I disagree that Munckin is an RPG but Diablo isn't. I guess defining RPG (aside from the ordnance) is needed? To me, if you have an evolving character that's played over time, I consider it an RPG. Something along that line? Diablo is very light on RPG elements and I can get behind it straddling the fence (hence Action-RPG being a label), but a game like GeneSys, which is often decried as "narrativist crap", is 100% an RPG.

What might help me is to understand what you consider and RPG vs storygame, if you even care to elaborate. Either way is cool with me because in the end you and I will play what we play and love it, regardless of what the other calls our things.

What's coolest is that we can debate and disagree and it's all good. Where we're in agreement is that totalitarian bullshit is unhealthy and ruinious not only to our hobby, but to life in general. That's truly important stuff, right?

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1060461What might help me is to understand what you consider and RPG vs storygame,

Very simple. Narrative mechanics as core to gameplay = storygame.

A disproportionate number of storygamers are SJWs. And the same proportion are mental/emotional infants.

Quote from: finarvyn;1060065Maybe I'm a wimp, but I don't recall being offended by PC stuff when I read the rulebook. I guess there is a "be careful when you play in public because someone might not get it" sort of disclaimer in the book, but otherwise I guess I blipped right over the rest. I'm more focused on the big picture than the specifics, however, so I probably just didn't notice all of the statements that are annoying others in this thread.

Just to update my own comments, when I read the rules the first time I skipped over most of the examples because I was more interested in the flow of the rules. (Sort of like the question of whether you read footnotes as you go or at the end.) Anyway, I read some of the examples through the lens of the original post and I can see what you guys were saying about the game. A lot more hand-wringing in the examples than in the text itself.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1060930A disproportionate number of storygamers are SJWs. And the same proportion are mental/emotional infants.

A disproportionate number of gamers are SJWs who are mental/emotional infants, and it sucks for everything in the hobby.

It appears that way online. Offline? I suspect the SJW gamers are a tiny, but noisy fraction. Like catpissmen or lawncrappers, instead of revolting us with their body stench, the SJWs revolt us with their non stop idiocy. But maybe I'm wrong and SJWs are poisoning the entire hobby, on and offline.

Any thoughts?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1061043It appears that way online. Offline? I suspect the SJW gamers are a tiny, but noisy fraction. Like catpissmen or lawncrappers, instead of revolting us with their body stench, the SJWs revolt us with their non stop idiocy. But maybe I'm wrong and SJWs are poisoning the entire hobby, on and offline.

Any thoughts?

A huge recent study (by a left-leaning lobbyist group, at that) found that SJWs are 8% of the American population. And that about 80% of the American population absolutely despises them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1061493A huge recent study (by a left-leaning lobbyist group, at that) found that SJWs are 8% of the American population. And that about 80% of the American population absolutely despises them.

Link, please:)?

Also, I opened this thread because I misread the title as "Pimps on Bikes". Now that might have been interesting;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1061493A huge recent study (by a left-leaning lobbyist group, at that) found that SJWs are 8% of the American population. And that about 80% of the American population absolutely despises them.

Maybe it was done by the same people who created the gender-blind hiring computer program for Amazon that still preferenced men.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1061537Maybe it was done by the same people who created the gender-blind hiring computer program for Amazon that still preferenced men.

Experiments with gender blind hiring have shown that where sex is known there is a clear bias towards women compared to men with similar CVs, and by negating that fewer women get hired. So I don't expect to see many sex-blind hiring experiments in future.

Quote from: S'mon;1061562Experiments with gender blind hiring have shown that where sex is known there is a clear bias towards women compared to men with similar CVs, and by negating that fewer women get hired. So I don't expect to see many sex-blind hiring experiments in future.

That's what the article was saying. Funny, huh? We have so thoroughly fucked interaction!

Actually, 80% of all statistics are pointless citations with no basis in reality.

Quote from: S'mon;1061562Experiments with gender blind hiring have shown that where sex is known there is a clear bias towards women compared to men with similar CVs, and by negating that fewer women get hired. So I don't expect to see many sex-blind hiring experiments in future.

I remain amazed that anyone really thinks that hiring men vs women is a constant of human nature that is exactly the same in all countries and industries. That goes equally for those who say that women are discriminated against, and those who say that men are discriminated against. Different studies can and do produce different results. So, to take two high-profile studies,

QuoteA recent study conducted by the Behavioral Economics Team of the Australian Government (BETA) reported on an initiative by Australian Public Service to increase the number of women hired for senior roles by removing gender information from candidates' applications. Surprisingly, the trial revealed the opposite of expected results. When a male name was added to a candidate's application, the candidate was found to be 3.2% less likely to receive a job offer. Conversely, when adding a female name to an application, the candidate was 2.9% more likely to receive an offer.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2018/04/03/the-benefits-and-shortcomings-of-blind-hiring-in-the-recruitment-process/#5f4cec638a3a

QuoteGapJumpers has conducted more than 1,400 auditions for companies like Bloomberg and Dolby Laboratories. According to the company's numbers, using conventional resume screening, about a fifth of applicants who were not white, male, able-bodied people from elite schools made it to a first-round interview. Using blind auditions, 60 percent did. ''Employers say, 'If you can show me your skills in this role, I am willing to interview you, regardless of where you come from, what you look like or who you are,' '' Iyer says.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/is-blind-hiring-the-best-hiring.html

These aren't inherently contradictory. The tech companies that GapJumpers work for might have different biases than Australian public service does. Hell, even within Australian public service, there can be major differences. In another article about the Australian study, they found this:

QuoteThe landmark study throws doubt on several trials launched by state Government's and individual departments.

Last year, the Australia Bureau of Statistics doubled its proportion of female bosses by using blind recruitment.

Professor Hiscox said he discussed the trial with the ABS and did not consider it a rigorous or randomised control trial, warning against any "magic pill" solution.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888

Also, note that blindness is relative. There are a ton of other possible factors that correlate with gender that might be shown on the resume. So two different methods of blinding could create different results. Human bias is a tricky thing to measure.

The entire conceit behind Blades in the Dark is that there's no need to figure out a plan, the characters already have, so we just cut to the action and, as players not roleplaying as our characters by definition, figure out what that plan is and whether it's successful.

If that's roleplaying, it's more roleplaying the author of a heist story rather than characters doing a heist.

Blades in the Dark is up there with Sagas of the Icelanders as one of the most OOC/Meta versions of PbtA you can get.

Quote from: jhkim;1061612Actually, 80% of all statistics are pointless citations with no basis in reality.


I remain amazed that anyone really thinks that hiring men vs women is a constant of human nature that is exactly the same in all countries and industries. That goes equally for those who say that women are discriminated against, and those who say that men are discriminated against. Different studies can and do produce different results. So, to take two high-profile studies,


Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2018/04/03/the-benefits-and-shortcomings-of-blind-hiring-in-the-recruitment-process/#5f4cec638a3a


Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/is-blind-hiring-the-best-hiring.html

These aren't inherently contradictory. The tech companies that GapJumpers work for might have different biases than Australian public service does. Hell, even within Australian public service, there can be major differences. In another article about the Australian study, they found this:


Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888

Also, note that blindness is relative. There are a ton of other possible factors that correlate with gender that might be shown on the resume. So two different methods of blinding could create different results. Human bias is a tricky thing to measure.

The Australians were looking at hiring elite women for elite roles. And the study was intended to show that gender blind hiring increased female hire rates - but they got the opposite result. so the result is vastly more robust for my point. In the other study it's perfectly possible that the employers were actually biased in favour of female applicants from elite schools - we can't tell because they conflated sex with race, ethnicity etc. And unlike the Australian case, the experimenters got the result they wanted, which with human biases is always less convincing than a finding against interest.

I suspect the pro-female bias is much stronger in elite hiring for senior government roles than for many other sorts of work, of course. And some roles will have a pro-male bias just as some have a pro-female bias. But the people with power don't care if there's a pro-female bias in domestic service employment - cleaners. They care about the commanding heights and having more women in the elite roles.

We gotta do something about the lack of women plumbers!

Nobody fix their toilet until there's 50% female ass crack under the sink!