This is not ok.

Why is it not okay?

>>49334780
What even is this? Either way it can't be worse than that dramatization of Gary Gygax's life.

Dice+d20

File: no.jpg (224KB, 698x1053px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 698x1053px

>>49334787

Does this answer your question?

>>49334820
Discussing the issue of morality in campaigns is a bad thing?

>>49334820
It looks like a baby's first philosophy book using the context of fantasy roleplaying. Nothing wrong with that.

>>49334820

>pedantic navel-gazing applied to ttrpgs

I mean it's dumb but I'm not mad about it.

>>49334820
No, not really, it doesn't.

>>49334820
in all fairness, guys, the chapter title does sound like stupid bait but... what is the core of the author's argument here, OP?

File: image.jpg (68KB, 306x437px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 306x437px

>>49334820
It's just something for the normies to play with, who cares dude. I used to get so mad about this stuff too but then I realised that if something that doesn't cause anyone any kind of harm makes them happy then who am I to say no?

Same with those Romeo and Juliet emoji books like pic related.

>>49334801
Are you talking about Empire of Imagination?

http://desuarchive.org/tg/thread/43745331/#43745331

>>49338021
I never got the point of those books. Shakespeare was damn good at writing plays, but he never had great plots, even for the time. Take away the words themselves, and you have a generic story with bad dialogue.

>>49334780
>Dungeons & Dragons and Philosophy

"I roll to bluff Socrates"

>>49338060
>never had great plots

Everything he ever wrote was already a folk tale, historical event or urban legend so right off the bat you've shot yourself in the foot. He also isn't famous for just his plays either, he is a renowned English language poet as well

>>49338060
>generic stories
You ever wonder who went and made them generic?

Admittedly, Romeo and Juliet is nowhere near as good as Julius Caesar, Othello, Macbeth, or King Lear. Fuck, even A Midsummer Night's Dream is better.

>>49338079
I understand why Shakespeare and his plays were relevant: like I said, he's good at writing plays. But reading his books and reading the emoji versions is the diffrence between reading LOTR and the wikipedia plot summary: you technically have the same information now, but one is much better than the other.

>>49334820
Literally have no idea what you're getting at.

Are you angry that the book is trying to pull philosophy out of a roleplaying game? Are you upset at the thought of moral dilemma's because you're part of Generation Snowflake, and the thought of creating a character that doesn't mirror yourself makes you uncomfortable and makes you want to go hide away in your safe space?

What the fuck are you getting at?

>>49338084
>You ever wonder who went and made them generic?
It's a little like saying Star Wars is shit because "the villain is the hero's father" is overdone.

>>49338105
>But reading his books and reading the emoji versions is the diffrence between reading LOTR and the wikipedia plot summary: you technically have the same information now, but one is much better than the other.
this.

>>49338060
OP here. When I said "those books" I meant the emoji versions, not Shakespeare's plays.

>>49338105

I...don't think whoever made these emoji versions intended them as substitutes for the original works.

>>49338141
This

You just have to realise they aren't written for or intended to be read by you. It's not meant for you and I can accept that. It is just something that exists, who carss

>>49338141
No, but you can be certain that they're going to be bought to explain Shakespeare to middle school students.

>>49338164

I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Every generation someone's said exactly what you just said, or have you forgotten that edgy totally radical 90s adaptation of R&J? The one with Leo DiCaprio?

That said, I do believe kids born after 2000 are a damn sight dumber than previous generations.

>>49338021
You're calling a philosphy book about dnd for normal people

Is there a free version of this laying around?

>>49338193
What? I didn't say that this is the generation Shakespeare's legacy dies. I didn't say that this book was the worst thing to ever happen to literature. I'm just saying that some kids are likely going to read it, find it dull, and possibly get turned off the real thing, and that's a damn shame.

>>49338075

>Roll high enough and you realize you're on the cave

File: 5ac388ec1599853dbbfab3bedbd45717[1].jpg (24KB, 700x399px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 700x399px

>>49338193
>have you forgotten that edgy totally radical 90s adaptation of R&J? The one with Leo DiCaprio?
Is that the modern-day one that retains the original dialogue?

>>49338208
Nerd shit is cool now

>>49338224

If a kid thinks the original is dumb he's not gonna be any more thrilled by an emoji version of it. He's just gonna chuckle at the cover and go back to playing Xbox

>>49334820
>Does Dungeons and Dragons Refute Aristotle?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

>>49338236
with the exception of the 1911 and single action army will there ever be a fun as iconic as the beretta 92?

>>49338236

Yup.

>>49338224
You're assuming a lot of literary refinement from 14-year-olds.

>>49338271
>fun
>instead of gun

Now that's a Freudian slip if I've ever seen one

>>49338244
Yeah, i'm sure people who got onto the nerdy fad are going to get a philosophy book on dnd, nerd shit is only considered cool if it's the most surface level shit, marvel movies and the like

>>49338284
They likely aren't purchasing the book themselves, they're having it purchased for them by a guardian, reading it, thinking it's shit, and regarding the actual plays in that light, even if they might have liked them, had they been exposed to them in the proper context.

>>49338290
Never been to /k/ I take it.

>>49338271
The AK-47. The M-16. The Mauser Gewehr 98 series. The SMLE. The Winchester repeating rifle. The XM8, bonus points for never being formally adopted and still being really well known. The Mossberg 500. The MAC-10. The Uzi. The Thompson. The M134 Minigun. The original Gattling gun.

Yeah, plenty of other guns are just as or more iconic than the Beretta 92.

>>49338314

Calling bullshit on that. No parent will stop and think that's anything more than a novelty gift.

They'll get handed the original in 9th grade English and continue the proud tradition of not actually reading it.

>>49338346
M16 and AK are only ones that have potential of surpassing beretta 92 in recognisability. 92 was in all kinds of movies and video games from the 80s and 90s.

Also the Thompson and MP40 I guess too

>>49338193
>I do believe kids born after 2000 are a damn sight dumber than previous generations.
You realise the oldest of those are 15, right?

>>49338415
So what if it's a novelty gift? If it's their first taste of Shakespeare, and it's shit, you can't say that it won't in some way affect their perception of Shakespeare as a whole.

>>49338314
Apparently you've never been a pre-teen, anon, because I distinctly recall the general consensus being "he's been literally dead for, like, two-hundred years, like, who even cares? This shit's, like, hella boring, like, literally why do they even, like, make us read this crap? Seriously." I don't think you could pay them to give a fuck about iambic pentameter.

>>49338346
Don't forget about the Glock pistol (15, 17, etc.).

>>49338465
>I don't think you could pay them to give a fuck about iambic pentameter.
You couldn't pay most people to give a shit about anything related to poetry.

>>49338266
kek

>>49338425
Not even the Uzi? As in THE Uzi? And the Mossberg is pretty much what people picture when they hear "shotgun." And don't tell me anyone doesn't know what a minigun is, at least from movies.

And the Thompson, aka the Tommy gun, was the symbol of an era and is one of the most enduring symbols of an entire genre of media. "Tommy gun" is a household name, far more than "Beretta 92" is.

>>49338465
Not to mention he's an old, dead white cis male, which makes it far worse.

>>49338582
No people picture double barrel or 870, maybe an SPAS 12 if they games in the nineties. Literally nobody cares about the Mossberg except for the American navy

>>49338592
fuck off

>>49338620
Fix your sarcasm detector. I'm saying that's how the kids see it these days, that's all.

>>49337976
Well, I've only got the lead set up, but if I follow where he's going with this, one of Socrates's central claims is that all men possess reason, and reason alone is enough to determine what is good.

If my speculation is correct, the very idea that we are capable of imagining 'what does THIS good man' do in this situation seems to imply that reason can take characters, and therefor people, to multiple valid images of The Good.

>>49338656
No, no one actually gives a flying fuck about leftists and their SJW newspeak.

>>49338193
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLZGMcwi758

>>49338084
>You ever wonder who went and made them generic?
For the most part, not Shakespeare.
Great as he was, The Bard was more reboot-crazy than Hollywood.

File: draper-laugh.jpg (18KB, 409x393px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 409x393px

>>49338266
You don't think that 50 years from now there will be seminars in universities all over the globe about Gary Gygax in which Aristotle is but a mere footnote?

>>49338346
you are missing the obscure but still iconic G11

>>49334780
So, basically, Planescape?

>>49338193
I'm pretty sure every generation has trought exactly this about the younger one.

>>49338692
You're in the right neighborhood, but it's more specifically about Aristotelian virtue ethics.

Helpfully, the complete text is on Google Books.
Here it is from page 2 of the essay:
https://books.google.com/books?id=4bo59BEaoDQC&lpg=PA17&ots=0PVG6-YfTh&dq=does%20dungeons%20and%20dragons%20refute%20aristotle&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false

Frankly, I'm still not sure what's supposed to be not okay about it or anything else in the book.