TheEnclave

6 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

In all fairness, we're seeing you attributing those claims to people who didn't actually make them.

The only time I attributed a claim was with a direct quote that states said claim verbatim. If I messed up somewhere else though, my bad. I didn't intend it.

8 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

It's a matter of where the author (and reader) chooses to draw the line, yes.  Providing an exit strategy is like tacking on a happy ending -- some feel that it undermines the integrity of the "horror".  Cosmic catharsis, maybe, but not "horror".

Not every single horror story ends badly. A happy ending, or at least a surviving ending, are great too. Everything and everyone involved being screwed is if anything a tired and monotonous trope to a lot of people, one of many reasons I'd wager something like Aliens is critically acclaimed and the myriad Friday the 13th sequels are flops.

44 minutes ago, Augusto Antunes said:

You're missing the point. Derleth's influence in preserving Lovecraft's legacy and expanding the mythos isn't being questioned. What we're talking about is the actual tone of his creative contributions and how it clashed with what is usually defined as "lovecraftian" cosmic horror.

In your case yes, you're not questioning it, but apparently others are. I'm up front about enjoying Derleth's work quite a bit, and I don't at all mind those who don't. It isn't the kind of work every person may want from Lovecraftian horror. I do reject the notion however, no matter how critical or flawed one might view Derleth's writing as, that it's improper and clashes with Lovecraft's work. Derleth was a close friend and pupil of Lovecraft as I've stated several times. If Lovecraft was fond of and eagerly encouraged Derleth to write cosmic horror, then that to me says that Derleth and others like him, while definitely a different flavor of cosmic horror not everyone will enjoy, are still very much a valid, consistent part of it all. How can he not be "proper" Lovecraftian when Lovecraft approved of him and even helped him with his stories?

Lovecraft didn't care about keeping everything 100% consistent to his personal stories, he said it himself, and was quite the opposite. He thought to do so would be incredibly restrictive and openly expressed his desire that people contribute however they want to his weird fiction. Derleth isn't for everyone, some people hate him and find his work clashing, but from all we know, Lovecraft himself would disagree in both cases, even though he held widely different personal viewpoints and wrote different stories than Derleth did. They were still strong friends, and Lovecraft still happily welcomed him to write, and in the end, Derleth was one of two men almost singlehandedly responsible for saving Lovecraft's legacy from fading into the unknown like the majority of other Weird Tales fiction of the time.

44 minutes ago, Augusto Antunes said:

We're only saying Derleth is not the best example of this, since it is generally agreed upon that his contributions veered away from Lovecraft's brand of cosmic horror and were absolutely reflective of his catholic view of the world.

He has his critics, but I wouldn't say it's generally agreed on that he veered away from Lovecraft. It is generally agreed that his Catholic views influenced his work, yeah, but that's not a good or bad statement, depending on how you see it. It was just his beliefs, just as Lovecraft's love of archaic history and enjoyment of using verbage that even people in the 20s thought was ancient influenced his work. It adds its own flavor in my opinion and, when influences are done right, makes it unique. No one writes quite like Lovecraft does. Others may disagree about all this though. I take absolutely no issue with that. It's just my view on the subject.

44 minutes ago, Augusto Antunes said:

Yes, I disagree, and I already expanded on why the subversion of christianity is more powerful, more common and makes more sense in modern american horror - and particularly in King's work - than the subversion of other religions in my first post on this thread. It deals with a completely different kind of fear. What christianity represents as a symbol is different from what most of those other religions represent - specially to americans and to christians themselves.

In King's case I agree. It wouldn't make sense for a Buddhist monastery to run amok in coastal Maine. However, the original point is still one I think is true. There's a lot of reluctance to cast certain things into a villainous or negative light, even for fiction, and at times it seems almost undeniable that political correctness is in play. Society at large won't balk at a villainous Christian character, but there may be some vocal backlash against a villainous Buddhist, or a villainous Shamanist, enough backlash to keep writers on their toes about doing it. Not always, but I think that kind of feeling is there.

44 minutes ago, Augusto Antunes said:

By the way, since you brought the subject up, I'm reminded that the source of the supernatural evil in Pet Sematary is native american.

You know, I didn't think about that. In another side note, the Lovecraft-inspired Deadlands has Native Americans as the ones who summon a load of demons that nearly wipe out the continent, so there's that as well. It's definitely not so exaggerated that there's never a single villain of those cultures or peoples, and I agree on that.

38 minutes ago, Travern said:

I said, specifically, that cosmic horror is fundamentally atheistic (it's also philosophically pessimistic).  Trying to force it into a theistic (or optimistic) framework breaks the genre.

It isn't fundamenetally atheistic, nor is it fundamentally antireligious. The existence of Outer and Elder Gods of blatant supernatural power constitutes as theistic in and of itself. There's a philosophical pessimism to the idea that we're a tiny part of an infinite universe, yes, but that's the only point of cosmic horror, or Lovecraftian fiction in general. Lovecraft wrote numerous stories that had nothing to do with anything cosmic or nihilistic, and he wasn't always pessimistic either. Nodens, a benevolent Elder God who fights against Nyarlathotep and will give aid to mortals fighting him, is a note of optimism, and one made entirely by Lovecraft. The genre is way more than a single note or single theme. If it was, it'd get stale very quickly.

52 minutes ago, Travern said:

Lovecraft was a scientifically-minded materialist who was profoundly influenced by Nietzsche early in his life.  Recasting him as some kind of heterodox dilettante is just bizarre.

He held a wide array of people as influential to his work, from gothic horror to mystery to adventure authors. He also praised religion, quite frequently, for its additions to art and culture, and he was a sucker for good art, strong metaphor, and epic stories. He enjoyed history greatly and philosophy as well. To call him nothing more than a rigid materialist with no other interests is, again, false, and undercuts the depth of a fantastic author and turns him into a mediocre one-note wonder.

54 minutes ago, Travern said:

No, but one must suspend ones personal beliefs in, say, some kind of benign deity or human significance if one is going to engage in cosmic horror, where they have no place.

Who says they have no place? Lovecraft doesn't, he says the opposite with Nodens and the Elder Gods, long before Derleth expanded on them as well. The Call of Cthulhu game for example mentions incorporating any real-world religions you want and giving them as much impact and meaning as you want. The point of the mythos is to be vast and unknownable, and to dillute it by ruling out anything that isn't the Outer Gods is, in my view, antithetical to what Lovecraft intended. He didn't even intend a single cohesive universe to begin with, that was Derleth's work. Lovecraft simply wrote what came to mind and tied it together with plot devices and writing styles. Cosmic horror is a great many things, not just one specific thing. An example I like is if someone were to say all D&D has to be Dark Sun and can't be anything else. Genres of dark fantasy, cosmic horror, sci-fi horror, sci-fi adventure, gothic horror, action-adventure, and so on, all prevalent genres in Lovecraftian fiction, are broad and varied, not restricted to one singular thing or one singular narrative. This is by Lovecraft's design. It isn't accidental or some hindsight interpretation, it's literally how he wanted his stories to be and the worlds they took place in to develop.

58 minutes ago, Travern said:

King has a whole pantheon of benevolent deities in his overarching Dark Tower series and children defeating an eldritch entity through the power of friendship in It.

And cosmic horror can't? The most common hook of Call of Cthulhu is a group of nobodies banding together to face otherworldly horrors. Sure, you don't have to go Captain Planet on it and have friendship alone win the day, but cosmic horror isn't some utterly nihilistic slog where there's nothing but unending demise and doom for those involved. Lovecraft wouldn't have made use of humor and in-jokes had that been the case. Lovecraft also designed a loose pantheon of Elder Gods, who are at best benevolent and at worst ambivalent, and that was later expanded on, so such a thing is present in Lovecraftian fiction, again by Lovecraft's design.

1 hour ago, Travern said:

Honestly, though, you seem to be taking this discussion entirely too much to heart.  You're fighting battles in Lovecraft criticism that subsided long ago.

I take it to heart because I enjoy Lovecraft's work and the Lovecraft mythos, and I see people way too often making claims as fact, like "you have to be atheist to write proper cosmic horror", that aren't just their taste or intepretation, but completely, objectively wrong statements. I care about the truth, and when claims like this pop up, in this case to somebody genuinely interested in writing professional cosmic horror fiction, or in cases like Call of Cthulhu where, for example, someone may say "there is no combat ever in Call of Cthulhu and any combat rules were invented by 7th edition which is bad", they can actively damage the genre and the game by chasing off prospective writers and players, and if people were turned off from it by truthful aspects, that'd be one thing, but it's completely different when the statements being made are totally false and those without prior knowledge may not know any different than what they're being told.

5 hours ago, Travern said:

Funnily enough, "completely wrong" is how a lot of people regard Derleth's Mythos contributions

And a lot of people greatly enjoy Derleth's contributions and admire his work in preserving and building on Lovecraft's legacy. Without his and Wandrei's work, a lot of Lovecraft fiction would've fallen into complete obscurity or been lost altogether. Those two preserved, and in many ways formed, the fiction we're discussing today. Liking or disliking Derleth's writings is opinion, but his influence on the genre is fact. Without Derleth, the "Cthulhu Mythos" wouldn't be what it is today.

5 hours ago, Travern said:

his attempt to introduce a systematized quasi-Catholic moral framework to the contest between the Elder Gods and the Outer Gods as a struggle between good and evil.

Remember that it was Lovecraft, not Derleth, that introduced the Elder Gods, and even before Derleth's work, where they became expressly benevolent, they still were considered the enemy of the Outer Gods and Great Old Ones, many of whom Lovecraft described as wholly evil and wicked beings. Nodens being an enemy of Nyarlathotep, one willing to directly aid humanity to oppose him, is all written by Lovecraft himself, so while he may not have conceived of a full-fledged War in Heaven, the idea of there being a conflict between malevolent and benevolent (or at least benign) entities is very much his own creation.

5 hours ago, Travern said:

Lovecraft philosophically grounded his cosmic horror in Neitzsche and Schopenhauer, not the Old and New Testaments.

Lovecraft drew from a very wide array of influences and sources to make his work, and he encouraged others to do the same. He absolutely wanted people to play in his world and make up worlds of their own. Selling Lovecraft as just scifi Nietzsche not only undercuts the work of all other Lovecraftian authors, but it undercuts Lovecraft himself.

5 hours ago, Travern said:

Honestly, though, the question of authorial intent and reader interpretation has been going on for a very long time (see the adage from Lawrence above), and it will outlast this thread.  By all means, please continue your discussion, but please don't infer hostility or "edginess" on my part.

Authorial intent and reader interpretation is one thing, but I find it disingenuous to advise, to an aspiring author no less, that if you aren't an atheist then you can never be a true Lovecraftian writer. That's not an interpretation, it's an absurd falsehood. Factually, theists like Derleth and Petersen have immensely contributed to the Cthulhu Mythos and Lovecraftian fiction as we know it. Factually, a devout Catholic was seen as a close friend and talented pupil by the staunch atheist that fathered cosmic horror. Factually, these guys and many others, be they theists or atheists, have contributed to Lovecraftian fiction in great amounts, and that's exactly what Lovecraft wanted. I call it pretentious because that's how I see it, claiming to know better about Lovecraftian fiction than Lovecraft himself did. If theists can't be "proper" and "pure" Lovecraftian writers, why did Lovecraft have so many theist friends that he eagerly encouraged to write fiction in his worlds with? Why did he mentor Derleth to write cosmic horror? I wonder how he'd have reacted if someone told him that only atheists could write his stories the "right" way, and that theists could never be "true" cosmic horror authors. I don't see any hostility from you, but I do get the sense of a strong bias against religion and/or theism, enough to tell someone asking a genuine question that, no, they can't actually be a cosmic horror writer because they aren't atheist, and Stephen King actually never wrote Lovecraftian fiction, because he too isn't an atheist. It's as ridiculous a claim as saying every Lovecraftian story must involve the Cthulhu Mythos and that anything else isn't "pure" Lovecraft, another statement I've run into before (not from you). Claims like that aren't and never will be true, objectively and factually speaking. I don't at all begrudge you for whatever personal preferences, beliefs, or opinions you hold, but to claim what you've claimed goes beyond preference and into straight-up giving false advice. Cosmic horror and the ability to write it, play it, and enjoy it does not in any way hinge on or have prerequisities of your personal beliefs, whatever they may be.

1 hour ago, Augusto Antunes said:

Oh, absolutely not. Although I certainly wouldn't call him a blind follower of either side, I think most americans definitely see King as a left-leaning liberal - and I'd guess that's also how he sees himself. In fact, that's why actual conservatives usually spew out nonsense about him such as "the man hates christianity, I mean, why doesn't he write an evil buddhist for a change", which has a lot more to do with them showing their own political leaning, prejudices and insecurities than with King's actual writing.

You're referring to earlier posts, but you're not refuting his point. Do you disagree that political correctness is why we don't see more villainous Buddhists, Shintoists, Shamanists, and the like? Why is the go-to good guy in a lot of modern fantasy stories so often the wise Native American elder and the villain so often the cruel, power-hungry Western priest? His claim wasn't talking about King either, not that I can tell, but more of, in general, there's a lot more placement of Christianity in the villainous role, and comparatively little of other religions, and why that doesn't seem very consistent or fair, and is disingenuous to do in the name of political correctness. I may be wrong, but that's what I gathered from his post.

2 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

Who claimed this, out of curiosity?

Quoting:

8 hours ago, Travern said:

(King doesn't hate christianity. He just hates religious fundamentalism and believes organized religion can be dangerous. Also, he isn't an atheist. He's stated several times that he believes in God as a source of hope and strength. )

Yes, and because of all that, he doesn't truly count as a Lovecraftian author (only a Lovecraft-influenced one).

Continuing:

2 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

Not that Sandy had the last word on the matter, but that's been in every edition of CoC I've ever looked at, including the most recent 7th Ed, and he scores a valid point.  In fact, I more or less paraphrased him earlier by invoking God with a fire extinguisher ready to save the day.  Derleth has his fans, perhaps largely because he introduces hope where Lovecraft offered none.  I did it myself when I was playing CoC as a teenager.  I'd make different choices today.  Different strokes and all that.

2 hours ago, Augusto Antunes said:

I agree with the point you're trying to make, but to be entirely fair, Derleth's not that good of an example. His contributions to the mythos have always been a bit controversial precisely for not being "lovecraftian" enough and drawing too much from christian concepts.

No one's saying everyone has to like Derleth, but his influence is undeniable. Aside from Lovecraft himself he's one of the most recognized mythos writers, a close friend of Lovecraft and something of a writing student under him, and the person to come up with the idea of a Cthulhu Mythos in the first place. He's a very important contributor and component of the mythos as we know it. This isn't to say you have to enjoy or use his works or ideas, you don't. However, it is objectively false to say that you can't write Lovecraftian fiction without being an atheist, when one of the most prominent writers of Lovecraftian fiction, tutored directly by Lovecraft himself, was Catholic. You don't have to explicitly exclude or negate religion and spirituality to have cosmic horror themes, and you don't have to be an atheist to write cosmic horror stories. It's a wide genre with more influences than just Lovecraft himself and more themes than just what's seen in Lovecraft's stories, and that's exactly what he wanted.

Three more things. Derleth wasn't the first to introduce cosmic hope either, that'd be Lovecraft with Nodens. Also, Sandy Petersen, AKA the guy who made the game we're discussing right now, the game that had a major impact on bringing back the popularity of Lovecraft, is a Mormon, not an atheist either.

And, most importantly of all:
Naturally, if these conceptions seem good and well done to the Keeper, use them at will. Call of Cthulhu is your game.
- What Was Left Out

3 minutes ago, Dethstrok9 said:

I thought that at first to, but I don't think it was intended to be hostile. He went on to say constructive stuff afterward, and we were able to set aside our differences.

Even still, I don't at all agree with the claim that theists can't write Lovecraftian stories and can only be knockoffs, more or less, because it's totally false. Derleth is the best example. Don't feel like you can't write or engage in cosmic horror without being an atheist. That's complete nonsense.

2 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

Lots of perfectly nice people do.  You know, when they're not constructing their own fictitious moralities.  Don't let it ruffle you.

[cont]

This whole post sounds like a lot of unnecessary hostility towards religion and faith and juvenile jabbing at other forum members, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

In your own example you seem to think that, for example, men can't write female dialogue. By the same token, how can an atheist write believably about theism?

1 hour ago, Dethstrok9 said:

Yet according to the other comments and King's own statements, he does not have a blind hatred of all Christians

If I remember right the end of The Stand is handled by divine intervention with the help by a prophet of God, but I'm not 100% sure. I never got the sense King hated Christianity or any religion really, just like I don't think he believes every parent in Maine is an abusive alcoholic.

4 hours ago, Travern said:

Yes, and because of all that, he doesn't truly count as a Lovecraftian author (only a Lovecraft-influenced one).

Cosmic horror, which HPL is the most recognized example of, is fundamentally atheistic (and anti-anthropocentric).  Stephen King, by his own admission, is a (deistic) believer and humanist.  He's a first-rate horror writer, but he moved past HPL's influence very early in his career. 

This is completely wrong. August Derleth was a major contributor to the Lovecraft mythos as we know it, and he was a devout Catholic. Many writers of mythos-related works had varying religious beliefs, and Lovecraft still encouraged them to write. He was an atheist himself but never expressed hatred of theists and religion. Nothing about Call of Cthulhu or playing in the Lovecraft mythos necessitates the explicit falsification of any real-world religious beliefs. Unless you try to be an absolutely rigid Lovecraft "purist" and ignore everything else anyone ever wrote for his setting, nothing about it means that being theistic means you can't write cosmic horror, or that writing cosmic horror requires that you invalidate any religious beliefs. To me, even claiming that just sounds "edgy" and pretentious, and it just isn't true unless, again, you ignore absolutely everything not written by Lovecraft, and then you're left with a mythos that doesn't even exist, isn't defined, and is just a collection of separate horror stories.

King's hit and miss for me. Some of his stuff's great horror and fun to read, other stuff is confusing, incoherent nonsense (in his own words he was apparently doing coke at multiple points while writing IT, so take that for what you will).

For me, I never liked making the Mythos and world governments too heavily involved, if only because even the meanest leaders when confronted with it would go "Woah, hold on now." Big reason I don't like some pulpier stories having Nazis and/or Soviets all involved and working with Mythos entities.

Personally I tweak it a little depending on the gun. For example, the Martini-Henry is 1/3 I believe, but the gun could be loaded and fired pretty damn quick, only a few shots less per minute than the average bolt-action rifle, though I might throw in a Luck roll to see if the casing can get discharged properly, since that was an issue on some earlier models.

The real answer is do whatever you think works best for you and your group.

Not really in agreement with the idea that the game's meant to be unbalanced. If it was, then the players wouldn't have time to stop the cult and they'd all just converge on them and gun them down. The power of monsters is overstated a lot, and really, unless you get to the truly big, bad, awful things, a heavy arsenal can handle just about anything you'd expect to run into combat with, and even those bigger things are still vulnerable. Cthulhu was injured by a boat; imagine what a 120mm AT cannon would do. Balance is as important in Call of Cthulhu as any other game, but you have more creative ways of keeping it balanced. A monster might seem immune to every bullet you put into it and appear unstoppable, but its greatest weakness might be the flashlight you have stored in your car, which could burn it up like a pile of dead leaves just by shining the beam on it.

Call of Cthulhu combat is less about it being unfair, which it isn't meant to be, and more about being smart, such as not rushing Cthulhu with a pistol and expecting to live. You need to be smart and work together, and remember that brute force isn't always the answer. Discretion's the better part of valor at times, and by going against heavy odds, it's all the more satisfying when you come out on top. At the end of the day though, what Arnie said holds true: if it bleeds, you can kill it.

Don't actively seek to kill your players unless they're asking for it, and give them a way to handle challenges, even if it isn't obvious or even immediate. Like just about any roleplaying game it's about making a story and running it with your friends, not killing their characters and gloating about how they couldn't do anything to stop you.

Spacecommunists, spacenazis, spacewhatevers, it's irrelevant as far as any current events or the "current climate" goes.

I say ignore all that and just be cool to each other and have fun. We live and we let live.

12 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

 the current social context of most of the Western world

Therein lies the problem. Game forums don't need to have anything relating to modern politics or current events. I agree with Jeff that things should be kept loose. "Be respectful to each other" is more than enough, and whatever the "current social context" is of anything, anywhere, any time, is wholly irrelevant to how things should be run, IMO. Especially if allowed to influence moderation I feel that that could cloud judgement and lead to decisions based on personal beliefs rather than objective rule enforcement; not that I'm accusing you of that, but that I've seen it happen before, and at that point bias starts leading administrative action. Things should remain as neutral and informal as possible in that regard I feel. Either way I agree giving people a chance to get unbanned is a good move all the same.

9 hours ago, soltakss said:

I'm not a Moderator, but just knock it off.

This is a Forum about RPG Games, not about real world religions or your intolerance of some of them. There are many sites that would welcome bigoted views, so you can hapily post on those.

You could phrase this without stepping into politics/religious debate yourself, honestly.

We all should just drop the subject.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Not trying to say what THIS site should be.

Trying to show (since the question was raised) where that site sits.

Right, but you went from describing RPGnet into making broad political statements. I may be misunderstanding you, but it comes off as if you're giving what they do a pass because their politics are your politics, in which case that should be made clearer. Besides that, there shouldn't be political discussions in this topic to begin with I think. If someone wants politics with their RPG talk that's fine, but I wouldn't describe it then in the way your post worded it of "RPG.net isn't actually that political, I'll explain why," followed by lengthy details of how it's very much political, far and away above the majority of game sites.

16 hours ago, g33k said:

So, if that's "too political,"

I mean yeah, it really is, as is your entire post.

On 8/18/2019 at 2:15 PM, lordabdul said:

For those of us who don't necessarily spend a lot of time on many different forums, can someone elaborate on what they think TheRPGSite, RPG.net, and/or RPG Pub (or even, for that matter, ENWorld) are like? From my limited experience with a few of them, I frankly can't tell much, besides maybe that RPG.net is quite moderation heavy? I don't know. So yeah, RPG forums 101 would be welcome

RPG.net took a very hard turn into politics in the past two years. A lot of topics became political and dissenting views, or even simply disagreeing with moderators, became bannable. It had an effect like the old gaming forum NeoGAF did where even developers were getting banned if they said something the moderators didn't like. It's apparently only gotten worse over time.

I've never used TheRPGSite. Can't tell you much.

I like RPGPub. It's a lot of good-natured discussion particularly about older/more obscure games. They took a strong stance against politicization around the time it was overtaking RPG.net, so in a similar vein to forums like BRP or YSG it avoids those topics. There's not a lot of interest in newer RPGs though, and most people don't seem to be fans of the new Call of Cthulhu for some reason. I'd guess it's because of the aforementioned interest and experience in much older games or editions of games.