TheRPGSite

Since the RPGpundit responded repeatedly to my comment threads on g+, I thought why not post my open letter right here?  Please, keep in mind that I have no interest in dissecting what bad shit happened last week or 3 years ago.  Nor do I want to hear about some awful person who did this or that.

This is about moving forward and opening up a dialog with select individuals who might want to move past the tribalism / gaming community faction bullshit.

Here's the link:  http://vengersatanis.blogspot.com/2016/07/open-letter-to-osr-storygamers.html

Here's a blurb...

QuoteI'm an active and outspoken gamer within the OSR community.  Months ago, you might have heard about my sleazy sci-fi RPG Alpha Blue being pulled from OneBookShelf for about 48 hours.  I write, I publish, I play games, and chat with other gamers.  Regardless of your feelings about one or more individuals, I'm not your enemy... and I'm not the enemy.

To read that these two factions are at war seemed ridiculous to me.  I don't know, like, 90% of Storygamers (come to think of it... I probably only know about 75% of the OSR).  For the most part, I feel like the OSR sees the Storygame community as Canada.  We're vaguely aware that you exist, but we just never really think of you.  You guys are the good neighbors who don't cause us much grief, but on the other hand, you don't go out of your way to interact with us.  Has the US been secretly at war with Canada all these years?  I doubt it.  And if that's true, it's not a productive use of our energies.

Have a good one,

VS

When was the last time you heard anyone say, 'hey! let's go out for some Canadian food?'

Dunno what prompted this discussion and/or dunno what went on several years ago. What I do know is that I see the OSR and Storygame folks as having very different goals and have no idea why there should be real conflict between the two. My take is that the OSR is more interested in playing games as they were done back in the 1970's and 1980's while the Storygamers are interested in advancing more modern mechanics to allow story to trump random rolls. If one were to draw a Venn diagram of the two game groups I suspect there they find very little in common, so fighting over the "right way" to play seems futile.

It does seem interesting for an author to refer to his own game as "sleazy", however. :D

Here's my Open Letter to you or anyone else with a blog:  I don't give two fucking shits about your goddamn ad traffic, so if you want to boost your shit by posting it here, post the whole damn thing, if I like it, I'll go visit, if not, go take your clickbait and rape your mama with it.

Quote from: The Cthulhu Sex GuyFirst off, this blog post is an open letter to both RPG communities - the OSR and Storygamers.  It's in response to the +Mark Diaz Truman post here.  And this is the (now closed) g+ comment stream that followed.

There are a number of things that jumped out at me.  The most important being that feuding between gaming communities is a waste of time and energy.

I'm an active and outspoken gamer within the OSR community.  Months ago, you might have heard about my sleazy sci-fi RPG Alpha Blue being pulled from OneBookShelf for about 48 hours.  I write, I publish, I play games, and chat with other gamers.  Regardless of your feelings about one or more individuals, I'm not your enemy... and I'm not the enemy.

To read that these two factions are at war seemed ridiculous to me.  I don't know, like, 90% of Storygamers (come to think of it... I probably only know about 75% of the OSR).  For the most part, I feel like the OSR sees the Storygame community as Canada.  We're vaguely aware that you exist, but we just never really think of you.  You guys are the good neighbors who don't cause us much grief, but on the other hand, you don't go out of your way to interact with us.  Has the US been secretly at war with Canada all these years?  I doubt it.  And if that's true, it's not a productive use of our energies.

Awhile back, I said something online publicly about +Erik Tenkar.  Then he said something about me.  It went back and forth a bit.  At some point during the exchange, Erik mentioned "getting his Irish up," or something to that effect.  I'm Irish.  My mother's maiden name is Murphy.  And I said nothing - at least, I don't recall saying anything.  Thankfully, we eventually got shit off our chests (proverbially, thank Dread Cthulhu), and now I consider him a friend.

I know both +Zak Sabbath and +Kasimir Urbanski (RPGpundit), but I can't speak for them.  Also, they are not in charge.  We don't have leaders or officials or badges of authenticity.  The OSR is filled with a lot of different personalities.  We're not all one thing or another.  I think all gamers are relatively eclectic, actually.  Our one commonality - we enjoy roleplaying games.

If you're going to communicate with the OSR, and I hope Storygamers will, there are some things I should mention.  Though, I personally consider myself progressive and liberal (most of the time), the following are words and phrases that won't mean much to us.  We don't use them.  At least, I can't remember the last time I've seen them used on an OSR blog, forum thread, g+ post, etc. (except for +Kiel Chenier)

• People have been hurt by this or that - you can talk about your hurt feelings, but that's not going to garner much sympathy.  Life is a contact sport.  If you haven't been badly hurt physically, rub dirt into it and walk it off.
• Harassment and abuse - similar to the above... if it's not bad enough that you've gotten the authorities involved, then chances are that it's more hurt feelings by people who strongly disagree with you on the internet.  Not worth crying about.
• We're not being inclusive enough - I don't give a damn what color, gender, sexual preference, religion, or anything else you are.  If we have common interests, let's chat.  If we have a good chemistry, then hopefully we can be friends.  No one in the OSR feels bad because the guy writing his own Labyrinth Lord modules doesn't have enough ethnic diversity on his cover or collaborating on its design.  Focus on the work, what individuals bring to the table.  Don't whine about being this or that... or this or that isn't being represented as well as it should be.
• Privilege and power - similar to inclusion, I'm not interested in reading words about how straight white males have it easy or that the powerless are cowering in a little dark corner.  Do something you're proud of that a few other people like, too, and then make use of it.  That's what it's all about.  The more power you have, the more your hands are tied.  So, sometimes the least powerful can become the most powerful.
• Politics - we're not here to talk about Trump versus Hillary, Hillary versus Bernie, or the 2nd amendment versus pro-choice.  Sure, you can mention whatever you want, but don't expect gaming talk to follow suit.  That would be like combining oil and water and assuming it will mix well.
• Lumping people into stereotypical groups - oh, well, those people have over there have beards (!) or frequent the Dragonsfoot forum, theRPGsite, Tenkar's Tavern, or the Story-Game boards.  So, that means those people are all like X, Y, and Z.  
• Continually reminding us that we have a problem in the gaming community - the RPG hobby doesn't have a problem - certain individuals have problems (or are problems).  By and large, everything is fine.  Sure, some bad apples exist.  But constantly trying to shame large groups into behaving a certain way is only going to piss people off.  A gaming community is not the place to advocate for social justice or whatever cause you might have.
• Playing certain RPGs causes brain damage - Fuck off!  That's all I'm going to say about that one.

Obviously, people from both communities have experienced things way before reading this blog post.  I propose we try to move past all that, turn the page, and start anew.  Let's open up a dialog.  But I'd rather not open up old wounds.  They won't heal by re-examining them.  This, here and now, is about moving forward.

If there's a problem, talk about it openly.  Not getting anywhere?  Maybe you need arbitration.  Tag people you know and trust if you are looking for clarification, reassurance, or witnesses.  Perhaps I can be one of those people.  I'm fairly reasonable and unbiased about a lot of things.  I have a lot of friends and tons of acquaintances, but I try not to play favorites.

Of course, first you'd have to get to know me.  Without that first step of communication, there will always be a wall between individuals and communities.  Personally, I could do without that wall because it prevents me from interacting with people I might enjoy getting to know and game with.

Finally, yes, there are ideological differences between the Old School Renaissance and Story Games.  Storygamers go towards the story, while the OSR lets the story come to us.

When it comes down to it, on a fundamental level, I don't really give a shit about that either.  We all love RPGs, and there's a variety of them for a reason.  If you like one type of gaming, that's not going to prevent me from talking with you, appreciating your work ethic, critiquing a piece of artwork, examining a rule/ruling, or even sitting down at a table together in order to try something new out.

Thanks for reading.  Feel free to comment below!

Other than the rocky start, nice post. :D

Quote from: AaronBrown99;910070When was the last time you heard anyone say, 'hey! let's go out for some Canadian food?'

Two days after I last heard someone say "Hey, let's go out for some US food";).

I like storygames.  More than RPGs, generally, because they give me what I want out of a play experience more than most RPGs do (assuming we buy the artificial distinction between them).

Storygamers and storygame designers, on the other hand, seem to generally be worst kind of SJW hipsters, which is why I limit my interactions with them to rules discussions.

And Joe McDaldno seems to have just gone insane.

Quote from: VengerSatanisFinally, yes, there are ideological differences between the Old School Renaissance and Story Games.  Storygamers go towards the story, while the OSR lets the story come to us.

VS

Best paragraph of the blog post. Nice and succinct.

Quote from: daniel_ream;910079And Joe McDaldno seems to have just gone insane.

Is that Joe McDonald->JoeMcDaldno->Avery Mcdaldno?

• "The Deep Forest is a map-drawing game about post-colonial weird fantasy."
  
• "A Place To Fuck Each Other - It's a game about queer women and the relationships they tentatively build within new spaces."
  
• "That game was called Abnormal, and it was about body horror. It was about social isolation and self-loathing and dysmorphia."
  
• "Crypt Community - A game about twee monsters and complicated interpersonal dynamics."
  
• "Dream Askew - Playing Through the Queer Apocalypse."
  

Not sure where you're getting your ideas from...

Quote from: finarvyn;910071My take is that the OSR is more interested in playing games as they were done back in the 1970's and 1980's while the Storygamers are interested in advancing more modern mechanics to allow story to trump random rolls.

As someone who was playing back in the 1970s nd 1980s I find this amusing. We never had any hesitation about allowing story to trump random dice rolls, we also had no hesitation about making story out of random dice rolls.  

The OSR seems to be about playing games the way people wish they had been played back then. Or maybe about telling everyone else that their games are BadWrongFun, which is what Storygamers also seem to like to do.

Me, I don't care how you play your Elfgames.

Quote from: DavetheLost;910093As someone who was playing back in the 1970s and 1980s I find this amusing. We never had any hesitation about allowing story to trump random dice rolls, we also had no hesitation about making story out of random dice rolls.

I was playing back then, too, and we had great stories that came from random rolls. OD&D is a very rules-light game and we often avoided making dice rolls unless they were really needed but I don't think that the feel of the games were the same as the feel of today's Storygames. Maybe I don't have a good feel for what the OSR is trying to do; I'm still playing my OD&D pretty much the way I did in '75.

Quote from: finarvyn;910108I was playing back then, too, and we had great stories that came from random rolls. OD&D is a very rules-light game and we often avoided making dice rolls unless they were really needed but I don't think that the feel of the games were the same as the feel of today's Storygames. Maybe I don't have a good feel for what the OSR is trying to do; I'm still playing my OD&D pretty much the way I did in '75.

We're still playing pretty much the same way we did back then as well.
I have played a few story type games with those who prefer them, and one of the differences I've observed is they seem much more invested in telling personal stories than participating in a group story.
Of course I could be wrong, since my participation is limited to only a few sessions with two groups, so YMMV.

Quote from: AaronBrown99;910070When was the last time you heard anyone say, 'hey! let's go out for some Canadian food?'

I live in a very rural area in the middle of the American Midwest. Every pub-style bar and small-town ice-cream shop around here serves what is essentially poutine or a variation on poutine... only they call it a "Horseshoe", "Pony", "Cheesy fries", or some such.

Culinarily, a Canadian redneck would be quite at home here.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;910115I live in a very rural area in the middle of the American Midwest. Every pub-style bar and small-town ice-cream shop around here serves what is essentially poutine or a variation on poutine... only they call it a "Horseshoe", "Pony", "Cheesy fries", or some such.

Culinarily, a Canadian redneck would be quite at home here.

Ok, cards on the table, I'm a resident of DENVER for goodness sake!  There is NO native food here worth eating.  EVERYTHING is an import, a 'cultural appropriation', for the encephalitic/easily-triggered, and while I joke about Canada not having any original food, OBVIOUSLY beer, donuts, and poutine are exceptions.

Do you know you can't even GET poutine in this g-- forsaken place?  I was in London three weeks ago and you could get a reasonable facsimile of a poutine in several pubs.  In Denver?  FORGET IT!

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;910115I live in a very rural area in the middle of the American Midwest. Every pub-style bar and small-town ice-cream shop around here serves what is essentially poutine or a variation on poutine... only they call it a "Horseshoe", "Pony", "Cheesy fries", or some such.

Well, proper poutine has to be made with cheese curds and beef gravy.  That's something most fake poutines miss.  It really does make a difference.

Quote from: CRKrueger;910082Not sure where you're getting your ideas from...

His Teen Witch game is still my favourite "not sure if Jack Chick or trolling" work.

Quote from: AaronBrown99;910070When was the last time you heard anyone say, 'hey! let's go out for some Canadian food?'

Last week. That person was me. One of the simple joys of living in Saigon is being able to play 9-ball billiards all day and then go down the street for a bucketful of cheap beer and poutine (with fresh curds that squeak when you eat them). If they also had moose burgers I'd eat there every single day. On the other hand, we also have a restaurant here that advertises itself as serving 'genuine American Chinese food' which is - not good. The most hilarious by far though is the (recently defunct for obvious reasons) restaurant that advertised 'Australian Pho'.

Quote from: jeff37923;910080Best paragraph of the blog post. Nice and succinct.

Thank you.

Quote from: Kellri;910122...poutine (with fresh curds that squeak when you eat them)...

If you're eating ANYTHING that squeaks when you chew on them, you may want to order something else.

Also, the proper poutine is made with yes, Beef gravy, but the cheese curds MUST be St. Albert.


Also, I still don't know what the fuck a 'Storygame' is.  From people tell me, it's just a fancy label for an RPG.  Or something the Pundit absolutely wants to burn in a fire.

I wonder if this is even a real thing outside of the internet.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910131Also, I still don't know what the fuck a 'Storygame' is.  From people tell me, it's just a fancy label for an RPG.  Or something the Pundit absolutely wants to burn in a fire.

As best I can tell, it's a game that hands some degree of narrative control over to the players rather than letting it all rest in the GM's hands. As a player, the focus is less on what your character is doing and more on what the group story should be. I'm not really sure where the line is drawn, though, as I don't really play many indie RPGs so don't know much about them. The closest I came was taking a look at The Burning Wheel, but just going over the combat stuff made my eyes bleed. If I wanted overly complicated combat in my game, I'd run Hackmaster.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910133I wonder if this is even a real thing outside of the internet.

For the most part, it isn't. The average gamer doesn't have a clue who Zak S or Pundit are, and they've never heard of story games. I know everyone I game with is completely, blissfully unaware of the ridiculous crap that occurs online in the gaming hobby. I often envy them very much, but then I remember that if I weren't active online I wouldn't know about gems like Godbound or BareBones Fantasy that would never, ever see the light of day at any of the (not-very-local) gaming stores I occasionally hit up.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910133I wonder if this is even a real thing outside of the internet.

It's not. It's not even a thing on the Internet outside of a few ardent morons who just have to fly their freak flag every time they get the chance. Really, if any sane person encounters either one of the kinds of people referred to as front-line warriors in the battle of the Storygamers vs. the OSR - their first, and best reaction should be to laugh and carry on with their day - after making a mental note to never, ever invite that asshole to a game.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910133I wonder if this is even a real thing outside of the internet.

Back in 2014 when it really blew up we had one guy screaming continually about it in our local Facebook group to people who had never heard of anyone involved. He eventually got banned for continually refusing to offer any proof of anything.

Besides that zero.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910133I wonder if this is even a real thing outside of the internet.

Thank Crom, I was starting to think I was the only one who felt that way.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910133I wonder if this is even a real thing outside of the internet.

I wonder this too. But I've started to see the storygamer proclamations outside the net now and can about tell what faction they got their ideas from by what they quoted.

Its also gotten into board gaming and fairly regularly someone will solemnly proclaim Arkham Horror is a really real RPG because they made up a story about the random things that happened while playing. They didnt do any actual role playing while playing. But "I made up a story" makes it an RPG because their idea of RPG is Storygame.

And because Im an equal opportunity idiot slapper. RPG players are guilty of doing this to board gamers too. "Look! This game has units with STATS! Its an RPG!" and every god ever wept.

Or the ones that take it to the Nth degree and role playing (really storygaming) is now defined as "everything on earth" because you can make a story out of anything.

This is part of why theres such conflict between RPG and Storygame. Side B is trying to co-opt side A.

Now replace story game with solo game and scream.

Personally I reserve actual hostilities only with those who try to conflate a meaning to "everything on earth" and especially with those fuckers who are co-opting whatever not because they believe it. But so they can sucker people into buying their product or so there can be more of their thing.

Quote from: AaronBrown99;910070When was the last time you heard anyone say, 'hey! let's go out for some Canadian food?'

I would love to try poutine (or whatever it's called). But no such food exists here.

Quote from: Kellri;910122One of the simple joys of living in Saigon is being able to play 9-ball billiards all day and then go down the street for a bucketful of cheap beer and poutine (with fresh curds that squeak when you eat them).

Is there a notable ex-pat Canadian population in Saigon?

Do you have a local RPG crew these days?

Quote from: yosemitemike;910133I wonder if this is even a real thing outside of the internet.

Neither the OSR, nor the Storywankers exist very much outside the web. It's an online thingie.

I run S&W:WB at game days and out of dozens of players, only a handful had any idea WTF the OSR may be. For everyone else, S&W = AD&D.

Quote from: Brand55;910137I know everyone I game with is completely, blissfully unaware of the ridiculous crap that occurs online in the gaming hobby. I often envy them very much, but then I remember that if I weren't active online I wouldn't know about gems like Godbound or BareBones Fantasy that would never, ever see the light of day at any of the (not-very-local) gaming stores I occasionally hit up.

You nailed it.

The online idiot drama is only acceptable because of discovering kewl shit. It's all about managing the signal to noise ratio in your online experience. It's tough.

2005 called, it wants it's thread back.

Quote from: Spinachcat;910167Is there a notable ex-pat Canadian population in Saigon?

Do you have a local RPG crew these days?

Yes, on both counts. Nearly all of my expat friends are Canadian. I have one good Australian friend, and generally avoid Americans. I don't particularly dislike my fellow Yanks, but I just don't have much in common with them. As for gaming, I play with both expats and Vietnamese (usually in different groups). The expat games typically involve a lot of drinking and smoking and staying out really late while the VNamese games are more geared toward introducing the hobby to high-level IELTS/TOEFL candidates who want conversational practice. The expat games, mostly because the players have all been living here for at least a decade and don't keep up with the rpg scene, are strictly old-school D&D affairs. The Viets, who also aren't hip to the hobby, are a lot more open to doing whatever I feel like - experimental one-shots, etc.  I also play pretty regularly with my kids - we're starting on BASH, a supers game now, which seems pretty fast and fun.

Applause. Big one. Venger, if you ever run for any elected position - be it President of Earth or Cheerleader of the Year - you have my vote.

I have some [slight] doubts about your definition of Storygames, but I will rather express them in CRKrueger's recent discussion on the subject. Let's not hijack this splendid call for a gaming world with more Fun and fewer Flames.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910133I wonder if this is even a real thing outside of the internet.

It is. Most of the protagonists are "keyboard warriors" who behave differently when interacting with a real person, but in certain contexts there is an active indie population that organizes conventions, invites advocates to speak at public events, spends a fuckazilion of bucks to fly Ron Edwards across the Atlantic, and so on. This definitely counts as "outside the internet".

Quote from: jeff37923;910080Best paragraph of the blog post. Nice and succinct.

Indeed. Very nicely put.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910133I wonder if this is even a real thing outside of the internet.

Storygamers probably feel the same way about the OSR.

Quote from: Rincewind1;9101812005 called, it wants it's thread back.

Yeah.

I think a lot of what Venger is pushing for is to make clear who the problem is. The problem is the insane destroyers that think killing Venger's "sleazy" games is good or that must destroy a game that gives human males a strength advantage over human female, or anything else the does not embody North American and European PC/SJW politics.

The problem isn't whether the GM or Player has final narrative control. The problem is the people who would destroy the work of others to push politically correct social agendas.

There is a vocal minority, in both Story Games and OSR, that feels the uncontrollable desire to destroy that with which they do not agree. I think most would agree the majority of destroyers and of public vocal destroyers come from the Story Games side, which makes things more difficult at times.

Quote from: finarvyn;910071Dunno what prompted this discussion and/or dunno what went on several years ago. What I do know is that I see the OSR and Storygame folks as having very different goals and have no idea why there should be real conflict between the two. My take is that the OSR is more interested in playing games as they were done back in the 1970's and 1980's while the Storygamers are interested in advancing more modern mechanics to allow story to trump random rolls. If one were to draw a Venn diagram of the two game groups I suspect there they find very little in common, so fighting over the "right way" to play seems futile.

This started it http://www.magpiegames.com/2016/07/26/two-minutes-hate/ (http://www.magpiegames.com/2016/07/26/two-minutes-hate/)

The start of the blog post is OK. But then it retreats into "if you don't follow our PC requirements, you are guilty of badthink". The funny thing is since the post is not "destroy the enemy" the destroyers are turning on the blog as well. (I had to google terms in the comments. Who the hell came up with the "X Card"? Really? Try actually talking to each other.)

A lot of the G+ discussion has been neat, as I met a lot of OSR/StoryGame crossover folk. And a lot of them have no idea about any of this political and censorship stuff. And you can see this is true on the OSR side as well.

Quote from: finarvyn;910071It does seem interesting for an author to refer to his own game as "sleazy", however. :D

Venger is great that way. :cool:

Quote from: finarvyn;910071Dunno what prompted this discussion and/or dunno what went on several years ago. What I do know is that I see the OSR and Storygame folks as having very different goals and have no idea why there should be real conflict between the two. My take is that the OSR is more interested in playing games as they were done back in the 1970's and 1980's while the Storygamers are interested in advancing more modern mechanics to allow story to trump random rolls. If one were to draw a Venn diagram of the two game groups I suspect there they find very little in common, so fighting over the "right way" to play seems futile.

It does seem interesting for an author to refer to his own game as "sleazy", however. :D

My feeling on the situation is that while the OSR is no more or no less virtuous  than any other group of human beings, by and large the OSR is content in being left alone to it own thing. We all know we are not in the mainstream and as a rule most in the OSR don't think that there will be a second coming where OD&D, BECMI, or AD&D 1st edition is the dominant RPG of the industry and hobby. It is sufficient that the level of technology allows individual and small companies allows them to produce professional level works for the games they like.

Part of the Storygame movement is an idea that they are the next evolution of RPGs. One of their main sites had Roleplaying Games Version 2.0 as part of their header at one time. (http://www.story-games.com/forums/). Along with the diea that Dungeons & Dragon in its various editions was the poster child of what was wrong with Roleplaying games version 1.0.

So here comes along the OSR, a bunch of people that are not only DiY Publishers but did by deliberately targeting the very game they ridicule. And now that we are decade in, it is obvious it has been successful to the point where it collecitvely sells about as well as any other 2nd tier RPG publisher and has a huge range of product covering a wide range.

Since the present era centers around the instant communication of the internet, we get the hear EVERYTHING they bitch about, (and they likewise get to hear what we bitch about). And since many people involved in the OSR and Storygames are stubborn independents a "vigorous" response often results. Which is public as well. And it escalates from there.

Quote from: Kellri;910138It's not. It's not even a thing on the Internet outside of a few ardent morons who just have to fly their freak flag every time they get the chance. Really, if any sane person encounters either one of the kinds of people referred to as front-line warriors in the battle of the Storygamers vs. the OSR - their first, and best reaction should be to laugh and carry on with their day - after making a mental note to never, ever invite that asshole to a game.

You are my Yoda.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910133I wonder if this is even a real thing outside of the internet.

It is a real thing at my FLGS.  There is a very vocal group of "anti-simulationist" story gamers there.

I also think it is a real thing in the minds of some game designers.

All that said, I think the internet has created the divide and fanned the flames.

Kumbaya, my lord, kumbaya! :p

Quote from: yosemitemike;910133I wonder if this is even a real thing outside of the internet.

I've been playing since '86 and I have as yet to hear the words OSR or Storygame come from a living breathing human being.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910131Also, I still don't know what the fuck a 'Storygame' is.  From people tell me, it's just a fancy label for an RPG.  Or something the Pundit absolutely wants to burn in a fire.

This is copy/pasted from Tod Casasent who commented on my blog post.  I think he nailed it...

QuoteI think that might be like defining OSR. LOL To me, story gamer means the players get narrative control beyond their character's actions. In the OSR, a character looks over the bar to see if there is a shotgun and the GM decides if a shotgun is found. In story gaming, the player decides if their character finds a shotgun. I could be entirely mistaken. Let me know what you find. ;-) I see the interest in such a system but don't care for it personally.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;910185Applause. Big one. Venger, if you ever run for any elected position - be it President of Earth or Cheerleader of the Year - you have my vote.

I have some [slight] doubts about your definition of Storygames, but I will rather express them in CRKrueger's recent discussion on the subject. Let's not hijack this splendid call for a gaming world with more Fun and fewer Flames.



It is. Most of the protagonists are "keyboard warriors" who behave differently when interacting with a real person, but in certain contexts there is an active indie population that organizes conventions, invites advocates to speak at public events, spends a fuckazilion of bucks to fly Ron Edwards across the Atlantic, and so on. This definitely counts as "outside the internet".

Thanks, RosenMcStern!  One day I plan on running for President of the United States of America.  And maybe after that some nice, cushy RPG league guidance councilor.  ;)

Quote from: Krimson;910262I've been playing since '86 and I have as yet to hear the words OSR or Storygame come from a living breathing human being.

In my neck of the woods there's a Story Games Meetup group that seems to be fairly popular. So, there's at least some offline visibility, for me, for that gaming sub-niche. I can't say the same for an OSR 'movement' - few gamers I've met in the area have even known what the OSR is or its definition. I haven't seen Meetup groups dedicated to OSR Rpgs, or any local organizations devoted to spreading the message of ye old ways.

Perhaps a large part of that is where I live. Lots of SGs up here. If the Pundit launched a missile strike targeting the Seattle metropolitan area he'd probably wipe out a vast number of 'swine' and be able to claim yet another tactical victory. ;)

Quote from: Krimson;910262I've been playing since '86 and I have as yet to hear the words OSR or Storygame come from a living breathing human being.

Oh, I hear it all the time around here. But mostly it's like "I got this neat new OSR game the other day, want to try it?" and we just assume that OSR equates to "some sort of variation on old D&D".

And then someone says, "That's awesome! I got an itch to play a Storygame sometime, too, who's up for one?" and we all say "Yeah, totally." And then we play OSR games sometimes, and Storygames other times, and everyone's happy and has a great time. Because they're fucking games, and they're fun. And sometimes you feel like playing an OSR game, and sometimes you feel like playing a Storygame.

I'm so fucking sick and tired of the tribalism in the games hobby. Everyone should play what they want to play, and keep their noses out of other people's business.

Quote from: Tod13;910231The start of the blog post is OK. But then it retreats into "if you don't follow our PC requirements, you are guilty of badthink".

That was mostly my reaction, too.

Quote from: Tod13;910231The funny thing is since the post is not "destroy the enemy" the destroyers are turning on the blog as well. (I had to google terms in the comments. Who the hell came up with the "X Card"? Really? Try actually talking to each other.)

Unsurprising. Given enough time SJWs eat each other.

@Herne's Son - if I said Storygame to my friends they would either think I was referring to some sort of Fighting Fantasy or Choose Your Own Adventure book. The term OSR would probably confuse them. I have to explain that OSRIC is AD&D 1e compatible, Labyrinth Lord is BECMI/RC compatible and the term OSR never comes up. As for most everyone else around here if I tried to describe what an OSR was they'd probably think I was talking about Pathfinder. So I don't even try to use the terms with flesh and blood people. So far as I'm concerned people who use those terms only exist on the internet. :D

The trolls on either side of this non-issue are just two different kinds of control freaks. Or rather, the same kind, but not...Or they...Wait, what were we talking about? (rolls 200d6) Okay, you're all fucking dead.

Quote from: DavetheLost;910093As someone who was playing back in the 1970s nd 1980s I find this amusing. We never had any hesitation about allowing story to trump random dice rolls, we also had no hesitation about making story out of random dice rolls.  

The OSR seems to be about playing games the way people wish they had been played back then. Or maybe about telling everyone else that their games are BadWrongFun, which is what Storygamers also seem to like to do.

Me, I don't care how you play your Elfgames.

I played OSR type games in the late 1980's and all I found was a bunch of bullshit houserules and worse. Hence the reason I'm not interested unless you say fuck your assumptions and do something interesting like DCC or ACKS. Labyrinth Lord, Castles and Crusades among others for example is boring and I played that already and don't particularly get into it. Excellent rules and games nonetheless.

I believe there's a middle ground that the excluded middle like myself exist in, and we are larger then both your insane and exclusionary groups. I like Did 2e/5e I don't like 0/1e and before or 4e. I like Warhammer, Shadowrun, UA, CrOD and Dresden Files. I don't like the oWoD, Fate or AW. Realize it and don't group me into being a storygamer or OSR type. Accept and understand I'm many types of gamer and like games influenced by both sides and more.

Quote from: Krimson;910325@Herne's Son - if I said Storygame to my friends they would either think I was referring to some sort of Fighting Fantasy or Choose Your Own Adventure book. The term OSR would probably confuse them. I have to explain that OSRIC is AD&D 1e compatible, Labyrinth Lord is BECMI/RC compatible and the term OSR never comes up. As for most everyone else around here if I tried to describe what an OSR was they'd probably think I was talking about Pathfinder. So I don't even try to use the terms with flesh and blood people. So far as I'm concerned people who use those terms only exist on the internet. :D

That would be me too. For a long time Id hear about "Storygames" and thought it was some refference to the FF or pick-your-path books. But neither of those are RPGs so it got a little confusing. Same with OSR. What was that? I have a vague idea it was related to D&D. But every time I came across something related it loomed more like some sort of design theft movement.

Quote from: cranebump;910333The trolls on either side of this non-issue are just two different kinds of control freaks. Or rather, the same kind, but not...Or they...Wait, what were we talking about? (rolls 200d6) Okay, you're all fucking dead.

Thats the other thing that gets annoying as hell. Both sides have these factions of nut cases who go way overboard and are probably the main reasons why both storygames and OSR get looked on negatively by some outside both.

Quote from: Marleycat;910344I played OSR type games in the late 1980's and all I found was a bunch of bullshit houserules and worse. Hence the reason I'm not interested unless you say fuck your assumptions and do something interesting like DCC or ACKS. Labyrinth Lord, Castles and Crusades among others for example is boring and I played that already and don't particularly get into it. Excellent rules and games nonetheless.

I believe there's a middle ground that the excluded middle like myself exist in, and we are larger then both your insane and exclusionary groups. I like Did 2e/5e I don't like 0/1e and before or 4e. I like Warhammer, Shadowrun, UA, CrOD and Dresden Files. I don't like the oWoD, Fate or AW. Realize it and don't group me into being a storygamer or OSR type. Accept and understand I'm many types of gamer and like games influenced by both sides and more.

That's the crux of it, OSR and Storygames are bullshit labels that mean nothing except that X person wants to peddle you something, whether for money, or your attention, which legitimizes their existence.  There are as many different styles of gaming that encompass pretty much the same amount of gamers/groups out there.  And have been since 1973 when the ground work for D&D was being laid in some fashion.

Play what you like, as you like, we're all gamers, right?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910361That's the crux of it, OSR and Storygames are bullshit labels that mean nothing except that X person wants to peddle you something, whether for money, or your attention, which legitimizes their existence.  There are as many different styles of gaming that encompass pretty much the same amount of gamers/groups out there.  And have been since 1973 when the ground work for D&D was being laid in some fashion.

Play what you like, as you like, we're all gamers, right?

Exactly. The excluded middle that just wants to play a simple heroic game like 5e in the Middle Earth isn't your enemy. The enemy is in the basement. Talking about how the art and cover is discriminatory, racist and sexual. And even more irrelevant things. Dude, I want to play my version of Gandalf, Aragón, elves, dwarves etc.

Luckily it seems I'm getting my wish.

BTW, the 5e Adventures in Middle Earth Player's Guide and Loremaster's Guide are up for pre-order on Cubicle 7's site.

PDF for Player's Guide should be delivered in August.
Physical book for Player's Guide shipping in the Fall.
PDFs for Loremaster's Guide and Physical book delivered in the Fall.

Quote from: Marleycat;910344I believe there's a middle ground that the excluded middle like myself exist in,

Excluded middle or special snowflakes?

Hey Marleycat, I'm glad to see you back!!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910361Play what you like, as you like, we're all gamers, right?

Not really. The kumbaya noise is bullshit.

RPGs are not football or baseball where the uniforms are different, but the game is the same. It's not a unified hobby, and certainly far less so than previously. And that's okay. Instead of unity, everyone can have their own niche.

And if members of some niches want to bitch at each other on the web? So what? It's equally meaningless to the unpaid cheerleaders of Team Red vs. Team Blue duking it out on forums over this election.

Quote from: Spinachcat;910389Excluded middle or special snowflakes?

What's so 'special' about playing the game your way? Everyone does it.

Quote from: Spinachcat;910389Not really. The kumbaya noise is bullshit.

RPGs are not football or baseball where the uniforms are different, but the game is the same. It's not a unified hobby, and certainly far less so than previously. And that's okay. Instead of unity, everyone can have their own niche.

And if members of some niches want to bitch at each other on the web? So what? It's equally meaningless to the unpaid cheerleaders of Team Red vs. Team Blue duking it out on forums over this election.

So you're totally fine with people screaming "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!" at each other?  really?

It's attitudes like that one that creates Edition Wars.  Which are unproductive and quite frankly pointless.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910486So you're totally fine with people screaming "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!" at each other?  really?

I've been hearing 'You're doing it wrong!' ever since I started playing RPGs... I think I've even read of St. Gygax uttering it, or something similar, from time to time.
As long as it's not breaking out into real world harassment/violence... meh.

My position is... I like RPGs AND (sometimes) Storygames... I can see the appeal of each. What I don't like are games that mix the two... just like I don't want games with levels/classes and skills. I WANT a firm division because those things appeal to me in very different ways.
Similarly, I get my hackles up when people suggest my love for older games is 'nostalgia'... even if I only played the thing for the first time a week ago. Also, when they insist their preferences in games are more 'modern' or 'evolved'... 'progressive'... so my favorite game could really use a dose of theirs... they love Fate so all games now go better with Aspects or whatever.
I don't seem to notice much flow in the opposite direction... "Gee, your Storygame could really use some more complex fatigue rules..."

I didn't appreciate the insertion of Storygame elements into the new edition of COC... such as suggestions that the Players and the GM are competing for narrative control... so I won't buy it (all the talk about Players in 'simulationist' games not having any narrative control is bullshit anyway).
Stuff like Rosen McStern is pushing... shoving storygame mechanics into 'traditional' D100 rules... is just dead in the water for me.

But I'd happily play a game of My Life With Master.

Quote from: Simlasa;910506I've been hearing 'You're doing it wrong!' ever since I started playing RPGs... I think I've even read of St. Gygax uttering it, or something similar, from time to time.
As long as it's not breaking out into real world harassment/violence... meh.

My point is:  It's still not right.

This a cooperative hobby, and we should be willing to allow others to join it.  More gamers means more potential players.  And after 42 fucking years of being shoved into the marginalized group of 'Nerd' or 'Geek' or whatever label we want to jack off at, just because I like to sketch and write as a hobby, I'd rather have more people willing to cooperate and be afraid of people who are different.  Which in EXTREME cases DOES lead to violence.

We have enough of that in the world, thank you.  I'd like for it to happen even less than it does now.

Quote from: Simlasa;910506My position is... I like RPGs AND (sometimes) Storygames... I can see the appeal of each. What I don't like are games that mix the two... just like I don't want games with levels/classes and skills. I WANT a firm division because those things appeal to me in very different ways.
Similarly, I get my hackles up when people suggest my love for older games is 'nostalgia'... even if I only played the thing for the first time a week ago. Also, when they insist their preferences in games are more 'modern' or 'evolved'... 'progressive'... so my favorite game could really use a dose of theirs... they love Fate so all games now go better with Aspects or whatever.
I don't seem to notice much flow in the opposite direction... "Gee, your Storygame could really use some more complex fatigue rules..."

I didn't appreciate the insertion of Storygame elements into the new edition of COC... such as suggestions that the Players and the GM are competing for narrative control... so I won't buy it (all the talk about Players in 'simulationist' games not having any narrative control is bullshit anyway).
Stuff like Rosen McStern is pushing... shoving storygame mechanics into 'traditional' D100 rules... is just dead in the water for me.

But I'd happily play a game of My Life With Master.

I don't know, I'm not sure that keeping them separate will work for much longer.  There will always be outliers and ends of the a spectrum, but a merging and mixing of ideas is going to happen.  Oh, it won't be a perfect mix with 50% of each form of idea, but even if it's 70/30, it will be there.

Again, personally, even if I don't care for the implementation, I'm glad there is one for people who do.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910513My point is:  It's still not right.

Yeah, but like a lot of dumb stuff it's just human nature and won't be changing any time soon. Some/most people will find their way past it and others won't. Until it crosses over into actual abuse it's just noise. The best I can do is try to refrain from it myself.

QuoteI don't know, I'm not sure that keeping them separate will work for much longer.

Why? Why is one preference an imperative on the other? People like boardgames... is it a given that more RPGs will be played on boards with meeples and pop-o-matics? Why is it destined to be a all-in-one pudding of bacon and chocolate and cheese just because those are things people like?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910486So you're totally fine with people screaming "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!" at each other?  really?

It's attitudes like that one that creates Edition Wars.  Which are unproductive and quite frankly pointless.

Actually, it is attitudes like yours which seem to be afraid of confrontation that are the problem.

That last time someone came up to me screaming "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!", I told them to go fuck themselves and go play the game how they feel that they should. Problem was solved in less than a minute.

Jesus Christ I take a few weeks off of Google + and forums in general only to come back and find that more internet drama fests are in full swing.

What in the fuck is wrong with the "gaming community"? Why can't the factions that despise each other just block/ignore/mute the other? God damn.

*spins around on one foot, heads back out the door*

Quote from: AsenRG;910077Two days after I last heard someone say "Hey, let's go out for some US food";).

Food here kicks ass because we have pretty much everything. Noms!!! And we don't perform emoticon bukkake.

But seriously, as far as the OP goes...um...what? I'm lost. Meaning: Just fucking play games and chill.

Unless it's Ex3. You can shit all over that.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;910525Food here kicks ass because we have pretty much everything. Noms!!!

Meaning, you have the same as in Canada, except they've got better mapple syrup;).

QuoteAnd we don't perform emoticon bukkake.

How did you get from food to being sexually repressed? That was sudden even for TRS:D!

Quote from: Necrozius;910524Jesus Christ I take a few weeks off of Google + and forums in general only to come back and find that more internet drama fests are in full swing.

What in the fuck is wrong with the "gaming community"? Why can't the factions that despise each other just block/ignore/mute the other? God damn.

*spins around on one foot, heads back out the door*

No kidding. The conservative and liberal wings of the RPG party are throwing shit back and forth, forcing the vast middle to walk through it. Sound and fury, as we all know.

There IS a way to do RPGs wrong.

NOT having fun. That's plainly wrong.

If a game or a situation or a ruling is NOT fun, you're doing it wrong. If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong. If you're having fun, but everyone else is fucking miserable, you're doing it wrong. If everyone else is fucking pleased as chickens in a grain silo, but you feel like a chicken cooking in a missile silo, you're doing it WRONG. FUN = RIGHT (CORRECT). NOT FUN = WRONG (INCORRECT).

Easy. Breezy. Cover Girl.

The rest is just profundity or imprudence depending on our moods.

For the record, this was my response (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-cant-we-all-just-get-along-sure-as.html) to the original blog entry.

I'm for inclusion.

I'm also for free speech (actual free speech--which means it doesn't INTEND to harm, injure or defame).

I think someone who publishes a creative work shouldn't be indicted because someone else perceives their work as an attack just because it doesn't fit their world view.

I think some things are in bad taste, but I when I do, I don't support them.

Finally, I feel like the "color" of RPGs, from a business standpoint, is GREEN. It may gain a publisher a little more $$ if they expand their representation when it comes to the staples of character/gender.

But I don't feel like anyone should be compelled toward such expansion. Nor should they be censored.

Remember what Morrow did with Mcarthy? He let the man speak for himself, and let everyone See It Now. And Mcarthy disappeared. Maybe not a perfect example, but the point is, the audience will tell you if they're offended, or put off, or whatever, by voting with their feet. Those who consume RPGs do so with their purses.

The venue of the RPG really isn't a place where addressing real life issues of injustice will actually solve anything.  We do that at our own tables. We do that in the way we deal with others.

From where I sit, and in my limited view, the audience for these things has been traditionally white and male. But in personal experience, I've also run across (and gamed with) guys and gals, and gamers white, black and brown. And from what I've witnessed on my sporadic visits to the local game stores, the current audience for all sorts of games is broad. Diverse.

What matters is the table. What matters at the table is whether you're an asshole, or not. Most folks I've met, here and even online, are definitely not (save for the occasional bit of assholery we all endure, and sometimes inflict -- we're human beings, after all).

Free speech is good. Diversity is good. They can co-exist. Everyone can flourish.  It's not a zero sum game.

It's just a game meant to please. And, from where I sit, with my own, relatively limited view of the totality of the hobby, there seems to be a broad range of stuff out there to please everyone.

I mean, if anything, society itself seems more apt now to accept that which was considered "weird," or "goofy" when I was growing up. And I, for one, am pleased with THAT.

Making nice while the other side is still on the attack is called surrender.

Quote from: cranebump;910574Diversity is good.

Actual diversity is good.  Politically correct checkbox diversity is a stifling sham.

Quote from: Simlasa;910506I think I've even read of St. Gygax uttering it, or something similar, from time to time.

You more likely heard the oft misquoted/deliberately mis-read passages from the DMG that warns the DM to not change things without consideration since it may disrupt game balance. But feel free to change things as long as you accept that A: It may break something and B: tounament games and even other tables likely arent using your changes.

But no no! You see Gygax was telling everyone to "play it my way or else!" It says so right here and here! Seeeeee?

Repeat ad nausium.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910513This a cooperative hobby, and we should be willing to allow others to join it.

More gamers means more potential players.

And after 42 fucking years of being shoved into the marginalized group of 'Nerd' or 'Geek' or whatever label we want to jack off at, just because I like to sketch and write as a hobby, I'd rather have more people willing to cooperate and be afraid of people who are different.  Which in EXTREME cases DOES lead to violence.

1: Since when has this been a co-operative hobby? Gamings been at eachothers throats since the game was published and hasnt let go since.

2: More gamers means more potential lunatics. For every Gronan or Chris I get I can about guarantee now Im going to get two or three Jeffs or Lunamancers. And I've got only so much space in the back yard for bodies.

3: We are (theoretically) adults (or theoretically soon to be adults) playing games. And in the US at least people still believe that playing games is for children so you must be some pathetic man child to still be playing games. And thats being taught in schools and college right now. That on top of the media depicting RPG players and even board gamers as either morons, losers, or borderline insane if not totally disconnected from reality.

But poker is alright because you're betting money and you get to smoke cigars while you play.

And chess is for weird egghead types.

Quote from: Omega;910601You more likely heard the oft misquoted/deliberately mis-read passages from the DMG that warns the DM to not change things without consideration since it may disrupt game balance.

Nope... I don't have any specific references but my generally negative impression of the man was formed from stuff he wrote in Dragon... railing against people seeking more 'realism' in their games, calling them 'scoundrels' and basically saying it was badwrongfun.

Quote from: trechriron;910554There IS a way to do RPGs wrong.

NOT having fun. That's plainly wrong.

If a game or a situation or a ruling is NOT fun, you're doing it wrong. If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong. If you're having fun, but everyone else is fucking miserable, you're doing it wrong. If everyone else is fucking pleased as chickens in a grain silo, but you feel like a chicken cooking in a missile silo, you're doing it WRONG. FUN = RIGHT (CORRECT). NOT FUN = WRONG (INCORRECT).

Easy. Breezy. Cover Girl.

The rest is just profundity or imprudence depending on our moods.

Ah but you see your good is my evil. And so I must destroy you.

ahem...

But really. There are players, way too many, whos idea of fun is to ruin a game for everyone else. Be it a session or even the enjoyment of the game at all. They get off on committing emotional damage be it small or lasting.

And there are players whos idea of fun is simply at right angles to yours or my idea of fun. I meet players every day whos needs for a type of RP are totally outside my interests or even ability to indulge.

example: If someone presented to me say Walking Dead as an RPG Id refuse because A: I dont like the series, and B: Im just about sick to death of all things zombie. I dont care if its a good system. The setting and theme for me is not fun. Conversely I've had players just not interested in Albedo becuae its funny animals in a very bleak war setting and more to the point is a hard fiction setting. No ray guns or aliens! Oh no! They dont find that any fun.

And I accept this totally (even if its occasionally annoying.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910486So you're totally fine with people screaming "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!" at each other?  really?

Totally fine. That's freedom of speech.

But I have the freedom to not listen to anyone's screaming.

Moreover, my players think I'm doing it right.

So WTF do I care if people who I will never game with think I am doing it wrong?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910513This a cooperative hobby, and we should be willing to allow others to join it.  More gamers means more potential players.

Who is stopping them from joining?

New players will join, find the niche they prefer, and hopefully have fun.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910513And after 42 fucking years of being shoved into the marginalized group of 'Nerd' or 'Geek' or whatever label we want to jack off at,

What???

Why did you let anyone shove you into a "marginalized group" and give you a "label"?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910513Which in EXTREME cases DOES lead to violence.

...and abuse of CAPS LOCK.

Quote from: trechriron;910554There IS a way to do RPGs wrong.

NOT having fun. That's plainly wrong.

I remember way-back-when I was in high school and talking to some middle school gamers. They thought two handed swords were swords you could use in each hand. They really loved that because these two handed swords had the best damage and you could have one in each hand AND even better, since magic users could use them. Yeah, because magic users can't use swords, but nothing says they can't use two handed swords.

I remember telling the poor kids they were wrong. Which bummed them out. In retrospect, it was ME who was wrong to rain on their fun.

Quote from: Spinachcat;910615Who is stopping them from joining?

Very few people enjoy being yelled at, reminds them too much of their job.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910617Very few people enjoy being yelled at, reminds them too much of their job.

Is this something you encounter a lot?  I mean people actually yelling at new players in real life not internet kerfuffles about OSR v storygame stuff that almost no one actually cares about.  I mean actual yelling in real life.  If so, who do you play with and why do you play with them?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910617Very few people enjoy being yelled at, reminds them too much of their job.

Among many other things. I mentioned this in another thread, but until joining here it was two years since being a part of an RPG forum, thanks to two months on The Gaming Den. It took that fucking long to wash the stink away. Also, before people start screaming that I'm just some tumblr loser, I enjoy the OOB manager in Hearts of Iron 3. Even Rifts isn't as clunky as the HOI 3 OOB manager.

Besides the being yelled at part, getting people into RPGs or tabletop games, that aren't the target market (let's be honest middle aged white guys that started playing in the 80s), is pretty hard. I'm 24 and also an avid tabletop wargamer (love me some Malifaux). My girlfriend showed some interest in getting into Malifaux, and it was damn near dead on arrival the second she saw how most women were depicted. Stripper chic turns off a lot of women (and guys like me) from a setting. Thank God I remembered Toni Ironsides (badass, reasonably clothed, factory worker/brawler chick with iron fists), whose crew she now uses. I'm just glad I play malifaux, warhammer doesn't even have black characters (besides the Salamanders, who went from African to literally pitch black because GW are idiots.)

She's also a huge early Anne Rice fan, so I thought that she'd love VTM Bloodlines and the RPG itself. First thing we really talked about after she played through the game and read some of the books, "where are the gay/bisexual love interests?" You go from Anne Rice's vampire, almost all of whom have romantic relations with both genders, to Bloodlines, which was pretty clearly written for a straight male audience (see outfits, Malkavian). Seduction is almost entirely Female to Male, you can basically either play as a lesbian or straight dude. She got past it, but it's hard to get into something that has clearly not been written for you. This is made worse by the fact that when the hobby tries to innovate, people get screamed at for invading the clubhouse. Explaining that Washington Post article over Gencon was damn awkward, and I won't even start about the Sad Puppies fiasco with Science Fiction. I get that people feel ownership over the things they have been enjoying since they were kids, but everything develops over time.

I also think older gamers underestimate how different of a world younger people grew up in. To people like Yosemite it may be "box checking" but for younger players we kind of expect our media to reflect what our country looks like. The Flash is a perfect example of this, it doesn't address gender or race, yet the show has an incredibly diverse cast and presents it as just a normal thing in modern America. You can't just assume white as the default anymore, with other ethnicities only coming in for specialized roles. It really does have an impact on people to be able to open a book, or turn on a tv set, and see people who look like them in leading roles. I grew up in a majority black neighborhood, and one of the reasons why wrestling was so popular was because it was the one show my friends could turn on and see people who looked like them in leading roles.

To see this in action, compared to RPGs, getting my GF into Pro Wrestling was actually a breeze. For one, everyone's dressed sexy, so you don't have the plate armor vs chainmail bikini effect. Secondly, there's just a lot more diversity and respect for female characters, especially by the audience. What Female RPG NPC would you use to introduce someone to TTRPGs? For wrestling, it was easy: "This is Ivelisse. A guy was creeping on her. She kicked him in the face and now they're on a team because he realized she isn't to be messed with. She goes toe to toe with men on a regular basis and is often the most popular character." (Lucha Underground is the shit and would actually make a perfect TTRPG setting. I mean, time traveling astronaut and a reincarnated dragon having nunchuck fights in dingy warehouse bathrooms. Just pure awesome). Or, "This is Bayley. She's a huge wrestling fan who finally has achieved her dream. She's pure hearted, kind and kids love her. Also, the crowd chants "Bayley's gonna hug you" at her opponents because she's strong as shit and can effortlessly suplex just about anyone."

I understand that the Tumblr side of the storygamer community is toxic. But responding in kind just makes everything worse. Not the least of which, it plays perfectly into the outside media's narrative of the closed off nerd clubhouse and the zealous gatekeepers protecting their childhood hobbies. Is it unfair? Yeah, it is. But the fact is, it's 2016, and the side that's pushing for a greater mix of people at the table is going to have a lot more sympathy than the side which is seemingly resisting. When you call the first majority women panel at Gencon douchebags, you're setting back the work of everyone else who's been trying to get new people into the hobby or defending it from outside criticism.

On a sidenote, re: Alpha Blue. There are a lot of ways to do sex well in a game. Wick's Galaxy XXX has a fantastic design philosophy. The cover has two attractive people of both genders dressed equally sexy. Sex itself is presented with mechanical benefits from mutual pleasure and skill. While I didn't support at all the censoring of Alpha Blue, that doesn't mean I didn't groan when I found out about it at first either. It's a throwback to 1980s nerd culture, and not in a good way, in my view. Seriously, Rape Machine? In 2016?

Quote from: yosemitemike;910575Actual diversity is good.  Politically correct checkbox diversity is a stifling sham.

Amen. I am not and never have been politically correct. I do not give a rat's ass about diversity "quotas" or "encouraging" people of this or that particular group , who we like to sort into buckets, to produce material.

I decide on what I want by the content of the work. I encourage everyone who wants to produce material to do so. I don't care if group X is producing as much as groups Y or Z. When I am looking for content, I don't screen authors based on criteria such as color, gender, etc. I look at the product and if it looks interesting and makes me want to buy it then I do so. Its called a free market.

Anyone with talent and and passion should be encouraged to do what they want but saying we need more material from people in group Z is bullshit. There is a world of difference between actual discrimination and SJW bullshit. If I see a product that looks cool and interesting and I am not familiar with the author or the artist, I don't go online and see if the person is in X,Y, or Z group and either decide to support or boycott them. If the product turns out to be as good as it looked then I will look for other products by that author or artist. Its all about the product.

I am certainly not going to buy products just to "support diversity" if I am not interested in them. That is a ridiculous proposition.

As far as story games are concerned I can play and enjoy them without blathering on and on about how they are no different than traditional rpgs. I like both types of games and can still recognize the differences between them.

That said, I have no use for the SJW left leaning storygamer crowd. It is their blatant hypocrisy that makes me tune them out.

What hypocrisy you say? The SJW gang of misfits all claim to be about diversity and inclusiveness. They are the good guys because they want to include everyone while "celebrating differences."

Except when it comes to games.

Celebrating differences is front and center of the platform until games enter the picture. Games have all be considered the same no matter how much the objectives of play or what the participants may want out them differ. Those differences cannot be celebrated or even tolerated. What is wrong with celebrating differences in gaming tastes? Why does the mere mention that there may be fundamental differences in gaming styles that influence enjoyment send a group that celebrates diversity into such a tizzy?

It wouldn't unless the extreme storygame partisans were hypocrites.

The guy makes common sense points, I guess. But damn if it isn't about gaming and gamers and rather this vile mindset of social justice. Our hobby isn't the only venue to fall prey to their bullshit. Hell, look at what the Left's become because of it. It's an infectious cult of stupidity, pure and simple. I dare call it evil.

As far as Storygames being havens for this crap, I disagree. I could be wrong. I like Storygames. I respect OSR. But they aren't the only game-styles out there. I dunno, man. I just can't relate to the drama.

What doesn't help is that the Internet...as awesome as it is...allows idiots to flourish. They can create echo chambers and keep any voice of dissent out. They bathe in each other's filth and give birth to more of the same. There is no sunlight to disinfect, so the disease just keeps growing on shit in the dark.

Maybe our hobby is hit so hard (or just seems to be) because historically, gamers have been nerds and nerds are outcasts. Gamers are also, more often than not, welcoming to bringing outsiders into the hobby, having been shunned and not wanting to do it to others.

Sadly, the filth...the Swine (if I'm using it correctly)...are also outcasts. Worse, they're addicted to self-aggrandizement, self-victimization and self-pity. They wormed in, took root and all but took over. They have, in their minds, power. They're views are backed by other venues and they control places to the fullest, censoring and barring wrong-think enemies of their state.

They're not gamers. Not really. Gamers game. Sure, we poke and prod at each other over editions, styles of play and how to be an elf, but in the end our bliss is at the table, gaming or doing "gaming stuff". As much as we frequent forums and post about random shit, in the end we game. We love the hobby.

They don't. It's just another vector for the disease of social justice. It's sad, it can be frustrating, but in the end it can't hurt us one bit, no matter how annoying it is. They can't control my imagination or any part of my life. It's awesome.

I've stated the obvious and probably repeated others. I hope I made a little sense. I just needed to say it because I can.

Diversity in any community is a good thing. But I hate the implication going around that if a project happens to be made by a group of white people (or, heaven forbid, MEN), then it's deliberately being racist/sexist/transphobic. What if a project is helmed by a group of friends who happen to all be from the same gender/race? How do we know that they deliberately excluded other genders/races? Do we need to ensure that we have a quota or something? Why the witch hunting and shaming?

I have yet to publish my first actual adventure module (working on them right now), but because I'm a white, straight male, does that mean that if I publish this work I'm "part of the problem" by my very existence? Or do I get a pass by hiring a non-white, non-male artist/writer/desktop publisher? When does this become tokenism?

I refuse to believe that by having fun in my main hobby I'm being a bigot. Fuck that noise. If I finally fulfill my dream of publishing gaming material I'm not silencing anyone else and fuck anyone who accuses me of that.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910575Actual diversity is good.  Politically correct checkbox diversity is a stifling sham.

Sure. And I thought that was what I was saying. Maybe not...

The reverse of PC is also true -- making statements about the world from a single viewpoint and calling it "reality" is just as shitty. This is why we have folks n the US who believe everything is fair when it isn't (and then saying we shouldn't do anything about it). Some folks in the public arena say some awful things, then mask it as a great crusade against plain ol' decent manners (remember when humility was considered a good trait?).

On the other side, my issue is when folks feel like every place they go, and everyone they meet should be sanitized for their protection. I just hate the idea of "safe spaces."

Of course, this has nothing to do with gaming.

Quoteyounger players we kind of expect our media to reflect what our country looks like.

Blacks are 13% of the US population.  Gays/lesbians are 2-3% (and "trans" a miniscule fraction of that). Minorities of all kinds tend to self-segregate into population enclaves. If media actually reflected what the country looks like, you'd have less minorities than you do now in media.

Demanding some kind of demographic parity is a sure sign that you're an SJW hipster with no idea of what the world is actually like outside your twee little bubble.

kumbaya, kumbaya... :)

That was lovely, everybody! Now let's do 'Climb Every Mountain'!

Climb every mountain, ford every stream... :p

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910617Very few people enjoy being yelled at, reminds them too much of their job.

If you get yelled at where you work and not for good reason, then you need to find another job. Or need to quit being a pussy. One of the two, or both.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910632I understand that the Tumblr side of the storygamer community is toxic. But responding in kind just makes everything worse. Not the least of which, it plays perfectly into the outside media's narrative of the closed off nerd clubhouse and the zealous gatekeepers protecting their childhood hobbies. Is it unfair? Yeah, it is. But the fact is, it's 2016, and the side that's pushing for a greater mix of people at the table is going to have a lot more sympathy than the side which is seemingly resisting. When you call the first majority women panel at Gencon douchebags, you're setting back the work of everyone else who's been trying to get new people into the hobby or defending it from outside criticism.

I think you'll find that many of us have been trying to get new people into the hobby and defending it quite some time before you were born.

A lot of the 'seemingly resisting' you may be perceiving is an unwillingness to jump on a bandwagon when certain aspects of the bandwagon fly against other beliefs.

I may be over simplifying here but I believe the rancor regarding the Gencon panel was that 1) it was being promoted as a social justice platform first and appointing people who have very little recognition in the industry and 2) Mike Pondsmith was named Guest of Honor, seemingly taking into account that he is black, rather than the actual industry merit he does have and I assume most people here recognize as being earned. A great many of us 'older generation' respect merit, which must be earned. And honestly, you don't have to be old to gain merit. You just have to do something worthwhile and not just pat yourself on the back.

Quote from: Lynn;910680I think you'll find that many of us have been trying to get new people into the hobby and defending it quite some time before you were born.

I do get the impression, sometimes, that some young people seem to think they're the first generation to actually take a stance against racism/sexism/cruelty/whatever... that a film with a strong female protagonist is a groundbreaking new idea... that anyone over 30 is a craven lech who wishes they could still own slaves and beat their women.

Quote from: daniel_ream;910654Minorities of all kinds tend to self-segregate into population enclaves.

I'd say you're definitely on point about higher representations of minorities in media. For my part, I think that's okay, because for years there was none.

But the comment about self-segration.  I'm not sure that holds true. I'd offer that self-segregation might occur due to cultural and language boundaries. You settle in where you meet less resistance or difficulty. But there's plenty of evidence that a great deal of segregation isn't entirely by choice. There's this (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/), for one thing. Pretty eye-opening stuff. And then there's the school segregation still going on some places in the south, according to this article  (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/in-southern-towns-segregation-academies-are-still-going-strong/266207/)from 2012. Beyond that, there are eyewitnesses to it. My wife told me about when she was working in real estate about 15 years ago, in Indiana, and how some of her bosses had unofficially drawn the real estate lines by race (as in "don't sell these homes to black people").

But of course, this has nothing to do with gaming...(again)

P.S. Apologies with the political response, but this is what happens in every thread where we talk about social justice and gaming. If it's not a demand for inclusion, then it's an insult about "the left" (the big, scary, bug-eyed monster for some folks).  We might not agree with all idealists, nor all adherents to realpolitik as a guiding life principle. But that doesn't mean either side is flat-out stupid. Your bubble is just as relevant as my bubble. There might be something within each of them from which we all could learn.

Quote from: Lynn;910680I may be over simplifying here but I believe the rancor regarding the Gencon panel was that 1) it was being promoted as a social justice platform first and appointing people who have very little recognition in the industry and 2) Mike Pondsmith was named Guest of Honor, seemingly taking into account that he is black, rather than the actual industry merit he does have and I assume most people here recognize as being earned. A great many of us 'older generation' respect merit, which must be earned. And honestly, you don't have to be old to gain merit. You just have to do something worthwhile and not just pat yourself on the back.

Pondsmith's resume looks pretty damned good. So I am wondering how would you would define 'merit," in this case. Looks to me like he has more than enough of a career to be named a "Guest of Honor." But I guess if it isn't him, then who should it be?

P.S. We older generation people (and I am one of them, if crossing over the half century mark counts), lived in an entirely different world. There are certain aspects of it I wish were more prevalent. And there are plenty of other aspects I am glad to see go away. Just my two cents there.

Quote from: Lynn;910680I think you'll find that many of us have been trying to get new people into the hobby and defending it quite some time before you were born.

A lot of the 'seemingly resisting' you may be perceiving is an unwillingness to jump on a bandwagon when certain aspects of the bandwagon fly against other beliefs.

I may be over simplifying here but I believe the rancor regarding the Gencon panel was that 1) it was being promoted as a social justice platform first and appointing people who have very little recognition in the industry and 2) Mike Pondsmith was named Guest of Honor, seemingly taking into account that he is black, rather than the actual industry merit he does have and I assume most people here recognize as being earned.

1) It was not. They did celebrate the fact that it was majority women for the first time in history. That's the kind of PR you do, especially since this is the first major convention to do so. For a lot of people, this was a big deal. If you look at the line up, there is a strong focus on opening up the industry and people who are designing games aimed at markets not really addressed by current games. But that's no different than making a panel which focuses on the emerging genre of cyberpunk, or the decline of the industry in the early 2000s. Panels are allowed to have themes.

2) They took into account both. They were trying to celebrate diversity in TTRPGs, and Pondsmith is a no brainer, being an eminent writer in the field with tons of experience.

QuoteA great many of us 'older generation' respect merit, which must be earned. And honestly, you don't have to be old to gain merit. You just have to do something worthwhile and not just pat yourself on the back.

And herein the Shitstorm lies. The panel above had metric fucktons of merit. It included incredibly successful writers and designers, from both well established brands (Paizo) and indie games. Women are continually judged to a higher standard than men, especially in male dominated hobbies. If a guy had the same resume as a decent chunk of the women up there, there would be no issue. But no, I guess someone being lead writer on the Firefly RPG, and developer for Hunter: The Vigil just hasn't earned their merit yet. The merit argument is a tired trope, continually used as a moving goalpost to justify shutting people not in the group from joining the group.

Quote from: Necrozius;910651When does this become tokenism?

I refuse to believe that by having fun in my main hobby I'm being a bigot. Fuck that noise. If I finally fulfill my dream of publishing gaming material I'm not silencing anyone else and fuck anyone who accuses me of that.

I'm not talking about forcing you to hire black writers or artists. Notice, my focus was on the media itself. You don't need to make your game about race. But randomly changing the races of a few characters actually does add something. That's basically what the Flash did, it didn't make it an issue, but, to be accessible, it just randomly mixed stuff up. For you, or your game, it really doesn't make a change. For someone who doesn't look like you reading your book, especially if they're a kid or a teen, it really does add something. Zero investment for a more accessible product. If the RPG industry was entirely run by Buddhists, and when you opened every book buddhism was assumed to be the default, and all the characters, unless they needed something special, were buddhists, that'd be a little off putting for you, wouldn't it?

Quote from: daniel_ream;910654Blacks are 13% of the US population.  Gays/lesbians are 2-3% (and "trans" a miniscule fraction of that). Minorities of all kinds tend to self-segregate into population enclaves. If media actually reflected what the country looks like, you'd have less minorities than you do now in media.

Demanding some kind of demographic parity is a sure sign that you're an SJW hipster with no idea of what the world is actually like outside your twee little bubble.

About that:

Total representation in film: White, 74% (64%), Black 12.5% (12.2%, actually roughly equal, but look below), Latino 4.9% (16.3%), Asian 5.3% (4.7%).

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/30000-hollywood-film-characters-heres-many-werent-white/
 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/30000-hollywood-film-characters-heres-many-werent-white/)

Leading Roles (the crux of my argument): Whites formed 83% of leading roles, minorities 17%. (One of the reasons why I focused so much on sidekicks and character actors vs leading roles.)

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/02/28/389259335/diversity-sells-but-hollywood-remains-overwhelmingly-white-male
 (http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/02/28/389259335/diversity-sells-but-hollywood-remains-overwhelmingly-white-male)

Television, however:

Prime Time TV: 84% White, 8.8% Black, 5.7% Asian or Latino.

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/10/28/2840441/world-looked-like-prime-time-network-television/ (http://http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/10/28/2840441/world-looked-like-prime-time-network-television/)

Quote from: cranebump;910687But of course, this has nothing to do with gaming...(again)

This is where I kind of disagree. The youtube series "extra credits" has done a great job breaking down how video game presentation and mechanics are a form of politics. The idea of anything being simply "stupid fun" is somewhat wrong. While I'm not saying everything needs to be a Super Special Episode about the nation's problems, being aware of the messages around you is damn important if you are going to then take elements from those media and use them for your own stories. Take your normal pew-pew military science fiction series. The normal expectation is to have heroic military men doing their job, while civilians scheme and backstab around them, usually serving as an internal antagonist. Amidst the stupid fun of the giant space battles, you are consuming a form of politics right then and there. Sim City is another classic example. Tons of stupid fun bringing down the wrath of natural disasters onto your poor citizens. Also, any tax rate past 11% became counter productive and lowered your revenues over time. That's a form of politics right there. The Division is meant to be a stupid squad based post apocalyptic game. However, it involves government agents, from outside the structure of command and without any oversight, mowing down always chaotic "looters" just trying to survive the New York winter. No legal background, no due process, unconstitutional judge and executioner. As extra credits rightly pointed out, the writers seem to be completely unaware of the nigh fascistic framework they were creating for the player. Compare this to Judge Dredd, whose writers are fully aware of the framework they were creating, allowing them to twist it for parody and play with the logical consequences of that kind of mindset.

The horror of Lovecraft's deep ones are that good white people would breed with them, huge statement there. If you're going to use deep ones today, in my view you need to write with at least somewhat of an awareness of the original context. Not saying you need to make a statement about race, but at least be cognizant of the framework you are using. In a lot of race based RPGs, certain classes (jobs) are geared towards certain races. That, in a way, is a form of unintentional politics, straight out of Brave New World. Hell, Half-Orcs were always assumed to be the product of rape, while half elves came from loving families.

Example of this in action: Let's take Tolkien's swarthy easterners. The films did a great job in addressing this. Why are they throwing in their lot with Satan? Tolkien presented them as noble warriors who fight to the end, which was a good start. But are they evil by default? Do they have families? What motivates them? The Dunlendings and the Wain Riders had their land seized from them by the Rohavion. What are the places they are forced into like? What kind of desperation are they driven to, so that they now throw in their lot with the force of ultimate evil? By being aware of the original context (Middle Eastern expies vs Medieval Europe expies in a fairly troubling set up) you can use similar environments without falling into the same traps as the original writers. This kind of awareness is the most important thing in making any form of media accessible.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691I'm not talking about forcing you to hire black writers or artists. Notice, my focus was on the media itself. You don't need to make your game about race. But randomly changing the races of a few characters actually does add something. That's basically what the Flash did, it didn't make it an issue, but, to be accessible, it just randomly mixed stuff up. For you, or your game, it really doesn't make a change. For someone who doesn't look like you reading your book, especially if they're a kid or a teen, it really does add something. Zero investment for a more accessible product. If the RPG industry was entirely run by Buddhists, and when you opened every book buddhism was assumed to be the default, and all the characters, unless they needed something special, were buddhists, that'd be a little off putting for you, wouldn't it?

I apologize because 1) I agree with your points here and 2) I wasn't really reacting to anything that you posted. I was just indignant that some folks on twitter and G+ are expecting gaming companies, no matter how small and/or indie, to have a quota of non-white, non-male, non-straight people. Sadly, none of my gaming friends have the time or interest in collaborating with me on RPG material. With such a small pool of human resources, to be "expected" to have enough of the "right" types of people feels impossible and unfair.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691The horror of Lovecraft's deep ones are that good white people would breed with them, huge statement there.

But you, you're open-minded, you'd get right down in that spawning pool and fuck that Cthulhu-spawn thing and rear the resulting tadpoles with love and affection... teach them proper worship of the Outer Gods because you wouldn't want to deprive them of the culture of their ancestors. You are truly the right-minded man.

Quote from: Necrozius;910696I apologize because 1) I agree with your points here and 2) I wasn't really reacting to anything that you posted. I was just indignant that some folks on twitter and G+ are expecting gaming companies, no matter how small and/or indie, to have a quota of non-white, non-male, non-straight people. Sadly, none of my gaming friends have the time or interest in collaborating with me on RPG material. With such a small pool of human resources, to be "expected" to have enough of the "right" types of people feels impossible and unfair.

Ahh, my fault, misinterpreted your statement. I'm involved in a good amount of what people would call SJW movements and I get a lot of flack like that. Working on the Navajo Nation this summer for a legal services corporation and I remember getting torn into at a client registration clinic I was running in a small bordertown by this one woman. Believe me, if we had someone who was Dine available, they would have gone because I don't speak Navajo and a lot of older Dine don't really speak English. That and client relations is my least favorite part of the job. I'll take research and pleading writing over it any day of the week. But at the time, I was the only free guy. I tend to just let this slide, I understand why she was annoyed and it's just counter productive to try and make a big deal of it.

Quote from: Simlasa;910697But you, you're open-minded, you'd get right down in that spawning pool and fuck that Cthulhu-spawn thing and rear the resulting tadpoles with love and affection... teach them proper worship of the Outer Gods because you wouldn't want to deprive them of the culture of their ancestors. You are truly the right-minded man.

...........................You do realize the Shadow Over Innsmouth was about Lovecraft's horror of miscegenation, right? Not saying Deep Ones ain't cool as shit, and I love using them in my Delta Green campaign, but there's a hell of a historical legacy they bring with them.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691If you look at the line up, there is a strong focus on opening up the industry and people who are designing games aimed at markets not really addressed by current games.

The industry has always been open and the rise of pdf and self-publishing opened it up even more.  There were women that were prominent in RPG development even very early on and now it's easy for anyone to get their game out there.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691And herein the Shitstorm lies. The panel above had metric fucktons of merit. It included incredibly successful writers and designers, from both well established brands (Paizo) and indie games.

There seem to be a lot of obscure writers included as several people have already mentioned.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691But randomly changing the races of a few characters actually does add something.

Exactly what does this add?  What proof do you have?

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691About that:
*snip*

The statistics you cite mean exactly nothing.  Statistical disparities, by themselves, mean nothing.  They prove nothing.  They do nothing to indicate why such disparities exist.  The underlying assumption is that it is caused by discrimination but the disparities themselves do nothing to prove that.  
http://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691The horror of Lovecraft's deep ones are that good white people would breed with them, huge statement there.

His stories were set in New England.  That's the big statement he was making there.   His big statement was that he was from Providence, Rhode Island and, like many authors, wrote about the places he knew in New England.  

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691The films did a great job in addressing this. Why are they throwing in their lot with Satan? Tolkien presented them as noble warriors who fight to the end, which was a good start. But are they evil by default? Do they have families? What motivates them?

Sam's moment of empathy for the dead Haradrim is right out of the book.  It is clear in the book that you are supposed to feel bad that this person wound up dead so far from home.  He asks these very questions about the dead man.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910698You do realize the Shadow Over Innsmouth was about Lovecraft's horror of miscegenation, right?

I realize that's what YOU think it was about. As a kid, reading it, I had yet to have Lovecraft's racism repeatedly, ad nauseum, pointed out to me. So the Deep Ones were just icky monsters. I really doubt Lovecraft intended it to be a treatis on his beliefs either, it's not some sort of manifesto... but stories of that era are full of similar subhuman/inhuman creatures. Nothing about Lovecraft's stories stood out to me in that manner after I'd already consumed a heaping portion of Edgar Rice Burroughs, Abraham Merritt, and old serials I'd watch on Saturday mornings.
Yet somehow I still didn't turn out thinking I needed to be scared of people from other countries, despite the lack of heroes like you, being around to warn me about the bad man.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910698...........................You do realize the Shadow Over Innsmouth was about Lovecraft's horror of miscegenation, right?

citation needed

Quote from: yosemitemike;910710citation needed

This "common wisdom" about the Shadows of Innsmouth comes from L. Sprague de Camp who wrote a biography of Lovecraft.  Since it's easy for the Lib 101 crowd to glom onto, it's become generally accepted.

Looking at actual letters from Lovecraft to Howard, it's much more likely that the idea of alien horror being locked in one's genes came from Lovecraft's fear that the mental illness that ran in his family would manifest in him (which of course, it did).  As for New England having some small, isolated inbred villages - it kinda did back then.  "Fish Fucking", as Charles Stross puts it, is taboo on multiple levels, miscegenation being only a part, and arguably not even the main one, not even for Lovecraft.

Not saying that Lovecraft wasn't a gigantic racist as well as avowed anti-semite (despite being married to a Jew), he most certainly was - that doesn't mean everything racist you could ever say about him is true.

But...some people have a deck of one card, so that's all they play...ever.

Quote from: Krimson;910262I've been playing since '86 and I have as yet to hear the words OSR or Storygame come from a living breathing human being.

I've heard Storygame but mostly in connection with white wolf so it was most likely meant as a variation of Storytelling game.

Quote from: Nexus;910738I've heard Storygame but mostly in connection with white wolf so it was most likely meant as a variation of Storytelling game.

My local community tends to be very well wired, so I've heard both terms in my gaming store, to which the owner and my friend who works there, don't know much about it.

Quote from: cranebump;910689Pondsmith's resume looks pretty damned good. So I am wondering how would you would define 'merit," in this case. Looks to me like he has more than enough of a career to be named a "Guest of Honor." But I guess if it isn't him, then who should it be?

You missed my point - Mike Pondsmith is completely Guest of Honor material because he's been producing quality game products for decades - he's earned it based on merit.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691And herein the Shitstorm lies. The panel above had metric fucktons of merit. It included incredibly successful writers and designers, from both well established brands (Paizo) and indie games. Women are continually judged to a higher standard than men, especially in male dominated hobbies. If a guy had the same resume as a decent chunk of the women up there, there would be no issue. But no, I guess someone being lead writer on the Firefly RPG, and developer for Hunter: The Vigil just hasn't earned their merit yet. The merit argument is a tired trope, continually used as a moving goalpost to justify shutting people not in the group from joining the group.

Ill say there are a few on the list now I see,  ( just checking here (http://www.gencon.com/experience/industryinsiderfeaturedpresenters) ) who have some significant merit. And quite a few that don't seem to have much.

As for "Women are continually judged to a higher standard than men, especially in male dominated hobbies", I won't argue with a generalization that gets parroted over and over again as if repeating it makes it a scientific law. You gain merit in your profession or field of study by continuously excelling at your work and gaining recognition of your peers. Sure, some individual peer groups will set a standard that has nothing to do with their field (like grads of one or two specific universities being preferred hires over all others at Google), but there is no evidence to show it is always true.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910700Exactly what does this add?  What proof do you have?

I've got to ask the same thing as one of the demographic that it's supposedly done to help. At most randomly switching up ethnic backgrounds without changing much else about the character is a lateral move that doesn't improve or lessen anything for the most part. Sometimes it servers to promote stereotypes like the one black "new" Ghostbuster being the typical sassy black "urban" character amid the white geniuses and scientists. Or, ironically, trivialize the differences by making ethnic background little more than a coat of paint, freely exchanged without changing anything else about the character.

Quote from: Tod13;910231The problem is the people who would destroy the work of others to push politically correct social agendas

This.

I caught the end of a panel featuring Mark Diaz Truman (Cartel) and Julia Bond Ellingboe (Steal Away Jordan) about diversity in RPGs or something, and both stated they created those games because they found the subject matter interesting and fruitful for powerful stories. The questions from the audience however had more to do with how to use RPGs for social change.

RPGs don't create social change, they adapt to it, and using them as a form of propaganda is just going to leave a sour taste in everyone's mouth. Luckily that's not what the majority of indie designers I know do.

Quote from: Tod13;910231Who the hell came up with the "X Card"? Really? Try actually talking to each other.

That would be John Stavropoulos, same guy who spent months looking for evidence that James Desborough had threatened to rape his critics (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2013/12/for-pseudo-activists-lying-about-rape.html) after Ben Lehmann's accusation (http://archive.is/mw3GC). An accusation which coincidentally was in a letter criticizing Indie+ for how James was being billed for Mark Diaz Truman's interview with him, an interview which Anna Kreider objected to so strenuously that she threatened to pull support for Indie+ if they went through with it (https://archive.is/FCetI#selection-713.0-713.268).

As for the X Card, it is talking to each other, just not verbally. I don't know why people feel so threatened by new communication channels, but they need to get over it.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;910276This is copy/pasted from Tod Casasent who commented on my blog post.  I think he nailed it...

Woah, Deja Vu :)

The important takeaway is simply that you shouldn't contradict a player's assumptions without good reason. And honestly, I find it less disruptive to have my assumptions 'corrected' than explicitly ask the GM directly if something is true.

#SchrodingersShotgun

Quote from: cranebump;910574I think someone who publishes a creative work shouldn't be indicted because someone else perceives their work as an attack just because it doesn't fit their world view.

I agree.

Quote from: cranebump;910574Remember what Morrow did with Mcarthy? He let the man speak for himself, and let everyone See It Now. And Mcarthy disappeared. Maybe not a perfect example, but the point is, the audience will tell you if they're offended, or put off, or whatever, by voting with their feet.

Which they can't do if the truth is hidden or censored.

Quote from: cranebump;910574The venue of the RPG really isn't a place where addressing real life issues of injustice will actually solve anything.  We do that at our own tables. We do that in the way we deal with others.

Also agree.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910632When you call the first majority women panel at Gencon douchebags, you're setting back the work of everyone else who's been trying to get new people into the hobby or defending it from outside criticism.

That criticism had nothing to do with the the fact the majority is women, but some folks are deliberately misrepresenting things to further their agenda. And the kind of thinking you use here justifies all sorts of horrid behavior, as it frees bad actors in a community to act under the aegis of a noble cause. Using your moon logic the Democrats should be held blameless and above criticism just because they oppose Trump.

#AtLeastTheFBISeemsToThinkSo

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691The youtube series "extra credits" has done a great job breaking down how video game presentation and mechanics are a form of politics. The idea of anything being simply "stupid fun" is somewhat wrong. While I'm not saying everything needs to be a Super Special Episode about the nation's problems, being aware of the messages around you is damn important if you are going to then take elements from those media and use them for your own stories.

But (at least the good) stories do not have a single definitive political interpretation. If they did then they wouldn't change meaning based on the current political context. And treating games as political risks conflating matters of taste with matters of values. The fact I enjoy Grindhouse cinema says literally nothing about my politics or values. Zip. Nada. And yet there are many who think otherwise.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691Compare this to Judge Dredd, whose writers are fully aware of the framework they were creating, allowing them to twist it for parody and play with the logical consequences of that kind of mindset.

So what about the readers who miss the parody and interpret Judge Dredd as endorsing fascism?

#TheIronDream

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691The horror of Lovecraft's deep ones are that good white people would breed with them, huge statement there. If you're going to use deep ones today, in my view you need to write with at least somewhat of an awareness of the original context. Not saying you need to make a statement about race, but at least be cognizant of the framework you are using.

Speaking of dramatic shifts in political context, I find it interesting that the horror moved from humans who willingly slept with fish people to fish people who needed to rape humans in order to reproduce.

#MarsNeedsWomen

Im just sick and tired of it being used as merely a PR ploy. Which is about 75% of the time.

I honestly never heard of both the OSR and storygames before I got on this forum. I used to hang out on WW forum and those terms never get mentioned.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;910788I honestly never heard of both the OSR and storygames before I got on this forum. I used to hang out on WW forum and those terms never get mentioned.

Same here. Before all RPGs were... well RPGs. I'm learning more and more that no matter how obscure or specific a hobby community is, they're just as fractional as any other. I'll bet that there are divisions within both OSR and Storytelling communities who constantly tell each other to fuck off.

In the end, though, no matter how "successful" we get, nor how many followers we gather, we're all still the losers in the back of the school cafeteria whom the jocks always harass, screaming NNNNNEEEEEERRRRRRRRDS! That thought keeps me from getting too impressed by game designer's pretentiousness.

I'd heard the term "narrative game" which I think is about the same thing as "storygame" before coming here. Saw "OSR" a few times but never really knew what it was beyond being related to early D and D.

Its funny how much the harassment, animosity and scorn nerds get after high school comes from other nerds. Crabs in a bucket.l

Quote from: Nexus;910795Its funny how much the harassment, animosity and scorn nerds get after high school comes from other nerds. Crabs in a bucket.l

Really?  Because to me, whenever people draw 'battle lines' it's always happened.  From Video Games to Sports Teams to Politics.  We humans seem to love to pick a side and stick with it until our dying breath.

Quote from: Lynn;910763You missed my point - Mike Pondsmith is completely Guest of Honor material because he's been producing quality game products for decades - he's earned it based on merit.

Did I? I thought you were saying he should not have been chosen(???). Or were you clarifying the position of others?

After I saw the statement, I looked into the guy because, honestly, I didn't know who he was (along with a lot of folks in the RPG industry). That's why it seemed surprising to me.

Apologies if I misrepresented your position. Looks like we're actually in agreement.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;9106911) This is where I kind of disagree. The youtube series "extra credits" has done a great job breaking down how video game presentation and mechanics are a form of politics. The idea of anything being simply "stupid fun" is somewhat wrong. While I'm not saying everything needs to be a Super Special Episode about the nation's problems, being aware of the messages around you is damn important if you are going to then take elements from those media and use them for your own stories. Take your normal pew-pew military science fiction series. The normal expectation is to have heroic military men doing their job, while civilians scheme and backstab around them, usually serving as an internal antagonist. Amidst the stupid fun of the giant space battles, you are consuming a form of politics right then and there. Sim City is another classic example. Tons of stupid fun bringing down the wrath of natural disasters onto your poor citizens. Also, any tax rate past 11% became counter productive and lowered your revenues over time. That's a form of politics right there. The Division is meant to be a stupid squad based post apocalyptic game. However, it involves government agents, from outside the structure of command and without any oversight, mowing down always chaotic "looters" just trying to survive the New York winter. No legal background, no due process, unconstitutional judge and executioner. As extra credits rightly pointed out, the writers seem to be completely unaware of the nigh fascistic framework they were creating for the player. Compare this to Judge Dredd, whose writers are fully aware of the framework they were creating, allowing them to twist it for parody and play with the logical consequences of that kind of mindset.

The horror of Lovecraft's deep ones are that good white people would breed with them, huge statement there. If you're going to use deep ones today, in my view you need to write with at least somewhat of an awareness of the original context. Not saying you need to make a statement about race, but at least be cognizant of the framework you are using. In a lot of race based RPGs, certain classes (jobs) are geared towards certain races. That, in a way, is a form of unintentional politics, straight out of Brave New World. Hell, Half-Orcs were always assumed to be the product of rape, while half elves came from loving families.

Example of this in action: Let's take Tolkien's swarthy easterners. The films did a great job in addressing this. Why are they throwing in their lot with Satan? Tolkien presented them as noble warriors who fight to the end, which was a good start. But are they evil by default? Do they have families? What motivates them? The Dunlendings and the Wain Riders had their land seized from them by the Rohavion. What are the places they are forced into like? What kind of desperation are they driven to, so that they now throw in their lot with the force of ultimate evil? By being aware of the original context (Middle Eastern expies vs Medieval Europe expies in a fairly troubling set up) you can use similar environments without falling into the same traps as the original writers. This kind of awareness is the most important thing in making any form of media accessible.

I can accept the fact that true racial/ethnic/sexual orientation representation in venues where mass consumption is a factor likely has more of an impact that I think it does, given that, as a white dude, representation has never been an issue for me. But is the impact in print media like role playing game books truly that deep, outside of the leviathons, we'll say D&D and PF. Actually, D&D is the flagship, so I'd say how they choose to represent diversity in their product likely matters, though I hold to my assertion that it is also smart business to broaden your play base (i.e., "the color of RPGS as a business is green").

I was wondering about the statistics for minority representation. Thanks for that. You can definitely see who's making an effort in that realm, however. The show hosts on, say MSNBC and ESPN show some significant minority representation. I can't vouch for everything they do, however.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910805Really?  Because to me, whenever people draw 'battle lines' it's always happened.  From Video Games to Sports Teams to Politics.  We humans seem to love to pick a side and stick with it until our dying breath.

I'm not sure how this relates to what you quoted Most of the shit I've caught personally or seen flung since high school about being a gamer has come from other gamers that don't like how I chose to play Let's Pretend. Most other adults don't really give a shit besides think its an odd hobby. Yes, there are some eternal "jocks" that won't give it up but more strife comes from inside the so called community than outside, IME. It draws more attention when something "nerdy' become newsworthy on a slow day but, by and large most Muggles don't seem to give a crap. Hell, allot of gamers that aren't heavily online don't seem to give a crap about these little wars though they have their own tribal thing going.

If what you're saying is that "humans are tribal", I couldn't agree more but I don't how that's contrary to what you quoted.

Quote from: cranebump;910808Did I? I thought you were saying he should not have been chosen(???). Or were you clarifying the position of others?

After I saw the statement, I looked into the guy because, honestly, I didn't know who he was (along with a lot of folks in the RPG industry). That's why it seemed surprising to me.

Apologies if I misrepresented your position. Looks like we're actually in agreement.

:-)

I think Mike Pondsmith is a great choice, with buckets of merit. What I dislike is that someone could infer from their diversity theme something else.

Quote from: CRKrueger;910723Not saying that Lovecraft wasn't a gigantic racist as well as avowed anti-semite (despite being married to a Jew), he most certainly was - that doesn't mean everything racist you could ever say about him is true. But...some people have a deck of one card, so that's all they play...ever.

Very, very true. HPL is an easy target for the SJW, who simply won't move on after you tell them "Yes, there is ample evidence he was a racist. Next _literary_ question?"

Quote from: Nexus;910811I'm not sure how this relates to what you quoted Most of the shit I've caught personally or seen flung since high school about being a gamer has come from other gamers that don't like how I chose to play Let's Pretend. Most other adults don't really give a shit besides think its an odd hobby.

This.  Fucking this.

On the other hand he IS right about people drawing battle lines.  Just spend $5 to get one month's access to Model Railroader magazine's online archive and read the letter columns from the 40s, 50s, and even 60s.  The scorn and hostility expressed toward somebody whose toy trains are the wrong size is absolutely astounding.  Other than the fact no swearing was used, it's EVERY bit as bad as anything you see online.  And yes, most of it was over why your toy trains are the wrong size.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;910153I would love to try poutine (or whatever it's called). But no such food exists here.

yah sounds nice i wounder how it stacks up to cheese curds

Quote from: Necrozius;910524Jesus Christ I take a few weeks off of Google + and forums in general only to come back and find that more internet drama fests are in full swing.

What in the fuck is wrong with the "gaming community"? Why can't the factions that despise each other just block/ignore/mute the other? God damn.

*spins around on one foot, heads back out the door*

I know right.
Though i cant remember a time the internet wasnt like this to some degree.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910575Making nice while the other side is still on the attack is called surrender.



Actual diversity is good.  Politically correct checkbox diversity is a stifling sham.

This is part of the problem.
We try to get along and the other side shits on us and it starts all over again.

Quote from: jeff37923;910672If you get yelled at where you work and not for good reason, then you need to find another job. Or need to quit being a pussy. One of the two, or both.

I can tell you have never worked in telesales.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;910849This.  Fucking this.

On the other hand he IS right about people drawing battle lines.  Just spend $5 to get one month's access to Model Railroader magazine's online archive and read the letter columns from the 40s, 50s, and even 60s.  The scorn and hostility expressed toward somebody whose toy trains are the wrong size is absolutely astounding.  Other than the fact no swearing was used, it's EVERY bit as bad as anything you see online.  And yes, most of it was over why your toy trains are the wrong size.

My toy trains are the wrong size, and British to boot. Which may be why the guys at the Hennepin-Overland aren't getting $75 a month for dues from me any more. For that kind of money, I can pay somebody to make fun of my choo-choos and not have to go out of the house.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;910604But poker is alright because you're betting money and you get to smoke cigars while you play.

And chess is for weird egghead types.

And fantasy games are perfectly fine as long as the game is football.

Quote from: AaronBrown99;910070When was the last time you heard anyone say, 'hey! let's go out for some Canadian food?'

Breakfast. Somebody wanted Canadian Bacon.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910575Making nice while the other side is still on the attack is called surrender.

In a war, sure. When the sides are just different nerds arguing about how to play nerd games, making nice is called maturity.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910617Very few people enjoy being yelled at, reminds them too much of their job.

Then they should get a better job.

I've heard it said that the tragedy of Canada is that we could have had French cuisine, British Culture, and American ingenuity but instead we got French ingenuity, British food, and American culture.

Canadian bacon is probably a Canadian thing.  Not here in Alberta but maybe back east.

So, anyhow, French fries are a Canadian (well Nova Scotian) invention as is poutine (eww), maple syrup tends to be seen as Canadian but they also make it south of the border and probably have for as long or longer.  Nanaimo bars might be Canadian, we have a city called Nanaimo.  There are Calgary restaurants that claim to have invented Ginger Beef and the Caesar.  I suspect we invented all dressed chips (again eww, we should probably be stopped before it gets worse), it's my understanding that we've generally had more flavors of chips up here.  The Hawkins Cheesie is Canadian accept no puffy substitutions, if you can't break a tooth it's not good enough.  French's catsup is now a Canadian product and selling well.  Really, it's not bad, it's not Heinz but it's not bad.

I've heard that in Newfoundland they slice Balogna thick and cook it like a steak.  Fried Balogna is fine I guess but I don't think I'd want half a pound of it on my plate at a sitting.  Seagull and seal fins.  Look they weren't even part of Canada half a century or so ago, it's not our fault okay?

This is the part where I apologize for Canadian cuisine.  Including Tim Hortons after they went to parbaked donuts.

Quote from: David Johansen;911008American ingenuity

*snicker*

Quote from: Nexus;910795Its funny how much the harassment, animosity and scorn nerds get after high school comes from other nerds.

Quote from: Nexus;910811Most of the shit I've caught personally or seen flung since high school about being a gamer has come from other gamers that don't like how I chose to play Let's Pretend.

And it just seem to get worse as time goes on.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;910849On the other hand he IS right about people drawing battle lines.  Just spend $5 to get one month's access to Model Railroader magazine's online archive and read the letter columns from the 40s, 50s, and even 60s.  The scorn and hostility expressed toward somebody whose toy trains are the wrong size is absolutely astounding.  Other than the fact no swearing was used, it's EVERY bit as bad as anything you see online.  And yes, most of it was over why your toy trains are the wrong size.

Ozzy with Flock of Seagulls hair, man those were the days.

Quote from: Bren;910993In a war, sure. When the sides are just different nerds arguing about how to play nerd games, making nice is called maturity.

No it isn't.  It's called being a doormat.

We arent going to see an end to this because on the Storygame side we have the equivalent of a religious cult thats out to "save" gaming from itself by changing it into them, or telling players from way back that thats not how they really played the game. And on the OSR side we have a hermetic cult that wants to "save" gaming from itself by just short of stealing games under pretext of "preserving" them, or telling players from way back that thats not how they really played the game.

And we arent going to see an end to this because on all fronts we have the starry eyed "believers" who see their precious in everything on earth.

And at the cores of each are people who really just want to make a fast buck at everyone elses expense and fan the faction flames for their own ends. And this may be the heart of the problem. As long as there are people out there who are willing to commit whatever lies and damage they can just to sell one more of their book. This isnt going to end ever. Same with the SJW cult. As long as someone thinks they can sell one more book they will keep perpetuating this. And this is in no way limited to RPGs. Its going on in board games and PC games and so on.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;910650It's just another vector for the disease of social justice.

I am so saddened about the term "social justice" being co-opted by that worthless bunch of shitbags.

True social justice is a righteous goal, but SJW fascism has nothing to do with that.  

Quote from: daniel_ream;910654Demanding some kind of demographic parity is a sure sign that you're an SJW hipster with no idea of what the world is actually like outside your twee little bubble.

Impression of demographics depends tremendously on where you live. I cut people slack on that one because "why are there so many XYZs on this show?" vs. "why aren't any XYZs on this show?" really depends largely on how many XYZs you grew up with and/or live around you to create your worldview of what the "real" demographics look like.

Quote from: Opaopajr;910658That was lovely, everybody! Now let's do 'Climb Every Mountain'!

As usual, Opa wins the thread!

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691But randomly changing the races of a few characters actually does add something.

It adds something called tokenism.

Of course, if the outrage brigade likes you, then tokenism is magically called "diversity".  

Quote from: IskandarKebab;910691This kind of awareness is the most important thing in making any form of media accessible.

Yup, before the 00s, only white people watched TV, saw movies or read books. Those poor non-whites just sat around and stared at walls.

Thank the goddess for diversity!

Quote from: Necrozius;910696With such a small pool of human resources, to be "expected" to have enough of the "right" types of people feels impossible and unfair.

You will never please the SJWs. NEVER.

Instead, write what you love. Write what excites you.

Quote from: Necrozius;910793I'll bet that there are divisions within both OSR and Storytelling communities who constantly tell each other to fuck off.

The OSR certainly has had its own tempests in a teacup.

Storygamers don't use profanity. They use micro-aggressions.

Quote from: Necrozius;910793In the end, though, no matter how "successful" we get, nor how many followers we gather, we're all still the losers in the back of the school cafeteria whom the jocks always harass, screaming NNNNNEEEEEERRRRRRRRDS!

WTF? Really?

I am so glad I missed out on that part of the RPG experience.

Quote from: CRKrueger;911029Ozzy with Flock of Seagulls hair, man those were the days.

Got my mosh pit tix for Black Sabbath's final US show!!

Quote from: Spinachcat;911037True social justice is a righteous goal, but SJW fascism has nothing to do with that.

Of course. But true social justice often means going to an underdeveloped country or city and working your ass off in a relatively thankless, dangerous or just plain difficult job on behalf of people who cannot afford to pay for it. It has nothing at all to do with championing a particular cause online or harassing someone else for the same. It's the difference between say inserting oneself into a violent labor strike on behalf of the women who want an extra $1 a day so their kids can go to school and inserting oneself into an online argument about body shaming between two comfortable cunts on a gaming forum. True social justice is hard work. And not many people are really prepared for that. They might like to think they are - but when it comes right down to it, they're happier just imagining making a difference.

Quote from: yosemitemike;911032No it isn't.  It's called being a doormat.

Talking to the immature is so tiring. I give up.

Quote from: Kellri;911041Of course. But true social justice often means going to an underdeveloped country or city and working your ass off in a relatively thankless, dangerous or just plain difficult job on behalf of people who cannot afford to pay for it. It has nothing at all to do with championing a particular cause online or harassing someone else for the same. It's the difference between say inserting oneself into a violent labor strike on behalf of the women who want an extra $1 a day so their kids can go to school and inserting oneself into an online argument about body shaming between two comfortable cunts on a gaming forum. True social justice is hard work. And not many people are really prepared for that. They might like to think they are - but when it comes right down to it, they're happier just imagining making a difference.

I think the term you are looking for is slacktivism. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/slacktivism)

Quote from: yosemitemike;911032No it isn't.  It's called being a doormat.

Well, if you combine this with seeing every contrary statement as an attack...

Quote from: Spinachcat;911037Yup, before the 00s, only white people watched TV, saw movies or read books. Those poor non-whites just sat around and stared at walls.

Thank the goddess for diversity!
 

It must have rocked to be an Asian American dude and find no one like you except for a Long Duk Dong, a chop socky stereotype, or some sexual pervert. It surely was awesome to see a low life criminal or a Mexican stereotype pretty much every time a latino came on screen.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;911053It must have rocked to be an Asian American dude find no one like you except for a Long Duk Dong, a chop socky stereotype, or some sexual pervert. It surely was awesome to see a low life criminal or a Mexican stereotype pretty much every time a latino came on screen.

Pretty accurate.  

I can't personally relate to zero representation except for the media stereotypes of Texans.  I've lived here almost my whole life and never wore boots or that goddamned hat.  I don't have an accent, either.  

Not the same thing, I know...

Quote from: Spinachcat;911037Got my mosh pit tix for Black Sabbath's final US show!!

Damn, I'm Jealous!  I bought tickets but Vegas show but had to sell them due to work commitments.

Quote from: David Johansen;911008This is the part where I apologize for Canadian cuisine.  Including Tim Hortons after they went to parbaked donuts.

*waves from Calgary* I work in the bakery at Safeway and we don't use parbaked donuts... Yet... Well except for crullers. Don't get those. The others aren't too bad.

Quote from: yosemitemike;910700The statistics you cite mean exactly nothing.  Statistical disparities, by themselves, mean nothing.

Don't make the mistake of accepting his assumptions.  His statistics are bullshit not because of what they mean, but because they're bullshit on the face of it.  Cherry-picked and half-assed, collected by agenda-driven SJWs with no understanding (or more likely, desire) of how to define their terms, in the service of a predefined desired result.

SJWs always lie.  It's what they do.

I find this whole "Waaaah! White people aren't pandering to us enough!" whining deeply offensive.  If Dwayne McDuffie were still alive, he'd punch all of these wankers directly in the face.

Quote from: Krimson;911056*waves from Calgary* I work in the bakery at Safeway and we don't use parbaked donuts... Yet... Well except for crullers. Don't get those. The others aren't too bad.

*waves back from Lethbridge* Safeway's bakery is one thing that hasn't suffered from the merger with Sobeys.

Quote from: trechriron;910554There IS a way to do RPGs wrong.

NOT having fun. That's plainly wrong.

If a game or a situation or a ruling is NOT fun, you're doing it wrong. If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong. If you're having fun, but everyone else is fucking miserable, you're doing it wrong. If everyone else is fucking pleased as chickens in a grain silo, but you feel like a chicken cooking in a missile silo, you're doing it WRONG. FUN = RIGHT (CORRECT). NOT FUN = WRONG (INCORRECT).

Easy. Breezy. Cover Girl.

The rest is just profundity or imprudence depending on our moods.

This.  ;)

Quote from: daniel_ream;911064Don't make the mistake of accepting his assumptions.  His statistics are bullshit not because of what they mean, but because they're bullshit on the face of it.  Cherry-picked and half-assed, collected by agenda-driven SJWs with no understanding (or more likely, desire) of how to define their terms, in the service of a predefined desired result.

SJWs always lie.  It's what they do.

I find this whole "Waaaah! White people aren't pandering to us enough!" whining deeply offensive.  If Dwayne McDuffie were still alive, he'd punch all of these wankers directly in the face.

Do you mean SJWs in gaming? Or...?

All SJWs.

Quote from: daniel_ream;911064Don't make the mistake of accepting his assumptions.  His statistics are bullshit not because of what they mean, but because they're bullshit on the face of it.  Cherry-picked and half-assed, collected by agenda-driven SJWs with no understanding (or more likely, desire) of how to define their terms, in the service of a predefined desired result.

SJWs always lie.  It's what they do.

I find this whole "Waaaah! White people aren't pandering to us enough!" whining deeply offensive.  If Dwayne McDuffie were still alive, he'd punch all of these wankers directly in the face.

Quick question, where the flying fuck have you been the past 16 years?

This is hardly some obscure movement from tumblr. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467665890/hollywood-has-a-major-diversity-problem-usc-study-finds. This is from the Annenberg school of Communication and Journalism at USC, the top ranked journalism school in the goddamn nation. It comprehensively covered 400 tv shows and movies released from August 2014 to September 2015.

"Just 3.4 percent of film directors were female, and only 7 percent of films had a cast whose balance of race and ethnicity reflected the country's diversity. In broadcast TV, 17 percent of directors were female and 19 percent of programs were ethnically balanced."

From the report proper:

"For the past 10 years, we have quantified disturbing patterns around the lack of media representation concerning females and people of color in film. Despite elevated awareness around this issue, the numbers have not budged."

"Female characters fill only 28.7% of all speaking roles in film."

"Second, at least half or more of all cinematic, television, or streaming stories fail to portray one speaking or named Asian or Asian American on screen."

Racially, leading roles drastically skew whiter: "Pivoting to leading characters in film, 21.8% were coded as underrepresented, which is 16.1% below U.S. Census. The distribution of characters was gendered, with 65.6% of underrepresented characters male and 34.4% female. Focusing only on leads, the vast majority were Black (65.6%). Only 12.5% of underrepresented leads were Latino and 6.3% were Asian. Roughly a sixth (15.6%) of all underrepresented leads were from “other” races or ethnicities."

But what do they know, they're just lyin' phd researchers who get paid by the government to trick good, hard working, white people into thinking they hold the majority of power.

Plus, all the times Hollywood casts white actors to play leading Latino roles. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-latinos-in-hollywood-20160227-story.html

Or the fact that in 2013, only 12% of leading protagonists in Film were women.  http://variety.com/2015/film/news/hollywood-feminism-womens-rights-sexism-1201610580/

"Yet it’s still not clear if executives in Hollywood are ready to adapt. Emma Thompson recently said that sexism is only getting worse in the moviemaking business. A-list actresses were often out of options for roles once they hit 40, but now even women in their 30s are starting to feel pressure. Liv Tyler told More magazine that at 38, the only parts she’s getting offered are as “the wife or a girlfriend.” Maggie Gyllenhaal, 37, caused a ruckus earlier this year when she revealed that she was deemed too old to play the love interest to a 55-year-old man. Anne Hathaway, 32, echoed the trend in an interview with Glamour: “I’m like, ‘Why did that 24-year-old get that part?’ ”

This isn't "pandering". This is challenging a system which continues to assume that the default person people want to see is a white male and has to be forced, kicking and screaming, to put anyone else in a place of prominence.

Nowhere is this best seen than in the bullshit "tokenism" argument. No one blinks an eye at a white character, but you have to have a reason to have a character be non-white or female. Because you can't go challenging the default. One of the biggest challenges faced by hispanic actors in hollwood is that they only get hired for roles explicitly designed to be Hispanic, if a character's race doesn't define them, the assumption is you have to find a white actor. Hell, even when the historical fucking figure IS Hispanic, they still usually default to white person.

Quote from: daniel_ream;911107All SJWs.

Oh...well, it's clear there's no talking to you on this issue, then.

Don't anyone go bringing actual facts into an online argument. That's not quite cricket.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;910849This.  Fucking this.

On the other hand he IS right about people drawing battle lines.  Just spend $5 to get one month's access to Model Railroader magazine's online archive and read the letter columns from the 40s, 50s, and even 60s.  The scorn and hostility expressed toward somebody whose toy trains are the wrong size is absolutely astounding.  Other than the fact no swearing was used, it's EVERY bit as bad as anything you see online.  And yes, most of it was over why your toy trains are the wrong size.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;910985My toy trains are the wrong size, and British to boot. Which may be why the guys at the Hennepin-Overland aren't getting $75 a month for dues from me any more. For that kind of money, I can pay somebody to make fun of my choo-choos and not have to go out of the house.

Mind if i ask what scale the one i gravitated to was ho.
And theres a guy who shows up at my local show that puts up an s scale layout.
like he says its fun to put up cuz you dont see meany of them but if something breaks its a pain in the ass to find parts.  

Quote from: cranebump;911054Pretty accurate.  

I can't personally relate to zero representation except for the media stereotypes of Texans.  I've lived here almost my whole life and never wore boots or that goddamned hat.  I don't have an accent, either.  

Not the same thing, I know...

barbecue with Franklin thats the one one i know of.

Quote from: kosmos1214;911131Mind if i ask what scale the one i gravitated to was ho.
And theres a guy who shows up at my local show that puts up an s scale layout.
like he says its fun to put up cuz you dont see meany of them but if something breaks its a pain in the ass to find parts.  

barbecue with Franklin thats the one one i know of.

I'm a Marklin guy through and through, as I inherited my Grandad's collection, so I do love working with H0 scale. S scale can be interesting, but my (personal) problem with it is that the size makes it a bit more difficult to make the more intricate layouts in your own home. HO scale is a nice compromise where you get a lot of area to work with, while the trains are also super detailed, often more modern than S scale, and you can make detailed terrain before it gets too abstracted.

Franklin BBQ in Austin is love made flesh and then smoked to the point of heavenly deliciousness. I'm a proud hometowner for Alabama and St. Louis BBQ (was raised in both), but I grudgingly admit Franklin takes the cake.

Quote from: Rincewind1;9101812005 called, it wants it's thread back.

It's much more likely that 2005 called looking for Lost spoilers and hung up abruptly when you suggested it take this thread back.

Quote from: Opaopajr;910658Now let's do 'Climb Every Mountain'!

Climb every mountain, ford every stream... :p

Follow every rainbow, 'till you find your dream! :)

Quote from: CRKrueger;911029Ozzy with Flock of Seagulls hair.

Shaka, when the walls fell.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911140I'm a Marklin guy through and through, as I inherited my Grandad's collection, so I do love working with H0 scale. S scale can be interesting, but my (personal) problem with it is that the size makes it a bit more difficult to make the more intricate layouts in your own home. HO scale is a nice compromise where you get a lot of area to work with, while the trains are also super detailed, often more modern than S scale, and you can make detailed terrain before it gets too abstracted.

Franklin BBQ in Austin is love made flesh and then smoked to the point of heavenly deliciousness. I'm a proud hometowner for Alabama and St. Louis BBQ (was raised in both), but I grudgingly admit Franklin takes the cake.

I'm convinced HO/OO became the dominant scale because a typical freight car fits comforatbly in the average adult human hand.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111Quick question, where the flying fuck have you been the past 16 years?

This is hardly some obscure movement from tumblr. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467665890/hollywood-has-a-major-diversity-problem-usc-study-finds. This is from the Annenberg school of Communication and Journalism at USC, the top ranked journalism school in the goddamn nation. It comprehensively covered 400 tv shows and movies released from August 2014 to September 2015.

"Just 3.4 percent of film directors were female, and only 7 percent of films had a cast whose balance of race and ethnicity reflected the country's diversity. In broadcast TV, 17 percent of directors were female and 19 percent of programs were ethnically balanced."

From the report proper:

"For the past 10 years, we have quantified disturbing patterns around the lack of media representation concerning females and people of color in film. Despite elevated awareness around this issue, the numbers have not budged."

"Female characters fill only 28.7% of all speaking roles in film."

"Second, at least half or more of all cinematic, television, or streaming stories fail to portray one speaking or named Asian or Asian American on screen."

Racially, leading roles drastically skew whiter: "Pivoting to leading characters in film, 21.8% were coded as underrepresented, which is 16.1% below U.S. Census. The distribution of characters was gendered, with 65.6% of underrepresented characters male and 34.4% female. Focusing only on leads, the vast majority were Black (65.6%). Only 12.5% of underrepresented leads were Latino and 6.3% were Asian. Roughly a sixth (15.6%) of all underrepresented leads were from “other” races or ethnicities."

But what do they know, they're just lyin' phd researchers who get paid by the government to trick good, hard working, white people into thinking they hold the majority of power.

Plus, all the times Hollywood casts white actors to play leading Latino roles. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-latinos-in-hollywood-20160227-story.html

Or the fact that in 2013, only 12% of leading protagonists in Film were women.  http://variety.com/2015/film/news/hollywood-feminism-womens-rights-sexism-1201610580/

"Yet it’s still not clear if executives in Hollywood are ready to adapt. Emma Thompson recently said that sexism is only getting worse in the moviemaking business. A-list actresses were often out of options for roles once they hit 40, but now even women in their 30s are starting to feel pressure. Liv Tyler told More magazine that at 38, the only parts she’s getting offered are as “the wife or a girlfriend.” Maggie Gyllenhaal, 37, caused a ruckus earlier this year when she revealed that she was deemed too old to play the love interest to a 55-year-old man. Anne Hathaway, 32, echoed the trend in an interview with Glamour: “I’m like, ‘Why did that 24-year-old get that part?’ ”

This isn't "pandering". This is challenging a system which continues to assume that the default person people want to see is a white male and has to be forced, kicking and screaming, to put anyone else in a place of prominence.

Nowhere is this best seen than in the bullshit "tokenism" argument. No one blinks an eye at a white character, but you have to have a reason to have a character be non-white or female. Because you can't go challenging the default. One of the biggest challenges faced by hispanic actors in hollwood is that they only get hired for roles explicitly designed to be Hispanic, if a character's race doesn't define them, the assumption is you have to find a white actor. Hell, even when the historical fucking figure IS Hispanic, they still usually default to white person.

So, they make movies solely to pander to their preferred demographic, and when they're bad films and people say so, they cry "Racism!" and "Chauvinist!". Fuck that. Nobody who's worth a damn cared that Rey was a woman, they cared that she was a feminist uber-chick. Ghostbusters wasn't reviled because the cast was women, they hated it because it was shitty. As with Annie and The Karate Kid. Those films didn't do poorly because they had black actors, they did poorly because all the studio cared about was a film with black actors, not making a good movie. People are sick of being bludgeoned with race and gender inequality when it doesn't exist in the ways the media screams about. There's no honest debate from the Left.

Look at the two grieving parents that made headlines. Conservatives/ Republicans do it and it's exploitation. Liberals/Democrats do it and people applaud it.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111Nowhere is this best seen than in the bullshit "tokenism" argument. No one blinks an eye at a white character, but you have to have a reason to have a character be non-white or female. Because you can't go challenging the default. One of the biggest challenges faced by hispanic actors in hollwood is that they only get hired for roles explicitly designed to be Hispanic, if a character's race doesn't define them, the assumption is you have to find a white actor. Hell, even when the historical fucking figure IS Hispanic, they still usually default to white person.

It escapes me where, but there was a thread previously about whitewashing here.

I happen to watch a lot of foreign films and television (we don't do dubbed in our house) and enjoy films being as authentic as possible, with a few exceptions.

Much of Hollywood is driven based on estimated numbers based on formula. Especially well established storylines and well known actors (or actors that look right and eventually learn how to act...) make it easier. It isn't really a business about art, but about making money.

But here's the thing - this behavior would change if they stopped making loads of money. And they are making loads of money because they know what their audience wants. Their audience is not the proportionality of the entirety of United States, but specific segments within the US and foreign markets that they specifically target. Proportionality to them is irrelevant because they are delivering product to a targeted market segment, just like most other products. Why should they change their ways if what they are doing continues to be profitable for them?

Certainly, there's an argument to be made to exploring new markets, but high risk and high cost go together. That's why reboots, re-imaginings and franchises don't seem to get old.

Quote from: Lynn;911157That's why reboots, re-imaginings and franchises don't seem to get old.

Oh all the reboots and re imaginings most definitely are old, but their target market isn't.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;911053It must have rocked to be an Asian American dude and find no one like you except for a Long Duk Dong, a chop socky stereotype, or some sexual pervert. It surely was awesome to see a low life criminal or a Mexican stereotype pretty much every time a latino came on screen.

Are we supposed to pretend Ricardo Montalban, Rita Moreno, Anthony Quinn, Jose Ferrer, Carmen Miranda, Dolores Del Rio, and dozens of other mega-successful "Latino" actors didn't exist?

Are we supposed to pretend there isn't a LONG history of Chinese, Japanese and Mexican cinema?

Is that the new narrative?

Quote from: Madprofessor;911055Damn, I'm Jealous!  I bought tickets but Vegas show but had to sell them due to work commitments.

Check out the Ozzfest / Knotfest event.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111"For the past 10 years, we have quantified disturbing patterns around the lack of media representation concerning females and people of color in film. Despite elevated awareness around this issue, the numbers have not budged."

Because the movie-going non-white, non-male audience actually doesn't give a shit.

Hollywood doesn't give a damn what the people say. They care about what people buy.  When people bought tickets to see Will Smith, we got more Will Smith movies. The audience response to Will Smith wasn't "give us more black actors", it was "give us more Will Smith"

Why does Hollywood make rom-coms? Because women buy full price tickets to rom-coms.

There is one color in business: green.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111A-list actresses were often out of options for roles once they hit 40, but now even women in their 30s are starting to feel pressure.

Blame women. If women bought tickets to female led movies, Hollywood would make more.

That's why when women watch TV shows with older female actresses, Hollywood makes more. That's why Murder, She Wrote lasted 12 years, Golden Girls lasted 7 years and the Brits have a dozen series involving ancient widows solving crimes.

Hollywood chases money. If Chickbusters had been a hit, there would be a flood of Chick Team movies.

Instead, Chickbusters did okay in the US, but it is a fucking disaster overseas. It's made $160M total, so the studio (at best) has gotten $80M back out of their $144M + $50M to 70M advertising investment.

It's fun and games for SJWs to kvetch about gender roles in movies, but its a whole other issue to gamble $200 million and find out that the supposed tsunami of women demanding female leads actually DOES NOT EXIST when it comes time to open their wallets.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111Anne Hathaway, 32, echoed the trend in an interview with Glamour: “I’m like, ‘Why did that 24-year-old get that part?’ ”

Because Anne Hathaway sucks.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111Nowhere is this best seen than in the bullshit "tokenism" argument. No one blinks an eye at a white character, but you have to have a reason to have a character be non-white or female.

So the new narrative is tokenism = diversity?

But then we hear lectures how the non-white or non-male isn't "portrayed properly", or the character is "culturally insensitive" and a hundred more complaints that never happen if Sidekick Bob is a honky dude.

Actually, I am beginning to suspect tokenism = diversity for today's audience.

Quote from: Spinachcat;911162Are we supposed to pretend Ricardo Montalban, Rita Moreno, Anthony Quinn, Jose Ferrer, Carmen Miranda, Dolores Del Rio, and dozens of other mega-successful "Latino" actors didn't exist?

So the best you can come up with in over a hundred years of american cinema are “dozens” of Latino actors, one of which had to hide his Spanish surname?

Tell me how many times any of the ones you mentioned actually played someone of Latin heritage who wasn’t a stereotype of some sort?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/report-latinos-are-most-underrepresented-ethnic-group-film-n405121

QuoteAre we supposed to pretend there isn't a LONG history of Chinese, Japanese and Mexican cinema?

We’re talking about American cinema, right? Why should Americans have to look to other countries to find someone like themselves?

QuoteIs that the new narrative?

It's pretty much always been the case, so next time, Google harder.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111"Emma Thompson recently said that sexism is only getting worse in the moviemaking business."

-http://variety.com/2015/film/news/hollywood-feminism-womens-rights-sexism-1201610580/

Jessica Price said the same thing (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/18/gen-con-major-gaming-convention-has-more-female-than-male-speakers-for-the-first-time-ever-and-some-gamers-arent-happy-about-it/), and I have to agree, which raises the question: If the current tactics used to fight racism/sexism are effective, then why are things getting worse?

Quote from: Spinachcat;911162So the new narrative is tokenism = diversity?

But then we hear lectures how the non-white or non-male isn't "portrayed properly", or the character is "culturally insensitive" and a hundred more complaints that never happen if Sidekick Bob is a honky dude.

Actually, I am beginning to suspect tokenism = diversity for today's audience.

Hasbro recently announced Ms White in Cluedo/Clue is being replaced with the new Dr Orchid. An asian.
Tokenism? Diversity? Who knows.

They never should have put faces with the pawns. I suppose they wanted to avoid the screams of racism they would get if they made the yellow pawn the Asian character. The game worked just fine when they were just plastic pawns not "characters".

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911140Franklin BBQ in Austin is love made flesh and then smoked to the point of heavenly deliciousness. I'm a proud hometowner for Alabama and St. Louis BBQ (was raised in both), but I grudgingly admit Franklin takes the cake.

I live a half hour from Franklin, but no way am I standing in line for 3 hours when I can drive 10 minutes and find perfectly good BBQ. If I wanna go a little farther, of course, I got Salt Lick in Wimberley

Quote from: DavetheLost;911180They never should have put faces with the pawns. I suppose they wanted to avoid the screams of racism they would get if they made the yellow pawn the Asian character. The game worked just fine when they were just plastic pawns not "characters".

Actually I was surprised to discover the pawns have had faces since the start.

(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/1/12/Professor-plum-67600.jpg%3F1180546328.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110422174531)

And more surprising, at least two versions of Ms Scarlet was asian. Glancing through the roster over the iterations. Most of the characters have changed in appearances a little or alot sometimes. Especially Ms White. So aside from renaming the character. Nothing new here. I am amazed.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;911154People are sick of being bludgeoned with race and gender inequality when it doesn't exist in the ways the media screams about.

Well, then, if the media has it wrong, can you tell us what it's REALLY like, then? And since you admit it exists, then why isn't it okay for the people affected by it to bring up the issue? What level of dissent are you comfortable with, outside of complete silence?

QuoteThere's no honest debate from the Left.

When you can brush off someone's honest concerns as being dishonest, based mainly on your perception of reality, then, of course, everyone seems dishonest. But let's get real here -- the Right's vociferous denial of obvious racial inequities, especially those concerning law enforcement and mass incarceration --inequities that are quantified by massive reams of data, by the way -- is baffling.  Sorta hard to debate an issue when one side denies the existence of the issue in the first place.

QuoteLook at the two grieving parents that made headlines. Conservatives/ Republicans do it and it's exploitation. Liberals/Democrats do it and people applaud it.

No, the problem occurred when Donald Trump decided to make their statements a personal issue (like he does with everything). Know a simple, respectful a devastating response to the Khans? "Mr & Mrs Khan, your son is a hero. He died protecting his troops. His sacrifice, the sacrifices of all gold star families will never be forgotten. That said, I take issue with the policies that placed your son there in the first place." (then pivot to your policy issues).

The media coverage in this case, and many other cases involving the Republican nominee, have to do with the constant asinine statements dude makes, all of which could be avoided if he exhibited a teeny, tiny bit of grace and empathy.

Quote from: cranebump;911194Well, then, if the media has it wrong, can you tell us what it's REALLY like, then? And since you admit it exists, then why isn't it okay for the people affected by it to bring up the issue? What level of dissent are you comfortable with, outside of complete silence?

It's wrong because the number of non-white actors is proportional to the ones getting the accolades.  So the amount of white actors/actresses getting awards is the same PERCENTAGE as the coloured ones.  But instead, people point to the raw numbers because it suits their political agenda.

You want more actors of colour, then maybe more should learn the craft.

There IS racism in Hollywood, but it's, like everything else, more personal than systematic.  You have specific PEOPLE who are, not the entire organization.

There isn't, wasn't and never will be a 'Man' as put forth by a lot of people, to fight.  It's a nice bit of sophistry to gather your little tribe and rail against 'injustice', when in reality the issue is often personal and specific to an individual.


Which is exactly like how Storygames and OSR is, two little factions of tribes warring at each other for bullshit reasons because if they actually sat down and thought about it, they would realize that they have less in common with the guy in the same group as they 'belong' to.

Quote from: Spinachcat;911162Because the movie-going non-white, non-male audience actually doesn't give a shit.

This was my point about Dwayne McDuffie.  He wanted more black and minority characters in superhero comics, so he started his own company that specialized in minority superheroes.  And although it failed economically, some of its characters became second-tier DCU canon.

QuoteWhy does Hollywood make rom-coms? Because women buy full price tickets to rom-coms.

It's actually a bit more sophisticated than that.  Blockbuster action movies actually make more money per film than rom-coms when they don't flop (women watch TV, men watch movies, as a general rule).  But action blockbusters are a higher risk; rom-coms have a better long-term ROI.  It's a safer bet for an investor to put $100M into ten rom-coms than one action film.

QuoteBecause Anne Hathaway sucks.

It's rather ironic to hear Anne Hathaway of all actresses complaining about this, since she had a somewhat famous interview in her early twenties where in response to a question about why she was taking fluffy roles like Ella Enchanted, replied "I've got the rest of my career to play drug addicts and prostitutes. I'm going to take these roles now while I still can."

What makes these discussions and threads to pointless and endless is the insistence that it has to be All or Nothing. Any gender or racial disparity in media is either due to some system implementation of some "-ism" that overrides everything else or there is no systemic implementation, prevalent personal or even any of the "-ism" at all. There's rarely any allowance for degree or nuance. The Other Side has to be completely wrong and Your Side has to be completely right.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;911228It's wrong because the number of non-white actors is proportional to the ones getting the accolades.  So the amount of white actors/actresses getting awards is the same PERCENTAGE as the coloured ones.  But instead, people point to the raw numbers because it suits their political agenda.

You want more actors of colour, then maybe more should learn the craft.

There IS racism in Hollywood, but it's, like everything else, more personal than systematic.  You have specific PEOPLE who are, not the entire organization.

The number of non-white actors isn't based on the number of people who learn the craft, but rather who is cast. If you look at the demographics of those who graduate with acting degrees, for example, it is quite different than the demographics of working actors in film and television. cf.

http://datausa.io/profile/cip/500506/#demographics

Note that there are more women than men graduating with acting degrees, and closer to proportional representation in race. However, tons of people who learn the craft instead go into other careers because they can't make a living doing so. Unable to make a living, they work in retail or service, and so forth. One theory might be that women and minorities simply aren't good at acting, despite having gotten degrees, and that's why they're cast less often as leads and speaking parts. Based on my experience, though, I think that they are cast less often due to widespread bias.

I don't think there is any binary between individuals being racist and the organization being racist. If there are enough biased individuals in the organization, then the behavior of the organization as a whole reflects that bias.

Quote from: daniel_ream;911242This was my point about Dwayne McDuffie.  He wanted more black and minority characters in superhero comics, so he started his own company that specialized in minority superheroes.  And although it failed economically, some of its characters became second-tier DCU canon.

Milestone made damn fine comics.  Some of the best superhero stuff ever written.

Quote from: jhkim;911255The number of non-white actors isn't based on the number of people who learn the craft, but rather who is cast. If you look at the demographics of those who graduate with acting degrees, for example, it is quite different than the demographics of working actors in film and television. cf.

http://datausa.io/profile/cip/500506/#demographics

Note that there are more women than men graduating with acting degrees, and closer to proportional representation in race. However, tons of people who learn the craft instead go into other careers because they can't make a living doing so. Unable to make a living, they work in retail or service, and so forth. One theory might be that women and minorities simply aren't good at acting, despite having gotten degrees, and that's why they're cast less often as leads and speaking parts. Based on my experience, though, I think that they are cast less often due to widespread bias.

I don't think there is any binary between individuals being racist and the organization being racist. If there are enough biased individuals in the organization, then the behavior of the organization as a whole reflects that bias.

There's also the effect in the writing, that when the ethnicity of the character is left neutral, you leave it up to production and casting. In that case, it really does come down to their judgment. Of course, the whole diversity issue then becomes about who's available. At the local level, for example, say, with something like a high school theatrical production, then it's about the demographics of the populace.

Tangential to your point, but an FA drgree in drama certainly doesn't ensure someone can act, as we know. Experienced does help, for sure. But when we reach the movies, man, it's about looks and connections as much as it is talent. You post sort of points to that in that it speaks of individuals/organizations. As they go, so goes the casting, I would assume.

Quote from: Nexus;911247What makes these discussions and threads to pointless and endless is the insistence that it has to be All or Nothing. Any gender or racial disparity in media is either due to some system implementation of some "-ism" that overrides everything else or there is no systemic implementation, prevalent personal or even any of the "-ism" at all. There's rarely any allowance for degree or nuance. The Other Side has to be completely wrong and Your Side has to be completely right.

That and the name calling. It's sad because no one really favors censorship, so the point of "you can publish/create want you want to" is something we all agree upon. However, if someone brings up why there may be concerns about such a thing, or why some folks might want it, then they're often called out for "denying reality" or some such stone thrown. Ironic, since people can only speak from the experiences they know, yet others can arbitrarily judge those experiences as irrelevant, even though they themselves have not lived them.

Quote from: Omega;911178Hasbro recently announced Ms White in Cluedo/Clue is being replaced with the new Dr Orchid. An asian.
Tokenism? Diversity? Who knows.

Well, that seems a rather arbitrary move. Mrs. White was the maid character, right?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;911228It's wrong because the number of non-white actors is proportional to the ones getting the accolades.  So the amount of white actors/actresses getting awards is the same PERCENTAGE as the coloured ones.  But instead, people point to the raw numbers because it suits their political agenda. You want more actors of colour, then maybe more should learn the craft.

This is the "you're just not trying hard enough" argument. It's not a particularly good argument, because effort alone is no guarantee of anything (I remember having a great individual basketball game back in the day, busted ass, tried REAL hard -- score 22 of our points -- we lost 94-50). Nevertheless it has its uses. I'll make sure to remember this the next time I hear some pissed-off working-class white complain all the manufacturing jobs are gone. I'll just tell him to get off his ass and get a degree. That should fix it.:-/

QuoteThere isn't, wasn't and never will be a 'Man' as put forth by a lot of people, to fight.  It's a nice bit of sophistry to gather your little tribe and rail against 'injustice', when in reality the issue is often personal and specific to an individual.

When you get enough folks in power to form a system, then the results are, by definition, systemic. Since we can't really trust people to love one another, then it's the system we need to fix. No one wants to tell anyone whom to personally associate with. But we don't want an unfair system. Historically, it has been unfair, particularly to poor people (I'll never understand the anti-union sentiment in parts of the U.S. -- it's one of the mechanisms the masses have at their disposal to invoke change).

QuoteWhich is exactly like how Storygames and OSR is, two little factions of tribes warring at each other for bullshit reasons because if they actually sat down and thought about it, they would realize that they have less in common with the guy in the same group as they 'belong' to.

I wouldn't doubt it. Have to agree these discussions quickly become fruitless. It's not a zero sum game, but we talk about it like it is. You can see it in this thread. Folks say, "Censorship in the creative arts bad." Then we get into non-gaming arguments.

Quote from: cranebump;911269Well, that seems a rather arbitrary move. Mrs. White was the maid character, right?

I think she was the black widow and Claudette was the maid, but I'm going by my memory of the film

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111Quick question, where the flying fuck have you been the past 16 years?

In the real world.  Where he flying fuck have you been?

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111This is hardly some obscure movement from tumblr.

No one said it was.  I keep having to point that out to people on the left.  No, this is very much mainstream bullshit.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111*snip more statistical disparity citing*

This doesn't prove anything anything any more than it ever has.  Citing a statistical disparity proves nothing about what caused that disparity.  No amount of citing such disparities has ever or will ever prove anything.  They are cited as proof of discrimination but they do not prove that at all.  The underlying assumption behind the idea that statistical disparities prove discrimination is the assumption that, without discrimination, all people of all sorts from all backgrounds would be interested in all things to the same degree.  The idea that people from all over the world with all sorts of different cultures and backgrounds should all wind up being interested in all the same things to all the same degree is absurd.  It doesn't even pass the smell test.  It has never been observed anywhere in the world at any time.  For example, no military in the world matches the demographics of the wider society in any country even approximately.  Your basic assumption is wrong.  You are making this assumption by the way even if you aren't aware of it.  It's logically required for the assumption that statistical disparity=discrimination.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111Nowhere is this best seen than in the bullshit "tokenism" argument.

to·ken·ism
ˈtōkəˌnizəm/
noun
noun: tokenism

    the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce.

It's not an argument.  It's just what the word means.

Quote from: yosemitemike;911274noun: tokenism

    the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce.

How come some black casting choices, like Ernie Hudson in Ghostbusters, feel like 'tokenism' to me... but others, like Yaphet Kotto in Alien, don't?
Pretty much any show with a bunch of white kids and ONE black friend? Yep (though NOT The Little Rascals/Our Gang shorts).
Laurence Fishburne in Event Horizon (or anything else, really)? Nope.
Clarence Williams III in Mod Squad? Nope
Sidney Poitier in To Sir With Love (or Blackboard Jungle)? Nope.
Billy Dee Williams in Star Wars 2? Nope.  
John Boyega in Disney Star Wars? Yeah, a little bit...

Am I just aribitrary in my judgement of such things or is there a pattern I'm not seeing?

Quote from: Simlasa;911276How come some black casting choices, like Ernie Hudson in Ghostbusters, feel like 'tokenism' to me... but others, like Yaphet Kotto in Alien, don't?
Pretty much any show with a bunch of white kids and ONE black friend? Yep.
Laurence Fishburne in Event Horizon (or anything else, really)? Nope.
Clarence Williams III in Mod Squad? Nope.
Billy Dee Williams in Star Wars 2? Nope.  
John Boyega in Disney Star Wars? Yeah, a little bit...

Am I just aribitrary in my judgement of such things or is there a pattern I'm not seeing?

This is a good question. I've had similar feelings and felt just as puzzled as to why.

I guess it has something to do with how bolted on the character feels. Ernie Hudson in GB felt... extraneous to some degree. He didn't add anything to the cast, he was completely unlike them (thought a likable character) so it felt he was just there to add a black face. If he'd been white or just not there at all nothing much would have changed.

Lando felt integral to the plot, like he had some point besides being black. He was another type of "roguish scoudrel (that turns out to have a heart of gold) like Han or other pulp archetypes that the Star Wars movie often drew on. I guess?

Laurence Fishburne felt like his character was part of the story and setting not just there to provide "diversity". For some reason...? I guess because he was pretty central to the movie. If he wasn't there it would have made a difference not like he was added to the cast roster as an afterthought.

I haven't seen Mod Squad or the latest Star Wars so I can't really comment except I don't remember seeing allot of virtue signalling about it in Star Wars but I consciously avoided reading to much about to avoid spoilers.

Edit: The current cultural climate may be making everyone more sensitive to the possibility in different ways too.

I see one man's quest for peace ended in a useless debate over pointless diversity that ultimately achieves nothing.  You manager to turn a simple objective into a needless complicated mess over a dying industry.  Well done folks!  Everyone should get a Oscar.

this thread probably should be closed since it isn't about gaming at all at this point, but I am moving it to the media subforum, since that is what it's about now.

Holy shit, I just read Nexus' signature. Firecaucasian? I nearly pee'd myself.

Quote from: Omega;911178Tokenism? Diversity? Who knows.

Maybe Tokenism = Diversity in today's culture?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;911228Which is exactly like how Storygames and OSR is, two little factions of tribes warring at each other

Is this even a thing? I still don't see what Venger was talking about in his OP.

Where would they even cross over?

It's akin to a war breaking out between 40kers and airplane modelers. They both use glue and paint to make their toys, but that's mostly the end of their commonality.

Or maybe I just don't visit whatever social media stankhole where it's happening?

VENGER!!! Drop some wisdom about this "war" on this thread.

Quote from: Simlasa;911276Am I just aribitrary in my judgement of such things or is there a pattern I'm not seeing?

I suspect the tokenism aspect is personal to a large degree. Maybe its based on a person's feelings toward a particular actor and their performance? Maybe its based on how much news junk and media screeching that's in the air at the moment?

For me, the characterizations of Sulu and Uhura in the New Trek feels far more politically motivated than the original Sulu and Uhura in TOS. And I like Zoe Saldana.

Quote from: Spinachcat;911310I suspect the tokenism aspect is personal to a large degree. Maybe its based on a person's feelings toward a particular actor and their performance?

Well... I had no idea who Ernie Hudson was when I first saw Ghostbusters... but I knew all the other actors playing the main parts. But I generally like Ernie Hudson. I didn't know Yaphet Kotto when I first saw him in Alien either. But one bit of casting felt 'forced' and the other didn't... weird.

Unrelated... I'm not a big fan of Wil Smith but I never felt like his roles in stuff like Wild Wild West were 'tokenism'... they felt more like when someone like Ricky Nelson ended up in something like Rio Bravo... "Hey this kid is popular, let's put him in lots of stuff!" (not to suggest Wil Smith and Rickey Nelson are remotely in the same league of acting).

QuoteFor me, the characterizations of Sulu and Uhura in the New Trek feels far more politically motivated than the original Sulu and Uhura in TOS. And I like Zoe Saldana.

Yeah, TOS never struck me that way, nor did Cisco in DS9... but Chakotay in Voyager kinda did.

I'm pretty sure Nexus is right that the current shouting matches over such things has made me all the more sensitive to it... probably effects my read of New Star Wars, for example.
Something like Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill would totally set off my alarms if it were made nowadays and smell like someone pushing an agenda... vs. just having a thing for strong women.

Quote from: Simlasa;911276How come some black casting choices, like Ernie Hudson in Ghostbusters, feel like 'tokenism' to me... but others, like Yaphet Kotto in Alien, don't?

Ernie Hudson in Ghostbusters feels like a token because he's already an outsider for reasons other than skin color - he's the only one who's not a SNL/Movie comedian.  Akroyd, Murray and Ramis are associated with each other across multiple movies and TV shows, and friends in real life and everyone knows all this.  Ernie Hudson is "the other actor".  Replace Ernie Hudson with James Woods, he would have been just an outsider, only there wouldn't have been the skin color difference to latch onto as the reason for the "one of these things is not like the others" feeling.  Ernie Hudson isn't "the black guy", he's "the guy as different from these three other guys as possible".  Been a while since I've seen GB, but I don't remember any "black humor" around Ernie being a black guy.  Usually the clear sign of a token in a movie is there is some attempt to point out "this character is black".

Quote from: Simlasa;911322Yeah, TOS never struck me that way, nor did Cisco in DS9... but Chakotay in Voyager kinda did.

I think I liked Voyager more than most but it did come across as more "preachy" at times. And I agre Chakotay felt a bit forced. For me I think it was because the writers seems to lampshade his ethnicity more than others, maybe because it as a unusual for US TV.

Quote from: CRKrueger;911324Ernie Hudson in Ghostbusters feels like a token because he's already an outsider for reasons other than skin color - he's the only one who's not a SNL/Movie comedian.  Akroyd, Murray and Ramis are associated with each other across multiple movies and TV shows, and friends in real life and everyone knows all this.  Ernie Hudson is "the other actor".

Yeah, that makes sense. If Winston had been played by Eddie Murphy (wasn't that the original plan?) I'm guessing it might not have seemed odd at all. Supposedly (according to IMDB) the character would have come in earlier and played a bigger part.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911140I'm a Marklin guy through and through, as I inherited my Grandad's collection, so I do love working with H0 scale. S scale can be interesting, but my (personal) problem with it is that the size makes it a bit more difficult to make the more intricate layouts in your own home. HO scale is a nice compromise where you get a lot of area to work with, while the trains are also super detailed, often more modern than S scale, and you can make detailed terrain before it gets too abstracted.

Franklin BBQ in Austin is love made flesh and then smoked to the point of heavenly deliciousness. I'm a proud hometowner for Alabama and St. Louis BBQ (was raised in both), but I grudgingly admit Franklin takes the cake.

Yah i know of him from the cooking show on pbs.
And yes size can defiantly push scale choice like a guy i met irl who was whole hog z scale motly because he only had about 5 by 4 feet to give to it.
He lived in a tiny apartment that was layed out like crap.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;911151I'm convinced HO/OO became the dominant scale because a typical freight car fits comforatbly in the average adult human hand.

That may very well have an influence.
I know a lot of the reason i ended up going that route was that as a kid there where all sorts of cheep train sets i could buy.
Its also left me in an odd place as all my track is that plastic snap together track and its not made any more as far as i know.

Quote from: Simlasa;911339Yeah, that makes sense. If Winston had been played by Eddie Murphy (wasn't that the original plan?) I'm guessing it might not have seemed odd at all. Supposedly (according to IMDB) the character would have come in earlier and played a bigger part.

Huh, I hadn't heard that before. In my case, I think the latter part coming in earlier and playing a bigger part would have made Ernie feel less grafted as an afterthought.

Quote from: CRKrueger;911324Ernie Hudson in Ghostbusters feels like a token because he's already an outsider for reasons other than skin color - he's the only one who's not a SNL/Movie comedian.  Akroyd, Murray and Ramis are associated with each other across multiple movies and TV shows, and friends in real life and everyone knows all this.  Ernie Hudson is "the other actor".  Replace Ernie Hudson with James Woods, he would have been just an outsider, only there wouldn't have been the skin color difference to latch onto as the reason for the "one of these things is not like the others" feeling.  Ernie Hudson isn't "the black guy", he's "the guy as different from these three other guys as possible".  Been a while since I've seen GB, but I don't remember any "black humor" around Ernie being a black guy.  Usually the clear sign of a token in a movie is there is some attempt to point out "this character is black".

Naw, Ernie Hudson is just the "outsider" character; he's not from the University, he's not a parapsychologist, and "for a steady paycheck I'll believe whatever you want me to."  He's the guy to say "No offense, I gotta get my own lawyer."

The one "black" joke is when he tells the mayor "I've seen shit that'll turn you white!"

I remember the story about Murphy being supposed to be in Ghostbusters, but Beverly Hills Cop intervened, but according to this USA Today (LOL) article (http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/08/29/ghostbusters-comedy-classic-cigarette/14829681/), it was actually supposed to be for John Belushi, but death intervened.

I think CRKrueger has the gist of it though: Ernie Hudson seems like an outsider because he doesn't seem to have the connection that Murray and Ackroyd have from SNL. Maybe also because his role was written for Belushi? (I haven't seen GB since the 80's). IIRC Harold Ramis seemed to fit better, maybe partly because he seemed to be being more geeky than Hudson, which just seemed more to make sense.

For me, I think characters who seem like believable people where their ethnicity is just part of the character, seem natural, while characters who seem unconvincing, or whose ethnicity actually seems a bit off in characterization or setting, tend to be the ones that feel like they were unnaturally chosen.

I think Finn and Rey stand out because all the human main characters of the previous six films (except Leia and Lando) were white males, and were there ANY Imperial humans who weren't pale northern European men in any of the previous films?

Quote from: Skarg;911481I think Finn and Rey stand out because all the human main characters of the previous six films (except Leia and Lando) were white males, and were there ANY Imperial humans who weren't pale northern European men in any of the previous films?

Who can tell in those Storm Trooper outfits? With those helmets on most of them could be Polynesian and we'd never know the difference.

Quote from: Bren;911571Who can tell in those Storm Trooper outfits? With those helmets on most of them could be Polynesian and we'd never know the difference.

Ha!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]282[/ATTACH]

Rey was accused of being a Token? Serious question as I hadn't heard that particular complaint aimed at the character. Sexist, Unrealistic Body Image Fat Shame propaganda and a Mary Sue I did hear but Token is new.

Quote from: Simlasa;911276How come some black casting choices, like Ernie Hudson in Ghostbusters, feel like 'tokenism' to me... but others, like Yaphet Kotto in Alien, don't?
Pretty much any show with a bunch of white kids and ONE black friend? Yep (though NOT The Little Rascals/Our Gang shorts).
Laurence Fishburne in Event Horizon (or anything else, really)? Nope.
Clarence Williams III in Mod Squad? Nope
Sidney Poitier in To Sir With Love (or Blackboard Jungle)? Nope.
Billy Dee Williams in Star Wars 2? Nope.  
John Boyega in Disney Star Wars? Yeah, a little bit...

Am I just aribitrary in my judgement of such things or is there a pattern I'm not seeing?

That's a really good question.

Quote from: Skarg;911481I think characters who seem like believable people where their ethnicity is just part of the character, seem natural, while characters who seem unconvincing, or whose ethnicity actually seems a bit off in characterization or setting, tend to be the ones that feel like they were unnaturally chosen.

And that's a really good hypothesis.

Quote from: Skarg;911481I think Finn and Rey stand out because all the human main characters of the previous six films (except Leia and Lando) were white males, and were there ANY Imperial humans who weren't pale northern European men in any of the previous films?

And yet I felt Rey was a token but Ripley from Aliens was not. Both actors who played Anakin in the prequels felt tokeny to me too, which is why I think Skarg is unto something.

Perhaps all superficial representations are marginalizing.

Very funny, but joking aside, the original trilogy had large numbers of Imperials out of helmet, and I don't think any of them were female or non-Northern-European.

Quote from: Nexus;911605Rey was accused of being a Token? Serious question as I hadn't heard that particular complaint aimed at the character. Sexist, Unrealistic Body Image Fat Shame propaganda and a Mary Sue I did hear but Token is new.

I wouldn't say "token" per se (Phasma seems more tokeny) but the whole film is like "we're sort of remaking the first film but sort of pretending we aren't - look so many things that fill a slot from the first plot are new/modern/different" in superficial ways that have no really significant effect:

* The main new young hero Luke-a-like is a girl!
* The new R2D2 has no legs!
* The new X-Wings have thought-defying semi-circular cylinders!
* The new TIE Fighters have new wing colors!
* The new Death Star is WAY more ridiculous!
* The new spaceships are ugly blocky crap!
* A new lightsaber has cross guards!
* Instead of being involved in everything, Luke is now involved in nothing!

I have seen people mention that Finn and Poe all kind of "share" the protagonist spot - together they're like a race/gender sampler. While there has been exactly one black male at-least-semi-major character in each SW film after the first, this last is the largest black male role.

Major characters:

      IV V VI I II III VII
White Male   5 5 5 5 5 4 4
White Female 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
Alien Male   1 2 3 2 1 1 2
Black Male   0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Robot       2 2 2 2 2 3 3
Alien Female - - - - - - 1
Black Female - - - - - - -

By my count, the main difference in numbers is this is the first SW film to have more than one (2-4 depending on who counts) major female character.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;911619...
And yet I felt Rey was a token but Ripley from Aliens was not. Both actors who played Anakin in the prequels felt tokeny to me too, which is why I think Skarg is unto something.

Perhaps all superficial representations are marginalizing.

Alien (before Aliens) started doing a good job of showing a crew who seemed like believable people and included two women and a black man in a crew of seven. The whole crew seemed like the people they were supposed to be. Also the Aliens series didn't present us with several films with almost entire white male casts (including practically all of the many minor characters), the way Star Wars did before switching to having the two main new protagonists be neither.

The prequel Anakins didn't seem like convincing people, nor like the super-capable character they were supposed to be. So they seemed to me like "yay look we're including something for younglings to relate to!" but not making Anakin convincing (neither as real interesting believable person, nor as someone who really seemed emotionally or adeptly competent to be surviving all the danger they showed him in). So for me anyway yep that adds up to "look we included a kid" because ya they did but not convincingly.

I thought Rey might have in at least part been a nod (or a wink) to the original concept for the character Luke's role being female.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;911282this thread probably should be closed since it isn't about gaming at all at this point, but I am moving it to the media subforum, since that is what it's about now.

Aren't threads in the media subforum purged periodically? Not sure if that is good or bad with respect to this thread.

Quote from: rawma;911752Aren't threads in the media subforum purged periodically? Not sure if that is good or bad with respect to this thread.

I just moved it. Didn't have an intention of then closing it. Personally I'd rather see more actual media discussions, where the media isn't just a proxy for some political topic, but I do think this is still within the scope of the media subforum (haven't been paying terribly close attention though and trying to take a light hand).

Quote from: Nexus;911657I thought Rey might have in at least part been a nod (or a wink) to the original concept for the character Luke's role originally being female.

Hush, you and your 'actually being reasonable.'

Quote from: Simlasa;911276John Boyega in Disney Star Wars? Yeah, a little bit...

Eh, Boyega was brilliant in Attack The Block, so his casting in TFA it felt natural to me. Avoiding monochrome leads is a fantastic bonus.

Quote from: cranebump;910689Pondsmith's resume looks pretty damned good. So I am wondering how would you would define 'merit," in this case. Looks to me like he has more than enough of a career to be named a "Guest of Honor." But I guess if it isn't him, then who should it be?

Pondsmith is absolutely qualified, based on his accomplishments and contributions to the hobby, to be guest of Honor at Gencon. The problem people have is that he wasn't chosen for any of those accomplishments.  He was chosen because of the color of his skin.  If Pondsmith was white and Greg Stafford was black, it would be Stafford there instead. The Regressives now in control of Gencon's decisions this year didn't give a fuck about what the guy has done for us, they only cared that he was part of an identity-politic group they are manipulating to push their ideological agenda.

This is awful in no small part BECAUSE it belittles everything else Pondsmith has done. It reduces someone who absolutely deserves praise for his work into someone being praised for an accident of birth, all to satisfy the agenda of people who don't actually give a fuck about him.

Quote from: RPGPundit;912079Pondsmith is absolutely qualified, based on his accomplishments and contributions to the hobby, to be guest of Honor at Gencon. The problem people have is that he wasn't chosen for any of those accomplishments.  He was chosen because of the color of his skin.  If Pondsmith was white and Greg Stafford was black, it would be Stafford there instead..

And while you are right that this would be terrible, were it true, you still haven't given any proof that this is the actual reason he was chosen.