I like gods as monsters.

[Zulgyan]

You kent have no solution, I will simply ignore you from now on, untill I see a change in attitude.

[kent]

Nov 14, 2013 6:46:13 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

You kent have no solution, I will simply ignore you from now on, untill I see a change in attitude.

Likewise. Change your attitude. Im not interested in how sensitive you are.

[inkmeister]

This is the last I will talk of this here, but I feel it must be addressed, and in this thread in particular, since Kent's criticism of others (even if he didn't explicitly single anyone out, it is clear to me who he is talking about) continues, and it is in response to the subject matter of the thread.

Kent, the issue is not that you have differing opinions - differing opinions are welcome and make for better and more interesting conversation. It's that you seem unable to articulate your opinions outside of a framework of superiority/inferiority, where you are inevitably "better" or "smarter" than others. Did you notice that no one else here has stated an opinion about the issue at hand where they also demeaned other people for not having the same opinion? Your narcissism is apparent in this way; you cannot seem to help yourself from looking at all situations as "you are stupid, and I am smart." THAT is what so many have found offensive about you - not that you disagree, which again would be fine and even welcome. A casual perusal of threads here will reveal a great deal of disagreement on just about every possible matter, and yet the vast majority of us can express that disagreement without judging one another to be unimaginative, or foolish, or simple-minded (I remember you, before your most recent ban, calling those of us who like a rules-lite game system "simple minded.") Every situation seems to be one where you must glorify yourself and belittle others. It does not seem to occur to you that you could explain why gods should not be killable in YOUR game. Instead, you resort to calling other people - well respected, intelligent, interesting people - unimaginative.

What you say really makes me think the only person here whom you respect is yourself, and that coming here and demeaning others is how you make yourself feel righteous and worthy. This is in the true spirit of a narcissist. I feel that you cannot accept this forum in terms of simple friendly discussion about games, but instead must transform every discussion into a situation where you can glorify yourself at the expense of others.

So what I've come to expect from you Kent, in spite of the fact that you are clearly a highly creative and intelligent person, is a stream of insults that ultimately results from your inability to simply relate to other people. "Simple minded" "childish" "stupid" "uminaginative" "dull" "power-gamer" - these are the kinds of things you sully these boards with. I've nothing more to say to you unless you can learn to "play well with others."

[tombowings]

I used to be on the side of the fence which asserts that God killing is a childish act that is supported only by teenage power fantasies.

But really, this is a fantasy game. There are countless myths of a bygone age telling us of larger than life heroes who met the gods by guide or spear, and some even lived to tell the tale. That doesn't mean they won, just that they managed to keep ahold of their miscreant-born skins in the aftermath. I have a hard time understanding why these myths are off the table. some will tell us that these are merely fantasy superheroes, but isn't that really what Hercules and Gilgamesh are to modern-day eyes, if not the listeners of the time long before the d20?

Nov 14, 2013 6:49:21 GMT -6 kent said:

Nov 14, 2013 6:46:13 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

You kent have no solution, I will simply ignore you from now on, untill I see a change in attitude.

Likewise. Change your attitude. Im not interested in how sensitive you are.

Kent, he is just trying to respect your way of thinking. It would tactful to reciprocate the nuance and pleasant etiquette, this is a game, after all.

[inkmeister]

As to the possibility of killing Gods, I do feel that if players are going to try to confront a god or god-like being, there should be a real need for creative out-of-the-box thinking. It shouldn't be a simple party-vs-god slugfest. I think, once various petty insults are removed, this is much of what Kent intends to say. But I think that is true in general. I personally do not tend to see any of the beings in the game as fodder for a slug-fest. Outside of a very gamey dungeon crawl (which is a fine way to play - I enjoy it myself), I try to see the game world as a real world with its own logic. In other words, when you play the Fallout games (1 and 2 are what I've played), you can start to sense that the world was created to cater to the power level of the PC. When I play D&D, I want to avoid that kind of thing as much as possible.

There is this really interesting fellow who posts on Story Games named Eero Tuovinen, and his insights into old school D&D are awesome and enjoyable to read. He talks about how one should never create a dungeon (for example) where one is meticulously concerned about the number of monsters in a particular room, or whether a challenge is fair for PC's. It's not about being hard core or lethal, but it is about creating situations that aren't always solved in the same way. I don't expect my PC's to hack their way through every situation. I want to see creative solutions; infiltration, poisoning, using environments in a tactical and intelligent way, misleading, tricking, etc. This is for taking on orcs or other humans or various animals and so on. So of course it should apply to any struggle against god-like entities.

In this sort of world, I always get the sense that the gods have definite weaknesses and needs. This is to be exploited. It's not about kicking in the door to Cthulu's 20x20 room and peppering him with every spell/weapon in the book.

[kent]

inkmeister,

The fact that I play D&D in ways I believe cast the game in the best light is secondary. Im here to discuss my judgments about the game because there isn't anywhere else to do it. I am hardly looking for 'glory' in a disinterested and sometimes hostile environment. Look, when I am trying to convince people to try D&D I have to promise them it won't be like the popular perception of the game.

And by the way, look at the title of the thread and ask your yourself is 'unimaginative' really an unacceptable characterisation. Really?

[inkmeister]

Nowhere else to discuss the game? Probably because you've been banned from all the others.

You an ambassador for D&D to the wider public? And what is the popular perception of D&D? Near as I can tell (judging from popular media), it's seen as a hobby for nerds and various other social outcasts. What does that have to do with this thread? On the other hand, Mike Mornard and co sold the game as one where you explore an abandoned castle, fight monsters, and find treasure. Does the game really need an ambassador? Are you really the man for the job, considering you can't participate in any game discussion without belittling virtually everyone else around you?

If video-games, movies, etc are any indication, probably more people are turned on by the idea of fighting gods than not, so the idea that you have to rescue D&D in the minds of mainstream (non D&D playing) folks from threads like this is dubious at best.

Seek glory on message boards? Maybe not, but it seems you get something out of bashing other people and their ideas, since you do that instead of discussing ideas politely and respectfully.

The name of the thread unimaginative? By what standard? Is "dropping magic users" an imaginative thread title? What about the thread about magical items and their costs? Or "sci fi games without skills"? It's a thread title. A fitting one for the thread. The thread is about the possibility of killing or at least realistically fighting god beings. Considering that S&S movies like Conan the Destroyer actually involve such things, it seems a fitting thing to discuss here. Evidently you don't like the idea of gods being fought in your games. So I'll quote you: "each to his own."

[kent]

Nov 14, 2013 11:06:53 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Nowhere else to discuss the game? Probably because you've been banned from all the others.

You an ambassador for D&D to the wider public? And what is the popular perception of D&D? Near as I can tell (judging from popular media), it's seen as a hobby for nerds and various other social outcasts. What does that have to do with this thread? On the other hand, Mike Mornard and co sold the game as one where you explore an abandoned castle, fight monsters, and find treasure. Does the game really need an ambassador? Are you really the man for the job, considering you can't participate in any game discussion without belittling virtually everyone else around you?

If video-games, movies, etc are any indication, probably more people are turned on by the idea of fighting gods than not, so the idea that you have to rescue D&D in the minds of mainstream (non D&D playing) folks from threads like this is dubious at best.

Seek glory on message boards? Maybe not, but it seems you get something out of bashing other people and their ideas, since you do that instead of discussing ideas politely and respectfully.

The name of the thread unimaginative? By what standard? Is "dropping magic users" an imaginative thread title? What about the thread about magical items and their costs? Or "sci fi games without skills"? It's a thread title. A fitting one for the thread. The thread is about the possibility of killing or at least realistically fighting god beings. Considering that S&S movies like Conan the Destroyer actually involve such things, it seems a fitting thing to discuss here. Evidently you don't like the idea of gods being fought in your games. So I'll quote you: "each to his own."

I didn't say I was an 'ambassador' for the game, I said in order to get people to try D&D I have to undo the damage people like you and others have done to the game's reputation because you actively want to recreate the teenage experience as man in your 30s or 40s. Perhaps rather than playing with your wife and kids you should see what is required to pitch the game successfully to men your own age who aren't interested in corny teenage games. And if you are not prepared to try that perhaps you should stop acting like a spokesman for the game yourself, particularly as by your own admission you know precious little about it and are here to learn about it. Although all you appear to want to do is tuck into Geoffrey's slipstream and loudly parrot what he says.

I didn't say the thread title was unimaginative, I said to look at it. It is a summary of a position that is held in the thread and I think it is perfectly reasonable to say it is a summary of an unimaginative approach to incorporating gods in a campaign, whatever people like you may think.

Ive been banned from forums for mocking idiots when the forum became worthless to me. Ive never found this forum worthless but there is a mob mentality here and that mob talks about me rather than what Im saying.

[Zulgyan]

What's funny about kent is that he pretends that his game is an "adult and mature" version of D&D, while acting like a spoiled and self-centered teenager himself in his interactions with others.

It is so contradictory it's hillarious.

Oh, and it's nothing about being sensite, I couldn't care less about the insults issued by someone like kent. What I do care about, is about a forum that is an enjoyable place to spend some of my spare time. And bitterness and insults as a way of arguing goes against it. I did not interpret them as being directed to me in particular, it's the brattish tone that bothers me.

This my favourite forum exactly because everyone speaks their mind in a totally friendly and mature manner.

Back to the discussion, I also like unkillable gods if it fits the setting, just like in EOPT. But today, my personal tastes tend to go with finite, killable gods. I could go the other way, and it could be great too.

[oakesspalding]

Nov 13, 2013 14:19:27 GMT -6 kent said:

My essential criticism of the very notion of 'killing gods' is that it shows an unimaginative scaling of power in a campaign world...

...Has anyone played Diablo? By the time you reach a scenario involving vampires the whole encounter should feel different and an encounter with a god should be unrecognizable in its purpose to a party's low level encounters. This is emphatically a lack of imagination on the DMs part, and of reading, that he doesn't know how mortals interact with gods in past literature.

That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable way to make a point. After all, choosing rules and styles that harness the imagination as opposed to constricting or suppressing it, etc., and HOW to do that is one of the things we're supposed to be talking about here, isn't it? Talking about some general and abstract DM and saying "he" lacks imagination because he plays in a style the poster thinks is objectively silly is not a personal attack.

Kent was then explicitly personally attacked by two posters. He then made a quite reasonable defense as anyone would. He was then attacked even harder and even more personally.

I gather there's some history here, but so what? As far as I can tell it wasn't Kent who brought it up.

I'm not trying to start an argument or make enemies. I don't know anyone on this thread, though I respect Inkmeister's thoughtful posts, among others. I'm just saying, that's all.

For what it's worth I like gods as monsters.

[Zulgyan]

If one of the "two posters" is me, I just said he was being rude, so no personal attack whatsoever to him.

My last remark is indeed a personal attack and I take full responsability for it, if that were to matter somehow.

[kent]

Nov 14, 2013 13:09:00 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

Nov 13, 2013 14:19:27 GMT -6 kent said:

My essential criticism of the very notion of 'killing gods' is that it shows an unimaginative scaling of power in a campaign world...

...Has anyone played Diablo? By the time you reach a scenario involving vampires the whole encounter should feel different and an encounter with a god should be unrecognizable in its purpose to a party's low level encounters. This is emphatically a lack of imagination on the DMs part, and of reading, that he doesn't know how mortals interact with gods in past literature.

That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable way to make a point. After all, choosing rules and styles that harness the imagination as opposed to constricting or suppressing it, etc., and HOW to do that is one of the things we're supposed to be talking about here, isn't it? Talking about some general and abstract DM and saying "he" lacks imagination because he plays in a style the poster thinks is objectively silly is not a personal attack.

Kent was then explicitly personally attacked by two posters. He then made a quite reasonable defense as anyone would. He was then attacked even harder and even more personally.

I gather there's some history here, but so what? As far as I can tell it wasn't Kent who brought it up.

I'm not trying to start an argument or make enemies. I don't know anyone on this thread, though I respect Inkmeister's thoughtful posts, among others. I'm just saying, that's all.

For what it's worth I like gods as monsters.

Thanks man.

Im always happy to swiftly return to a normal discussion so long as I am not constantly provoked with so called 'descriptions' about how I comment.

[inkmeister]

All I can say is that it is no coincidence, Oakesspalding, that Kent gets himself banned from just about every D&D forum. I think that says a lot, and in the short time he's been back here, his insulting ways have already shown themselves again. Allow me to tuck into Geoffrey's slipstream for a minute and kiss some A**: seriously, Geoffrey's got to be one of the most respected posters on this entire forum, not only commercially producing a lot of interesting and influential products for our beloved game, but also routinely contributing interesting, insightful, and meaningful discussion. What does Kent do? Right at the outset he starts bashing Geoffrey for being "unimaginative." Look, that alone is inappropriate, even if directed at the most unknown and non-prolific poster on this forum. He goes on to call Geoffrey a power-gamer, which in the realm of RPG's, and especially on a website like this, is an obvious and deliberate smear. And so on. When people point out this stuff, he (and this has indeed happened plenty of other times in the past) tells them to "man up." "stop being so sensitive." Etc. None of this is appropriate for any community that values peaceful and respectful dialogue. I don't feel bad for calling attention to this stuff. The fact that a number of other respected people have done so, again, says a lot.

I don't think anyone is going to cry because they were told they were an unimaginative power-gamer, but it is still a degradation of the quality of these boards to have that kind of nonsense passed around. It is not fitting, and in my opinion it should be stopped one way or the other. I'd love it if Kent could talk without resorting to insults, but I don't see it happening. The last time around, everyone went out of their way to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he couldn't help himself, and he got banned. Already in just a small handful of discussions and we are back to square one. Like they say in Breaking Bad: No Half Measures. Just my opinion.

That is all.

[Falconer]

Anyway, “gods should be unkillable” has been one of the sacred cows (if I may) of this hobby for well over 30 years, so IMO the fact that we’re putting back on the table (if I may) the idea that ANY kind of interaction with gods is possible, is refreshing.

[inkmeister]

Right, Falconer. Actually one thing I like about OD&D in particular is the way in which the dungeon wandering monster tables make it fairly likely for low level types to encounter extremely Bad-A monsters, like dragons, purple worms, vampires, sorcerers, etc. I mean, on level 1 of a dungeon, IIRC, it is a 17% chance of encountering a "level 4" monster. The old game doesn't pretend to be balanced in terms of players being mathematically likely to take on whatever comes there way.

I've enjoyed conversations on these boards where people talked about having PC's encounter dragons early on and the like. Of course! It's fantasy, and what new player that sits down to play D&D wouldn't think it cool to meet a dragon?

So why not Gods too? We don't have to assume a slug-fest between god and PC's, but PC's could certainly hatch plans to foil a deity, and with a lot of luck and the right plans, possibly slay one as well. And at the same time, PC's should have the chance to bump into various gods and interact with them, even if only through vile sorcery, like Elric's dealings with Lord Arioch.

Of course, we all have to understand what we mean when we talk about "gods." I'd probably go with a more Lovecraftian take, gods being strange alien beings with great powers. Someone around here mentioned a city where all the people worship a giant brain within a great pyramid. That's along the lines of what I'm talking about.

[talysman]

Isn't the debate over "the gods ought/ought not to be killable" overlooking another point, though? That maybe some campaigns might not want the gods to be definitely known?

That's the way I run things: cleric abilities come from faith, which may or may not be backed up by an actual god. The strange beings that cults worship are very powerful, but rarely intelligent, monsters. People may occasionally have enigmatic encounters with people who claim to be gods, but are either killed or turn out to be an illusion -- and yet, they show up somewhere else, or maybe that's just a rumor...

[geoffrey]

Under the heading of "Dissimilar monsters who still act in combination such as":

"Mars mounted upon Talos' shoulders."

--Gary Gygax & Rob Kuntz, Supplement I: GREYHAWK (Feb. 1, 1975), page 63

[strangebrew]

D&D is serious business, people. C'mon.

[geoffrey]

Nov 14, 2013 16:29:18 GMT -6 talysman said:

Isn't the debate over "the gods ought/ought not to be killable" overlooking another point, though? That maybe some campaigns might not want the gods to be definitely known?

That's the way I run things: cleric abilities come from faith, which may or may not be backed up by an actual god. The strange beings that cults worship are very powerful, but rarely intelligent, monsters. People may occasionally have enigmatic encounters with people who claim to be gods, but are either killed or turn out to be an illusion -- and yet, they show up somewhere else, or maybe that's just a rumor...

Great point. Some types of D&D gods should not be killable. Other types of D&D gods should be killable. I think the gods published with stats belong in the latter group.

[Deleted]

If it has stats, it can be killed.
If it can be killed, it is not a god.

I stumbled across a number of years ago a brief mention of a 'nameless, faceless' being in Norse mythology pre-dating Odin and the giants, yet apparently not worshipped, while the likes of Thor, Odin, Loki and others are. Tolkien mentioned in The Silmarillion of the Valar, "Men called them gods." Not elves, or dwarves, but Men. I wonder if he had picked up on this bit of the Norse legends.

This seems to fit in with Geoffrey's idea that there are 'gods', what might be called false gods by some, or angelic-level beings in power, and then 'Gods', the true creators of worlds/universes.

To me, the D&D 'gods' are the former, and creator deities the latter. No stats are needed for them. It seems to me that a being capable of creating a world, let alone an entire universe, out of nothingness can make itself immune to anything a mere mortal can dish out.

[Deleted]

Nov 13, 2013 11:12:48 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Nov 13, 2013 7:51:06 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Right in the introduction to GDG&H Tim Kask that the gods were intended to be UN killable.

I just re-read the introduction, and Kask does not say anything of the sort.

I certainly see nothing in the introduction to support the assertion that he looked on it as just another monster manual.

[inkmeister]

I never got into the BECMI stuff, but considering that the game was written to include PC's up to 36th level (who can apparently become gods and whatnot), it seems reasonable to conclude that some part of D&D was intended to allow for becoming gods and possibly killing other gods. That particular way of doing it (as I understand it) doesn't appeal to me, but if we are talking about how the game was intended to be played, I would think this should be factored in.

[peterlind]

Just a couple of pennies down the wishing well . . .

The original writers of the D&D game, including D&DG, were not writing exhaustive texts for the rules, but what I would submit are suggestive texts. Ideas that you as GM would be expected to expand on as needed . . . Isn't that what was said at the end of the Original D&D books?

FYI, EGG started adding information regarding clerics of deities in his articles on the Deities and Demigods of Greyhawk. Starting in Dragon 67, he wrote the following:

Finally, brief information regarding the worshippers and clerics of each deity is given in each individual treatment. The data is general and should be expanded upon. This does include
spell powers or other special abilities of clerics of deities where no special power or ability is given.

[Stormcrow]

Nov 15, 2013 6:18:13 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

[I certainly see nothing in the introduction to support the assertion that he looked on it as just another monster manual.

My assertion was that the book amounts to another monster manual, not that Tim thought of it as such.

The introduction provides two purposes for the book. The first, and obviously the most important, is to provide guidelines to help you incorporate mythologies into a game. The second is to set benchmarks of upper power.

So how does the book help you to incorporate mythologies? Mostly by describing the abilities of gods--especially their abilities in combat. You know how to handle a god when he shows up. That sounds like a monster manual to me.

So how does the book help you incorporate mythology, other than providing (mostly combat) abilities of gods?

[scottenkainen]

As much as I normally prefer low-level play, this thread is making me want to try running a game that's ridiculously over the top, with 40th level OD&D PCs going through dungeons occupied by odins and thors instead of orcs and goblins...

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[Deleted]

Nov 15, 2013 11:39:43 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Nov 15, 2013 6:18:13 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

[I certainly see nothing in the introduction to support the assertion that he looked on it as just another monster manual.

My assertion was that the book amounts to another monster manual, not that Tim thought of it as such.

Ah! Thanks for the clarification!

I agree with that 100%. What started out as "ODIN is a big bad mother ****er and he has "ONLY" 300 hit points" did indeed turn into "If you stat it, they will kill it."

Which is why in my book I titled my chapter on this 'Gary loses control of his game.'

[scottyg]

If I ever got some players high enough, I'd probably bring gods into play, and they could be killed, permanently, or for a time. It would have to be something on the scale of the great wars of the First Age of Middle Earth. Some player or players pulling a Fingolfin and battling some Morgoth-esque dark lord, or Finrod vs Sauron.
Not a perfect example, since the heroes lost in both instances, but the powers they fought could have lost.
Tolkien's dark lords weren't gods per se in monotheistic Middle Earth, but they're a pretty good representation of how similar encounters with some of Gary's Greyhawk gods, as stated, might play out.

[bexley]

Gods as monsters is a great example of spectacle creep, which, in my mind, is vastly limiting the scope of your campaign by leaving nothing to the imagination.

[inkmeister]

Bexley, you say this about a game that has all sorts of epic monsters on random wandering monster tables; by level 3 you start having a random chance of encountering vampires and great sorcerers. It seems spectacle creep is already part of the game if you look at it in that light. Nothing says you have to play D&D as a monster treadmill, but nothing says you don't have to either. SEems to me with regard to gods, it would be no different. You can give them imaginative treatment or not.

Maybe the thread title is unfortunate; I don't take away from it the idea that gods are monsters in the same sense as kobolds or carrion crawlers. I think the point is that it could be enjoyable to have the possibility of killing gods, even if the means are different. That's how I see it anyway.

[bexley]

I don't see the implication of spectacle creep within the game's origins to be a good thing. I don't really care how people run their games but I encourage the anti-Gods-as-Monsters argument. Geoffrey or somebody mentioned the "limitless" of the game. Nothing can be more devoid of mystery, intrigue, wonderment (add adjective here) and limit a campaign severely like statting out a cosmology. You're basically measuring power in a finite way which isn't useful for many things. If you want to confront gods well...I'm trying not to say unimaginative. I can't help but see it as a wasted opportunity to provide a more interesting challenge.