Quote from: Dimitrios;1055350This seems like a false choice. People were always invited in. Until recently most of them chose not to join because sitting around a table pretending to kill orcs was considered weird.

While it's not a big deal, it's at least mildly annoying to people who spent years minding their own business pursuing their (widely stigmatized) hobby to now find themselves recast as evil elitist gatekeepers who were shutting out the wretched masses who wanted to play. I started gaming in the early 80s. Those of us who kept playing after the initial fad faded away didn't spend our time chasing desperate would be players away from our tables, and it's a B.S. rewriting of history to claim otherwise.

Exactly this. I don't think Millennials realize just how stigmatized geek entertainment and hobbies were in the 80s. If you were older than about 11 and you were into orcs and wizards, Star Wars and Conan, adults and most of your peers thought there was something wrong with you. Parents worried you were socially and emotionally stunted, on the path to being a lifelong virgin. Teachers discouraged you from reading 'trash' fantasy novels. And to girls, you may as have been pushing dump trucks across a sandbox making vroom-vroom noises if you played Dungeons and Dragons. It was socially toxic, to the extent where me and my friends didn't tell anyone else we played once we hit about 13, and my best friend dropped out altogether so the girls he was interested in wouldn't think him an absolute loser.  

That's the cohort that makes up the long-time RPG player base, and who went on to become developers and writers in the 90s and 2000s. We didn't gatekeep the hobby to keep people outside of it. We weren't even in the castle - we were sitting in the trash ditch outside the walls rolling our funny dice while passerby sneered and held their noses. It wouldn't occur to us to exclude a girl from our group, because we would have been astonished any girl wanted to play in the first place. The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.

Why do we need to represent "all" even if not present at a table?  WTF does that even mean?  Do I need to include "latinx" in an Arrows of Indra game?  Do I need to have an equal number of Faerunians in an Al-Qadim game?

EDIT:  Oops wait those games are already "inclusive" because they aren't Euro-centric.  Guess I answered my own question.

Quote from: Haffrung;1055356Exactly this. I don't think Millennials realize just how stigmatized geek entertainment and hobbies were in the 80s. If you were older than about 11 and you were into orcs and wizards, Star Wars and Conan, adults and most of your peers thought there was something wrong with you. Parents worried you were socially and emotionally stunted, on the path to being a lifelong virgin. Teachers discouraged you from reading 'trash' fantasy novels. And to girls, you may as have been pushing dump trucks across a sandbox making vroom-vroom noises if you played Dungeons and Dragons. It was socially toxic, to the extent where me and my friends didn't tell anyone else we played once we hit about 13, and my best friend dropped out altogether so the girls he was interested in wouldn't think him an absolute loser.  

That's the cohort that makes up the long-time RPG player base, and who went on to become developers and writers in the 90s and 2000s. We didn't gatekeep the hobby to keep people outside of it. We weren't even in the castle - we were sitting in the trash ditch outside the walls rolling our funny dice while passerby sneered and held their noses. It wouldn't occur to us to exclude a girl from our group, because we would have been astonished any girl wanted to play in the first place. The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.

This is absolutely perfect.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055355People like Motorskills will never see the error in their thinking, unless something drastic happens. They're like the Terminator: they can't be reasoned with and will never stop until they're destroyed*. Luckily, they do this to themselves with very little provocation.

*No, I'm not advocating for you to be smooshed in an industrial press or harmed in any other way.

Quote from: More AlderaanYour mindset is the weakest (thankfully, at the moment) version of fascism and everything you're pushing is poison.

And you manage to leave the house every day?

Quote from: Motorskills;1055363And you manage to leave the house every day?

There is still no proof that you leave the house every day.....

Quote from: Motorskills;1055363And you manage to leave the house every day?

I leave my house every day, unless Warframe keeps my attention too long. Unlike SJWs I don't live in fear of (and anger at) nearly everything. I fear nothing from SJWs, they simply annoy me and most of the time I find them entertainingly self-destructive. Interaction about this here is a guilty-pleasure as I have no illusion that you're up for examining things objectively. I'm usually not prone to snide, jabbing remarks save for when interacting with what are truly fascist, hateful, ignorant people who want to control others. I am consistently amused by an ideology that continues to play Frankenstein by creating monsters, them blaming them for their existences.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055367I leave my house every day, unless Warframe keeps my attention too long.

I do need to check that out sometime.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055362This is absolutely perfect.

Cut. Print. Get a beer.

Quote from: Haffrung;1055356Exactly this. I don't think Millennials realize just how stigmatized geek entertainment and hobbies were in the 80s. If you were older than about 11 and you were into orcs and wizards, Star Wars and Conan, adults and most of your peers thought there was something wrong with you. Parents worried you were socially and emotionally stunted, on the path to being a lifelong virgin. Teachers discouraged you from reading 'trash' fantasy novels. And to girls, you may as have been pushing dump trucks across a sandbox making vroom-vroom noises if you played Dungeons and Dragons. It was socially toxic, to the extent where me and my friends didn't tell anyone else we played once we hit about 13, and my best friend dropped out altogether so the girls he was interested in wouldn't think him an absolute loser.  

That's the cohort that makes up the long-time RPG player base, and who went on to become developers and writers in the 90s and 2000s. We didn't gatekeep the hobby to keep people outside of it. We weren't even in the castle - we were sitting in the trash ditch outside the walls rolling our funny dice while passerby sneered and held their noses. It wouldn't occur to us to exclude a girl from our group, because we would have been astonished any girl wanted to play in the first place. The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.

Co-sign.

There weren't many people that wanted to join outcasts. The few braniac girls who showed non-ironic interest in what we were doing did not like the focus of the game. They honestly seemed to feel they had better things to do than play pretend with us.  

Ironically, the only time any of the popular guys showed interest in what we were playing was when they thought we were gambling with funny dice (at that time there were some clandestine money betting card games-- lunch money, basically).

Quote from: Haffrung;1055238As for Paizo's inclusivity policy, it helps to regard these sorts of statements as religious declarations. The demographic the publishers belong to (and who they're trying to aim their products at) are in the midst of an evangelical movement. A whole class of people are Woke to a higher morality, a new path for humankind. They're inspired and anxious and passionate. But most importantly, it's absolutely vital in their social environment for them to Declare, to publicly express their virtue and their membership in the movement.
.

Excellent observation (thought it's been made by others re the larger SJW community [not to denigrate your own observation])  It really is an evangelical religious movement, replete with saints, sinners, proselytizations, excommunications, papal bulls (with competing popes) and witch hunts and symbolic witch burnings (social media ostracization).

Quote from: Motorskills;1055369I do need to check that out sometime.

That's where we belong, coming together over commonalities. Warframe is exactly where video gaming companies need to look for inspiration of monetization, but that's a separate topic. I'm more than happy to chat about it, if you're interested.

Quote from: jeff37923;1055310Ding ding, winner!

This is why I laugh scornfully at all this inclusivity bullshit. When TTRPGs first came out, only nerds and weirdos (the "othered") were playing them and now that being a nerd is cool - the social justice generation doesn't think that we understand what it feels like to be "othered" and therefore must be reeducated by these "woke" zombies like Motorskills.

Freaks & Geeks.

Quote from: rawma;1055299Ah, the just kidding defense. Excuse me while I shudder.

Are you being facetious? Or did you actually shudder? I *was* actually being facetious. But since you want to notch it down and play stupid. I'll downshift and oblige.

Quote from: rawma;1055299You're getting the meaning from what you know from working with the game company, not from actually reading the text. It does not say what S'mon claimed when he quoted it out of context.

So now you're telling me what I read and what I inferred without doing any of that yourself and projecting your meaning on us? When you yourself prove my point below... and do so again... allow me...

Quote from: rawma;1055299The fact that I've GMed for more than 40 years means that the GM advice in almost every rulebook for conventional RPG games is not something I need. But I still recognize that people with less experience may need it, without being mentally deficient.

PERFECT. So you do justify its inclusion for people that are mentally deficient enough to *need* to be *explicitly* told what/how/whom to play with and what to represent in your fantasy-elf-games at your table by a book because they're too stupid and/or weak-willed to simply not allow people even more idiotic to play with them?

Are you serious? Do you stipulate this with all recreational social interactions? Because this is the tip of a very idiotic iceberg you're making your stand on. Your 40-years of Wisdom of the Ages may have been ill-spent in the wisdom department.

Quote from: rawma;1055299And of course a tabletop game depends on a social contract; if it involves people who may never have met (like at conventions, game stores and organized play events), then it's better to make it explicit. The longer quotation starts off talking about that, and clearly Paizo is saying what they think should be in it. Discouraging in advance players like S'mon's who will start calling other players names if they are frustrated is probably not a bad thing.

Now you're excusing basic common-sense and self-interest for special events like Conventions, game-stores etc? This has nothing to do with a trend of virtue-signalling for ideological reasons. No, not at all. Because when people start calling other players names, these folks that need that text can open up their books and show the offenders the rule where it says they can tell them to "fuck off and leave the table" (or however your sensibilities run verbally) as opposed to just having the basic sense to not play with people that annoy you? Like children do?

Riiiiight. Or, you know... it could just be virtue-signalling. You know like what is rampant in left-leaning ideologues that pretend they care about everyone feelings when in reality they have other agendas.

Quote from: rawma;1055299I know of you from the posts you've made at this site; it does not set you apart from the pack, sorry. And for all that you claim to be completely laid back and just hipster level amused, you were shouting up there ("SO WHY HAVE IT IN THERE?") and then going off on politics. So welcome to the whole lot.

Ahh. So you do know me. But given the quality of your assertions and claims in this very thread, I'm afraid by dint of the mere fact you believe this isn't political and seem incapable of understanding why I, and everyone else here, believes it is - despite your own tacit admission that it has no real need to exist as written - you literally refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

So yeah, you're pretty much wrong on all counts. And yes - I'm *beyond* hipster-level amused (hint: most hipsters are not really amused at anything - they're too busy trying to be hip. I'm way too old for that) But if my caps triggered you: I totally understand. LOL <-- MOAR AMUSEMENT!




As I read the longer quote, Paizo is saying "don't remove the female NPCs from the game world if someone doesn't like women in the roles those characters have, even if there are no female players at the table."[/QUOTE]

Quote from: KingCheops;1055361Why do we need to represent "all" even if not present at a table?  WTF does that even mean?  Do I need to include "latinx" in an Arrows of Indra game?  Do I need to have an equal number of Faerunians in an Al-Qadim game?

EDIT:  Oops wait those games are already "inclusive" because they aren't Euro-centric.  Guess I answered my own question.

This is why I asked "How am I being represented at others tables?"

It's a purity test.

I may be late on this, but I recently learned about MAPs, which I thought a co-worker was making up to poke fun as SJWs and such. It seems, no...ugh. And it seems they want attachment to the Alternative Lifestyle Alphabet, too. How well will that go over with gays, who have tried very hard to keep the stigma of pedophilia separate from being homosexual? My reason for examination of this abhorrent topic is...

So, rawma...Motorskills...do MAPs have a right to self-expression at a Pathfinder table? As a GM do I need to ensure a pedophile in present as an NPC? It can't only be as a villain, I'm sure, as that would be harmful (am I the only one sick of what some twerps consider "harm" now?), correct? I mean, if I ensured a blind, black lesbian in a wheelchair was present as an NPC but she was a villain, that would almost assuredly be my straight, white, cis, Christian, toxic masculinity projecting hatred of the blind, blacks, lesbians and disabled people, or at least many SJWs would see it that way.

So, do MAPs deserve to be represented? According to the Paizo manifesto you both defend, they do. I for one would not play with somebody who believed the predation of children is OK, at the table or away. At worse I have seen/GM’d villains be/being unseemly toward children but never "on-screen", and such villains are a rarity. I'm seriously hoping for one or both of you to examine the ideology that says individuals...no matter their “experiences” or “identities”...such as pedophiles and infantophiles...have every right to be respected and represented at every table. If you can't or won't see how unbelievably slippery the slope of socjus is, I hope this cancerous thinking evaporates from the world sooner than later, removing it for you.

In the brilliant words of Spinachcat, "Fuck Paizo!".