Can someone redpill me about Lamentations of the Flame Princess...

Can someone redpill me about Lamentations of the Flame Princess? I hear the dude behind it is a colossal dick with a history of dodgy shenanigans, but the system itself is supposedly okayish. Any experiences?

Other urls found in this thread:

lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-hate-fun.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Can someone redpill me
Fuck off.

It's an alright OSR system, very solid and functional. I'd download the free no-art version, because the artwork is notoriously edgy. Raggi is a cunt, yes, but he's a cunt that makes a good product.

Charming.

As it happens, i have that version. I've read the system and it does seem pretty solid, if a bit stripped to the bone. I've also read a couple of modules, but I get the impression that all of them eventually devolve into Tomb of Horrors TPK-grade stuff. I get that this is supposed to be OSR, but still. Also, I know Raggi is supposedly a huge cunt, but I have no idea why (except for this penchant for writing adventures that screw the players over).

Raggi is an edgelord who loves to punk people and be a dick, but his game is very good. While the system itself is merely a decent if unexceptional OSR hack, the adventures are fantastic and really make it shine. These are weird, horrible, grotesquely detailed "renaissance-horror" adventures that will fuck your players up.

If that's not what you like, LotFP is not for you.

The usage of the expression "red-pill" is only a red flag if someone uses it to describe themselves.

>I know Raggi is supposedly a huge cunt, but I have no idea why
There's some conspiracy theory about him being a closet neo-Nazi and all that, but his real dirty laundry is in his essays.

He wrote an essay LITERALLY called "I Hate Fun". In later interviews he has described what he meant by this, and it's not all that unreasonable (RPGs designed entirely for the purpose of wish-fulfillment are stupid), but if you have to be such a pretentiously edgy misanthrope as this: lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-hate-fun.html to get that simple message across, you just might be a cunt.

Oh, and in his later explanations of what he meant by the "I Hate Fun" essay, he unironically makes the argument in pic related, almost word-for-word.

Huh, that's interesting. I'm going to check out this essay, thank you.

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAA JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET


There, you have now been redpilled about everything ever and can go back to /pol/.

Pick related isn't even a bad point, when phrased non retardedly

>lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-hate-fun.html

It's basically an essay of REEEE NORMIES but I agree with some of the points.

Jesus H Fuck. If he had made it a single sentence saying "something being fun isn't necessarily something being good," then there would be absolutely nothing wrong. He's just a fag who has to make people hate him to feel validated.

Read this goddamn sentence:
>This is how I’ve come to interpret people when they use the word “fun” in relation to role-playing games. People wanting quick-fix, feel good entertainment exactly as they like it with as little effort as possible.
Ignoring that people have used the term "fun" in pretty much every way possible, from worldbuilding to the type of One True Roleplayer he's talking about.
Alternatively, just the fragment
>This hobby is ours.
When RPGs are by their nature a group of hobbies more than a single massive hobby. I bet he thinks the people who play GURPS and the people who play Apocalypse World would be fine trading games, or else thinks phrasing it so antagonistically will get him more clicks.

And when I think it can't get any worse, he starts complaining about balance. But it's not really about balance, he just had to make it seem that way so more people would dislike him.

>Dungeons and Dragons was built on classic archetypes
Which is why Elves are resistant to charming and sleep effects, right?

Remind me to never give this guy money.

It's true that "But it's fun!" does get used as thought-terminating cliché, but on the other hand, personal enjoyment is a valid criterion for assessing experiences. It's foolish to disregard the fact that people have fun with something when thinking critically about it.

The argument that shitpost is responding to cites Quake and Duke Nukem as personal counterexamples to the proposition that a video game must have a plot in order to be entertaining.

The shitposter replies, "Don't bring personal enjoyment into the conversation. Just because you liked something doesn't mean it's good*, and objective game quality (as opposed to your subjective criteria of 'fun') is all that matters here**."

* Which, in the relevant context, is true.
** Which, in nearly any context, is bullshit.

He reasons from valid premises, but his line of reasoning is stupid, fallacious, poorly worded and explained, and his conclusions are contentious for contention's sake. Based on all that, you'd think he was just trolling, but he's actually serious. I doubt the sincerity of the post in the /v/ screencap, but it's hard to doubt the sincerity of someone who, if he were trolling, would have to be maintaining that troll persona for years on end by now in order to keep his act from falling apart. He's like CWC in that sense.

I actually come at it from the opposite direction: Fun games are good. If you tell me a game is good because it's fun, you just told me it's good because it's good. From a designing a game and discussing how it works perspective, that's a totally useless statement.

That adventure with St. Augustine under the church is possibly the worst module I've ever read

This. Someone saying something is fun doesn't mean that point is irrelevant, it means they just aren't critically thinking to *why* it's fun for them.

The god that crawls?

Jesus, thank you. I thought I was alone in disliking it.

LotFP is cthulu with elves.i F that sounds fun you might enjoy it.

I don't know. I'd say that an experience doesn't have to be fun to be good (by which I mean desirable as a diversion). Why do you think tragedies are written and read? Not because they're fun, that's for sure.

In short, fun implies good, but good does not necessarily imply fun. Thus, by syllogism, you may make an argument that a game is good because it is fun. Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask yourself what was so fun about the game in the first place, but Raggi has written, and I quote,
>Invoking "fun" in any explanation or reasoning equals sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I'M NOT LISTENING I KNOW BETTER THAN EVERYONE LALALALALALALALALA."
That's not saying "Saying something is good because it is fun is a meaningless tautology," that's saying "Your subjective personal experience, your 'fun' is worthless to me. Go die in a hole."

Honestly I would care a lot less about people saying "fun" if they could articulate exactly what was fun about it.
Specifics mean more to me than generalizations.

Personally I like the inner art of the book, mostly because it's one of the few RPGs that manages to have line art in it that doesn't look like shit.

I had fun playing it.

I do have to agree that desirable diversions are not necessarily "fun". Silent Hill games aren't "Fun". Most horror games aren't. Meditation isn't "Fun", but it is rewarding. Hell, I wouldn't even describe things like eating a nice meal as "Fun". But yeah, fuck Raggi for thinking fun has to be quick fix, he must not know Grand Strategy games even exist.