This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sigh. You won’t see this on account of the block, but I think you’d find this interesting. Or perhaps it’s what inspired you.
The Original D&D setting is weirder than one might expect. Dinosaurs and cavemen, Martians, random encounters with 40d10 goblins. Characters who reached the lofty heights of 7th or 8th level were expected to draw an income from their peasants as they founded settlements in the wilderness. They could encounter non-player settlements following similar rules, down to the expected number of gryphon-riding aerial knights looking for a joust.
There’s an old stereotype of “linear fighters and quadratic wizards.” In 3.5, becoming a high-level fighter gave you more health and better attacks. Meanwhile, wizards grew to break the rules over their scrawny knees. To compensate, the early game was much more forgiving for a fighter. This does stem from old D&D, where a 1st-level wizard would spend most of his time shanking sleeping goblins, if he was lucky. What’s less often mentioned is that old-school fighters enjoyed better magic items, strongholds, and acquisition of followers. Yes, that wizard could do a pretty good impression of a siege engine. But you could bring a regiment of spearmen from your personal castle.
Besides, not every character was suited for wizardry. In modern D&D, it’s common to choose the spread of your attributes. But in the older rules, you were probably rolling 3d6 in order. Little Timmy’s frail constitution meant he probably shouldn’t become a fighter, and didn’t have a chance of representing the Church as a paladin. Class selection was (in theory) not about maximizing your combat, but about modeling how different people would fare at different jobs. It’s a simulationist approach which is largely absent from the modern game.
I would love to play a hexcrawl in this weird, foreboding world.
There's always GURPS. Third Edition Basic Set:
(This rule technically is missing from the Fourth Edition Basic Set, but it obviously works just as well in Fourth Edition.)
GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 16: Wilderness Adventures can be used for hexcrawls. GURPS Boardroom and Curia has rules for creating an organization, such as a troop of bandits seeking to set you up as a new baron. GURPS Low-Tech Companions 2 and 3 have (rough) rules for building fortifications. GURPS Low-Tech Companion 3 and articles in Pyramid vol. 3 issues 33 and 52 have (rough) rules for handling the economics of farming. GURPS Mass Combat has rules for large-scale war. Et cetera.
GURPS has spawned many impressive spin-offs like the incredibly breathtaking Malazan Book of the Fallen epic fantasy series.
Holy shit. I had no idea. I figured he just really liked Black Company.
I mean Erikson has said The Black Company was an inspiration for him as well in his writings, of course. But the world itself is way beyond that series in terms of scope. We owe all that to GURPS.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link