Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055208It's already been "gaming for all". The only marginalization in Nerd Land has been between games, not race and sex. There weren't so many boogey men until the disease of social justice weakened the hearts, minds and spines of certain people. It's stupid advice to have in a game book and if you're the person who needs such things in your make believe, again, you're fucked.

You can't have shit like GamerGate and more recently the backlash against the appointment of Kate Welch and reasonably argue that everything is just fine and dandy in Nerd Land.

Quote from: Haffrung;1055163Maybe it's just coincidence that D&D has seen a sharp increase in popularity and profile at the same time as these extremely popular streaming shows took off.

I think this probably gets the causality backwards. D&D saw a sharp increase in popularity as soon as 5e was released and it hasn't looked back since. I suspect the popularity of the game supports the shows rather than the other way around.

I've become aware of the fact that for a few years now, watching youtube videos of other people playing computer games (as opposed to playing yourself) has been a trend with the Kids These Days. It doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever. Get off my lawn. It seems reasonable to suppose that things like Critical Role are an extension of this same trend. Which I suspect means that Pundit is correct and that for most of the people who watch these shows, watching is the hobby. Which, as other people have noted, is just fine as long as it doesn't start to distort the rules. That's not a totally insane thing to worry about. One of the many theories of what went wrong with 4e is that the designers placed too much weight on feedback from people whose real hobby was optimizing character builds on internet fora rather than actually playing the game.

As for Paizo's statement: never forget folks, pretending to be an elf is SERIOUS BUSINESS:rolleyes:.

Quote from: Motorskills;1055217You can't have shit like GamerGate and more recently the backlash against the appointment of Kate Welch and reasonably argue that everything is just fine and dandy in Nerd Land.

I never said everything is fine, far from it. But the fault lies with SJW bullshit not the made-up issues they constantly bemoan.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055219I never said everything is fine, far from it. But the fault lies with SJW bullshit not the made-up issues they constantly bemoan.

It's not made up. "SJW bullshit" is clearly not responsible for people haranguing Welch.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1055216Did you notice a difference in those kinds of players?

The ones attracted by Youtube are almost always young, but so are the majority of newbies in general. They seem less nerdish on average, more normal I guess, so unlikely to see any Catpissman behaviour from them. They can handle 5e rules fine and don't show any extreme characteristics - they can do both crunch and in-character roleplay ok. A minority are unhappy with my game's lack of focus on special snowflake backstory-ism, but most like my more OSR style ok. Generally they're a fine bunch and a good addition to the hobby.

Edit: Oh, PrometheanVigil would probably be happy to know we get a lot more black female D&D players these days. I'm not sure if Youtube is responsible, I get the impression the pro-diversity 5e art direction may have had an influence - although one of my black female players adopted as her PC a former NPC, a busty blonde amazon warrior straight out of a '70s Frazetta pic called Nemesis (pic NSFW). Plays her awesomely. :cool:

Quote from: Motorskills;1055206The title of the segment is "Gaming Is For All". That's the objective.

That's not really the objective. They clearly don't want social conservatives playing, never mind sexists racists et al.  In fact they don't even want people playing sexist or racist characters, since it's triggering.

Now ironically I just booted a jerkish player, and one of the reasons I did so was because he in-character called Nemesis (supra) a bitch, for some trivial reason, while running off leaving the party to die - only to run down a dead end passage and be eaten by the pursuing undead miners, much to my joy (the wizard PC turned him & Nemesis invisible, so they survived). I guess if Paizo saw my DMing style they'd probably think I did a great job keeping those scummy straight white dudes in line, and protecting the Vulnerable Minorities. But it's not their place to be mandating how people behave in private games, or even who they allow to play.

Quote from: rawma;1055181Another willful misreading of the Paizo quote combined with a misreading of my post. I have no idea if you're represented in my games or not, because I know virtually nothing about you.

As I said - I was being facetious. The fact is there is no purity test that can ever be passed. That's the whole freakin point.

I'm not misreading it their text. I know exactly what they mean by it. I know why they put it in there. I used contract for them, work with them, back when we used to could talk about game-design freely. I know what they *think* they're doing by putting it in there - but it's not the primary reason they're doing it. It's a political statement first and foremost. And as I stated in my previous post - which you ratify below: You didn't *need* a game-company to tell you these things. SO WHY HAVE IT IN THERE? (this is where the political point becomes relevant...)

Quote from: rawma;1055181Did you see where I said that we booted that person "back when"? That would be the late 1970s. Paizo hasn't told me anything, as I own nothing from Pathfinder (except for a dry erase map marked out in squares that I use for D&D) and hadn't read anything they've written until encountering S'mon's quotes. I use it as the sort of example that they are telling their GMs not to cave to. I don't think it's bad advice, and has nothing to do with requiring any GM to represent someone in their game, only to avoid removing some NPC because a player is uncomfortable with the NPC's identity. If you were really trying to give me any credit, you'd do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote.

Aaaaaaand thank you. You made my point by obviously not reading my post - you know that part where I said "is it really necessary?". The only difference is you're somehow trying to justify their reasons *despite* agreeing with me they're unnecessary and you even provided a handy-dandy example. It's political first and unnecessary advice unless you're mentally deficient (not saying YOU - but if you're someone that needs this text to tell you how whom to play with, how to play, and by what manner - then yeah that person).

Quote from: rawma;1055181Honestly, the whole lot of you are just looking for something to be offended by; I don't know if the projection outweighs the irony or not, as you've probably collectively broken every scale for either.

As you pointed out - you don't really know me so I'm not part of the "whole lot". It takes a lot to actually offend me. I'm actually laughing at this whole thing. Just like I laugh at Marvel cratering itself, like I laugh at Disney's handling of Star Wars, like I laugh at the NFL, now Nike etc. I'm amused that these corporate giants have embraced an idiotic ideology that is completely against their own interests, and are willing to pursue it to their ultimate degradation and loss. I find it very interesting. Offended? Not at all! I think Paizo has every right to pursue what ever ends they want - including financial loss if the market says so. If they find an audience - great! I'm still not buying their products.

Edit: Thread topic - as I said a long time ago, Performance Gaming isn't gaming.

Quote from: Dimitrios;1055218I've become aware of the fact that for a few years now, watching youtube videos of other people playing computer games (as opposed to playing yourself) has been a trend with the Kids These Days. It doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever. Get off my lawn. It seems reasonable to suppose that things like Critical Role are an extension of this same trend. Which I suspect means that Pundit is correct and that for most of the people who watch these shows, watching is the hobby.

But given how popular these streams are - 150k+ watching each video - even if only a third of them feel curious to try D&D at the table, that's 50k new gamers. I can't think of any marketing initiative that has brought that many new players into the game. Even accidental marketing, like Stranger Things, wouldn't have had much impact if the kids who saw the game played on Netflix couldn't go to Youtube and see D&D being played by people who look fun and cool.

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

They can't control what other people do at their tables. All they can do is proclaim that their products meet the moral doctrine of their sub-culture. And like other religious declarations, those of us who don't share the faith can simply ignore the hectoring sanctimony if we like the product well enough (as I ignore the religious comments on Coco Brooks pizza boxes and turn the channel when athletes launch into thank the lord moments).

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

They can't control what other people do at their tables. All they can do is proclaim that their products meet the moral doctrine of their sub-culture. And like other religious declarations, those of us who don't share the faith can simply ignore the hectoring sanctimony if we like the product well enough (as I ignore the religious comments on Coco Brooks pizza boxes and turn the channel when athletes launch into thank the lord moments).

Oh shit... I read this and I saw Transexual Messiah images in my head with elf-ears.

Corellon?

Quote from: Motorskills;1055221It's not made up. "SJW bullshit" is clearly not responsible for people haranguing Welch.

Who is Kate Welch and what's the issue surrounding her?

That aside, until the SJW mob stops its stupidity things will never stop being problems. They create self-inflicted traumas or worse, latch on to legitimate ones and leech from them and use them as shields. Look at your signature quote from Minnie Driver; it's white knight virtue signaling that's attached to the made-up epidemic of rape culture, so I'm far from any bit surprised you can't see through your panic-colored glasses.

Quote from: rawma;1055181Honestly, the whole lot of you are just looking for something to be offended by; I don't know if the projection outweighs the irony or not, as you've probably collectively broken every scale for either.

Oh, shit! For a moment there I thought a reasonable person was explaining reality to an SJW. Then I realized it was the self-deluded spewing ignorance. My bad.

Quote from: tenbones;1055239Oh shit... I read this and I saw Transexual Messiah images in my head with elf-ears.

Corellon?

This dong hits hard.

Quote from: S'mon;1055194"People of all identities and experiences have a right to be represented in the game, even if they're not necessarily playing at your table."

How the fuck can you read "have a right to be represented in the game" as having "nothing to do with requiring any GM to represent someone in their game"?

I don't actually understand what that phrase is intended to mean. I don't think it was intended to mean that every GM is required to have every possible identity and experience in whatever game they run. But if not, then I'm not sure how the supposed right to be represented would apply. I guess, as some people say, it may be just virtue signaling without actually expressing a concrete policy.

Personally, I think that representation is a matter of collective responsibility. There is nothing wrong if one GM runs a game with only male characters - like running an army WWII game. But if *every* GM runs *every* game with only male characters, then I think it would be a problem. There is no right to be represented, but people should be open-minded. If people are open-minded, then there will be a variety of representation.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055243Who is Kate Welch and what's the issue surrounding her?

Her tits made her unqualified to work for WOTC basically. You know the drill.

Quote from: AlderaannLook at your signature quote from Minnie Driver; it's white knight virtue signaling that's attached to the made-up epidemic of rape culture, so I'm far from any bit surprised you can't see through your panic-colored glasses.

It was a time and place thing. The place was here (one of the usual suspects posted the regular wimminz BS), I forget the who and when. I wish they had had Minnie Driver in the room at the time, she can eyeroll like nobody's business. And indeed, your post smells a bit like it too. The victims of Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein were real, and far from being in a vacuum, just the most high profile.