tunnel. But that doesn't happen to everyone, but is kind of common. My friend was freaked out the whole time and completely aware of everything and more observant than usually, but too freaked out for it to be a good thing. A lot of people are fine until rounds start flying, I was anxious and couldn't wait for and was relieved when they did. Not because I wanted to shoot at people or be shot at, but because it is better than waiting. I hate waiting.

Remember that Gurkha that killed like 30 attackers on his own within the last decade? His account makes it seem like he was present and aware and completely functional the whole time. I wish I could say I was like that. I'm not a coward but if someone was coming up behind me or on my flank in a fire fight I honestly would never notice it if I was alone and shooting at someone in front of me.

Also keep in mind that even the major battles of this century have been nothing like WW1 and WW2 where more people have died in a minute of some battles than in all the battles of this century. And their battles where nothing like when people used muskets and lined up. Which was nothing like when people used hand weapons. Anyone who has been in a lot of fist fights can probably agree that when you get completely winded you kind of stop caring so much about being punched. Was it the same when instead of a punch you'd get a spear or a sword?

Also, the more accurate rpgs are usually very annoying. I forget the name of the game but there was this one game that aimed to be pretty realistic. Your shield and weapon would break a lot. I ended up usually throwing spears and trying to keep my distance. Trying to fight up close against two people was usually a lose unless you got lucky. You versus three was impossible for the most part. Most of the combat rules and rpg rules led to cheesing battles, and it didn't encompass moral. I think most sane people would run from three armed people trying to kill them. I don't think most people want to play a game where they lose control of their character and run like a baby all the time.


If you think about it any realistic rpg system would be based around not dying instead of winning. I just don't think actual realism is what people want. People complain a lot about all the rariety of hitting in the old DSA system used for the RoA trilogy, and the critical fumbles, and weapons breaking, etc. I'd much rather have a very good and complex and interesting rpg system over a realistic one.

I think for settings sensible is a better aim than realistic. But, how much would people complain if there was no options for the modern day morals? People hated that there wasn't more options to save the orphan kids in the main Viking city. People want to be the hero as they believe heroes would act. If you had a setting where acting as most people day believe a hero would act gets them killed all the time, forcing them to make decisions they morally disagree with and anachronistically inserting into that setting, I think it would get far more complaints than praise.

Its also more noticeable in games that strive for it. When I wasn't allowed to do something I think my character would do in AoD it was way more annoying and noticeable than in Underrail. But AoD strived for options in dialogue where Underrail didn't so my expectations where different.


I, personally, like when a game allows you to do what you think is the right thing but attaches a cost to it. In TToN I kept that little girl in my party even though she sucked because my character wasn't a huge dick throwing little girls to the wild. It certainly hurt my combat performance. In Tuerigard and the Alliance with Rome it had things like setting the your slave free hurting you and the slave. There is also a mod for an overhaul mod of Skyrim that makes it so if you worship one of the good gods you have a limited number of times you can steal or assault people before they rejected you.

In my opinion you should be rewarded for doing what is the norm for the setting while being allowed to act otherwise, but acting anachronistically has a negative price. This also means no good points and bad points as that usually means equal reward and just picking a path and following the side that gives the most reward. Same with a karma system. It has the opposite impact of enhancing roleplaying, and curtails it or hamstrings it.

Man Roqua, I wish you'd make more posts like this and less of your usual pent up hysterics.

I feel like I'm reading an entirely different persons post reading your calm, honest insight. :(

Conservatives want to conserve their own heritage and culture, and since the only countries beheading people for being heathens and treating women live slave shit are loved by liberals there is literally no country that can have a breed of conservatives that love Vikings. Vikings are raiders, pillagers, slave takers, and rapists. None of those are conservative values even a little.

After replying to the above quote I saw this above once posted, forgive me if it's coming out of left field and missing the point.

To equate the Norse with only those qualities is the equivalent of Leftists who only see the history of the West as one of colonial pillagers and slave holders when there's far more of it than that, as there is with the Norse.

Hell, even Islam is the same, the problem is it's so much more intermeshed with aspects like what your describe because of the issues revolving around their religious archetype being Muhammad and their desire to emulate him.

I also take issue with your characterization of conservatives that way with regard to their heritage and the warts on it. My own revolves a lot around my close connection to the Scottish ancestry I have and the odd bit of pride I have over the ancestral clans delinquency that revolved around "murder, blackmail, thief and tyranny", all the things that eventually got them expelled from Scotland long before the English and Union.

One particular incident always brings a beaming smile to my face, one where they raided a neighbouring clans domain and took the hundreds of cattle they had. Trying to make off with so many cattle they quickly realized they weren't going to be able to outrun the aggrieved clan and their allies, which had time to gather their forces and go after them. Rather than abandon the cattle and make it back home without a skirmish or stand and fight for them and pay in blood, they instead chose to slaughter all the cattle before fleeing to make sure that if they didn't benefit neither would their enemies. The end result left their enemies destitute because they'd invested most of what they'd had in the cattle.

Now would I approve of others doing that today, much less do that myself? Hell no, but like I said, something about it makes me smile in pride because I can see that obstinate impishness and knack for provocation and teasing I and my family have and this doesn't include the island castle we'd retreat to when we caused too much trouble nor the legendary ominous reaction the full moon brought many Scots, since it was the "lantern" that signaled a coming nightly raid of ours somewhere.

What breed of conservatives? Do you mean dumb, young people with no real education other than revised history and indoctrination? I think you mean a certain type of liberal.

That is sadly what many are in the "Alt-Right", they oppose Leftists out of contrarian impulse to sneer and mock what they view as the mainstream careful to try to never be that, because having values and principles are only for those they deride in their nihilistic safety bubble.

They don't care, or think they don't unwilling to admit it, about anything, just wanting to take the piss out of anyone who does that takes center stage in society.

This is exactly what separates independent thinkers from cultists. Are there smart cultists? Sure. But just as some great thinkers throughout history have been blunted and shackled by the oppressive beliefs of their time that they also subscribed to, they all wear the yoke of THE RIGHTOUES TRUTH!!!!!

You assume they'd be anything without them, like a spirit freed from a shakling body. I don't think you realize that is that medium with which we can be anything, and without it we are as freedom and adrift as a man floating through space without gravity or any surface with which to ground himself upon.

It is the dark mirror we eternally struggle to see through, but the alternative is blindness.

To put it another way in the context of this threads discussion, nothing is ever truly original, everything comes from something else, but that doesn't mean original doesn't exist, it needs something preexisting to rest in.

That is ultimately the mythological root of fantasy as a genre, and I'd say for RPGs too due to the heavy inheritance they have from fantasy.

Though, in fairness, there is a lot of criticism surrounding the depiction of race in Tolkien's world. Some people don't take to kindly to the Easterners/Haradrim/and so on being inherently evil. Elves were an embodiment of the good, Dwarves are basically a direct port from nordic mythology.

Any of that comes from PCness viewing having Africans and Middle Easterners as bad guys as being inherently bad when they never should be at all.

What I mean is that Tolkien's world is very clearly modeled on history with a distilling of various threats to Western civilization and Christianity into an overarching Enemy in the Satanic sense because his entire work deals with Western exceptionalism and the forces that have antagonized it roughly.

To put it in historical terms, the Haradrim and Easterners are a part of the Enemy's legions because many of their real life counterparts were with the summoning and emassing and various different groups of people into one large army. This reflects the practice of the Ottomans to call for men from all over their empire when they planned to go on the warpath. If they planned to go East they'd camp across from Constantinople and wait for the numbers to collect, if they were going into the Balkans they'd camp just outside Constantinople before setting off. The composition of the army was for the most part a random collection of militia that could number as much as a couple hundred thousand centered around of a core of Jannissaries numbering only a few thousand to tens of thousands that actually did most of the real fighting, the rest were there because they were summoned and wanted to pillage while they served their masters. Such people came from all over the Ottoman Empire, and yes they included Africans, Middle Easterners and Orientals.

All of that is presented as how Sauron's empire and army operate right down to the cannon fodder Orcs and the core of Uruk-Hai professionals.

The issue with what you posted though is that the Haradrim and Easterners aren't "inherently evil", they are human beings under the dominion of a evil political and spiritual entity to which they have spent centuries serving. They don't know any better and are the object of pause and pity by Sam in the book when they stop to see a group of Haradrim passing by them.

Almost no one is "inherently evil" in Tolkien's work, not even Sauron who once served the Valar Aule before he became tempted into joining the Enemy. Only two could be countered as "inherently evil". One is Melkor, the Valar which effectively emulates Satan in his desire to be God and directly lord over Creation in that the God of Tolkien's cosmology made him the way he was with his love and desire for power even if it was his choice to do what he is doing and use his innate affinity for power in that manner that will eventually wind up depriving him of all of it.

The other are the Orcs and Trolls, in that their origins are from captive Elves and Ents that were twisted by Melkor to suit his ends. Effectively, they have no free will in that we are never presented through the entire length of Tolkien's work with examples of them being anything but the evil-filled servants of the Enemy while the examples of Men through Tolkien's history show they were simply human beings, being humans before Melkor and Sauron established their rule over them and twisted their societies. This is reflected in the diplomatic and vassal relationship many Haradrim had with Gondor at its height and the fact that the Roharrim are themselves "Easterners", a horse people who migrated out of the East but chose friendship and cooperation with the Dunedin instead of antagonism and so were ceded land to establish a kingdom in exchange for an alliance and a duty to guard the the plains of Gondor's northern flank.
 
Last edited:

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
7,938
thats the route I took with one of the of the longlived races in my world. That they have become really afraid of dying and spend an amount of time avoiding risks and conflict. Another one is that they have a hard time finding joy in things since they experienced almost everything. Of course, for these things you need to look into their beliefs, what happens when you die?

I'd take that more as a first step.

Such a state of being is completely alien to human nature and how our mind is built.

What would the nature of a beings that lived that long be like? IMO, a good start would them being not so much risk adverse but slower to act and perceive the world, seeing the passage of time pass quicker and so appearing to live slower (A 1000 year life time feeling what a normal 80ish year human life time is to us) to humans and humans to them would be like flies quickly buzzing rapidly and confusingly.

I mention that last bit that's howflies perceive the world, it is so quick that everything appears more like it's in slow motion. It's what makes them and most other wing insects so damn hard to catch.

That still leaves Arcanum. So where are your examples to make your case?

Arcanum was exceptional and doesn't represent the realities of modern game development.

The film industry is much older than the gaming one.

A game like Arcanum would be like a classic movie from the 70s and maybe older, especially give how much quicker games have developed compared to film.

This is simply false. The experience of playing through a setting like the Witcher franchise is significantly different. You cannot tell the Witcher story in a classic Dungeons and Dragons setting, because the social structures of those settings render the importance of lone monster hunters incoherent. When dragons, elves, orcs, undead, golems, etc. are a matter of course, the existence of monsters is trivial and insignificant. The main actors in Dungeons and Dragons settings - powerful wizards and clerics, secret organizations, gods, demons, dragons, and other races - are not designed to be confronted by an individual protagonist, but by equally powerful adventuring parties and organizations. Hence the narrative structure of CRPGs derived from Dungeons and Dragons is completely different from that of the Witcher, which is highly personal, more reminiscent of noir than high fantasy.

So no, I don't agree that all fantasy CRPG settings are just Dungeons and Dragons with a slightly different lore structure - only most of them, making it all the more obvious when a game comes along that isn't the same.

World building wise you can't either. The Conjunction of the Sphere's that is blamed for the emergence of monsters could not exist in a D&D setting where all worlds and planes are somehow connected where the strange and threatening can never be truly other-worldly.

It's a big reason why I don't like the world building of D&D, which I find oddly has coloured my dislike of it since I was a kid and before I even knew of world building.

Everything is so mashed together and interconnected, nothing is truly remote and distant because the cosmology is so broad and encompassing, it feels almost incestuous.

That also doesn't even touch on the ever changing nature where everything is mutable, even things like deities that come and go that makes it feel like comic books and completely sucks any sort of tension and stake out of any setting. It's why I found the ides of the Nameless One being a threat to all reality by slowly destroying it one lifetime at a time, intriguing in that it introduced a chance of finality into the world(s).
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom