http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=rpga/membership/ writingsoc
Though it's pretty stupid in its entirety here are the worst parts.
"To achieve these ends WotC, first and foremost, relies on the talents and judgment of in-house writers, editors, copywriters, artists, graphic designers, marketing personnel, and managers to oversee and control the contents of WotC products."
So first of all this applies to anything with the Wizards license, which includes games that decide to use the AD&D rules.
"1. Good versus Evil
Insofar as WotC products, marketing, promotions, and services portray the conflict between "good" and "evil", such portrayals should encourage the ultimate triumph of good over evil. Though dramatic purposes may require that evil prevail over good for a time, the ultimate victory of good over evil is a desirable goal. Game products should assume that player characters or heroes are good and should never support evil as a preferred lifestyle."
Evil characters are the most fun to play and they've pretty much given away the end to any future game they release. Though most games tend to only have a good ending some actually include evil endings which they won't be able to do if they want to use any Wizards related content(mainly the 3rd edition ADnD rules).
This probably ties back to the fact that any M rated material can't be sold in Walmart, Target, or K-Mart.
So I'm not going to bother with anymore games/products with the Wizard's license.
ID:189098
 Oct 18 2003, 12:18 am
|
|
These sorts of rules are very annoying. They pretty much limit you to the range of characters/plots they had in the original Batman TV show.
| |
I dont know about your Wal*Mart but last time I checked at my local Wal*Mart they sell alot of Mature games.
| |
WotC-released campaigns are not the way to go. D&D is all about sculpting the world to fit your imagination. The greatest games come from the depths of a DMs imagination with the help of the player's imagination, not WotC's released campaign sets. I, for one, play almost exclusively campaigns created by the DM I'm playing with, I find it to be much better when you are not bound by the laws of a specific campaign but can do whatever you want making it more realistic.
| |
Yeah, evil is more fun to play. Especially in games like NWN (Which is a WotC product), you can do stuff like rob little children, and threaten to kill someone if they don't give you more after your reward... It's fun! Also, you tend to remember games or movies where evil wins, so it is not always a bad thing unless the game/movie maker made it a bad thing. A better ending than the evil simply kills all the good, could probably be that the evil has only one guy left, it is the final showdown, and the good seems to have won, but a trap behind the good gets set off as the evil seems to be bleeding to death, and kills the good and the evil barely survives.
| |
WotC-released campaigns are not the way to go. D&D is all about sculpting the world to fit your imagination. The greatest games come from the depths of a DMs imagination with the help of the player's imagination, not WotC's released campaign sets. I, for one, play almost exclusively campaigns created by the DM I'm playing with, I find it to be much better when you are not bound by the laws of a specific campaign but can do whatever you want making it more realistic. A good DM only uses the source material as a a guide and not law. The Darksun campaign was an awsome setting to play in which WotC never updated for 3rd Edition rules. This is probably since the world of Darksun is completly corrupt and next to no one is good(if anyone is good). If you play a good character you just get screwed left and right. | |
I disagree with their concept, sure, but I have always found good characters to be more fun to play. Probably because, you know, I really am evil, so I like to roleplay as something different.
| |
I don't think evil characters are more fun to play. I think that interesting characters are, and by my lights, an interesting character is often a flawed one. Of course, a lot of "character flaws" will skew your character towards evil, especially in a game like D&D where evil is a matter of black and white (or at least, black, white, and 7 shades of grey).
Good thing D&D isn't the dominant/only roleplaying game out there anymore... still, the points made by others below are valid. Who uses prepackaged campaigns/story modules, anyway? The good vs. evil thing reminds me of the Comics Code that was "voluntarily" adopted by the major comic publishers to avoid government oversight/outright banning of the comic book industry.... there's a lot of parallels to be drawn. As for the rest of it... it's just funny how far it strays from what D&D originally was. | |
Good thing D&D isn't the dominant/only roleplaying game out there anymore... still, the points made by others below are valid. Who uses prepackaged campaigns/story modules, anyway? It takes a lot to flesh out the background of a world and a setting. My DM used the materials as a guide for the setting and some for the campaigns when he was too busy to come up with something himself. The setting we played in definantly didn't conform to the guidlines since the world of Darksun is corrupt beyond repair with just about every NPC being some kind of evil. My good party members had a rough time since no one was trustworthy and trying to be good just gets you backstabbed. Being the evil character in the party I survived the longest despite my low HP and was usually getting my party out of the messes they made. But the Darksun campaign was discontinued when WotSC bought out TSR :P. So it's already pretty much gone except for a few fan done conversions. The biggest problem I have with these rules is that many of the computer RPGs use the 3rd edition rules which means they must conform to the standards. | |
I prefer an open ended game where you can ultimately choose your characters alignment and ultimately choose between a good GOOD ending, or a good EVIL ending. Morrowind is as open ended a game has been for some time now.
I remember a Genesis game called "Sword of Vermillion" at the end you could choose to submit to the Evil Ruler and that was that. Might and Magic games in the early 90's late 80's had the appeal of open ended gameplay and massive environments to explore. These are the types of games that will achieve maximum retail value in the future. If Wizards of the Coast thinks they will succeed with an online persistant D&D game where you may only play as a good player. they are dead meat in the game industry. | |
Who thinks an external company should buy out D&D licenses? A company that is skilled at making Good and Evil intertwine on such a level that they never win either way.. yes in some small meager level they would overcome one another at a time, but ultimately in any fantasy setting.. GOOD doesn't win either.. there is no such thing as "Happily Ever After" or else fantasy is destroyed.
| |
I think I've only played one evil character in a pen-and-paper RPG: 2nd Lt. (eventually Capt.) Francis Xavier Doumanian, in a World War II "Weird Wars" game a couple years ago. Probably the most enjoyable character I've ever played, though I haven't played all that many.
Of course, he was lawful evil, so the most he could do was bend the rules now and then. And kill anyone who caught him bending the rules. | |
All hail evil in RPGs! Support the people-who-are-always-underdogs-at-the-end-of-a-game! =)