This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will and, so, of any alignment, has implications beyond just erasing the trope of irredeemably evil races. It also attacks the central pillar of virtually all RPGs, which is combat.
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama? Must all games then be sensitive to just how powerful getting into a fight is, with its ugly consequences of trauma, confusion, and murder, and, so, knock down this central pillar? If so, what will hold up the roof?
The sky is not falling. Game on.
Combat isn't going anywhere. It may leave particular games, which will lose sales, go "Oh Shit!" and put it back in.
No. This blend of woke is not ultimatly anti-combat.
Actually, the answer will be "yes and no."
Combat by certain groups (white straight males) will be either frowned upon or a no-no against certain other groups (e.g. women). This is why male heroes can't defeat female villains in movies nowadays (Thor needing that lava monster to finish the job).
How are we going to see the end of combat when the most popular class is literally called "Fighter"?
???
Quote from: Shasarak on October 18, 2021, 06:58:11 PM
How are we going to see the end of combat when the most popular class is literally called "Fighter"?
???
New Fighter subclass options will be based on making social media attacks against your opponents to inflict psychic damage. They will be called Twitterboys and have 12' tall suits of really shiny heavy armor and one really big oversized weapon (nonfunctional).
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will and, so, of any alignment, has implications beyond just erasing the trope of irredeemably evil races. It also attacks the central pillar of virtually all RPGs, which is combat.
Combat is the central pillar of virtually all RPGs? Says who? Where's the evidence to back this up?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Bolding mine. Care to provide evidence for this extraordinary claim? Remember that extraordinary clai9ms require extraordinary evidence. I want to see a longitudinal study spawning several countries and years with ACTUAL gamers that proves this assertion, so far the only such study (about video games mind you) says you're talking BS.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama? Must all games then be sensitive to just how powerful getting into a fight is, with its ugly consequences of trauma, confusion, and murder, and, so, knock down this central pillar? If so, what will hold up the roof?
Remove the scare quotes, it is woke cultists promoting this changes.
Bolding mine. What!? Can you differentiate between make believe and reality? No one gets PTSD from RPG combat, because the only real individuals involved are humans in the real world, and if YOU want to role play such things in YOUR table by all means feel free to do so. But leave us out of your feverish dreams.
No, riding the WoTC paradigm for combat is dead.
The idea of dice deciding outcomes is rough. You want dice, but what if using dice isn't as cool as rolling dice.
What if dice are a crutch? What if you don't need dice?
What if you need ALL the dice?
IMHO TTRPGs revolve around 3 pillars:
Exploration/Interaction/Conflict (Combat)
Exploration: Going to new places, this might be dungeons or wilderness (a dungeon in disguise IMHO)
Interaction: Talking to NPCs
Conflict (Combat): I call it conflict because not all is intended to be solved by violence from day one. Running or talking your way out has ALWAYS been an option. See that Bronze Dragon there? You could risk your PC's death by fighting it or you could talk to it and not risk your PC's life.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will and, so, of any alignment, has implications beyond just erasing the trope of irredeemably evil races. It also attacks the central pillar of virtually all RPGs, which is combat.
Combat is the central pillar of virtually all RPGs? Says who? Where's the evidence to back this up?
Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big combat section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to submit some?
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Bolding mine. Care to provide evidence for this extraordinary claim? Remember that extraordinary clai9ms require extraordinary evidence. I want to see a longitudinal study spawning several countries and years with ACTUAL gamers that proves this assertion, so far the only such study (about video games mind you) says you're talking BS.
What RPGs do you know of that don't have a large combat section? What psychic consequences are there for characters in D&D combat? What players of RPGs include combat while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama? Must all games then be sensitive to just how powerful getting into a fight is, with its ugly consequences of trauma, confusion, and murder, and, so, knock down this central pillar? If so, what will hold up the roof?
Remove the scare quotes, it is woke cultists promoting this changes.
Bolding mine. What!? Can you differentiate between make believe and reality? No one gets PTSD from RPG combat, because the only real individuals involved are humans in the real world, and if YOU want to role play such things in YOUR table by all means feel free to do so. But leave us out of your feverish dreams.
I'm referring to characters, not players. And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes everything that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on October 18, 2021, 06:52:22 PM
Actually, the answer will be "yes and no."
Combat by certain groups (white straight males) will be either frowned upon or a no-no against certain other groups (e.g. women). This is why male heroes can't defeat female villains in movies nowadays (Thor needing that lava monster to finish the job).
Amazingly enough, in Asian shows males kill females just fine.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will
If the monsters freely will to test their warhammers on your skull, violence will erupt fast.
The only game, in my knowledge, where if you enter combat you have already lost is Call of Cthulhu.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will and, so, of any alignment, has implications beyond just erasing the trope of irredeemably evil races. It also attacks the central pillar of virtually all RPGs, which is combat.
Combat is the central pillar of virtually all RPGs? Says who? Where's the evidence to back this up?
Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big combat section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to submit some?
Nice try, nope, combat is an important part of the game but not (and I quote) "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm" Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big magic section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to sunmit one?
I'm of course mocking you, by your argument lots of things could be "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm"
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Bolding mine. Care to provide evidence for this extraordinary claim? Remember that extraordinary clai9ms require extraordinary evidence. I want to see a longitudinal study spawning several countries and years with ACTUAL gamers that proves this assertion, so far the only such study (about video games mind you) says you're talking BS.
What RPGs do you know of that don't have a large combat section? What psychic consequences are there for characters in D&D combat? What players of RPGs include combat while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
What RPGs do you know about that don't have a large magic section? What spiritual consecuences are there for characters on D&D for dabling in magic? What players of RPGs include magic while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
First of all you were talking about "
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" Not PCs.
Second what if it's fun? Does Minecraft train you to be an architect that builds with big cubes of diamond?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama? Must all games then be sensitive to just how powerful getting into a fight is, with its ugly consequences of trauma, confusion, and murder, and, so, knock down this central pillar? If so, what will hold up the roof?
Remove the scare quotes, it is woke cultists promoting this changes.
Bolding mine. What!? Can you differentiate between make believe and reality? No one gets PTSD from RPG combat, because the only real individuals involved are humans in the real world, and if YOU want to role play such things in YOUR table by all means feel free to do so. But leave us out of your feverish dreams.
I'm referring to characters, not players. And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes everything that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
"
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" No you weren't, you were talking about people, after all who has fun with an RPG? Or do you often play inception type games where the PC's are playing an RPG?
Your argument is the same as the ones made by Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkesian. "Games teach people to... "
Please do provide scientific evidence of your assertion.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Then we must FIGHT!
Quote from: Reckall on October 18, 2021, 09:13:08 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will
If the monsters freely will to test their warhammers on your skull, violence will erupt fast.
The only game, in my knowledge, where if you enter combat you have already lost is Call of Cthulhu.
Many Star Trek challenges can fall into "if you enter combat, you've already lost" but then again many of them can be solved through combat. It can be tricky to tell them apart.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 09:15:06 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will and, so, of any alignment, has implications beyond just erasing the trope of irredeemably evil races. It also attacks the central pillar of virtually all RPGs, which is combat.
Combat is the central pillar of virtually all RPGs? Says who? Where's the evidence to back this up?
Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big combat section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to submit some?
Nice try, nope, combat is an important part of the game but not (and I quote) "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm" Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big magic section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to sunmit one?
I'm of course mocking you, by your argument lots of things could be "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm"
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Bolding mine. Care to provide evidence for this extraordinary claim? Remember that extraordinary clai9ms require extraordinary evidence. I want to see a longitudinal study spawning several countries and years with ACTUAL gamers that proves this assertion, so far the only such study (about video games mind you) says you're talking BS.
What RPGs do you know of that don't have a large combat section? What psychic consequences are there for characters in D&D combat? What players of RPGs include combat while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
What RPGs do you know about that don't have a large magic section? What spiritual consecuences are there for characters on D&D for dabling in magic? What players of RPGs include magic while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
First of all you were talking about "Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" Not PCs.
Second what if it's fun? Does Minecraft train you to be an architect that builds with big cubes of diamond?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama? Must all games then be sensitive to just how powerful getting into a fight is, with its ugly consequences of trauma, confusion, and murder, and, so, knock down this central pillar? If so, what will hold up the roof?
Remove the scare quotes, it is woke cultists promoting this changes.
Bolding mine. What!? Can you differentiate between make believe and reality? No one gets PTSD from RPG combat, because the only real individuals involved are humans in the real world, and if YOU want to role play such things in YOUR table by all means feel free to do so. But leave us out of your feverish dreams.
I'm referring to characters, not players. And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes everything that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
"Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" No you weren't, you were talking about people, after all who has fun with an RPG? Or do you often play inception type games where the PC's are playing an RPG?
Your argument is the same as the ones made by Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkesian. "Games teach people to... "
Please do provide scientific evidence of your assertion.
Cyberpunk doesn't have a huge magic section. Conan 2d20 has a magic section, but it's not huge. Star Trek Adventures doesn't have a magic section. Conspiracy X 2.0 has a small magic section, but nothing huge. But all of these games have robust combat mechanics.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
I'm being charitable and assuming you mean only in game attitude.
Even then, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I think combat and conflict are a desired "fun" that RPGs include because they are a fun part of the game.
D&D notoriously arose from the Chainmail tabletop wargame. It's roots are in war and conflict as game, an idea as old as Chess and Go and Checkers.
I do not think RPGs "train" anyone to think in that manner. I think they express an attitude already present.
Now, that doesn't mean every conflict should be resolved with a combat. Many solutions in D&D involve negotiation or problem solving. Many adventures portray conflict and war as undesirable, and a last resort, from the POV of the characters. Sometimes it's played simply as a beer & pretzels dungeon crawl. Sometimes as super serious RP.
I think RPG combat has always been pretty unwieldy due to overcomplicated design (https://sinisterdesign.net/the-battle-system-i-wish-rpgs-would-stop-using/). I think that RPGs have overwhelmingly relied on violence to solve problems, as opposed to any other kind of conflict resolution. I think it's pretty weird that combat is typically the most detailed part of RPG rules, but there are never similarly complicated rules for non-violent conflict resolution (e.g. the much maligned social combat, mental combat, etc).
It's almost like RPGs developed as an outgrowth of wargames and still have yet to shed those inherited assumptions despite it long since ceasing to matter.
Hmm...
Oh wait, you're talking about the wokies? In that case, I have nothing to contribute.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 09:15:06 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will and, so, of any alignment, has implications beyond just erasing the trope of irredeemably evil races. It also attacks the central pillar of virtually all RPGs, which is combat.
Combat is the central pillar of virtually all RPGs? Says who? Where's the evidence to back this up?
Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big combat section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to submit some?
Nice try, nope, combat is an important part of the game but not (and I quote) "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm" Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big magic section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to sunmit one?
I'm of course mocking you, by your argument lots of things could be "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm"
Millennium's End
Top Secret
Traveller
Aftermath
Twilight: 2000
Robotech
I'm sure there are more. So, I've answered your question, will you answer mine: can you name any RPG that doesn't feature a chapter dedicated to combat?
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Bolding mine. Care to provide evidence for this extraordinary claim? Remember that extraordinary clai9ms require extraordinary evidence. I want to see a longitudinal study spawning several countries and years with ACTUAL gamers that proves this assertion, so far the only such study (about video games mind you) says you're talking BS.
What RPGs do you know of that don't have a large combat section? What psychic consequences are there for characters in D&D combat? What players of RPGs include combat while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
What RPGs do you know about that don't have a large magic section? What spiritual consecuences are there for characters on D&D for dabling in magic? What players of RPGs include magic while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
See above. No, not much in the way of spiritual consequences for magic, either. And what is magic commonly for in D&D?—fighting monsters with sleep spells, magic missiles, fireballs, etc. Find me an RPG cover featuring magic that isn't used for a combat. The message is that magic isn't psychologically dangerous, it's just fun. Magical combat is fun. Magical violence is fun. So, please answer my questions: What RPGs lack a chapter on combat, and supply realistic psychic consequences for combat?
QuoteFirst of all you were talking about "Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" Not PCs.
Yes, that's right. It does train people to think that way, even if other things (such as personal experience) train them otherwise. The game's characters don't necessarily find violence fun, but the players certainly do find portrayals of violence fun or they'd eschew such violence in their games. And, this violence is free of psychic consequences for the characters and is often portrayed as the most thrilling, easiest, or inevitable option for resolving conflicts.
QuoteSecond what if it's fun? Does Minecraft train you to be an architect that builds with big cubes of diamond?
How realistically portrayed is Minecraft?
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama? Must all games then be sensitive to just how powerful getting into a fight is, with its ugly consequences of trauma, confusion, and murder, and, so, knock down this central pillar? If so, what will hold up the roof?
Remove the scare quotes, it is woke cultists promoting this changes.
Bolding mine. What!? Can you differentiate between make believe and reality? No one gets PTSD from RPG combat, because the only real individuals involved are humans in the real world, and if YOU want to role play such things in YOUR table by all means feel free to do so. But leave us out of your feverish dreams.
I'm referring to characters, not players. And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes everything that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
"Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" No you weren't, you were talking about people, after all who has fun with an RPG? Or do you often play inception type games where the PC's are playing an RPG?
In my third paragraph I'm referring to characters being realistically affected by violence, not players. (But, isn't the point of roleplaying trying to get inside the head of your character?) And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes much, if not everything, that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
QuoteYour argument is the same as the ones made by Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkesian. "Games teach people to... "
Please do provide scientific evidence of your assertion.
Scientific evidence for what? That if you eat sweets while watching a public execution you'll be reinforcing sweets=beheading=fun in your mind? I think you're spirited but you're not clueless. I think that is what the wokies are going to do, is use my argument to shred gaming as we know it. See if they don't.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 10:04:33 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
I'm being charitable and assuming you mean only in game attitude.
Even then, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I think combat and conflict are a desired "fun" that RPGs include because they are a fun part of the game.
D&D notoriously arose from the Chainmail tabletop wargame. It's roots are in war and conflict as game, an idea as old as Chess and Go and Checkers.
I do not think RPGs "train" anyone to think in that manner. I think they express an attitude already present.
Now, that doesn't mean every conflict should be resolved with a combat. Many solutions in D&D involve negotiation or problem solving. Many adventures portray conflict and war as undesirable, and a last resort, from the POV of the characters. Sometimes it's played simply as a beer & pretzels dungeon crawl. Sometimes as super serious RP.
Chess trains the mind to engage and persevere and logically crush your opponent, does it not? Why would RPGs be different? What you do trains you to do what you do.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 09:15:06 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will and, so, of any alignment, has implications beyond just erasing the trope of irredeemably evil races. It also attacks the central pillar of virtually all RPGs, which is combat.
Combat is the central pillar of virtually all RPGs? Says who? Where's the evidence to back this up?
Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big combat section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to submit some?
Nice try, nope, combat is an important part of the game but not (and I quote) "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm" Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big magic section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to sunmit one?
I'm of course mocking you, by your argument lots of things could be "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm"
Millennium's End
Top Secret
Traveller
Aftermath
Twilight: 2000
Robotech
I'm sure there are more. So, I've answered your question, will you answer mine: can you name any RPG that doesn't feature a chapter dedicated to combat?
So you answered to me mocking you...
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Bolding mine. Care to provide evidence for this extraordinary claim? Remember that extraordinary clai9ms require extraordinary evidence. I want to see a longitudinal study spawning several countries and years with ACTUAL gamers that proves this assertion, so far the only such study (about video games mind you) says you're talking BS.
What RPGs do you know of that don't have a large combat section? What psychic consequences are there for characters in D&D combat? What players of RPGs include combat while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
What RPGs do you know about that don't have a large magic section? What spiritual consecuences are there for characters on D&D for dabling in magic? What players of RPGs include magic while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
See above. No, not much in the way of spiritual consequences for magic, either. And what is magic commonly for in D&D?—fighting monsters with sleep spells, magic missiles, fireballs, etc. Find me an RPG cover featuring magic that isn't used for a combat. The message is that magic isn't psychologically dangerous, it's just fun. Magical combat is fun. Magical violence is fun. So, please answer my questions: What RPGs lack a chapter on combat, and supply realistic psychic consequences for combat?
What for? You backtrack about you speaking about characters and revert to the players, next you'll do it the other way around. Provide scientific evidence that RPGs train real people to solve things by using violence IRL.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteFirst of all you were talking about "Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" Not PCs.
Yes, that's right. It does train people to think that way, even if other things (such as personal experience) train them otherwise. The game's characters don't necessarily find violence fun, but the players certainly do find portrayals of violence fun or they'd eschew such violence in their games. And, this violence is free of psychic consequences for the characters and is often portrayed as the most thrilling, easiest, or inevitable option for resolving conflicts.
See? You're back to the Thompson/Sarkesian argument which has been proven false:
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
So if YOU are asserting that TTRPGs are different and they do what you claim it falls on you to prove your assertion not on me to prove it flase.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteSecond what if it's fun? Does Minecraft train you to be an architect that builds with big cubes of diamond?
How realistically portrayed is Minecraft?
How realistically do I portray a TTRPG in my head? This has shit to do with your argument, it's just you trying to change the discussion to a different topic, provide scientific evidence of your claim that TTRPGs make people solve things with violence or shut the fuck up.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama? Must all games then be sensitive to just how powerful getting into a fight is, with its ugly consequences of trauma, confusion, and murder, and, so, knock down this central pillar? If so, what will hold up the roof?
Remove the scare quotes, it is woke cultists promoting this changes.
Bolding mine. What!? Can you differentiate between make believe and reality? No one gets PTSD from RPG combat, because the only real individuals involved are humans in the real world, and if YOU want to role play such things in YOUR table by all means feel free to do so. But leave us out of your feverish dreams.
I'm referring to characters, not players. And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes everything that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
"Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" No you weren't, you were talking about people, after all who has fun with an RPG? Or do you often play inception type games where the PC's are playing an RPG?
In my third paragraph I'm referring to characters being realistically affected by violence, not players. (But, isn't the point of roleplaying trying to get inside the head of your character?) And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes much, if not everything, that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
And now you're back to claiming you were talking about PCs, who cares what you think PCs are trained for in the game world? It has exactly zero effect on the real world.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteYour argument is the same as the ones made by Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkesian. "Games teach people to... "
Please do provide scientific evidence of your assertion.
Scientific evidence for what? That if you eat sweets while watching a public execution you'll be reinforcing sweets=beheading=fun in your mind? I think you're spirited but you're not clueless. I think that is what the wokies are going to do, is use my argument to shred gaming as we know it. See if they don't.
Nice false equivalence, real world with real people vs game world with game believe "people". By your logic it should also train people to solve things with magic, like in curing/travelling by magic. But that's BS just like your claim that TTRPGs make players violent.
That TTRPGs make players start solving things with violence.
In case you want to pretend you didn't see the link I'll provide it again here:
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
And in case you don't want to click there here's the study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Now prove them wrong or shut the fuck up. You claim you're worried about the wokies, YOU'RE here doing their work by claiming that TTRPGs make players violent.
Savage Worlds
16 pages for combat rules
about 20 pages (probably less if you take out art) for "Magic"
Out of a book that is 212 pages approx (according to pdf); so figure about 20% of book is for the brutish, violent, excessively masculine arts of combat?
You either need Drama or Conflict to make things interesting. While I enjoy reading slice of life manga, it doesn't really sound that fun to play and quite frankly we need less Drama in the world not more. Especially since most civilized societies have worked very hard to make violence into a wholly bad thing.
While most games are meant about being heroes, heroic, or at least not a bad guy. Murder-hoboing, which is generally considered a bad thing, and killing bandits that are preying upon merchants and peasants just trying to live are vastly different types of violence and context.
The fact of the matter is that people can sleep safely at home because there are other people who are prepared to do violence on their behalf.
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms"
"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:40:07 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 10:04:33 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
I'm being charitable and assuming you mean only in game attitude.
Even then, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I think combat and conflict are a desired "fun" that RPGs include because they are a fun part of the game.
D&D notoriously arose from the Chainmail tabletop wargame. It's roots are in war and conflict as game, an idea as old as Chess and Go and Checkers.
I do not think RPGs "train" anyone to think in that manner. I think they express an attitude already present.
Now, that doesn't mean every conflict should be resolved with a combat. Many solutions in D&D involve negotiation or problem solving. Many adventures portray conflict and war as undesirable, and a last resort, from the POV of the characters. Sometimes it's played simply as a beer & pretzels dungeon crawl. Sometimes as super serious RP.
Chess trains the mind to engage and persevere and logically crush your opponent, does it not?
Chess teaches many things. Getting good at chess involves learning to think and plan many steps ahead of the current board state. And to have an understanding of your opponent, to imagine what they will do in response to your moves.
And it also teaches (hopefully) good sportsmanship. You can't get good at chess unless you play many games. You won't get invited back to play if you are a poor sport.
And it also teaches tactics and strategy, in a very abstracted manner.
QuoteWhy would RPGs be different? What you do trains you to do what you do.
But do you do what you do when you did what you did to me?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:40:07 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 10:04:33 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
I'm being charitable and assuming you mean only in game attitude.
Even then, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I think combat and conflict are a desired "fun" that RPGs include because they are a fun part of the game.
D&D notoriously arose from the Chainmail tabletop wargame. It's roots are in war and conflict as game, an idea as old as Chess and Go and Checkers.
I do not think RPGs "train" anyone to think in that manner. I think they express an attitude already present.
Now, that doesn't mean every conflict should be resolved with a combat. Many solutions in D&D involve negotiation or problem solving. Many adventures portray conflict and war as undesirable, and a last resort, from the POV of the characters. Sometimes it's played simply as a beer & pretzels dungeon crawl. Sometimes as super serious RP.
Chess trains the mind to engage and persevere and logically crush your opponent, does it not?
Why would RPGs be different? What you do trains you to do what you do.
Again no, you have ZERO evidence that TTRPGs make players violent.
While I do have evidence that games don't make you violent.
Provide scientific evidence of your assertions, because sience isn't intuitive and plenty of times it is counter intuitive.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
(https://www.chick.com/images/tracts/0046/0046_03.gif?)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 11:49:20 PM
(https://www.chick.com/images/tracts/0046/0046_03.gif?)
That's exactly it.
While he claims to be working to stop the wokies he's in reality doing their work by making wild assertions and trying to see how many ppl here buy into his unsubstantiated BS.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:52:08 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 11:49:20 PM
(https://www.chick.com/images/tracts/0046/0046_03.gif?)
That's exactly it.
While he claims to be working to stop the wokies he's in reality doing their work by making wild assertions and trying to see how many ppl here buy into his unsubstantiated BS.
Greetings!
BLACK LEAF!!!! *Laughing* I loved that comic thingy! Fucking hilarious!
Yes, violence in gaming is *good*! Lots of genocide, ethnic cleansing, conquering the fucking Orcs. Plunder, gaining gold and magic items. Yes, violence is an excellent problem solver. When every problem can be seen as a nail, a Hammer is the best tool for the job. Who wants to play in a campaign where everyone is expected to be a sniveling, soy-filled pussy? Talk, and beg, and get on your knees. That's what women do--and weak pussies. Men, true men, are warriors in spirit, and always ready for violence. ;D
The old Roman philosopher Vegetius said, "Those who desire peace, should prepare for war". In all the world, many peoples and many nations possessed many different talents and skills. The Romans however, built their great empire by a constant mastery of war.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on October 19, 2021, 12:11:27 AM
The old Roman philosopher Vegetius said, "Those who desire peace, should prepare for war". In all the world, many peoples and many nations possessed many different talents and skills. The Romans however, built their great empire by a constant mastery of war.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
That reminds me of what Jordan Peterson said about the mistranslation of the word "meek". In the original Greek it meant "strength under control."
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama?
Not really.
In the real world people are all human and they have no alignments intrinsic to them, suffer psychological effects from being exposed to or participating in violence, and so on - and they still run around stabbing and shooting each-other, there are still wars and all that.
If the fact that Bob has a mum and family he loves does not stop Charlie popping him with a 7.62mm from 880 metres, I don't see why anyone should care about stabbing an orc - even if the orc loves his mum, too.
Quote from: SHARK on October 19, 2021, 12:11:27 AM
Who wants to play in a campaign where everyone is expected to be a sniveling, soy-filled pussy? Talk, and beg, and get on your knees. That's what women do--and weak pussies. Men, true men, are warriors in spirit, and always ready for violence. ;D
Ah, yes.
(https://i.imgur.com/1wnTbSy.jpeg)
True manly men prove their manliness by great shows of dice rolling. ::)
I enjoy violence in games, but I also enjoy intrigue, dialog, and other non-violent material in games. And yeah, I'm an Korean-American who's eaten soy his whole life. It's delicious and nutritious, and has been a staple of our diet for centuries.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I think you could make that criticism - if it is a criticism - even more about videogame combat, or film and TV combat. It's pretty well ubiquitous in popular fiction. Except the 'any combat results in PTSD' type fiction, which is no more realistic than 'overnight rest heals all wounds'. :)
I don't get the impression that fictional & RPG combat trains people to see violence as a solution IRL; I think our brains easily distinguish the two. I do think media can often act as propaganda to dehumanise 'the enemy', which is a different issue.
WoTC went through a phase of "It's Always Demon Cultists" which was a sort of solution to the issue (of Always Chaotic Evil bad guy races existing only to be killed) - the cultists are bad guys, they have clear destructive goals and methods, they don't map clearly onto any IRL group - you can make a link to your preferred IRL Bad Guys, but it's not obvious in the fiction.
I don't think we're seeing the end of combat. Even WoTC's primary target demographic loves combat, though they may not like *hard* combat. ;D IME a female thespian player (whether actual professional actor or just in-game actor) loves hacking up bad guys as much as the ex-army/police player who trained the Special Boat Service in takedown techniques... it's fun stress relief. Some players get bored of whole sessions of long extended combat, so I can see a move to making combat quicker and easier. More allowance for noncombat solutions, yes. Recently I've been seeing more prisoner taking, and more pressing/recruiting captives into service, which looks to have once been common judging by adventures like Village of Hommlet.
You can take combat out of your games if you want. Let me know how that goes.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
That's Geeky for you. He taught me to never extent to others the same courtesies you demand from them.
Social media keeps cracking down harder and harder on "harmful content." Even in the less woke corners of the internet, physical violence is considered a no no. And it seems the algorithms are not especially good at distinguishing fictional and game violence from actual real life threats. It's not impossible to imagine a future where combat-less RPGs, even if they're terribly boring compared to combat-filled ones, get the vast majority of real estate on mainstream platforms.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Quote from: S'mon on October 19, 2021, 03:16:52 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I think you could make that criticism - if it is a criticism - even more about videogame combat, or film and TV combat. It's pretty well ubiquitous in popular fiction. Except the 'any combat results in PTSD' type fiction, which is no more realistic than 'overnight rest heals all wounds'. :)
I don't get the impression that fictional & RPG combat trains people to see violence as a solution IRL; I think our brains easily distinguish the two. I do think media can often act as propaganda to dehumanise 'the enemy', which is a different issue.
WoTC went through a phase of "It's Always Demon Cultists" which was a sort of solution to the issue (of Always Chaotic Evil bad guy races existing only to be killed) - the cultists are bad guys, they have clear destructive goals and methods, they don't map clearly onto any IRL group - you can make a link to your preferred IRL Bad Guys, but it's not obvious in the fiction.
How could RPGs be altered to dehumanize the people the wokies wish to dehumanize?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:16:15 AM
Quote from: S'mon on October 19, 2021, 03:16:52 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I think you could make that criticism - if it is a criticism - even more about videogame combat, or film and TV combat. It's pretty well ubiquitous in popular fiction. Except the 'any combat results in PTSD' type fiction, which is no more realistic than 'overnight rest heals all wounds'. :)
I don't get the impression that fictional & RPG combat trains people to see violence as a solution IRL; I think our brains easily distinguish the two. I do think media can often act as propaganda to dehumanise 'the enemy', which is a different issue.
WoTC went through a phase of "It's Always Demon Cultists" which was a sort of solution to the issue (of Always Chaotic Evil bad guy races existing only to be killed) - the cultists are bad guys, they have clear destructive goals and methods, they don't map clearly onto any IRL group - you can make a link to your preferred IRL Bad Guys, but it's not obvious in the fiction.
How could RPGs be altered to dehumanize the people the wokies wish to dehumanize?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
You quote a single thing from my long ass answer to you... Who's acting in bad faith?
You come making unsubstantiated claims about how TTRPGs train people to be violent, while claiming you're against the wokies. Who's acting in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7
Off course you could pretend to be offended and think that gets you off the hook from providing the evidence to support such claims, don't think it will work.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
Lets try this again, here's the full answer from where you're clipping that. Lets see if you answering to that is in good faith or if you're just trying to deviate attention from your unsubstantiated assertions shall we?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 09:15:06 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will and, so, of any alignment, has implications beyond just erasing the trope of irredeemably evil races. It also attacks the central pillar of virtually all RPGs, which is combat.
Combat is the central pillar of virtually all RPGs? Says who? Where's the evidence to back this up?
Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big combat section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to submit some?
Nice try, nope, combat is an important part of the game but not (and I quote) "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm" Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big magic section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to sunmit one?
I'm of course mocking you, by your argument lots of things could be "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm"
Millennium's End
Top Secret
Traveller
Aftermath
Twilight: 2000
Robotech
I'm sure there are more. So, I've answered your question, will you answer mine: can you name any RPG that doesn't feature a chapter dedicated to combat?
So you answered to me mocking you...
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Bolding mine. Care to provide evidence for this extraordinary claim? Remember that extraordinary clai9ms require extraordinary evidence. I want to see a longitudinal study spawning several countries and years with ACTUAL gamers that proves this assertion, so far the only such study (about video games mind you) says you're talking BS.
What RPGs do you know of that don't have a large combat section? What psychic consequences are there for characters in D&D combat? What players of RPGs include combat while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
What RPGs do you know about that don't have a large magic section? What spiritual consecuences are there for characters on D&D for dabling in magic? What players of RPGs include magic while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
See above. No, not much in the way of spiritual consequences for magic, either. And what is magic commonly for in D&D?—fighting monsters with sleep spells, magic missiles, fireballs, etc. Find me an RPG cover featuring magic that isn't used for a combat. The message is that magic isn't psychologically dangerous, it's just fun. Magical combat is fun. Magical violence is fun. So, please answer my questions: What RPGs lack a chapter on combat, and supply realistic psychic consequences for combat?
What for? You backtrack about you speaking about characters and revert to the players, next you'll do it the other way around. Provide scientific evidence that RPGs train real people to solve things by using violence IRL.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteFirst of all you were talking about "Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" Not PCs.
Yes, that's right. It does train people to think that way, even if other things (such as personal experience) train them otherwise. The game's characters don't necessarily find violence fun, but the players certainly do find portrayals of violence fun or they'd eschew such violence in their games. And, this violence is free of psychic consequences for the characters and is often portrayed as the most thrilling, easiest, or inevitable option for resolving conflicts.
See? You're back to the Thompson/Sarkesian argument which has been proven false:
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
So if YOU are asserting that TTRPGs are different and they do what you claim it falls on you to prove your assertion not on me to prove it flase.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteSecond what if it's fun? Does Minecraft train you to be an architect that builds with big cubes of diamond?
How realistically portrayed is Minecraft?
How realistically do I portray a TTRPG in my head? This has shit to do with your argument, it's just you trying to change the discussion to a different topic, provide scientific evidence of your claim that TTRPGs make people solve things with violence or shut the fuck up.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama? Must all games then be sensitive to just how powerful getting into a fight is, with its ugly consequences of trauma, confusion, and murder, and, so, knock down this central pillar? If so, what will hold up the roof?
Remove the scare quotes, it is woke cultists promoting this changes.
Bolding mine. What!? Can you differentiate between make believe and reality? No one gets PTSD from RPG combat, because the only real individuals involved are humans in the real world, and if YOU want to role play such things in YOUR table by all means feel free to do so. But leave us out of your feverish dreams.
I'm referring to characters, not players. And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes everything that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
"Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" No you weren't, you were talking about people, after all who has fun with an RPG? Or do you often play inception type games where the PC's are playing an RPG?
In my third paragraph I'm referring to characters being realistically affected by violence, not players. (But, isn't the point of roleplaying trying to get inside the head of your character?) And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes much, if not everything, that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
And now you're back to claiming you were talking about PCs, who cares what you think PCs are trained for in the game world? It has exactly zero effect on the real world.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteYour argument is the same as the ones made by Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkesian. "Games teach people to... "
Please do provide scientific evidence of your assertion.
Scientific evidence for what? That if you eat sweets while watching a public execution you'll be reinforcing sweets=beheading=fun in your mind? I think you're spirited but you're not clueless. I think that is what the wokies are going to do, is use my argument to shred gaming as we know it. See if they don't.
Nice false equivalence, real world with real people vs game world with game believe "people". By your logic it should also train people to solve things with magic, like in curing/travelling by magic. But that's BS just like your claim that TTRPGs make players violent.
That TTRPGs make players start solving things with violence.
In case you want to pretend you didn't see the link I'll provide it again here:
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
And in case you don't want to click there here's the study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Now prove them wrong or shut the fuck up. You claim you're worried about the wokies, YOU'RE here doing their work by claiming that TTRPGs make players violent.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
You quote a single thing from my long ass answer to you... Who's acting in bad faith?
You come making unsubstantiated claims about how TTRPGs train people to be violent, while claiming you're against the wokies. Who's acting in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7
Off course you could pretend to be offended and think that gets you off the hook from providing the evidence to support such claims, don't think it will work.
I guess that's a yes. Play mind games with someone else.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
You quote a single thing from my long ass answer to you... Who's acting in bad faith?
You come making unsubstantiated claims about how TTRPGs train people to be violent, while claiming you're against the wokies. Who's acting in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7
Off course you could pretend to be offended and think that gets you off the hook from providing the evidence to support such claims, don't think it will work.
Here's the part where Geeky accuses the other person of doing exactly what he's doing.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:26:53 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
You quote a single thing from my long ass answer to you... Who's acting in bad faith?
You come making unsubstantiated claims about how TTRPGs train people to be violent, while claiming you're against the wokies. Who's acting in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7
Off course you could pretend to be offended and think that gets you off the hook from providing the evidence to support such claims, don't think it will work.
I guess that's a yes. Play mind games with someone else.
Geeky has certain inherent limits in communication that he can't overcome, and he's happy to use them as an excuse anytime it suits him. It's just part of his game.
Are we talking about combat or conflict? The two are not necessarily synonymous.
Conflict resolution -- whether it's swordfighting, successful economic machinations, or mining a stubborn rock face -- is kind of at the core of games. You have X dilemma; how do you solve it?
Now, not every game is necessarily steeped in combat -- Exalted and L5R incorporated social conflicts that could be just as dangerous (although the Mike Tyson adage about 'everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face' kind of applies there). But physical combat is kind of a staple of the RPG genre, ranging widely in severity.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:26:53 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
You quote a single thing from my long ass answer to you... Who's acting in bad faith?
You come making unsubstantiated claims about how TTRPGs train people to be violent, while claiming you're against the wokies. Who's acting in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7
Off course you could pretend to be offended and think that gets you off the hook from providing the evidence to support such claims, don't think it will work.
I guess that's a yes. Play mind games with someone else.
So you choose pretending to be offended to try and avoid providing evidence for your assertions...
Not very smart of you.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 19, 2021, 10:35:29 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
You quote a single thing from my long ass answer to you... Who's acting in bad faith?
You come making unsubstantiated claims about how TTRPGs train people to be violent, while claiming you're against the wokies. Who's acting in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7
Off course you could pretend to be offended and think that gets you off the hook from providing the evidence to support such claims, don't think it will work.
Here's the part where Geeky accuses the other person of doing exactly what he's doing.
You're an imbecile
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:24:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
Lets try this again, here's the full answer from where you're clipping that. Lets see if you answering to that is in good faith or if you're just trying to deviate attention from your unsubstantiated assertions shall we?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 09:15:06 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will and, so, of any alignment, has implications beyond just erasing the trope of irredeemably evil races. It also attacks the central pillar of virtually all RPGs, which is combat.
Combat is the central pillar of virtually all RPGs? Says who? Where's the evidence to back this up?
Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big combat section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to submit some?
Nice try, nope, combat is an important part of the game but not (and I quote) "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm" Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big magic section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to sunmit one?
I'm of course mocking you, by your argument lots of things could be "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm"
Millennium's End
Top Secret
Traveller
Aftermath
Twilight: 2000
Robotech
I'm sure there are more. So, I've answered your question, will you answer mine: can you name any RPG that doesn't feature a chapter dedicated to combat?
So you answered to me mocking you...
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Bolding mine. Care to provide evidence for this extraordinary claim? Remember that extraordinary clai9ms require extraordinary evidence. I want to see a longitudinal study spawning several countries and years with ACTUAL gamers that proves this assertion, so far the only such study (about video games mind you) says you're talking BS.
What RPGs do you know of that don't have a large combat section? What psychic consequences are there for characters in D&D combat? What players of RPGs include combat while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
What RPGs do you know about that don't have a large magic section? What spiritual consecuences are there for characters on D&D for dabling in magic? What players of RPGs include magic while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
See above. No, not much in the way of spiritual consequences for magic, either. And what is magic commonly for in D&D?—fighting monsters with sleep spells, magic missiles, fireballs, etc. Find me an RPG cover featuring magic that isn't used for a combat. The message is that magic isn't psychologically dangerous, it's just fun. Magical combat is fun. Magical violence is fun. So, please answer my questions: What RPGs lack a chapter on combat, and supply realistic psychic consequences for combat?
What for? You backtrack about you speaking about characters and revert to the players, next you'll do it the other way around. Provide scientific evidence that RPGs train real people to solve things by using violence IRL.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteFirst of all you were talking about "Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" Not PCs.
Yes, that's right. It does train people to think that way, even if other things (such as personal experience) train them otherwise. The game's characters don't necessarily find violence fun, but the players certainly do find portrayals of violence fun or they'd eschew such violence in their games. And, this violence is free of psychic consequences for the characters and is often portrayed as the most thrilling, easiest, or inevitable option for resolving conflicts.
See? You're back to the Thompson/Sarkesian argument which has been proven false:
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
So if YOU are asserting that TTRPGs are different and they do what you claim it falls on you to prove your assertion not on me to prove it flase.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteSecond what if it's fun? Does Minecraft train you to be an architect that builds with big cubes of diamond?
How realistically portrayed is Minecraft?
How realistically do I portray a TTRPG in my head? This has shit to do with your argument, it's just you trying to change the discussion to a different topic, provide scientific evidence of your claim that TTRPGs make people solve things with violence or shut the fuck up.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama? Must all games then be sensitive to just how powerful getting into a fight is, with its ugly consequences of trauma, confusion, and murder, and, so, knock down this central pillar? If so, what will hold up the roof?
Remove the scare quotes, it is woke cultists promoting this changes.
Bolding mine. What!? Can you differentiate between make believe and reality? No one gets PTSD from RPG combat, because the only real individuals involved are humans in the real world, and if YOU want to role play such things in YOUR table by all means feel free to do so. But leave us out of your feverish dreams.
I'm referring to characters, not players. And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes everything that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
"Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" No you weren't, you were talking about people, after all who has fun with an RPG? Or do you often play inception type games where the PC's are playing an RPG?
In my third paragraph I'm referring to characters being realistically affected by violence, not players. (But, isn't the point of roleplaying trying to get inside the head of your character?) And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes much, if not everything, that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
And now you're back to claiming you were talking about PCs, who cares what you think PCs are trained for in the game world? It has exactly zero effect on the real world.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteYour argument is the same as the ones made by Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkesian. "Games teach people to... "
Please do provide scientific evidence of your assertion.
Scientific evidence for what? That if you eat sweets while watching a public execution you'll be reinforcing sweets=beheading=fun in your mind? I think you're spirited but you're not clueless. I think that is what the wokies are going to do, is use my argument to shred gaming as we know it. See if they don't.
Nice false equivalence, real world with real people vs game world with game believe "people". By your logic it should also train people to solve things with magic, like in curing/travelling by magic. But that's BS just like your claim that TTRPGs make players violent.
That TTRPGs make players start solving things with violence.
In case you want to pretend you didn't see the link I'll provide it again here:
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
And in case you don't want to click there here's the study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Now prove them wrong or shut the fuck up. You claim you're worried about the wokies, YOU'RE here doing their work by claiming that TTRPGs make players violent.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:26:53 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
You quote a single thing from my long ass answer to you... Who's acting in bad faith?
You come making unsubstantiated claims about how TTRPGs train people to be violent, while claiming you're against the wokies. Who's acting in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7
Off course you could pretend to be offended and think that gets you off the hook from providing the evidence to support such claims, don't think it will work.
I guess that's a yes. Play mind games with someone else.
Why do you insist on cutting parts of the conversation?
So imbeciles like HappyDerp can appalud you because he's mad at me?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:24:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
Lets try this again, here's the full answer from where you're clipping that. Lets see if you answering to that is in good faith or if you're just trying to deviate attention from your unsubstantiated assertions shall we?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 09:15:06 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will and, so, of any alignment, has implications beyond just erasing the trope of irredeemably evil races. It also attacks the central pillar of virtually all RPGs, which is combat.
Combat is the central pillar of virtually all RPGs? Says who? Where's the evidence to back this up?
Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big combat section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to submit some?
Nice try, nope, combat is an important part of the game but not (and I quote) "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm" Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big magic section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to sunmit one?
I'm of course mocking you, by your argument lots of things could be "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm"
Millennium's End
Top Secret
Traveller
Aftermath
Twilight: 2000
Robotech
I'm sure there are more. So, I've answered your question, will you answer mine: can you name any RPG that doesn't feature a chapter dedicated to combat?
So you answered to me mocking you...
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Bolding mine. Care to provide evidence for this extraordinary claim? Remember that extraordinary clai9ms require extraordinary evidence. I want to see a longitudinal study spawning several countries and years with ACTUAL gamers that proves this assertion, so far the only such study (about video games mind you) says you're talking BS.
What RPGs do you know of that don't have a large combat section? What psychic consequences are there for characters in D&D combat? What players of RPGs include combat while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
What RPGs do you know about that don't have a large magic section? What spiritual consecuences are there for characters on D&D for dabling in magic? What players of RPGs include magic while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
See above. No, not much in the way of spiritual consequences for magic, either. And what is magic commonly for in D&D?—fighting monsters with sleep spells, magic missiles, fireballs, etc. Find me an RPG cover featuring magic that isn't used for a combat. The message is that magic isn't psychologically dangerous, it's just fun. Magical combat is fun. Magical violence is fun. So, please answer my questions: What RPGs lack a chapter on combat, and supply realistic psychic consequences for combat?
What for? You backtrack about you speaking about characters and revert to the players, next you'll do it the other way around. Provide scientific evidence that RPGs train real people to solve things by using violence IRL.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteFirst of all you were talking about "Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" Not PCs.
Yes, that's right. It does train people to think that way, even if other things (such as personal experience) train them otherwise. The game's characters don't necessarily find violence fun, but the players certainly do find portrayals of violence fun or they'd eschew such violence in their games. And, this violence is free of psychic consequences for the characters and is often portrayed as the most thrilling, easiest, or inevitable option for resolving conflicts.
See? You're back to the Thompson/Sarkesian argument which has been proven false:
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
So if YOU are asserting that TTRPGs are different and they do what you claim it falls on you to prove your assertion not on me to prove it flase.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteSecond what if it's fun? Does Minecraft train you to be an architect that builds with big cubes of diamond?
How realistically portrayed is Minecraft?
How realistically do I portray a TTRPG in my head? This has shit to do with your argument, it's just you trying to change the discussion to a different topic, provide scientific evidence of your claim that TTRPGs make people solve things with violence or shut the fuck up.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama? Must all games then be sensitive to just how powerful getting into a fight is, with its ugly consequences of trauma, confusion, and murder, and, so, knock down this central pillar? If so, what will hold up the roof?
Remove the scare quotes, it is woke cultists promoting this changes.
Bolding mine. What!? Can you differentiate between make believe and reality? No one gets PTSD from RPG combat, because the only real individuals involved are humans in the real world, and if YOU want to role play such things in YOUR table by all means feel free to do so. But leave us out of your feverish dreams.
I'm referring to characters, not players. And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes everything that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
"Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" No you weren't, you were talking about people, after all who has fun with an RPG? Or do you often play inception type games where the PC's are playing an RPG?
In my third paragraph I'm referring to characters being realistically affected by violence, not players. (But, isn't the point of roleplaying trying to get inside the head of your character?) And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes much, if not everything, that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
And now you're back to claiming you were talking about PCs, who cares what you think PCs are trained for in the game world? It has exactly zero effect on the real world.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteYour argument is the same as the ones made by Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkesian. "Games teach people to... "
Please do provide scientific evidence of your assertion.
Scientific evidence for what? That if you eat sweets while watching a public execution you'll be reinforcing sweets=beheading=fun in your mind? I think you're spirited but you're not clueless. I think that is what the wokies are going to do, is use my argument to shred gaming as we know it. See if they don't.
Nice false equivalence, real world with real people vs game world with game believe "people". By your logic it should also train people to solve things with magic, like in curing/travelling by magic. But that's BS just like your claim that TTRPGs make players violent.
That TTRPGs make players start solving things with violence.
In case you want to pretend you didn't see the link I'll provide it again here:
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
And in case you don't want to click there here's the study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Now prove them wrong or shut the fuck up. You claim you're worried about the wokies, YOU'RE here doing their work by claiming that TTRPGs make players violent.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:49:42 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:26:53 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
You quote a single thing from my long ass answer to you... Who's acting in bad faith?
You come making unsubstantiated claims about how TTRPGs train people to be violent, while claiming you're against the wokies. Who's acting in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7
Off course you could pretend to be offended and think that gets you off the hook from providing the evidence to support such claims, don't think it will work.
I guess that's a yes. Play mind games with someone else.
Why do you insist on cutting parts of the conversation?
So imbeciles like HappyDerp can appalud you because he's mad at me?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:24:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
So you answered to me mocking you...
You want me to treat you as though you are in bad faith?
Have you found the scientific evidence for your extraordinary assertions? Until you provide that you only get me asking for it and providing the evidence that you're talking BS.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Is that a yes?
Lets try this again, here's the full answer from where you're clipping that. Lets see if you answering to that is in good faith or if you're just trying to deviate attention from your unsubstantiated assertions shall we?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 11:07:51 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 09:15:06 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 18, 2021, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will and, so, of any alignment, has implications beyond just erasing the trope of irredeemably evil races. It also attacks the central pillar of virtually all RPGs, which is combat.
Combat is the central pillar of virtually all RPGs? Says who? Where's the evidence to back this up?
Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big combat section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to submit some?
Nice try, nope, combat is an important part of the game but not (and I quote) "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm" Every RPG I've ever looked at has a big magic section. I have yet to find one that doesn't. Care to sunmit one?
I'm of course mocking you, by your argument lots of things could be "THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF ALL TTRPGS!tm"
Millennium's End
Top Secret
Traveller
Aftermath
Twilight: 2000
Robotech
I'm sure there are more. So, I've answered your question, will you answer mine: can you name any RPG that doesn't feature a chapter dedicated to combat?
So you answered to me mocking you...
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Bolding mine. Care to provide evidence for this extraordinary claim? Remember that extraordinary clai9ms require extraordinary evidence. I want to see a longitudinal study spawning several countries and years with ACTUAL gamers that proves this assertion, so far the only such study (about video games mind you) says you're talking BS.
What RPGs do you know of that don't have a large combat section? What psychic consequences are there for characters in D&D combat? What players of RPGs include combat while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
What RPGs do you know about that don't have a large magic section? What spiritual consecuences are there for characters on D&D for dabling in magic? What players of RPGs include magic while holding their nose? If it's not meant to be fun why do games feature it?
See above. No, not much in the way of spiritual consequences for magic, either. And what is magic commonly for in D&D?—fighting monsters with sleep spells, magic missiles, fireballs, etc. Find me an RPG cover featuring magic that isn't used for a combat. The message is that magic isn't psychologically dangerous, it's just fun. Magical combat is fun. Magical violence is fun. So, please answer my questions: What RPGs lack a chapter on combat, and supply realistic psychic consequences for combat?
What for? You backtrack about you speaking about characters and revert to the players, next you'll do it the other way around. Provide scientific evidence that RPGs train real people to solve things by using violence IRL.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteFirst of all you were talking about "Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" Not PCs.
Yes, that's right. It does train people to think that way, even if other things (such as personal experience) train them otherwise. The game's characters don't necessarily find violence fun, but the players certainly do find portrayals of violence fun or they'd eschew such violence in their games. And, this violence is free of psychic consequences for the characters and is often portrayed as the most thrilling, easiest, or inevitable option for resolving conflicts.
See? You're back to the Thompson/Sarkesian argument which has been proven false:
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
So if YOU are asserting that TTRPGs are different and they do what you claim it falls on you to prove your assertion not on me to prove it flase.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteSecond what if it's fun? Does Minecraft train you to be an architect that builds with big cubes of diamond?
How realistically portrayed is Minecraft?
How realistically do I portray a TTRPG in my head? This has shit to do with your argument, it's just you trying to change the discussion to a different topic, provide scientific evidence of your claim that TTRPGs make people solve things with violence or shut the fuck up.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 08:59:06 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama? Must all games then be sensitive to just how powerful getting into a fight is, with its ugly consequences of trauma, confusion, and murder, and, so, knock down this central pillar? If so, what will hold up the roof?
Remove the scare quotes, it is woke cultists promoting this changes.
Bolding mine. What!? Can you differentiate between make believe and reality? No one gets PTSD from RPG combat, because the only real individuals involved are humans in the real world, and if YOU want to role play such things in YOUR table by all means feel free to do so. But leave us out of your feverish dreams.
I'm referring to characters, not players. And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes everything that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
"Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence,[/b" No you weren't, you were talking about people, after all who has fun with an RPG? Or do you often play inception type games where the PC's are playing an RPG?
In my third paragraph I'm referring to characters being realistically affected by violence, not players. (But, isn't the point of roleplaying trying to get inside the head of your character?) And, the context here is that wokies will continue to pull the thread that undoes much, if not everything, that makes D&D enjoyable, in the name of their sensibilities and political agenda. See if they don't.
And now you're back to claiming you were talking about PCs, who cares what you think PCs are trained for in the game world? It has exactly zero effect on the real world.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
QuoteYour argument is the same as the ones made by Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkesian. "Games teach people to... "
Please do provide scientific evidence of your assertion.
Scientific evidence for what? That if you eat sweets while watching a public execution you'll be reinforcing sweets=beheading=fun in your mind? I think you're spirited but you're not clueless. I think that is what the wokies are going to do, is use my argument to shred gaming as we know it. See if they don't.
Nice false equivalence, real world with real people vs game world with game believe "people". By your logic it should also train people to solve things with magic, like in curing/travelling by magic. But that's BS just like your claim that TTRPGs make players violent.
That TTRPGs make players start solving things with violence.
In case you want to pretend you didn't see the link I'll provide it again here:
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
And in case you don't want to click there here's the study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Now prove them wrong or shut the fuck up. You claim you're worried about the wokies, YOU'RE here doing their work by claiming that TTRPGs make players violent.
I'm not mad, nor am I applauding anyone. I'm just pointing out your regular bad behavior and your total inability to act any other way.
Stop talking to the retard, Geeky. You know better.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 19, 2021, 11:49:15 AM
Stop talking to the retard, Geeky. You know better.
I 'm not going to stop talking to Geeky even if you call him a retard.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 19, 2021, 11:49:15 AM
Stop talking to the retard, Geeky. You know better.
Yep, it was a lapsus brutus, will try not to relapse.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 18, 2021, 10:09:19 PMI think it's pretty weird that combat is typically the most detailed part of RPG rules, but there are never similarly complicated rules for non-violent conflict resolution (e.g. the much maligned social combat, mental combat, etc).
I've yet to see a version of either that made the game run smoother or make it more entertaining. For me they slow things down and turn "roleplaying" into "gaming the system," take me out of the game, and ruin my sense of immersion.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy on October 19, 2021, 12:35:11 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 18, 2021, 10:09:19 PMI think it's pretty weird that combat is typically the most detailed part of RPG rules, but there are never similarly complicated rules for non-violent conflict resolution (e.g. the much maligned social combat, mental combat, etc).
I've yet to see a version of either that made the game run smoother or make it more entertaining. For me they slow things down and turn "roleplaying" into "gaming the system," take me out of the game, and ruin my sense of immersion.
Combat in RPGs, especially D&D, is the one activity where everyone gets a deliniated turn to act, can contribute to the goal in an incremental way, and has the most direct input and consequenses on their character's choices.
Skill Challenges from 4e was an attempt to make a similar structure for non-combat tasks, but I think it failed because it tried to "combat-ify" the process. The skill check replaced attack rolls, and success and failure tracking replaced hit points. The structure was both too rigid and too vague to accomadate all of the types of tasks possible.
I think the reason combat usually gets the most rules coverage is because it's easier to make rules for it. Non-combat is like a grab bag of "everything else that happens that the characters can do".
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
That which is be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence too.
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy on October 19, 2021, 12:35:11 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 18, 2021, 10:09:19 PMI think it's pretty weird that combat is typically the most detailed part of RPG rules, but there are never similarly complicated rules for non-violent conflict resolution (e.g. the much maligned social combat, mental combat, etc).
I've yet to see a version of either that made the game run smoother or make it more entertaining. For me they slow things down and turn "roleplaying" into "gaming the system," take me out of the game, and ruin my sense of immersion.
Combat rules are extensive generally because they involve much higher stakes (death or serious injury are on the table) while also being far less familiar to most people (very few people have ever faced a life-or-death combat situation - this is a good thing) and thus harder to adjudicate in a manner that feels fair.
By contrast exploration and interaction are generally lower stakes and more familiar to most people and so the GM doesn't need all the mechanics to render results that feel realistic and fair.
And I think you'll find this carries across the board in rpg design; the more common and lower stakes the circumstance, the less rules you'll see for it. Magic, being completely alien to real life but of varying stakes is generally second only to combat in terms of rules density (with combat magic generally as detailed as general combat) with alien life forms and sophisticated technology (and combat supertech especially) also quite high on rules density.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
At best, we don't want children to be ignorant of Nazi iconography and make a social faux pas involving it. Which is not the same thing.
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
So you're "figthing the woke" by doing their dirty work and asserting without evidence that violent games make violent gamers.
Or that putting on the nazis their symbol makes gamers nazis.
Does anyone really believe this cunt is here on good faith or idiotically doing what he's doing out of any real concern?
HE IS the woke, infiltrating the forum and "initiating a conversation" under the false pretense of fighting the woke. That's not his goal, hi's goal is subversion of the forum and the hobby.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence as well.
YOU'RE the woke, you're making those claims under false pretenses, no, games don't make gamers violent, if they did you'd have evidence to show which I've been demanding for a while, but you faked offensse to get out of the demand.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
Who cares about offensse? Do you need a fainting couch?
Do violent games make gamers violent? No, the science is in, there's no argument to be had about what some disingenuos twatt thinks they think, because unless their thoughts are being carried out into the real world it's thought policing and since the disingenuos twat has yet to prove he can read minds I laugh at this stupidity.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
You can tell someone here never read Heinlein's pointed remark about violence in Starship Troopers.
Violence may not be the right solution. It may not be the best solution. But unfortunately, it does tend to settle a hash.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 19, 2021, 03:29:53 PM
You can tell someone here never read Heinlein's pointed remark about violence in Starship Troopers.
Violence may not be the right solution. It may not be the best solution. But unfortunately, it does tend to settle a hash.
Service guarantees citizenship!
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PMQuoteWell, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing.
You are confusing playing a game with actual violence. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that playing a game results in real, live people being "trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun" in the real world.
What isn't clear is whether your confusion of games and reality is real or feigned.
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 03:52:15 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PMQuoteWell, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing.
You are confusing playing a game with actual violence. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that playing a game results in real, live people being "trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun" in the real world.
What isn't clear is whether your confusion of games and reality is real or feigned.
It's axiomatic. What you participate in trains you. Everything is propaganda for something.
The question is whether such training will be seized upon by wokies and used as an excuse to neuter the gaming industry. In the age of microaggressions and "Orcs should be people" madness my money is on the current situation being unstable and decaying into something new and more constrictive.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
They
were considered offensive by some people. That was the reason for the article. And they "do it anyway" out of a sense of historical accuracy. Historical re-enactors tend to value that...
And none of this has established that D&D combat, or other kinds of entertainment "train" people to think in a certain way.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:17:05 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 03:52:15 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PMQuoteWell, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing.
You are confusing playing a game with actual violence. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that playing a game results in real, live people being "trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun" in the real world.
What isn't clear is whether your confusion of games and reality is real or feigned.
It's axiomatic. What you participate in trains you. Everything is propaganda for something.
The question is whether such training will be seized upon by wokies and used as an excuse to neuter the gaming industry. In the age of microaggressions and "Orcs should be people" madness my money is on the current situation being unstable and decaying into something new and more constrictive.
It's axiomatic, if it thinks like the woke, holds the woke talking points it is a woketard.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:17:05 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 03:52:15 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PMQuoteWell, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing.
You are confusing playing a game with actual violence. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that playing a game results in real, live people being "trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun" in the real world.
What isn't clear is whether your confusion of games and reality is real or feigned.
It's axiomatic. What you participate in trains you. Everything is propaganda for something.
The question is whether such training will be seized upon by wokies and used as an excuse to neuter the gaming industry. In the age of microaggressions and "Orcs should be people" madness my money is on the current situation being unstable and decaying into something new and more constrictive.
I think we have solid evidence that 1. It doesn't train people to think a certain way, and 2. That the wokies already use that concept to try and push their ideology into entertainment.
And the backlash already shows that the situation is unstable. I think your argument is about 10 years out of date.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
They were considered offensive by some people. That was the reason for the article. And they "do it anyway" out of a sense of historical accuracy. Historical re-enactors tend to value that...
And none of this has established that D&D combat, or other kinds of entertainment "train" people to think in a certain way.
Competitive sports and games don't train people to think competitively? Think about what you're saying!
And, the contention was that we don't put swastikas on children's toys because it is offensive to some people. Yet grown-ups put them on during some historical reenactments, even though they're offensive to some people. The former is badwrongfun, but the latter is goodrightfun?
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:22:16 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:17:05 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 03:52:15 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PMQuoteWell, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing.
You are confusing playing a game with actual violence. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that playing a game results in real, live people being "trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun" in the real world.
What isn't clear is whether your confusion of games and reality is real or feigned.
It's axiomatic. What you participate in trains you. Everything is propaganda for something.
The question is whether such training will be seized upon by wokies and used as an excuse to neuter the gaming industry. In the age of microaggressions and "Orcs should be people" madness my money is on the current situation being unstable and decaying into something new and more constrictive.
I think we have solid evidence that 1. It doesn't train people to think a certain way, and 2. That the wokies already use that concept to try and push their ideology into entertainment.
And the backlash already shows that the situation is unstable. I think your argument is about 10 years out of date.
I don't see wokery slowing down, I see it speeding up. That some have reacted against it smacks of something akin to when people used to write letters to the editor complaining that a given policy is "political correctness gone mad!" as if that argument ever stopped political correctness from advancing itself. Ten years ago the term "political correctness" itself still had relevance; now that term has been retired after serving its purpose, replaced by "woke". You think woke isn't going to be replaced by something worse?
Please, tell me more about your confidence that the RPG citadel can withstand this incoming tidal wave. I wish to be wrong.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
They were considered offensive by some people. That was the reason for the article. And they "do it anyway" out of a sense of historical accuracy. Historical re-enactors tend to value that...
And none of this has established that D&D combat, or other kinds of entertainment "train" people to think in a certain way.
Competitive sports and games don't train people to think competitively? Think about what you're saying!
And, the contention was that we don't put swastikas on children's toys because it is offensive to some people. Yet grown-ups put them on during some historical reenactments, even though they're offensive to some people. The former is badwrongfun, but the latter is goodrightfun?
Can't you guys see this twat is just a woke vomiting woke talking points? How is the twat going to combat the woke when he agrees with their anti-scientific claim that violent games make gamers violent?
Children's toys companies want to sell to EVERYONE twat, if they put swastikas on their toys they will loose a huge segment of the market.
Historical reenactment is a voluntary activity, you choose to participate AND pay out of your pocket to do so. Attendance is not mandatory either.
But you still haven provided scientific evidence of your extraordinary claims, and keep running from me because I keep demanding it and providing the scientific evidence that proves you wrong.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
double post
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:36:31 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:22:16 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:17:05 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 03:52:15 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PMQuoteWell, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing.
You are confusing playing a game with actual violence. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that playing a game results in real, live people being "trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun" in the real world.
What isn't clear is whether your confusion of games and reality is real or feigned.
It's axiomatic. What you participate in trains you. Everything is propaganda for something.
The question is whether such training will be seized upon by wokies and used as an excuse to neuter the gaming industry. In the age of microaggressions and "Orcs should be people" madness my money is on the current situation being unstable and decaying into something new and more constrictive.
I think we have solid evidence that 1. It doesn't train people to think a certain way, and 2. That the wokies already use that concept to try and push their ideology into entertainment.
And the backlash already shows that the situation is unstable. I think your argument is about 10 years out of date.
I don't see wokery slowing down, I see it speeding up. That some have reacted against it smacks of something akin to when people used to write letters to the editor complaining that a given policy is "political correctness gone mad!" as if that argument ever stopped political correctness from advancing itself. Ten years ago the term "political correctness" itself still had relevance; now that term has been retired after serving its purpose, replaced by "woke". You think woke isn't going to be replaced by something worse?
I see you pushing the woke agenda and talking points.
Do you have any evidence for your extraoprdinary claims? Or are you going to keep running from me you coward cunt?
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 04:39:59 PM
I see you pushing the woke agenda and talking points.
Do you have any evidence for your extraoprdinary claims? Or are you going to keep running from me you coward cunt?
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Dude. I don't think the personal attacks are warranted. I might disagree with Neoplatonist1, but he hasn't done anything to warrant this.
In any case, the evidence for video games is mixed. There have been a number of studies that have found positive correlations to negative traits, including both aggression and desensitization. I think that means taking it all with skepticism, as psychology studies are unreliable and often not reproducible. But that applies just as much to studies that didn't find a correlation. Below are some quotes from studies that found a positive correlation:
QuoteOn the basis of this metaanalysis, we conclude that playing violent video games is associated with greater levels of overt physical aggression over time, after accounting for prior aggression. These findings support the general claim that violent video game play is associated with increases in physical aggression over time. Furthermore, the results speak to three specific criticisms of this literature by demonstrating: (i) that violent video game play is associated with increases in measures of serious aggressive behavior (i.e., overt, physical aggression), (ii) that estimates of this effect are only slightly decreased by inclusion of statistical covariates, and (iii) by finding no evidence of publication bias.
Source: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/40/9882
QuotePast research shows that violent video game exposure increases aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal, aggressive behaviors, and decreases helpful behaviors. However, no research has experimentally examined violent video game effects on physiological desensitization, defined as showing less physiological arousal to violence in the real world after exposure to video game violence in the virtual world. This experiment attempts to fill this gap. Participants reported their media habits and then played one of eight violent or nonviolent video games for 20 min. Next, participants watched a 10-min videotape containing scenes of real-life violence while heart rate (HR) and galvanic skin response (GSR) were monitored. Participants who previously played a violent video game had lower HR and GSR while viewing filmed real violence, demonstrating a physiological desensitization to violence.
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103106000825
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Thank you, Patricia Pulling.
Would you mind telling us now how the games lead to Devil Worshipping and the Occult?
Quote from: jeff37923 on October 19, 2021, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Thank you, Patricia Pulling.
Would you mind telling us now how the games lead to Devil Worshipping and the Occult?
Greetings!
*HOWLING*! Jeff, I just choked on my mug of soda. So true, man! Good to see you, my friend! ;D
PATRICIA PULLING!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Pepperidge Farms remembers, Jeff!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim on October 19, 2021, 05:30:50 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 04:39:59 PM
I see you pushing the woke agenda and talking points.
Do you have any evidence for your extraoprdinary claims? Or are you going to keep running from me you coward cunt?
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Dude. I don't think the personal attacks are warranted. I might disagree with Neoplatonist1, but he hasn't done anything to warrant this.
In any case, the evidence for video games is mixed. There have been a number of studies that have found positive correlations to negative traits, including both aggression and desensitization. I think that means taking it all with skepticism, as psychology studies are unreliable and often not reproducible. But that applies just as much to studies that didn't find a correlation. Below are some quotes from studies that found a positive correlation:
QuoteOn the basis of this metaanalysis, we conclude that playing violent video games is associated with greater levels of overt physical aggression over time, after accounting for prior aggression. These findings support the general claim that violent video game play is associated with increases in physical aggression over time. Furthermore, the results speak to three specific criticisms of this literature by demonstrating: (i) that violent video game play is associated with increases in measures of serious aggressive behavior (i.e., overt, physical aggression), (ii) that estimates of this effect are only slightly decreased by inclusion of statistical covariates, and (iii) by finding no evidence of publication bias.
Source: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/40/9882
QuotePast research shows that violent video game exposure increases aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal, aggressive behaviors, and decreases helpful behaviors. However, no research has experimentally examined violent video game effects on physiological desensitization, defined as showing less physiological arousal to violence in the real world after exposure to video game violence in the virtual world. This experiment attempts to fill this gap. Participants reported their media habits and then played one of eight violent or nonviolent video games for 20 min. Next, participants watched a 10-min videotape containing scenes of real-life violence while heart rate (HR) and galvanic skin response (GSR) were monitored. Participants who previously played a violent video game had lower HR and GSR while viewing filmed real violence, demonstrating a physiological desensitization to violence.
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103106000825
Dude, I'll call him names if I want and IDGAF what you think is warranted since you didn't think providing evidence of your claims of me doing something was needed, just your opinion.
Furthermore, how many people play violent videogames? Has violence over all increased or decreased since the advent of video games?
IDGAF what someone thinks, I'm not the tought police, show me real world effects, where are the mass murderers, the lunatics killing people with their sword while shouting "take that you goblin!"
Can you? Nope
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
They were considered offensive by some people. That was the reason for the article. And they "do it anyway" out of a sense of historical accuracy. Historical re-enactors tend to value that...
And none of this has established that D&D combat, or other kinds of entertainment "train" people to think in a certain way.
Competitive sports and games don't train people to think competitively? Think about what you're saying!
People already think competitvely. Sports and games channels that into constructive, social pursuits.
QuoteAnd, the contention was that we don't put swastikas on children's toys because it is offensive to some people. Yet grown-ups put them on during some historical reenactments, even though they're offensive to some people. The former is badwrongfun, but the latter is goodrightfun?
Children lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to make informed decisions and have mature attitudes towards things like Nazi iconography.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:36:31 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:22:16 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:17:05 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 03:52:15 PM
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PMQuoteWell, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing.
You are confusing playing a game with actual violence. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that playing a game results in real, live people being "trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun" in the real world.
What isn't clear is whether your confusion of games and reality is real or feigned.
It's axiomatic. What you participate in trains you. Everything is propaganda for something.
The question is whether such training will be seized upon by wokies and used as an excuse to neuter the gaming industry. In the age of microaggressions and "Orcs should be people" madness my money is on the current situation being unstable and decaying into something new and more constrictive.
I think we have solid evidence that 1. It doesn't train people to think a certain way, and 2. That the wokies already use that concept to try and push their ideology into entertainment.
And the backlash already shows that the situation is unstable. I think your argument is about 10 years out of date.
I don't see wokery slowing down, I see it speeding up. That some have reacted against it smacks of something akin to when people used to write letters to the editor complaining that a given policy is "political correctness gone mad!" as if that argument ever stopped political correctness from advancing itself. Ten years ago the term "political correctness" itself still had relevance; now that term has been retired after serving its purpose, replaced by "woke". You think woke isn't going to be replaced by something worse?
Please, tell me more about your confidence that the RPG citadel can withstand this incoming tidal wave. I wish to be wrong.
I'm not your oracle. I don't know how this all will shake out. Maybe we're on the cusp of America's Cultural Revolution, and we'll have struggle sessions for people who put combat in their D&D games.
I hope not. And I'll speak out about the topic, as much as I'm able.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:11:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
They were considered offensive by some people. That was the reason for the article. And they "do it anyway" out of a sense of historical accuracy. Historical re-enactors tend to value that...
And none of this has established that D&D combat, or other kinds of entertainment "train" people to think in a certain way.
Competitive sports and games don't train people to think competitively? Think about what you're saying!
People already think competitvely. Sports and games channels that into constructive, social pursuits.
Perhaps, but, are you claiming that competitiveness cannot be learned, encouraged, and enhanced? Or similarly one can't learn to be cooperative rather than competitive?
QuoteQuoteAnd, the contention was that we don't put swastikas on children's toys because it is offensive to some people. Yet grown-ups put them on during some historical reenactments, even though they're offensive to some people. The former is badwrongfun, but the latter is goodrightfun?
Children lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to make informed decisions and have mature attitudes towards things like Nazi iconography.
They lack the emotional maturity to play dress-up?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:24:11 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:11:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
They were considered offensive by some people. That was the reason for the article. And they "do it anyway" out of a sense of historical accuracy. Historical re-enactors tend to value that...
And none of this has established that D&D combat, or other kinds of entertainment "train" people to think in a certain way.
Competitive sports and games don't train people to think competitively? Think about what you're saying!
People already think competitvely. Sports and games channels that into constructive, social pursuits.
Perhaps, but, are you claiming that competitiveness cannot be learned, encouraged, and enhanced? Or similarly one can't learn to be cooperative rather than competitive?
I'm sure they can. Most sports and games teach competition and co-operation.
I don't think they train people to
be a certain way, which was your original claim.
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd, the contention was that we don't put swastikas on children's toys because it is offensive to some people. Yet grown-ups put them on during some historical reenactments, even though they're offensive to some people. The former is badwrongfun, but the latter is goodrightfun?
Children lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to make informed decisions and have mature attitudes towards things like Nazi iconography.
They lack the emotional maturity to play dress-up?
Are you intentionally arguing in bad faith? Do I have to explain the history of Nazi Germany to you? Do you understand the context in which Nazi iconography exists?
Greetings!
Well, look at the silver lining in the cloud, so to speak. If RPG's encourage and instill gamers to enjoy violence--then, well, that might mean that more savage gangs of violent gamers will hunt down Liberal SJW Marxists and crush their fucking heads in with lead pipes, heh?
That would be so terrible, after all. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:28:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:24:11 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:11:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
They were considered offensive by some people. That was the reason for the article. And they "do it anyway" out of a sense of historical accuracy. Historical re-enactors tend to value that...
And none of this has established that D&D combat, or other kinds of entertainment "train" people to think in a certain way.
Competitive sports and games don't train people to think competitively? Think about what you're saying!
People already think competitvely. Sports and games channels that into constructive, social pursuits.
Perhaps, but, are you claiming that competitiveness cannot be learned, encouraged, and enhanced? Or similarly one can't learn to be cooperative rather than competitive?
I'm sure they can. Most sports and games teach competition and co-operation.
I don't think they train people to be a certain way, which was your original claim.
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd, the contention was that we don't put swastikas on children's toys because it is offensive to some people. Yet grown-ups put them on during some historical reenactments, even though they're offensive to some people. The former is badwrongfun, but the latter is goodrightfun?
Children lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to make informed decisions and have mature attitudes towards things like Nazi iconography.
They lack the emotional maturity to play dress-up?
Are you intentionally arguing in bad faith? Do I have to explain the history of Nazi Germany to you? Do you understand the context in which Nazi iconography exists?
Yes, yes he is.
Do you have a squirrel in your jacket pocket? Because I don't know who this "we" is that might see the end of combat, but I know it ain't me and the people in my games.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:28:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:24:11 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:11:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
They were considered offensive by some people. That was the reason for the article. And they "do it anyway" out of a sense of historical accuracy. Historical re-enactors tend to value that...
And none of this has established that D&D combat, or other kinds of entertainment "train" people to think in a certain way.
Competitive sports and games don't train people to think competitively? Think about what you're saying!
People already think competitvely. Sports and games channels that into constructive, social pursuits.
Perhaps, but, are you claiming that competitiveness cannot be learned, encouraged, and enhanced? Or similarly one can't learn to be cooperative rather than competitive?
I'm sure they can. Most sports and games teach competition and co-operation.
I don't think they train people to be a certain way, which was your original claim.
If games can teach competition and cooperation, why can't they teach that violence is fun, free of psychological consequence, and a way to solve problems?
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd, the contention was that we don't put swastikas on children's toys because it is offensive to some people. Yet grown-ups put them on during some historical reenactments, even though they're offensive to some people. The former is badwrongfun, but the latter is goodrightfun?
Children lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to make informed decisions and have mature attitudes towards things like Nazi iconography.
They lack the emotional maturity to play dress-up?
Are you intentionally arguing in bad faith? Do I have to explain the history of Nazi Germany to you? Do you understand the context in which Nazi iconography exists?
The type of people who would be offended by swastikas on children's toys are probably going to be offended by anyone wearing a swastika, regardless of context, especially not when it's being done for fun, like in an historical reenactment.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 06:30:54 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:28:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:24:11 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:11:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
They were considered offensive by some people. That was the reason for the article. And they "do it anyway" out of a sense of historical accuracy. Historical re-enactors tend to value that...
And none of this has established that D&D combat, or other kinds of entertainment "train" people to think in a certain way.
Competitive sports and games don't train people to think competitively? Think about what you're saying!
People already think competitvely. Sports and games channels that into constructive, social pursuits.
Perhaps, but, are you claiming that competitiveness cannot be learned, encouraged, and enhanced? Or similarly one can't learn to be cooperative rather than competitive?
I'm sure they can. Most sports and games teach competition and co-operation.
I don't think they train people to be a certain way, which was your original claim.
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd, the contention was that we don't put swastikas on children's toys because it is offensive to some people. Yet grown-ups put them on during some historical reenactments, even though they're offensive to some people. The former is badwrongfun, but the latter is goodrightfun?
Children lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to make informed decisions and have mature attitudes towards things like Nazi iconography.
They lack the emotional maturity to play dress-up?
Are you intentionally arguing in bad faith? Do I have to explain the history of Nazi Germany to you? Do you understand the context in which Nazi iconography exists?
Yes, yes he is.
I'm starting to think so. It's tiresome to drag this out, not knowing if it's an intentional troll, a stubborn arguer, or someone who really thinks what they're posting.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:39:19 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 06:30:54 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:28:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:24:11 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:11:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
They were considered offensive by some people. That was the reason for the article. And they "do it anyway" out of a sense of historical accuracy. Historical re-enactors tend to value that...
And none of this has established that D&D combat, or other kinds of entertainment "train" people to think in a certain way.
Competitive sports and games don't train people to think competitively? Think about what you're saying!
People already think competitvely. Sports and games channels that into constructive, social pursuits.
Perhaps, but, are you claiming that competitiveness cannot be learned, encouraged, and enhanced? Or similarly one can't learn to be cooperative rather than competitive?
I'm sure they can. Most sports and games teach competition and co-operation.
I don't think they train people to be a certain way, which was your original claim.
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd, the contention was that we don't put swastikas on children's toys because it is offensive to some people. Yet grown-ups put them on during some historical reenactments, even though they're offensive to some people. The former is badwrongfun, but the latter is goodrightfun?
Children lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to make informed decisions and have mature attitudes towards things like Nazi iconography.
They lack the emotional maturity to play dress-up?
Are you intentionally arguing in bad faith? Do I have to explain the history of Nazi Germany to you? Do you understand the context in which Nazi iconography exists?
Yes, yes he is.
I'm starting to think so. It's tiresome to drag this out, not knowing if it's an intentional troll, a stubborn arguer, or someone who really thinks what they're posting.
Oh, I'm sure he believes the woke gospel, he's arguing in bad faith because he keeps ignoring obvious stuff, like "why children toys don't have swastikas?" Because they would lose sales dumbfuck! while claiming that his conclusion is axiomatic because he says so.
Show me the IRL consecuences of violent video games, show me where has the overall violence increased since the advent of video games.
IDGAF about what someone might think, because I can't read their mind and because thought=/=action.
So unless he and jhkim can show me that evidence I'll keep telling them to go preach that to a feminist forum, while praising Anita Sarkesian. (when I'm being polite) Or something worst when they manage to make me lose my composture.
violent games could cause X, really? does he have ANY evidence?
He's just a woke infiltrator pretending to be one of the normal people. He needs to provide proof or shut the fuck up.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:38:11 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:28:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:24:11 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:11:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
They were considered offensive by some people. That was the reason for the article. And they "do it anyway" out of a sense of historical accuracy. Historical re-enactors tend to value that...
And none of this has established that D&D combat, or other kinds of entertainment "train" people to think in a certain way.
Competitive sports and games don't train people to think competitively? Think about what you're saying!
People already think competitvely. Sports and games channels that into constructive, social pursuits.
Perhaps, but, are you claiming that competitiveness cannot be learned, encouraged, and enhanced? Or similarly one can't learn to be cooperative rather than competitive?
I'm sure they can. Most sports and games teach competition and co-operation.
I don't think they train people to be a certain way, which was your original claim.
If games can teach competition and cooperation, why can't they teach that violence is fun, free of psychological consequence, and a way to solve problems?
I never claimed they couldn't. I asserted that, as they exist now, they don't. And others have pointed out that there is copious evidence to support this. While you have provided nothing but assertations.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd, the contention was that we don't put swastikas on children's toys because it is offensive to some people. Yet grown-ups put them on during some historical reenactments, even though they're offensive to some people. The former is badwrongfun, but the latter is goodrightfun?
Children lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to make informed decisions and have mature attitudes towards things like Nazi iconography.
They lack the emotional maturity to play dress-up?
Are you intentionally arguing in bad faith? Do I have to explain the history of Nazi Germany to you? Do you understand the context in which Nazi iconography exists?
The type of people who would be offended by swastikas on children's toys are probably going to be offended by anyone wearing a swastika, regardless of context, especially not when it's being done for fun, like in an historical reenactment.
Yes. That doesn't change the context of children versus adults and whether they understand the iconography in a historical sense.
Jesus christ, stop building that pyramid any taller, or GeekyBugle will sacrifice somebody on top of it for the gods.
Quote from: Nephil on October 19, 2021, 06:57:35 PM
Jesus christ, stop building that pyramid any taller, or GeekyBugle will sacrifice somebody on top of it for the gods.
LOL no, those were the aztecs, my people were more civilized we just throwed them into the cenotes :D
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:46:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:38:11 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:28:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:24:11 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 06:11:58 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 03:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 19, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 02:30:37 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
I utterly disagree with this conclusion.
Well, perhaps you'd like to expand on your disagreement.
Well I'll take a stab at it. Your claim lacks even the tiniest shred of evidence. Disagreeing with unsupported and patently silly conclusions requires no further elaboration.
You're confusing thinking with doing. I didn't say that gamers commit more violence, only that they are trained to think violence is a good way to solve problems, that it's free of psychic consequence, and that it's fun.
Do you enjoy action movies? Then you must think that violence is fun to watch, mustn't you? Pretend violence, at least, but including pretend violence that can be as bloody and realistic as possible.
I wonder if the wokies will eventually cotton onto this aspect as well, in their drive to reengineer society, and insist that pretend violence is still too violent to tolerate. I recall one case in the US where children at recess in the playground in winter were forbidden to throw snowballs because it is viewed as aggressive. If snowball fights can get woked to death, so can other "violent" games.
They already have. That was a major push by Anita Sarkeesian in her feminist critiques of video games. Extra Credits did a video, roundly mocked here, on how portraying Nazis in video games was problematic for that reason. Portrayal of Nazis maybe sorta without evidence trained people to accept Nazi-ism on some level.
Of course they do. Depicting swastikas in entertainment includes them under the rubric of "fun things". We don't put swastikas on children's toys, do we? Why not? Because it trains the child to think of swastikas as fun.
Again, I disagree. We don't put Nazi iconography on children's toys because they're offensive, not because children would associate swastikas with "fun".
Adult historical re-enactors often use period appropriate iconography. While I'm sure there's some few out there, the vast majority do not seem to start thinking that Nazi-ism in "real life" is somehow appropriate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6096177/So-DOES-make-grown-man-want-dress-Nazi-weekends.html
Historical reenactors only reluctantly don a German uniform containing a swastika? It detracts from the fun of reenacting but they do it anyway? Why aren't swastikas on such uniforms considered offensive, then?
They were considered offensive by some people. That was the reason for the article. And they "do it anyway" out of a sense of historical accuracy. Historical re-enactors tend to value that...
And none of this has established that D&D combat, or other kinds of entertainment "train" people to think in a certain way.
Competitive sports and games don't train people to think competitively? Think about what you're saying!
People already think competitvely. Sports and games channels that into constructive, social pursuits.
Perhaps, but, are you claiming that competitiveness cannot be learned, encouraged, and enhanced? Or similarly one can't learn to be cooperative rather than competitive?
I'm sure they can. Most sports and games teach competition and co-operation.
I don't think they train people to be a certain way, which was your original claim.
If games can teach competition and cooperation, why can't they teach that violence is fun, free of psychological consequence, and a way to solve problems?
I never claimed they couldn't. I asserted that, as they exist now, they don't. And others have pointed out that there is copious evidence to support this. While you have provided nothing but assertations.
If chess can teach competition, what would RPGs have to be like to teach that violence is fun, free of psychological consequence, and a way to solve problems?
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd, the contention was that we don't put swastikas on children's toys because it is offensive to some people. Yet grown-ups put them on during some historical reenactments, even though they're offensive to some people. The former is badwrongfun, but the latter is goodrightfun?
Children lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to make informed decisions and have mature attitudes towards things like Nazi iconography.
They lack the emotional maturity to play dress-up?
Are you intentionally arguing in bad faith? Do I have to explain the history of Nazi Germany to you? Do you understand the context in which Nazi iconography exists?
The type of people who would be offended by swastikas on children's toys are probably going to be offended by anyone wearing a swastika, regardless of context, especially not when it's being done for fun, like in an historical reenactment.
Yes. That doesn't change the context of children versus adults and whether they understand the iconography in a historical sense.
I think that argument is absurd. Any six-year-old can be taught who the bad guys were.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 07:04:05 PM
Quote from: Nephil on October 19, 2021, 06:57:35 PM
Jesus christ, stop building that pyramid any taller, or GeekyBugle will sacrifice somebody on top of it for the gods.
LOL no, those were the aztecs, my people were more civilized we just throwed them into the cenotes :D
Greetings!
Hermano! How many SJW's can fit onto the Temple of the Sun down there in Mexico City? The Temple of the Sun and Moon? Get that bad boy working again! ;D "Blood For the Blood God!" ;D
You know he's an SJW infiltrator! It's funny how we can just tell by their words, and how much jello drips off of everything they say! Bring the THUNDER my friend!
Gotta love Khorne! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 07:38:20 PM
If chess can teach competition, what would RPGs have to be like to teach that violence is fun, free of psychological consequence, and a way to solve problems?
Chess doesn't teach competition dumbass, chess attracts competitive people, it teaches them sporsmanship, tactics and thinking ahead of your oponent.
Just like violent people are drawn to violent sports like MMA.
But you're just a woke infiltrator talking bullshit to see how many can you get to buy into your woke BS.
So far you got one of the creative quoting club on your side, kinda, sorta. (BTW you're also on that club)
And some people that think you're arguing in good faith trying to have a reasonable conversation with you. But they lack the experience debating disingenuous twats I have, been doing it since the woke infiltration of Atheism by the Atheism+ assholes.
Can you prove ANY TTRPG has caused gamers to become violent? IRL? Nope, you can't because we can distinguish between fantasy and reality.
Keep runing you coward cunt.
https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169 (https://gizmodo.com/science-finds-once-again-that-violent-video-games-dont-1823811169)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0031-7)
Quote from: SHARK on October 19, 2021, 07:42:59 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 19, 2021, 07:04:05 PM
Quote from: Nephil on October 19, 2021, 06:57:35 PM
Jesus christ, stop building that pyramid any taller, or GeekyBugle will sacrifice somebody on top of it for the gods.
LOL no, those were the aztecs, my people were more civilized we just throwed them into the cenotes :D
Greetings!
Hermano! How many SJW's can fit onto the Temple of the Sun down there in Mexico City? The Temple of the Sun and Moon? Get that bad boy working again! ;D "Blood For the Blood God!" ;D
You know he's an SJW infiltrator! It's funny how we can just tell by their words, and how much jello drips off of everything they say! Bring the THUNDER my friend!
Gotta love Khorne! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I fear that would be cultural appropriation :D
But I'm sure we could get some descendant from the aztecs to do so, almost all mexicans hate the woke with the passion of a thousand suns.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:17:05 PMIt's axiomatic. What you participate in trains you. Everything is propaganda for something.
So playing TTRPG trains you to roll dice and name spells or maneuvers as a way of resolving combat. That doesn't seem like something that translates well to the real world.
From games training players to roll dice to resolve in game conflict, you jump to the conclusion that rolling dice translates to hitting or shooting people in the real world. A conclusion wholly unsupported by your "axiom." ::)
If you really believed what you are saying, you'd be all up in arms over people tossing dice playing Yahtzee and Bunko. Those games foster, that dreaded competition along with gambling, drinking, and random chaos. :o
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:38:11 PM
If games can teach competition and cooperation, why can't they teach that violence is fun, free of psychological consequence, and a way to solve problems?
Tabletop RPGs and sports are implemented by living people, which limits the unintentional lessons that can come from them. Soccer coaches *intend* to teach both competition and cooperation - and they openly say this to parents and to players. The players willingly participate in this. It's a very different claim to say that unintended lessons are taught or instilled simply via fictional content.
It's conceivable that there could be such an effect, but psychological studies have not shown it. I documented a bunch of studies on tabletop RPGs years ago - the links are here:
https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/whatis/psychology.html
None of them document any significant negative effects for RPG players as a whole. That said, I will grant a few things:
(1) Games can potentially promote negative behavior, but they can also promote positive behavior.
(2) Negative effects are most proven in the case of gambling, which has been shown to be addictive.
(3) Randomized rewards are a key part of motivation in game play.
(4) In the case of video games, the psychological studies are mixed about whether there is any change in aggression or desensitization. Some studies show a correlation, others do not.
(5) Even if there were a clear effect in video games, that doesn't inherently apply to other games like board games, card games, or tabletop RPGs.
You are implying that the fictional content inherently teaches what is done in the game. But that depends both there being real-world reinforcement, and also on how closely the fictional action maps to the real activity. It seems doubtful that playing Pacman promotes over-eating, because moving a joystick is nothing like eating. Likewise, rolling d20's is nothing like actually killing people.
The object of Dungeons and Dragons was never about combat.
The object of Dungeons and Dragons was about combat when it was necessary.
You did NOT just walk into a tavern, kill everyone there, and make off with the ale and womenfolk.
You DID plan an attack on the red dragon terrorizing the countryside, intelligently approach it, and then fight and kill it.
You DID stand firm against a hill giant invasion of a town, fighting them off.
The idea was not about mindless violence. That was the difference. I never DM'ed a game, I never was a player in a game, where the object was to just go around killing things. Especially if one was playing a good character.
Sorry, but no- since D&D was not about mindless violence there was no "damage to one's psyche." Maybe instead there was a sort of catharsis.
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 08:28:43 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:17:05 PMIt's axiomatic. What you participate in trains you. Everything is propaganda for something.
So playing TTRPG trains you to roll dice and name spells or maneuvers as a way of resolving combat. That doesn't seem like something that translates well to the real world.
From games training players to roll dice to resolve in game conflict, you jump to the conclusion that rolling dice translates to hitting or shooting people in the real world. A conclusion wholly unsupported by your "axiom." ::)
If you really believed what you are saying, you'd be all up in arms over people tossing dice playing Yahtzee and Bunko. Those games foster, that dreaded competition along with gambling, drinking, and random chaos. :o
As I said, everything is propaganda. A case can be made against Yahtzee. But, let's not shortsell RPGs. They're primarily not dice-rolling exercises but imagination games, where visualizing the action is a large part of the fun. So, just as a snowball fight could be a murder simulator, so could a dice-rolling visualization game train the mind to associate violence with fun, etc.
Quote from: jhkim on October 19, 2021, 08:32:59 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:38:11 PM
If games can teach competition and cooperation, why can't they teach that violence is fun, free of psychological consequence, and a way to solve problems?
Tabletop RPGs and sports are implemented by living people, which limits the unintentional lessons that can come from them. Soccer coaches *intend* to teach both competition and cooperation - and they openly say this to parents and to players. The players willingly participate in this. It's a very different claim to say that unintended lessons are taught or instilled simply via fictional content.
It's conceivable that there could be such an effect, but psychological studies have not shown it. I documented a bunch of studies on tabletop RPGs years ago - the links are here:
https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/whatis/psychology.html
None of them document any significant negative effects for RPG players as a whole. That said, I will grant a few things:
(1) Games can potentially promote negative behavior, but they can also promote positive behavior.
(2) Negative effects are most proven in the case of gambling, which has been shown to be addictive.
(3) Randomized rewards are a key part of motivation in game play.
(4) In the case of video games, the psychological studies are mixed about whether there is any change in aggression or desensitization. Some studies show a correlation, others do not.
(5) Even if there were a clear effect in video games, that doesn't inherently apply to other games like board games, card games, or tabletop RPGs.
You are implying that the fictional content inherently teaches what is done in the game. But that depends both there being real-world reinforcement, and also on how closely the fictional action maps to the real activity. It seems doubtful that playing Pacman promotes over-eating, because moving a joystick is nothing like eating. Likewise, rolling d20's is nothing like actually killing people.
Everyone who plays Pacman already has much experience eating. Someone who enjoys depictions of killing people in games, films, etc., probably has no experience actually killing people. So, their ability to think of what it means to kill people is going to be colored by the remembered depictions more than any practical experience. It doesn't make them into killers, and I never said it did, but, they have been trained by their pastime to imagine that such killing is fun, rational, and psychologically easy. Countering this is any indirect knowledge of real-world violence that they might have, including family life, schooling, religion, absorption of violent news media, reading, etc.
And, this is all the wokies need to have to condemn the entire hobby in order to bend it to their will. Remember that we're in the age of microaggressions, and the enemy uses salami tactics. The revision of Tolkien's orcs into a misunderstood minority group has already begun the process of using RPGs to train the mind to think in a different way about real-life socio-politics, a way that rubs many gamers the wrong way.
If noticing this makes me woke then I must be woke. I would call it devil's advocacy to call attention to how this woke business is not going to stop advancing and accelerating just because there is an Internet forum that preserves a measure of sanity.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:49:45 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 19, 2021, 08:32:59 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 06:38:11 PM
If games can teach competition and cooperation, why can't they teach that violence is fun, free of psychological consequence, and a way to solve problems?
Tabletop RPGs and sports are implemented by living people, which limits the unintentional lessons that can come from them. Soccer coaches *intend* to teach both competition and cooperation - and they openly say this to parents and to players. The players willingly participate in this. It's a very different claim to say that unintended lessons are taught or instilled simply via fictional content.
It's conceivable that there could be such an effect, but psychological studies have not shown it. I documented a bunch of studies on tabletop RPGs years ago - the links are here:
https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/whatis/psychology.html
None of them document any significant negative effects for RPG players as a whole. That said, I will grant a few things:
(1) Games can potentially promote negative behavior, but they can also promote positive behavior.
(2) Negative effects are most proven in the case of gambling, which has been shown to be addictive.
(3) Randomized rewards are a key part of motivation in game play.
(4) In the case of video games, the psychological studies are mixed about whether there is any change in aggression or desensitization. Some studies show a correlation, others do not.
(5) Even if there were a clear effect in video games, that doesn't inherently apply to other games like board games, card games, or tabletop RPGs.
You are implying that the fictional content inherently teaches what is done in the game. But that depends both there being real-world reinforcement, and also on how closely the fictional action maps to the real activity. It seems doubtful that playing Pacman promotes over-eating, because moving a joystick is nothing like eating. Likewise, rolling d20's is nothing like actually killing people.
Everyone who plays Pacman already has much experience eating. Someone who enjoys depictions of killing people in games, films, etc., probably has no experience actually killing people. So, their ability to think of what it means to kill people is going to be colored by the remembered depictions more than any practical experience. It doesn't make them into killers, and I never said it did, but, they have been trained by their pastime to imagine that such killing is fun, rational, and psychologically easy. Countering this is any indirect knowledge of real-world violence that they might have, including family life, schooling, religion, absorption of violent news media, reading, etc.
And, this is all the wokies need to have to condemn the entire hobby in order to bend it to their will. Remember that we're in the age of microaggressions, and the enemy uses salami tactics. The revision of Tolkien's orcs into a misunderstood minority group has already begun the process of using RPGs to train the mind to think in a different way about real-life socio-politics, a way that rubs many gamers the wrong way.
If noticing this makes me woke then I must be woke. I would call it devil's advocacy to call attention to how this woke business is not going to stop advancing and accelerating just because there is an Internet forum that preserves a measure of sanity.
So, in order to "save the hobby" I a totally not woke infiltrator will say that TTRPGs make gamers violent and we need to change the hobby removing all combat, or inserting mechanics that I "know" will not make the game boring "for the greater good" before those damn wokies come a calling demanding we change the hobby by removing all combat or inserting mechanics that will make the game boring.
Because I'm totally on your side and totally not a woke infiltrator probing to see if I can convince some of you to bend to the woke demands that I foresee comming, before they even make such demands because that's the only way we can save the hobby you guys!
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:29:32 PMAs I said, everything is propaganda.
Well thanks for finally admitting everything you have been writing here is propaganda. I'd suspected it was either that or you were just trolling from the get go. Now that we know...
Nothing to see here...Move along.....Move along.
In a very late response to the OP.
No, I think it is just being expressed by a large group people have been fed the same shite entering the workforce. (And consequently influencing people that believe anything/nothing)
Combat is still cheap drama. Orcs are evil. I can make them irredeemable. Orcs are also Not Real. I will not feel (without my permission) sorry for imaginary people. I didn't feel sorry for the chicken embryos I ate for breakfast, nor did I mourn their mother when she was lunch. They (ostensibly) were real.
I don't think wokeness will remove combat. I do see the reducing of in-game consequences to combat as far as mechanics are concerned. (Stares in game balance*.*) That can be laid at the feet of designers expecting/desiring a story happening. Which is silly when you think about it. A story is told after the happening.
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 11:11:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:29:32 PMAs I said, everything is propaganda.
Well thanks for finally admitting everything you have been writing here is propaganda. I'd suspected it was either that or you were just trolling from the get go. Now that we know...
Nothing to see here...Move along.....Move along.
Yeah, "everything is political/propaganda" is one of the easiest to spot tells of the SJW crowd and has earned them a spot on my ignore list as they have nothing useful to say on the subject of gaming.
Even were I to labor under a leftists delusions about races and inherent evil and such to cater to them, I could preserve combat merely by making all my formerly inherently evil races now inherently white supremacist members of a religion that teaches them that they shall be reborn as alabaster gods once they exterminate the lesser races such as humans and dwarves and such. That, or someone's head would explode from a computational error.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 19, 2021, 03:01:35 PM
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy on October 19, 2021, 12:35:11 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 18, 2021, 10:09:19 PMI think it's pretty weird that combat is typically the most detailed part of RPG rules, but there are never similarly complicated rules for non-violent conflict resolution (e.g. the much maligned social combat, mental combat, etc).
I've yet to see a version of either that made the game run smoother or make it more entertaining. For me they slow things down and turn "roleplaying" into "gaming the system," take me out of the game, and ruin my sense of immersion.
Combat rules are extensive generally because they involve much higher stakes (death or serious injury are on the table) while also being far less familiar to most people (very few people have ever faced a life-or-death combat situation - this is a good thing) and thus harder to adjudicate in a manner that feels fair.
By contrast exploration and interaction are generally lower stakes and more familiar to most people and so the GM doesn't need all the mechanics to render results that feel realistic and fair.
And I think you'll find this carries across the board in rpg design; the more common and lower stakes the circumstance, the less rules you'll see for it. Magic, being completely alien to real life but of varying stakes is generally second only to combat in terms of rules density (with combat magic generally as detailed as general combat) with alien life forms and sophisticated technology (and combat supertech especially) also quite high on rules density.
I think this is exactly right. When I see rules for social interaction, I tend to think the author is not familiar with actual social interaction.
Quote from: S'mon on October 20, 2021, 02:51:16 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 19, 2021, 03:01:35 PM
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy on October 19, 2021, 12:35:11 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 18, 2021, 10:09:19 PMI think it's pretty weird that combat is typically the most detailed part of RPG rules, but there are never similarly complicated rules for non-violent conflict resolution (e.g. the much maligned social combat, mental combat, etc).
I've yet to see a version of either that made the game run smoother or make it more entertaining. For me they slow things down and turn "roleplaying" into "gaming the system," take me out of the game, and ruin my sense of immersion.
Combat rules are extensive generally because they involve much higher stakes (death or serious injury are on the table) while also being far less familiar to most people (very few people have ever faced a life-or-death combat situation - this is a good thing) and thus harder to adjudicate in a manner that feels fair.
By contrast exploration and interaction are generally lower stakes and more familiar to most people and so the GM doesn't need all the mechanics to render results that feel realistic and fair.
And I think you'll find this carries across the board in rpg design; the more common and lower stakes the circumstance, the less rules you'll see for it. Magic, being completely alien to real life but of varying stakes is generally second only to combat in terms of rules density (with combat magic generally as detailed as general combat) with alien life forms and sophisticated technology (and combat supertech especially) also quite high on rules density.
I think this is exactly right. When I see rules for social interaction, I tend to think the author is not familiar with actual social interaction.
To be fair; I do have SOME social interaction mechanics, but they mostly boil down to equivalent of reaction rolls and then specific tasks where you might want to just move along rather than play it out (ex. haggling over prices in the market, interrogation when you're trying to keep your game PG/PG-13) or where the result is more about how well you sell something (ex. I have a fast talk action for deceit, but the best result is that the target believes that you believe what you're saying... i.e. "the king is secretly a dragon" convinces the king's guard you believe it and you so are clearly insane... it's still on the player to come up with something plausible if you want others to act on it.
The final category is combat or combat-adjacent actions that just happen to use the Deceit or Intimidation abilities, like feinting, creating a distraction to hide or cowing a target.
So there are some social mechanics; but nothing like the 3e Diplomancer.
Quote from: S'mon on October 20, 2021, 02:51:16 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 19, 2021, 03:01:35 PM
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy on October 19, 2021, 12:35:11 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 18, 2021, 10:09:19 PMI think it's pretty weird that combat is typically the most detailed part of RPG rules, but there are never similarly complicated rules for non-violent conflict resolution (e.g. the much maligned social combat, mental combat, etc).
I've yet to see a version of either that made the game run smoother or make it more entertaining. For me they slow things down and turn "roleplaying" into "gaming the system," take me out of the game, and ruin my sense of immersion.
Combat rules are extensive generally because they involve much higher stakes (death or serious injury are on the table) while also being far less familiar to most people (very few people have ever faced a life-or-death combat situation - this is a good thing) and thus harder to adjudicate in a manner that feels fair.
By contrast exploration and interaction are generally lower stakes and more familiar to most people and so the GM doesn't need all the mechanics to render results that feel realistic and fair.
And I think you'll find this carries across the board in rpg design; the more common and lower stakes the circumstance, the less rules you'll see for it. Magic, being completely alien to real life but of varying stakes is generally second only to combat in terms of rules density (with combat magic generally as detailed as general combat) with alien life forms and sophisticated technology (and combat supertech especially) also quite high on rules density.
I think this is exactly right. When I see rules for social interaction, I tend to think the author is not familiar with actual social interaction.
The same could often be said of the combat rules of many (most/all...possibly) systems.
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 20, 2021, 09:25:40 AM
The same could often be said of the combat rules of many (most/all...possibly) systems.
That was my point - most normal people (designers, players) aren't familiar with combat. Most normal people are familiar with social interaction. A designer who writes similar rules for both, I feel is most likely unfamiliar with either.
I saw a great slap down recently from a dating/relationship youtuber, Courtney Ryan:
"They say women can't give men good dating advice. 'Don't ask a fish how to catch a fish'. But
a fish doesn't want to be caught."
Fishing = combat, inherently adversarial.
Dating = social interaction, inhererently cooperative.
Systems that treat social interaction like combat are falling for the same fallacy Ryan criticises.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:29:32 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 19, 2021, 08:28:43 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 04:17:05 PMIt's axiomatic. What you participate in trains you. Everything is propaganda for something.
So playing TTRPG trains you to roll dice and name spells or maneuvers as a way of resolving combat. That doesn't seem like something that translates well to the real world.
From games training players to roll dice to resolve in game conflict, you jump to the conclusion that rolling dice translates to hitting or shooting people in the real world. A conclusion wholly unsupported by your "axiom." ::)
If you really believed what you are saying, you'd be all up in arms over people tossing dice playing Yahtzee and Bunko. Those games foster, that dreaded competition along with gambling, drinking, and random chaos. :o
As I said, everything is propaganda.
To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Quote from: S'mon on October 20, 2021, 01:00:53 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 20, 2021, 09:25:40 AM
The same could often be said of the combat rules of many (most/all...possibly) systems.
That was my point - most normal people (designers, players) aren't familiar with combat. Most normal people are familiar with social interaction. A designer who writes similar rules for both, I feel is most likely unfamiliar with either.
I saw a great slap down recently from a dating/relationship youtuber, Courtney Ryan:
"They say women can't give men good dating advice. 'Don't ask a fish how to catch a fish'. But a fish doesn't want to be caught."
Fishing = combat, inherently adversarial.
Dating = social interaction, inhererently cooperative.
Systems that treat social interaction like combat are falling for the same fallacy Ryan criticises.
Good post. I like the example.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:29:32 PMAs I said, everything is propaganda.
Ah I know this game. True, everything is something that changes something else, which means that yes everything exists as a form of persuasion or propaganda.
But if a trait can be applied to everything all the time, it is useless as a descriptive trait. We don't prefise descriptors about material objects with 'Exists in the universe', because thats redundant and pointless.
So we reserve words for when something is MEANINGFUL. Is it MEANINGFUL propaganda? Is it a tier of propaganda significant enough to count as the specific persuasion as propaganda? Thats what we reserve the word for. To use it otherwise is a really shitty thing to do.
So Im not sure what your point is. Congratulations, you found an exploitable point in language. What next?
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 20, 2021, 01:20:22 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:29:32 PMAs I said, everything is propaganda.
Ah I know this game. True, everything is something that changes something else, which means that yes everything exists as a form of persuasion or propaganda.
But if a trait can be applied to everything all the time, it is useless as a descriptive trait. We don't prefise descriptors about material objects with 'Exists in the universe', because thats redundant and pointless.
So we reserve words for when something is MEANINGFUL. Is it MEANINGFUL propaganda? Is it a tier of propaganda significant enough to count as the specific persuasion as propaganda? Thats what we reserve the word for. To use it otherwise is a really shitty thing to do.
So Im not sure what your point is. Congratulations, you found an exploitable point in language. What next?
My point is that the wokies are changing RPGs to be their propaganda, making it difficult for the gamers who don't think in those terms. Are those holdout gamers doomed to be reactionaries saying "No, no" to wokery, or is there a self-conscious counterpropaganda that RPGs can become that will preserve the form while also positively opposing wokery?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 02:27:38 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 20, 2021, 01:20:22 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:29:32 PMAs I said, everything is propaganda.
Ah I know this game. True, everything is something that changes something else, which means that yes everything exists as a form of persuasion or propaganda.
But if a trait can be applied to everything all the time, it is useless as a descriptive trait. We don't prefise descriptors about material objects with 'Exists in the universe', because thats redundant and pointless.
So we reserve words for when something is MEANINGFUL. Is it MEANINGFUL propaganda? Is it a tier of propaganda significant enough to count as the specific persuasion as propaganda? Thats what we reserve the word for. To use it otherwise is a really shitty thing to do.
So Im not sure what your point is. Congratulations, you found an exploitable point in language. What next?
My point is that the wokies are changing RPGs to be their propaganda, making it difficult for the gamers who don't think in those terms. Are those holdout gamers doomed to be reactionaries saying "No, no" to wokery, or is there a self-conscious counterpropaganda that RPGs can become that will preserve the form while also positively opposing wokery?
To be a reactionary you need to be part of the establishment fighting against change.
Another red flag that YOU are a woke infiltrator. Only they think they are the revolution while holding the power.
We can't be reactionaries because we're not the establishment dumbass.
You woke termites are.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 02:27:38 PMMy point is that the wokies are changing RPGs to be their propaganda, making it difficult for the gamers who don't think in those terms. Are those holdout gamers doomed to be reactionaries saying "No, no" to wokery, or is there a self-conscious counterpropaganda that RPGs can become that will preserve the form while also positively opposing wokery?
.....Il be honest this really does come off as 'How do you do fellow non-wokies!'. But Il roll with you a while longer on the assumption your not a troll and arguing in good faith.
The solution is to teach people not to think in broken language terms. Don't use the word propaganda willy nilly because your devaluing it.
SJWs don't have nearly as much power as they think they do. They can subvert the edges, but for better or worse they cannot turn entertainment into pure propaganda because its generally un-entertaining.
And Im not sure how this relates to your larger point about violence.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 20, 2021, 04:30:14 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 02:27:38 PMMy point is that the wokies are changing RPGs to be their propaganda, making it difficult for the gamers who don't think in those terms. Are those holdout gamers doomed to be reactionaries saying "No, no" to wokery, or is there a self-conscious counterpropaganda that RPGs can become that will preserve the form while also positively opposing wokery?
.....Il be honest this really does come off as 'How do you do fellow non-wokies!'. But Il roll with you a while longer on the assumption your not a troll and arguing in good faith.
The solution is to teach people not to think in broken language terms. Don't use the word propaganda willy nilly because your devaluing it.
SJWs don't have nearly as much power as they think they do. They can subvert the edges, but for better or worse they cannot turn entertainment into pure propaganda because its generally un-entertaining.
And Im not sure how this relates to your larger point about violence.
It doesn't, but he's trying to divert attention from his unsubstantiated claims.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 20, 2021, 01:20:22 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 19, 2021, 09:29:32 PMAs I said, everything is propaganda.
Ah I know this game. True, everything is something that changes something else, which means that yes everything exists as a form of persuasion or propaganda.
But if a trait can be applied to everything all the time, it is useless as a descriptive trait. We don't prefise descriptors about material objects with 'Exists in the universe', because thats redundant and pointless.
So we reserve words for when something is MEANINGFUL. Is it MEANINGFUL propaganda? Is it a tier of propaganda significant enough to count as the specific persuasion as propaganda? Thats what we reserve the word for. To use it otherwise is a really shitty thing to do.
So Im not sure what your point is. Congratulations, you found an exploitable point in language. What next?
"When everything is propaganda, nothing is." - Borrowed from The Incredibles
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 20, 2021, 04:30:14 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 02:27:38 PMMy point is that the wokies are changing RPGs to be their propaganda, making it difficult for the gamers who don't think in those terms. Are those holdout gamers doomed to be reactionaries saying "No, no" to wokery, or is there a self-conscious counterpropaganda that RPGs can become that will preserve the form while also positively opposing wokery?
.....Il be honest this really does come off as 'How do you do fellow non-wokies!'. But Il roll with you a while longer on the assumption your not a troll and arguing in good faith.
The solution is to teach people not to think in broken language terms. Don't use the word propaganda willy nilly because your devaluing it.
SJWs don't have nearly as much power as they think they do. They can subvert the edges, but for better or worse they cannot turn entertainment into pure propaganda because its generally un-entertaining.
And Im not sure how this relates to your larger point about violence.
The other half of the equation is the concept of "parallel economies" that's gaining a lot of traction. You already see it with Brave/Brave.Search as an alternative to Chrome/Google, Gab vs. Twitter, Rumble vs. YouTube. If DriveThruRPG starts to go too far to the woke-side and cancels titles, an alternative will certainly pop up in short order just as it did with all of those above.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 20, 2021, 04:30:14 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 02:27:38 PMMy point is that the wokies are changing RPGs to be their propaganda, making it difficult for the gamers who don't think in those terms. Are those holdout gamers doomed to be reactionaries saying "No, no" to wokery, or is there a self-conscious counterpropaganda that RPGs can become that will preserve the form while also positively opposing wokery?
.....Il be honest this really does come off as 'How do you do fellow non-wokies!'. But Il roll with you a while longer on the assumption your not a troll and arguing in good faith.
The solution is to teach people not to think in broken language terms. Don't use the word propaganda willy nilly because your devaluing it.
SJWs don't have nearly as much power as they think they do. They can subvert the edges, but for better or worse they cannot turn entertainment into pure propaganda because its generally un-entertaining.
And Im not sure how this relates to your larger point about violence.
How much power does the radical left have? I don't know, but, I'll bet there were plenty of people in Russia who thought this whole Bolshevism thing would blow over. As has been said, the ship of state is tethered to some kind of Cthulhu under the waters, and Cthulhu swims left.
There are layers of utility in these things. One purpose of pop culture is just to waste our time and fill our heads up with irrelevancies. We might call that the propaganda of political nullification. We might view it as harmless entertainment, whereas invested parties might view it as politically useful.
The violence aspect feels like a chink in the RPG armor, to me. It's tolerated only because it can't be gotten rid of without affecting profitability. But, it can be whittled down until the hobby becomes unrecognizable.
But, hey, everyone here thinks that there's "No problem" and that this is just chicken littling. Maybe it is. I hope it is, but, we'll see.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 08:45:40 PMHow much power does the radical left have?
I don't know, but, I'll bet there were plenty of people in Russia who thought this whole Bolshevism thing would blow over. As has been said, the ship of state is tethered to some kind of Cthulhu under the waters, and Cthulhu swims left.[/quote]
OK now this does sound less SJW-y, but just because its less SJW-sy it doesn't make what your saying exactly true:
SJW-ism is immensly unpopular the more working class you become, and this by and large includes the military. The bolshiviks where not popular with the elites and popular everywhere else. The radical left is the opposite case.
But again just like...lay out your point step by step about violence without going into tangents.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 18, 2021, 06:16:30 PM
No. This blend of woke is not ultimatly anti-combat.
Overall it is anti-combat. Mostly pushed by the storygamers who were at the forefront of the woke cult infiltration of gaming.
They have been pushing for more social rules and less combat for a long time now.
Also every iteration of these moral guardians has pushed for less combat, less violence, in all forms of media.
Quote from: Omega on October 20, 2021, 09:04:46 PMOverall it is anti-combat. Mostly pushed by the storygamers who were at the forefront of the woke cult infiltration of gaming.
Agreed, but so far SJWs have had the least amount of success actually directly intruding into the 'creature comforts' aspect of society. They paradoxically depend on the culture of blind mindless consumerism to eat their slop, but if the slop isn't stupidly entertaining enough their impact comes to a stop.
Thats why your local barnes & noble has had its comics section shrink down to nearly nothing and has been replaced with shelves of anime borderline hentai. Stuff like 'I reincarnated into a land of tits'.
They have success in destroying comics, but they still by and large can't make the majority of the population actually listen to them FOR the wokeness.
Quote from: Omega on October 20, 2021, 09:04:46 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 18, 2021, 06:16:30 PM
No. This blend of woke is not ultimatly anti-combat.
Overall it is anti-combat. Mostly pushed by the storygamers who were at the forefront of the woke cult infiltration of gaming.
They have been pushing for more social rules and less combat for a long time now.
Also every iteration of these moral guardians has pushed for less combat, less violence, in all forms of media.
Yeah, but this tends to be their weakest attack. The Marvel movies are wildly popular, and feature tons of shooting and beating people up.
Prudes like Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkeesian failed to put even a dent in video game combat. In a way, they sensationalized it.
Most people understand the difference between fictional violence and real life violence, and so the attempts to attack it in rpgs, tend to fall flat.
That doesn't mean they can't be successful and gain ground, but so far it's been a long-term losing tactic.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 20, 2021, 08:49:59 PM
The bolshiviks where not popular with the elites and popular everywhere else.
No they weren't. They were never popular with the vast majority of Russians.
QuoteQuote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 20, 2021, 08:49:59 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 08:45:40 PMHow much power does the radical left have?
I don't know, but, I'll bet there were plenty of people in Russia who thought this whole Bolshevism thing would blow over. As has been said, the ship of state is tethered to some kind of Cthulhu under the waters, and Cthulhu swims left.
OK now this does sound less SJW-y, but just because its less SJW-sy it doesn't make what your saying exactly true:
SJW-ism is immensly unpopular the more working class you become, and this by and large includes the military. The bolshiviks where not popular with the elites and popular everywhere else. The radical left is the opposite case.
But again just like...lay out your point step by step about violence without going into tangents.
The Bolsheviks believed the proletariat was the basis for revolution. The bulk of Russians in 1917 were not proletariats but peasants, so I am unsure how to square that circle.
Barring a political miracle, I'm fairly confident the military is going to be purged of anti-woke elements soon enough. Is this video for real (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfe6d6MzeLM), for example? Woke might not rule the military, yet, but, it's apparently ruling its recruitment strategy. Let's keep praying.
My point about violence and RPGs is that,
(1) to the degree one successfully immerses and visualizes oneself in the given imaginary world, one trains one's mind to think in terms of how violence in that world is portrayed, for the purposes of that world. This means thinking that violence is the go-to solution for most problems (again, find me RPG book covers that don't feature physical violence implicit or explicit), that the psychological costs are low to nonexistent, and above all, violence is good fun;
(2) The woke mob can't not recognize the violent content of RPGs as something to exploit. So, they infiltrate the hobby (cons, publishers, gaming groups, clubs) with their critical theory and moral browbeating, changing the underlying assumptions of gaming and the concomitant allowable expressions of gaming. Violence can't just be cheap drama, it must assume propagandistic meaning, where possible;
(3) Judging by the responses I've received here on this topic, there is no positive alternative to this apparently inexorable process of transition from neutral hobby to woke hobby, including ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality, feminism, queer theory, etc., etc.); and,
(4) I foresee that for all the gritty optimism about how "RPGnet is dying" etc., I still see, according to their own stats anyway, they have over 100,000 members and this place has under 9,000. And, of the ones who bothered to respond to this thread, half see no problem, while the other half slag the messenger. At the risk of being a Cassandra, I think this is naïve.
I wonder if part of it is that they believe that words are violence. Which in all honesty just makes me want to insult them and then smack them to see if they think are actually equal. Words can be harmful, words are very important; but words aren't violence.
Stories matter. Yes, our games maybe mostly words and stories, but stories are important. History is supposedly true stories, but Aesop's Fables, the Brother's Grim, a lot of mythology and religion are all stories meant to teach. We get invested in stories; why else do TV shows, comics, movies, etc. become so important to people. We become invested in them and they matter to us.
Words matter. Unless I am somehow severely disabled and everybody else has some secret form of communication the vast majority of our communication is done with words. That SJWs and other Social Activists purposefully degrade our ability to communicate by deciding that a word means something else and that, in my opinion, is a Crime against Humanity. It is hard enough communicating with each other without people actively trying to make it more difficult.
After all, if words don't matter then:
"We find these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
"I have a dream... I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
"That's one small step for man, One Giant Leap for Mankind."
Don't matter.
The biggest problem is that the faces and "leaders" of the SJWs are picked for by the media to garner attention and clicks. I think as time goes on Activists separate from their communities, stop representing them and end up just pursing various types of power.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PMBarring a political miracle, I'm fairly confident the military is going to be purged of anti-woke elements soon enough.
The difference between the bolshevics and the SJWs is that the bolsheviks had balls. The SJWs do not.
My family is ex-soviet union, so they very much see the same tactics employed by the commies employed here.
But SJW-ism is such a tier of self destructive and weak it depends way moreso on the complicity of the ruling class in place of their own strength. I see the long-term end result of the SJW plague as a complete economic and social collapse in place of a commie take-over.
They can purge the military of the non-woke....But they will purge it of anybody compitent or capable or charismatic in a military sense. That video is real, but thats more to show that other countries will actually have a shot at taking over the USA after a SJW takover in place of an argument for SJW strength.
The USA military top brass is EXTREMLY insulated and out of touch. And had just had one of the most humiliating defeats in its history (again). Nobody will follow these commanders to shoot their own. Its like if the Tsar was woke and insisted his soldiers march into WWI with high-heels. You fucking bet those soldiers would not follow the bolsheviks.
Quote(4) I foresee that for all the gritty optimism about how "RPGnet is dying" etc., I still see, according to their own stats anyway, they have over 100,000 members and this place has under 9,000. And, of the ones who bothered to respond to this thread, half see no problem, while the other half slag the messenger. At the risk of being a Cassandra, I think this is naïve.
Mathematically thats pretty innacurate because your talking about a much larger website that retains a log of previous membership.
Again I see destruction moreso likely then subversion. Because this blend of SJW-ism is purely destructive. SJW-ism really struggles against creature comforts because it depends on the consumer culture to not resist it very well.
SJW-ism will fail to ban porn for instance. SJW-ism is thriving because of lack of conviction of the current elite and much of the population, not because its so strong or popular by itself.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
My point about violence and RPGs is that,
(1) to the degree one successfully immerses and visualizes oneself in the given imaginary world, one trains one's mind to think in terms of how violence in that world is portrayed, for the purposes of that world. This means thinking that violence is the go-to solution for most problems (again, find me RPG book covers that don't feature physical violence implicit or explicit), that the psychological costs are low to nonexistent, and above all, violence is good fun;
I call BS. You mean to tell me that geeks and nerds are driven towards violence cause of playing games. I am sorry but if you can't differentiate between a game and the real world you aren't welcome at my table. I would also point out that the people resorting to violence first are by far the SJWs.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
(2) The woke mob can't not recognize the violent content of RPGs as something to exploit. So, they infiltrate the hobby (cons, publishers, gaming groups, clubs) with their critical theory and moral browbeating, changing the underlying assumptions of gaming and the concomitant allowable expressions of gaming. Violence can't just be cheap drama, it must assume propagandistic meaning, where possible;
Here is a question for you:
How do you live with a fanatic? How do you live with someone who finds you heretical, and deserving of being destroyed unless you submit yourself to them. How much will you submit, because it will never be enough.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM(3) Judging by the responses I've received here on this topic, there is no positive alternative to this apparently inexorable process of transition from neutral hobby to woke hobby, including ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality, feminism, queer theory, etc., etc.); and,
Fight like hell! I have lost a lot of 2 other hobbies to those hateful bigots, I will fight how I can against them.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM(4) I foresee that for all the gritty optimism about how "RPGnet is dying" etc., I still see, according to their own stats anyway, they have over 100,000 members and this place has under 9,000. And, of the ones who bothered to respond to this thread, half see no problem, while the other half slag the messenger. At the risk of being a Cassandra, I think this is naïve.
How many of their members are still active? I have an RPGnet account but haven't been on in years cause I got sick of the place.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
(4) I foresee that for all the gritty optimism about how "RPGnet is dying" etc., I still see, according to their own stats anyway, they have over 100,000 members and this place has under 9,000. And, of the ones who bothered to respond to this thread, half see no problem, while the other half slag the messenger. At the risk of being a Cassandra, I think this is naïve.
I have not seen even one person supporting your proposition that "We are seeing the end of combat"
Maybe you could rustle up some of your 100,000 mates?
Quote from: Donahue82 on October 20, 2021, 10:47:57 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
My point about violence and RPGs is that,
(1) to the degree one successfully immerses and visualizes oneself in the given imaginary world, one trains one's mind to think in terms of how violence in that world is portrayed, for the purposes of that world. This means thinking that violence is the go-to solution for most problems (again, find me RPG book covers that don't feature physical violence implicit or explicit), that the psychological costs are low to nonexistent, and above all, violence is good fun;
I call BS. You mean to tell me that geeks and nerds are driven towards violence cause of playing games. I am sorry but if you can't differentiate between a game and the real world you aren't welcome at my table. I would also point out that the people resorting to violence first are by far the SJWs.
Let's not repeat the misunderstanding previous posters have made of what I have said. I never claimed RPGs cause violence or drive people towards acting violently. But, RPGs do train the mind to think about imaginary violence in that way, and that's enough for the woke mob to seize upon it as potentially exploitable, because the violence is being done in a non-woke way (e.g., bashing always-evil orcs or whatever) and therefore is "problematic". The wokies want you to think of imaginary violence only in a way that reinforces woke ideology.
QuoteQuote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
(2) The woke mob can't not recognize the violent content of RPGs as something to exploit. So, they infiltrate the hobby (cons, publishers, gaming groups, clubs) with their critical theory and moral browbeating, changing the underlying assumptions of gaming and the concomitant allowable expressions of gaming. Violence can't just be cheap drama, it must assume propagandistic meaning, where possible;
Here is a question for you: How do you live with a fanatic? How do you live with someone who finds you heretical, and deserving of being destroyed unless you submit yourself to them. How much will you submit, because it will never be enough.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM(3) Judging by the responses I've received here on this topic, there is no positive alternative to this apparently inexorable process of transition from neutral hobby to woke hobby, including ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality, feminism, queer theory, etc., etc.); and,
Fight like hell! I have lost a lot of 2 other hobbies to those hateful bigots, I will fight how I can against them.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM(4) I foresee that for all the gritty optimism about how "RPGnet is dying" etc., I still see, according to their own stats anyway, they have over 100,000 members and this place has under 9,000. And, of the ones who bothered to respond to this thread, half see no problem, while the other half slag the messenger. At the risk of being a Cassandra, I think this is naïve.
How many of their members are still active? I have an RPGnet account but haven't been on in years cause I got sick of the place.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
(3) Judging by the responses I've received here on this topic, there is no positive alternative to this apparently inexorable process of transition from neutral hobby to woke hobby, including ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality, feminism, queer theory, etc., etc.);
What is "ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality..."? Maybe an example would help.
No offense, but you sound like the Architect in the Matrix movies. You're trying too hard. Keep it simple.
Edit: "The wokies want you to think of imaginary violence only in a way that reinforces woke ideology." Ok, that's more clear. Any examples?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
My point about violence and RPGs is that,
(1) to the degree one successfully immerses and visualizes oneself in the given imaginary world, one trains one's mind to think in terms of how violence in that world is portrayed, for the purposes of that world. This means thinking that violence is the go-to solution for most problems (again, find me RPG book covers that don't feature physical violence implicit or explicit), that the psychological costs are low to nonexistent, and above all, violence is good fun;
Regarding the first point, I've seen some issues with violence being even more attractive in games where the PCs have reliable methods of stunning opponents. Star Wars and Star Trek both have this, and while the settings dictated they exist before those properties were ever games, I do feel it can create problems.
My group had a discussion of why stun isn't the default assumption for most non-military engagements. You can always kill off a stunned opponent if you feel the need, but returning life to somone you mistakenly/carelessly shot with a lethal load of blaster/phaser is a lot harder (if possible at all). Star Trek makes it easy for this mindset, at least with Starfleet character, but Star Wars is a harder sell. We rarely see heroes use stun settings in Star Wars (until the cartoons), but when it's a standard feature on almost all standard blaster weapons, you have to wonder why.
As for your points 2-4, I don't care.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
This business of politicizing gaming in the southpaw direction, such that all monsters must be individuals capable of free will and, so, of any alignment, has implications beyond just erasing the trope of irredeemably evil races. It also attacks the central pillar of virtually all RPGs, which is combat.
Combat is cheap drama, and, in my experience, no games deal much or at all with the psychological scars and trauma that real life combat inflicts on its participants. Game combat, therefore, trains people to think in terms of violence as a valid solution to many of life's problems (or most, in the typical game milieu), as free of psychic consequence, and as intrinsically fun.
Could this "woke" business therefore be the harbinger of the end of combat as cheap drama? Must all games then be sensitive to just how powerful getting into a fight is, with its ugly consequences of trauma, confusion, and murder, and, so, knock down this central pillar? If so, what will hold up the roof?
I recently discovered the Total Party Skills RPG system. It has a social combat mechanic, which I think is the best thing ever in decades as far as tabletop RPGs go. Games like Traveller can finagle a kind of sort of social/diplomatic mechanic. It too works. Just not as simple and clever/original as TPS's doing. I'm going through the rules for Escape from Planet Matriarchy! now, and just wish this core rule book was around years ago.
Quote from: Aglondir on October 20, 2021, 11:18:24 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
(3) Judging by the responses I've received here on this topic, there is no positive alternative to this apparently inexorable process of transition from neutral hobby to woke hobby, including ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality, feminism, queer theory, etc., etc.);
What is "ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality..."? Maybe an example would help.
No offense, but you sound like the Architect in the Matrix movies. You're trying too hard. Keep it simple.
Edit: "The wokies want you to think of imaginary violence only in a way that reinforces woke ideology." Ok, that's more clear. Any examples?
- Don't kill orcs on sight, they might be innocent/good
- Categorize speciesist, sexist, homophobic cultures as evil and their agents fair game
- Paint men and women as martial equals in all respects
- Attach shame to any killing of women, because of their history of oppression and vulnerability
- Redefine language as violence and enforce "anti-violence" speech codes
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 11:14:57 PM
Quote from: Donahue82 on October 20, 2021, 10:47:57 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
My point about violence and RPGs is that,
(1) to the degree one successfully immerses and visualizes oneself in the given imaginary world, one trains one's mind to think in terms of how violence in that world is portrayed, for the purposes of that world. This means thinking that violence is the go-to solution for most problems (again, find me RPG book covers that don't feature physical violence implicit or explicit), that the psychological costs are low to nonexistent, and above all, violence is good fun;
I call BS. You mean to tell me that geeks and nerds are driven towards violence cause of playing games. I am sorry but if you can't differentiate between a game and the real world you aren't welcome at my table. I would also point out that the people resorting to violence first are by far the SJWs.
Let's not repeat the misunderstanding previous posters have made of what I have said. I never claimed RPGs cause violence or drive people towards acting violently. But, RPGs do train the mind to think about imaginary violence in that way, and that's enough for the woke mob to seize upon it as potentially exploitable, because the violence is being done in a non-woke way (e.g., bashing always-evil orcs or whatever) and therefore is "problematic". The wokies want you to think of imaginary violence only in a way that reinforces woke ideology.
Right, you just want us to become the thought police, because you claim that "RPGs do train the mind to think about imaginary violence in that way".
So to save the hobby we better become the thought police before the woke thought police comes acalling.
IDGAF what you think RPGs train people to think... Unless you or any of your 100,000 mates on RPGnet can prove that:
1) "RPGs do train the mind to think about imaginary violence in that way" (What way?)
2) Such thoughts translate into real world actions.
&
3) Your "solution" about psychological consecuences or whatever BS you come up with next will stop such real world actions.
Can you prove even point 1? This is a prerequisite for any further conversation.
After you provide proof of that then you need to prove point 2.
Then you need to show that your "solution" works to prevent point 2.
So lets see the proof of your claims.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 11:55:10 PM
Quote from: Aglondir on October 20, 2021, 11:18:24 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
(3) Judging by the responses I've received here on this topic, there is no positive alternative to this apparently inexorable process of transition from neutral hobby to woke hobby, including ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality, feminism, queer theory, etc., etc.);
What is "ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality..."? Maybe an example would help.
No offense, but you sound like the Architect in the Matrix movies. You're trying too hard. Keep it simple.
Edit: "The wokies want you to think of imaginary violence only in a way that reinforces woke ideology." Ok, that's more clear. Any examples?
- Don't kill orcs on sight, they might be innocent/good
- Categorize speciesist, sexist, homophobic cultures as evil and their agents fair game
- Paint men and women as martial equals in all respects
- Attach shame to any killing of women, because of their history of oppression and vulnerability
- Redefine language as violence and enforce "anti-violence" speech codes
How exactly are they (and you their profet included) gonna make Pundit implement any of those in his games? And he's not the only one, you seem to operate under the impression that there's a single point where you can exert your woke pressure and it will work.
Don't get me wrong, it has worked (and will continue to work) on WotC, Baizuo, Evil Hat, etc. But none of those companies are "The Hobby tm".
Do you have any idea of how many independent publishers are there now? And more are added each day.
How the fuck do you and your comrades think you can make us implement your BS in our products?
Not even if you termites managed to force Drivethru to demand such things, not even then would you manage to force most of the independents to bend the knee to your cult.
You lot have been trying to control, and failing that, destroy the OSR for years. You have failed each and every time. And you will keep on failing, because you lack the fulcrum for your lever to work.
I predict you will fail always, and that if needed we'll make a fedeverse of independent stores so we can keep giving you the finger.
Greetings!
Who really cares about violence in RPG's? There is violence. So what? World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy XIV, GTA, Call of Duty, Age of Empires, Dragon Age, The Witcher, and Skyrim are all about violence--non-stop, wherever you go and whatever you do. Some other games also have sex and whores in them too. No one gives a fuck about any of that.
The world is full of fucking, sex, depravity, blood and violence. Every fucking day. But somehow, someone somewhere is fucking *worried* about violence in TTRPG's like D&D? No one even skips a fucking beat about the constant sex, orgies, torture, death and blood in games like VAMPIRE and WEREWOLF.
Anyone that is worried about violence in TTRPG's can POUND IT IN THEIR FUCKING ASS as they snivel and sob like cunts. Fuck these morons.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 11:55:10 PM
- Don't kill orcs on sight, they might be innocent/good
- Categorize speciesist, sexist, homophobic cultures as evil and their agents fair game
- Paint men and women as martial equals in all respects
- Attach shame to any killing of women, because of their history of oppression and vulnerability
- Redefine language as violence and enforce "anti-violence" speech codes
Gotcha. So if I understand you correctly, you're proposing that a Woke takeover of the hobby would alter combat in RPGs so it always serves the Narrative? I think that's inevitable. Not only combat. Wokeists will instill their values in other aspects of the game: character creation, task resolution, how magic works, etc.
I've long predicted that the Ranger in 6E will no longer have Favored Enemy (emphasis mine):
Quote from: 5E SRDChoose a type of favored enemy: aberrations, beasts, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, giants, monstrosities, oozes, plants, or undead. Alternatively, you can select two races of humanoid (such as gnolls and orcs) as favored enemies.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 21, 2021, 12:04:02 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 11:55:10 PM
Quote from: Aglondir on October 20, 2021, 11:18:24 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
(3) Judging by the responses I've received here on this topic, there is no positive alternative to this apparently inexorable process of transition from neutral hobby to woke hobby, including ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality, feminism, queer theory, etc., etc.);
What is "ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality..."? Maybe an example would help.
No offense, but you sound like the Architect in the Matrix movies. You're trying too hard. Keep it simple.
Edit: "The wokies want you to think of imaginary violence only in a way that reinforces woke ideology." Ok, that's more clear. Any examples?
- Don't kill orcs on sight, they might be innocent/good
- Categorize speciesist, sexist, homophobic cultures as evil and their agents fair game
- Paint men and women as martial equals in all respects
- Attach shame to any killing of women, because of their history of oppression and vulnerability
- Redefine language as violence and enforce "anti-violence" speech codes
How exactly are they (and you their profet included) gonna make Pundit implement any of those in his games? And he's not the only one, you seem to operate under the impression that there's a single point where you can exert your woke pressure and it will work.
Don't get me wrong, it has worked (and will continue to work) on WotC, Baizuo, Evil Hat, etc. But none of those companies are "The Hobby tm".
Do you have any idea of how many independent publishers are there now? And more are added each day.
How the fuck do you and your comrades think you can make us implement your BS in our products?
Not even if you termites managed to force Drivethru to demand such things, not even then would you manage to force most of the independents to bend the knee to your cult.
You lot have been trying to control, and failing that, destroy the OSR for years. You have failed each and every time. And you will keep on failing, because you lack the fulcrum for your lever to work.
I predict you will fail always, and that if needed we'll make a fedeverse of independent stores so we can keep giving you the finger.
Greetings!
PREACH ON, HERMANO!!! ;D
To add to your commentary, I think the OSR is *GROWING*--and expanding and getting stronger every day. MORE people are increasingly comfortable with a more diverse market-place, and patronizing independent businesses, writers, and creators--more now, than ever before. The awareness is growing; the accessibility and the visibility is growing, all the time.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on October 21, 2021, 12:29:34 AM
Greetings!
Who really cares about violence in RPG's? There is violence. So what? World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy XIV, GTA, Call of Duty, Age of Empires, Dragon Age, The Witcher, and Skyrim are all about violence--non-stop, wherever you go and whatever you do. Some other games also have sex and whores in them too. No one gives a fuck about any of that.
The world is full of fucking, sex, depravity, blood and violence. Every fucking day. But somehow, someone somewhere is fucking *worried* about violence in TTRPG's like D&D? No one even skips a fucking beat about the constant sex, orgies, torture, death and blood in games like VAMPIRE and WEREWOLF.
Anyone that is worried about violence in TTRPG's can POUND IT IN THEIR FUCKING ASS as they snivel and sob like cunts. Fuck these morons.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Wait, this fucktard is worried about imaginary violence in an imaginary world against imaginary enemies?
That's even more retarded than worrying about such violence making you violent IRL!
Not only no one cares, if it has ANY effect in the real world I postulate it's one of catharsis, where you spend your violent drives against a safe imaginary foe instead of a real one. Much like the advocates of porn say it helps as an escape valve for the sexual energies thus preventing rape.
And seeing the huge difference in rape rates between western countries and the islamic ones I think they might be onto something!
Quote from: Aglondir on October 21, 2021, 12:31:15 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 11:55:10 PM
- Don't kill orcs on sight, they might be innocent/good
- Categorize speciesist, sexist, homophobic cultures as evil and their agents fair game
- Paint men and women as martial equals in all respects
- Attach shame to any killing of women, because of their history of oppression and vulnerability
- Redefine language as violence and enforce "anti-violence" speech codes
Gotcha. So if I understand you correctly, you're proposing that a Woke takeover of the hobby would alter combat in RPGs so it always serves the Narrative? I think that's inevitable. Not only combat. Wokeists will instill their values in other aspects of the game: character creation, task resolution, how magic works, etc.
I've long predicted that the Ranger in 6E will no longer have Favored Enemy (emphasis mine):
Quote from: 5E SRDChoose a type of favored enemy: aberrations, beasts, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, giants, monstrosities, oozes, plants, or undead. Alternatively, you can select two races of humanoid (such as gnolls and orcs) as favored enemies.
And yet D&D isn't Teh Hobby tm.
Who cares what Woketards of the Coast does with it's game? We've seen the writting on the wall long ago.
Baizuo will probably go bankrupt soon. Noone among the other woketard publishers have the chops to become numero uno.
If WotC goes full woke they will lose market share, because the woke are about 8% of the population in the USA and probably much less on other countries. And they don't buy the shit they say they want.
Ig D&D dies? The King is dead, long live the OSR!
Quote from: SHARK on October 21, 2021, 12:35:14 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 21, 2021, 12:04:02 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 11:55:10 PM
Quote from: Aglondir on October 20, 2021, 11:18:24 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
(3) Judging by the responses I've received here on this topic, there is no positive alternative to this apparently inexorable process of transition from neutral hobby to woke hobby, including ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality, feminism, queer theory, etc., etc.);
What is "ideological acceptable forms of imaginary violence (viz., compatible with intersectionality..."? Maybe an example would help.
No offense, but you sound like the Architect in the Matrix movies. You're trying too hard. Keep it simple.
Edit: "The wokies want you to think of imaginary violence only in a way that reinforces woke ideology." Ok, that's more clear. Any examples?
- Don't kill orcs on sight, they might be innocent/good
- Categorize speciesist, sexist, homophobic cultures as evil and their agents fair game
- Paint men and women as martial equals in all respects
- Attach shame to any killing of women, because of their history of oppression and vulnerability
- Redefine language as violence and enforce "anti-violence" speech codes
How exactly are they (and you their profet included) gonna make Pundit implement any of those in his games? And he's not the only one, you seem to operate under the impression that there's a single point where you can exert your woke pressure and it will work.
Don't get me wrong, it has worked (and will continue to work) on WotC, Baizuo, Evil Hat, etc. But none of those companies are "The Hobby tm".
Do you have any idea of how many independent publishers are there now? And more are added each day.
How the fuck do you and your comrades think you can make us implement your BS in our products?
Not even if you termites managed to force Drivethru to demand such things, not even then would you manage to force most of the independents to bend the knee to your cult.
You lot have been trying to control, and failing that, destroy the OSR for years. You have failed each and every time. And you will keep on failing, because you lack the fulcrum for your lever to work.
I predict you will fail always, and that if needed we'll make a fedeverse of independent stores so we can keep giving you the finger.
Greetings!
PREACH ON, HERMANO!!! ;D
To add to your commentary, I think the OSR is *GROWING*--and expanding and getting stronger every day. MORE people are increasingly comfortable with a more diverse market-place, and patronizing independent businesses, writers, and creators--more now, than ever before. The awareness is growing; the accessibility and the visibility is growing, all the time.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
LOL and just you wait if Woketards of the Coast does those changes to combat...
We'll see D&D sales drop like a lead balloon. And those players? The ones disgusted enough to drop D&D? Some will come to the dark side of the force... We have cookies!
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 21, 2021, 12:58:17 AM
And yet D&D isn't Teh Hobby tm.
Who cares what Woketards of the Coast does with it's game? We've seen the writting on the wall long ago.
Baizuo will probably go bankrupt soon. Noone among the other woketard publishers have the chops to become numero uno.
If WotC goes full woke they will lose market share, because the woke are about 8% of the population in the USA and probably much less on other countries. And they don't buy the shit they say they want.
Ig D&D dies? The King is dead, long live the OSR!
Absolutely. And when WOTC goes full Woke (I think that's a given) the OSR movement will grow even stronger.
Quote from: Aglondir on October 21, 2021, 01:28:32 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 21, 2021, 12:58:17 AM
And yet D&D isn't Teh Hobby tm.
Who cares what Woketards of the Coast does with it's game? We've seen the writting on the wall long ago.
Baizuo will probably go bankrupt soon. Noone among the other woketard publishers have the chops to become numero uno.
If WotC goes full woke they will lose market share, because the woke are about 8% of the population in the USA and probably much less on other countries. And they don't buy the shit they say they want.
Ig D&D dies? The King is dead, long live the OSR!
Absolutely. And when WOTC goes full Woke (I think that's a given) the OSR movement will grow even stronger.
And the woke will go pester someone else since they can't exert pressure against a descentralized movement, they will loose interest in RPGs and concentrate their fire on Wargames... They already infiltrated GW.
I would like to note that if you trawl the deep end of the pool, wokeist/SJW games do have combat against opponents.
However, in many cases (at least the ones I've seen), such opponents are somehow fluffed as both weak and terrifying. Cardboard cutout standees that are nevertheless a threat to all that is Good And Right.
My theory regarding this contradictory dichotomy is that wokeists can't stand having opponents that might be challenging, because that implies strength. And they can't have that, because (as they know), only people who think and act 'correctly' have such power ('diversity is our strength!' for example).
Quote from: S'mon on October 20, 2021, 10:22:06 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 20, 2021, 08:49:59 PM
The bolshiviks where not popular with the elites and popular everywhere else.
No they weren't. They were never popular with the vast majority of Russians.
"The first country the Communists conquered was Russia."
Quote from: S'mon on October 20, 2021, 10:22:06 PMNo they weren't. They were never popular with the vast majority of Russians.
They where the least unpopular which matters in this case.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 20, 2021, 10:45:36 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PMBarring a political miracle, I'm fairly confident the military is going to be purged of anti-woke elements soon enough.
The difference between the bolshevics and the SJWs is that the bolsheviks had balls. The SJWs do not.
My family is ex-soviet union, so they very much see the same tactics employed by the commies employed here.
But SJW-ism is such a tier of self destructive and weak it depends way moreso on the complicity of the ruling class in place of their own strength. I see the long-term end result of the SJW plague as a complete economic and social collapse in place of a commie take-over.
They can purge the military of the non-woke....But they will purge it of anybody compitent or capable or charismatic in a military sense. That video is real, but thats more to show that other countries will actually have a shot at taking over the USA after a SJW takover in place of an argument for SJW strength.
The USA military top brass is EXTREMLY insulated and out of touch. And had just had one of the most humiliating defeats in its history (again). Nobody will follow these commanders to shoot their own. Its like if the Tsar was woke and insisted his soldiers march into WWI with high-heels. You fucking bet those soldiers would not follow the bolsheviks.
Quote(4) I foresee that for all the gritty optimism about how "RPGnet is dying" etc., I still see, according to their own stats anyway, they have over 100,000 members and this place has under 9,000. And, of the ones who bothered to respond to this thread, half see no problem, while the other half slag the messenger. At the risk of being a Cassandra, I think this is naïve.
Mathematically thats pretty innacurate because your talking about a much larger website that retains a log of previous membership.
Again I see destruction moreso likely then subversion. Because this blend of SJW-ism is purely destructive. SJW-ism really struggles against creature comforts because it depends on the consumer culture to not resist it very well.
SJW-ism will fail to ban porn for instance. SJW-ism is thriving because of lack of conviction of the current elite and much of the population, not because its so strong or popular by itself.
I'm not sure if yours is an optimistic or pessimistic analysis, but, I take it into consideration.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 21, 2021, 09:42:58 AMI'm not sure if yours is an optimistic or pessimistic analysis, but, I take it into consideration.
Its a 'both sides' analysis. The bolshevik takeover of Russia was that of a crumbling imperial state. The SJW takeover of the west is that of a decadent spoiled state. People have it so good they have lost all sense of perspective.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 21, 2021, 10:14:43 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 21, 2021, 09:42:58 AMI'm not sure if yours is an optimistic or pessimistic analysis, but, I take it into consideration.
Its a 'both sides' analysis. The bolshevik takeover of Russia was that of a crumbling imperial state. The SJW takeover of the west is that of a decadent spoiled state. People have it so good they have lost all sense of perspective.
Perhaps the belief that everyone has it so good is itself a sign of losing perspective.
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 21, 2021, 10:19:34 AMPerhaps the belief that everyone has it so good is itself a sign of losing perspective.
The west is the only place I have travelled too where the homeless turned down my change (after asking for it) because they didn't find it significant enough. Beggars could literally be choosers.
Coming from a failed ex-soviet state, you are high off your tits in terms of privileges and advantages. Even in the current decayed state of society, you are still high off your tits.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 21, 2021, 10:34:07 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 21, 2021, 10:19:34 AMPerhaps the belief that everyone has it so good is itself a sign of losing perspective.
The west is the only place I have travelled too where the homeless turned down my change (after asking for it) because they didn't find it significant enough. Beggars could literally be choosers.
Coming from a failed ex-soviet state, you are high off your tits in terms of privileges and advantages. Even in the current decayed state of society, you are still high off your tits.
Not counting the homeless, most of what the USA calls it's poor are swimming in privileges and advantages, I wish they would come to México so I could give them a tour of the real poverty people elsewhere have to survive in.
Just imagine having a cellphone, TV, Fridge, and a game console and thinking you're poor...
We call that lower middle class here.
Mechanistic "games" will always represent physical conflicts better than social conflicts, because the latter are not mechanistic. Same fundamental issue that is present in videogames. I think combat tends to beat out environmental obstacles as the primary conflict type (broadly) since environments generally don't have agency.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 21, 2021, 09:38:27 AM
Quote from: S'mon on October 20, 2021, 10:22:06 PMNo they weren't. They were never popular with the vast majority of Russians.
They where the least unpopular which matters in this case.
Nope. The Peasant's Party were far more popular. The Bolsheviks were just better organised and more ruthless.
Problem is, you are not allowed to fully discuss what happened during the Bolshevik Revolution.
The Soviet Union was guilty of the Holodomor, the slaughter of 6-10 MILLION Ukrainian Christians, this happening during the World War 2 Era.
Question: Why then did we support the Soviet Union while fighting Nazi Germany? Patton wanted to let the two fight, we'd finish off the winner. That would have averted a lot of suffering later on- the only reason those wonderful communist Soviets didn't immediately overrun post-WW2 Europe was because of the threat of American nuclear weapons. They were NEVER our friends, they helped Hitler when he overran my mother's homeland of The Netherlands, and Poland was going to lose out no matter which side won.
Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on October 21, 2021, 05:10:47 PMWhy then did we support the Soviet Union while fighting Nazi Germany? Patton wanted to let the two fight, we'd finish off the winner. That would have averted a lot of suffering later on- the only reason those wonderful communist Soviets didn't immediately overrun post-WW2 Europe was because of the threat of American nuclear weapons.
A: Because the germans had already conquered france and where bombing england. You can rightfully shit on the Soviet Union, but 3 of my great granfathers died in that war just defending their families. The SU had the manpower and the people disposable enough to deal a ton of damage to the Germans.
The germans planned genocide of slavic peoples as well. They just planned to do it with mass starvation instead of camps.
Right or wrong, I owe my existence and the existence of hundreds of people that I know from support from the USA during WWII.
Greetings!
Yeah, the Soviet Union did lots of *Heavy Lifting* to defeat Nazi Germany during World War II. The Soviets weren't always the *best* of friends, or being very nice, trusting, or even very cooperative. However, the Soviets did suffer the burden--and achieved the glory--of fighting 60-70% of the entire armed forces of the Third Reich. The Russian's turning of the tide in the East and rolling back the Nazi armies, and ruthlessly crushing them at every turn is deserving of everyone's deep respect and gratitude. The Soviets--and the Slavic peoples everywhere over there--suffered an unimaginable hell fighting against the Nazis, and lost a horrendous 25 to 50 million people, civilians and military--to achieve that monumental victory. The Russians often literally fought with shovels, pick-axes, teeth and fists to grind down and slaughter the Nazis. After 1941, the Soviet Union typically faced off against 60% of the Luftwaffe, and 65% to 75% of the Wehrmacht on a constant basis. Considering the fact that in the West, the Western Allies were thus only dealing with fighting one fourth--or 25%--of the German Army on any battlefield, and we had the difficulties and challenges enough with that reality.
Make no mistake, had the Third Reich been able to move even an additional 15-25% of their forces fighting the Russians in the East and transferred them to Western Europe, fucking everything may have ended very differently. Certainly, American, British, and Allied casualties in the West would have been FAR HIGHER. Over all, the Germans were superior warriors, and managed to maintain a kill-ratio of 4 to 1 or more against any Western Allied Army. The German's kill ratio was, of course, even higher throughout the war against the Russians. Western casualties would thus have been horrifically higher under such circumstances. So, the Russians also helped the West by literally bleeding and suffering and dying--so that we didn't. That is also an undeniable fact.
I fucking hate Communism, and Stalin, and the Soviet Government were also a bunch of selfish, evil, cruel bastards and monsters--but at the time, they were also allied with us against the Nazis, and fighting to defeat the Third Reich. Aside from the Communist, Soviet Government, the Russian People suffered, and died, and heroically fought to defeat the Nazis, culminating with their horrific siege and victory over Berlin, and raising the Soviet Red Banner over the Reichstag in 1945.
American and British aid to the Soviet Union was meaningful, significant, and at different times and in different ways, of critical importance to helping the Russians resist the Nazis, and eventually counterattack against them, and crush them. Thousands of American and British sailors and naval crews died in the icy waters of the North Atlantic throughout the war, fighting against the German Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe, attempting to get supply convoys to Soviet Murmansk and Archangel. Food, Oil, Medicine, Ammunition, Guns, Tanks, Artillery, Radios, Train Locomotives, Aircraft, Clothing, and TRUCKS. Train Locomotives and trucks were critical for supplying the Red Army with MOBILITY, as well as radios. Yes, the Russians had some of their own, and they never had enough radios to go around for everyone, but the majority of the radios they did possess came from America and Britain. All them Russian Tank Armies and Guards Infantry Armies don't really move anywhere without having TRUCKS and RADIOS. The Russian industry heroically produced mountains of weapons and gear for the Russian armies--famously, their Tanks, Artillery, and Aircraft, but they didn't somehow produce many trucks or radios. The American-built TRAINS also provided the Russians with mass-mobility of supplies and troops over the Russian interior. That's of critical importance when you have only a few weeks or a few days at most to respond to yet another Blitzkrieg offensive by 200,000 Nazis and a bunch of Panzers. If you don't get your own troops, artillery, an tanks into position in time, well, you're fucked, an the Nazis win. And lots of Russian resources are lost, and hundreds of thousands of Russian civilians die or are marched off as slaves in the Third Reich. That was the reality of the modern battlefield during World War II.
In the end, it is a blessing and an honour that we were allies together during World War II. Together, we defeated the Third Reich.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 20, 2021, 11:23:13 PMMy group had a discussion of why stun isn't the default assumption for most non-military engagements. You can always kill off a stunned opponent if you feel the need, but returning life to somone you mistakenly/carelessly shot with a lethal load of blaster/phaser is a lot harder (if possible at all). Star Trek makes it easy for this mindset, at least with Starfleet character, but Star Wars is a harder sell. We rarely see heroes use stun settings in Star Wars (until the cartoons), but when it's a standard feature on almost all standard blaster weapons, you have to wonder why.
I thought it was obvious.
Because stormtroopers are Nazis. It's right there in the name.
Quote from: Bren on October 21, 2021, 11:46:10 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 20, 2021, 11:23:13 PMMy group had a discussion of why stun isn't the default assumption for most non-military engagements. You can always kill off a stunned opponent if you feel the need, but returning life to somone you mistakenly/carelessly shot with a lethal load of blaster/phaser is a lot harder (if possible at all). Star Trek makes it easy for this mindset, at least with Starfleet character, but Star Wars is a harder sell. We rarely see heroes use stun settings in Star Wars (until the cartoons), but when it's a standard feature on almost all standard blaster weapons, you have to wonder why.
I thought it was obvious.
Because stormtroopers are Nazis. It's right there in the name.
Because when someone is shooting at you with live ammo the sane response is to shoot at them with blanks...
Leave it to HappyDerp to have a totally Derp take.
Quote from: Bren on October 21, 2021, 11:46:10 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 20, 2021, 11:23:13 PMMy group had a discussion of why stun isn't the default assumption for most non-military engagements. You can always kill off a stunned opponent if you feel the need, but returning life to somone you mistakenly/carelessly shot with a lethal load of blaster/phaser is a lot harder (if possible at all). Star Trek makes it easy for this mindset, at least with Starfleet character, but Star Wars is a harder sell. We rarely see heroes use stun settings in Star Wars (until the cartoons), but when it's a standard feature on almost all standard blaster weapons, you have to wonder why.
I thought it was obvious.
Because stormtroopers are Nazis. It's right there in the name.
There are lot more types of opponents in Star Wars than just Stormtroopers and Imperials.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 21, 2021, 11:50:47 PM
Quote from: Bren on October 21, 2021, 11:46:10 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 20, 2021, 11:23:13 PMMy group had a discussion of why stun isn't the default assumption for most non-military engagements. You can always kill off a stunned opponent if you feel the need, but returning life to somone you mistakenly/carelessly shot with a lethal load of blaster/phaser is a lot harder (if possible at all). Star Trek makes it easy for this mindset, at least with Starfleet character, but Star Wars is a harder sell. We rarely see heroes use stun settings in Star Wars (until the cartoons), but when it's a standard feature on almost all standard blaster weapons, you have to wonder why.
I thought it was obvious.
Because stormtroopers are Nazis. It's right there in the name.
Because when someone is shooting at you with live ammo the sane response is to shoot at them with blanks...
Leave it to HappyDerp to have a totally Derp take.
The game mechanics of several of the SW systems make stun settings better in some ways than the standard lethal blaster loads.
Also, the Bad Batch seem to use stun settings against Storm Troopers quite often.
Quote from: Bren on October 21, 2021, 11:46:10 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 20, 2021, 11:23:13 PMMy group had a discussion of why stun isn't the default assumption for most non-military engagements. You can always kill off a stunned opponent if you feel the need, but returning life to somone you mistakenly/carelessly shot with a lethal load of blaster/phaser is a lot harder (if possible at all). Star Trek makes it easy for this mindset, at least with Starfleet character, but Star Wars is a harder sell. We rarely see heroes use stun settings in Star Wars (until the cartoons), but when it's a standard feature on almost all standard blaster weapons, you have to wonder why.
I thought it was obvious.
Because stormtroopers are Nazis. It's right there in the name.
On a purely technical point, the only time (in the films) we see the stun setting used on a blaster is-
When the Stormtroopers are intentionally attempting to capture what appears to be a high value person with important data.
At very short range.
We don't know, but it's not unreasonable to think the stun setting might be extremely short ranged, maybe out past 100 ft/30m the stun effect drops off dramatically. That would make the stun setting only useful in specific circumstances.
And, for another example, stunning poor Greedo doesn't send the same message to Jabba as turning him into BBQ. Any bounty hunters going after Han know that he's not playing on the stun setting.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 22, 2021, 01:04:51 AM
On a purely technical point, the only time (in the films) we see the stun setting used on a blaster is-
When the Stormtroopers are intentionally attempting to capture what appears to be a high value person with important data.
At very short range.
We don't know, but it's not unreasonable to think the stun setting might be extremely short ranged, maybe out past 100 ft/30m the stun effect drops off dramatically. That would make the stun setting only useful in specific circumstances.
Yes - it looks like it's a wide spread effect, so likely very short effective range. And there's no reason to think it works on armoured targets.
Quote from: Shasarak on October 20, 2021, 11:08:07 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 20, 2021, 10:27:57 PM
(4) I foresee that for all the gritty optimism about how "RPGnet is dying" etc., I still see, according to their own stats anyway, they have over 100,000 members and this place has under 9,000. And, of the ones who bothered to respond to this thread, half see no problem, while the other half slag the messenger. At the risk of being a Cassandra, I think this is naïve.
I have not seen even one person supporting your proposition that "We are seeing the end of combat"
Maybe you could rustle up some of your 100,000 mates?
I'm definitely not one of his mates, but a mod on TBP started a post about combat being unnecessary. I couldn't quit rolling my eyes.
the original mechanics for stun in weg 2e revised was sorta wonky, we always just treated it like a normal attack whose damage result was capped at incapacitated with no danger of worsening. otherwise it was mechanically more advantageous to stun literally everyone rather than blast them.
Stun, or any non-lethal attack (e.g. sleep-bolt arrows) make perfect sense in situations where you want to take prisoners or if the attacker is being controlled or coerced. But these are infrequent- attacking orcs are evil and Aragorn & Co. weren't about to waste time being nice.
But it would be consistent for good characters to have such means just in case.
This seems to be an extension of woke ideologies. I won't soon forget when self proclaimed TTRPG fans on Twitter decided to take a comment by Wizards of the Coast about Orcs having violent tendencies and immediately saying "This is what WotC thinks of black people!" With the irony of their statement of comparing black people to Orcs completely lost on them.
Really, I think this is an inversion of the "Humanocentric" idea that D&D originally had. In that "This creature has traits that seem human, thus it must be identical to a human in every way!". Thing is, that's not correct, and one need look no further than Travis the Chimp for a real life example. There's nothing wrong with Orcs being a bunch of bloodthirsty raiders who raze villages to the ground like the Mongols or Vikings and having the vast, VAST majority be like that. It creates conflict, and it makes exceptions to the rule more special. There's a reason Drizzt was so popular back when he first came out.
Don't really think this will change things, because combat is fun. It's just going to ruin certain RPGs and thus create less competition for the really good ones.
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 22, 2021, 12:40:38 AM
Quote from: Bren on October 21, 2021, 11:46:10 PMI thought it was obvious.
Because stormtroopers are Nazis. It's right there in the name.
There are lot more types of opponents in Star Wars than just Stormtroopers and Imperials.
True, in the original films there's also Jabba and his gangster minions. And for that we have the only good gangster is a dead gangster ethic as seen in
Scarface and other Hollywood films of the 1930s.
Quote from: Bren on October 23, 2021, 01:41:52 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 22, 2021, 12:40:38 AM
Quote from: Bren on October 21, 2021, 11:46:10 PMI thought it was obvious.
Because stormtroopers are Nazis. It's right there in the name.
There are lot more types of opponents in Star Wars than just Stormtroopers and Imperials.
True, in the original films there's also Jabba and his gangster minions. And for that we have the only good gangster is a dead gangster ethic as seen in Scarface and other Hollywood films of the 1930s.
The material has expanded significantly since then. Gangsters are frequently allies (even if shifty ones) or at least an enemy-of-my-enemy. In any case, there are frequent situations where highly effective non-lethal attack options make it a lot easier. Friendly fire problems (infrequent in RPGs where shots almost always hit the person they are aimed at or else just miss everyone) are a lot less serious if the most likely outcome is just short term unconciousness.
Quote from: Slipshot762 on October 22, 2021, 06:21:13 PM
the original mechanics for stun in weg 2e revised was sorta wonky, we always just treated it like a normal attack whose damage result was capped at incapacitated with no danger of worsening. otherwise it was mechanically more advantageous to stun literally everyone rather than blast them.
You are correct. I have been saying this for years, employing the same house rule.
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 23, 2021, 01:46:19 PM
The material has expanded significantly since then.
Yes. But how stun works in several systems is based on the one instance we see in the very first movie where Leia is stunned. Someone asked, why don't the heroes use stun more. Nazis and gangsters is the answer for the first movies. Cartoons for the kids is one reason why you see a lot more stunning in the later material.