Quote from: Motorskills;1055252The victims of Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein were real

Nice turn of phrase. Like saying "The victims of Obama and Hitler" - they both did bad things, but different orders of magnitude.

Quote from: S'mon;1055278Nice turn of phrase. Like saying "The victims of Obama and Hitler" - they both did bad things, but different orders of magnitude.

Eh, I think it is a genuine scale. If it was just a few Hollywood actresses or Fox News staffers getting done over, the #MeToo movement wouldn't have gone anywhere.

Quote from: Motorskills;1055252Her tits made her unqualified to work for WOTC basically. You know the drill.

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.

Likely more crying from the SJW mob that WOTC was called out on a women getting a job because of said tits, not because she's qualified. Or she might be, in which case being an asshole isn't cool. The difference is...consistently...that reasonable (non-SJW) people smack down abuses and unfair treatment on the regular, however it's never recognized or applied because it removes victimhood status. It's also often justifiably applied to SJWs and they cannot deal with mirrors. Your camp has so royally fucked up any hope of reasoned debate and then cries about it.

And do you mean women like Asia Argento? Or the several other fabricated, overblown stories of rape that insult and create true victims? Or the sluts who lament poor choices who cry "Rape!"? And I assume men who have been exploited and abused are protected alongside those same women, right? Like the many young boys abused in Hollywood? The same institution your camp so vehemently adores and defends? What's that I hear? Nothing? Though so.

Oh, do you have an original thought in your head or is linking heavily-skewed, SJW-infected opinion pieces your only foundation?

Quote from: S'mon;1055278Nice turn of phrase. Like saying "The victims of Obama and Hitler" - they both did bad things, but different orders of magnitude.

These are the same disingenuous fuckwits who applaud Polanski and cried for days when their Champion of Feminism, HRC...the one who ruined the lives of rape victims...lost the election. The same asshats who get caught fabricating a rape story and then defend with, "It could've been real!", and so on. Hypocrisy thy name is social justice.

Quote from: S'mon;1055278Nice turn of phrase. Like saying "The victims of Obama and Hitler" - they both did bad things, but different orders of magnitude.

If you have a penis you can't say things like that. Only women get to decide what is sexual harassment and that's why you have tweets claiming someone asking for your number is sexual harassment.

Quote from: Motorskills;1055252 The victims of Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein were real....[/QUOTESo was the Duke lacrosse case and the Rolling Stone's debacle.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1055285So was the Duke lacrosse case and the Rolling Stone's debacle.

Ras Algethi, one of the biggest differences? Non-SJWs don't discount actual bigotry and abuse for an agenda. So while your example is valid, to the SJW horde those ruined lives were conscripts who died on the right hill.

Hammurabi's Code:  false accusations carry the same sentence as if the accuser had committed the crime.

Don't think you'd see too many false rape accusations if the accuser had the possibility of years in jail.

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"?

By reading the previous line of the quotation which you posted and which I quoted. It's in regard to not removing what's already in the game because somebody is intolerant.

Quote from: tenbones;1055233As I said - I was being facetious.

Ah, the just kidding defense. Excuse me while I shudder.

QuoteI'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.

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

QuoteAnd 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...)

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).

The fact that I've GMed for more than 40 years means that the GM advice in almost every rulebook for conventional RPG games is not something I need. But I still recognize that people with less experience may need it, without being mentally deficient. And of course a tabletop game depends on a social contract; if it involves people who may never have met (like at conventions, game stores and organized play events), then it's better to make it explicit. The longer quotation starts off talking about that, and clearly Paizo is saying what they think should be in it. Discouraging in advance players like S'mon's who will start calling other players names if they are frustrated is probably not a bad thing.

QuoteAs you pointed out - you don't really know me so I'm not part of the "whole lot".

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

Quote from: jhkim;1055251I 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.

In the context of the line before it in the longer quotation, it's clearly about not censoring out NPCs who are already in the adventure because someone doesn't like what they are.

QuotePersonally, 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.

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

Quote from: rawma;1055299By reading the previous line of the quotation which you posted and which I quoted. It's in regard to not removing what's already in the game because somebody is intolerant.



Ah, the just kidding defense. Excuse me while I shudder.



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



The fact that I've GMed for more than 40 years means that the GM advice in almost every rulebook for conventional RPG games is not something I need. But I still recognize that people with less experience may need it, without being mentally deficient. And of course a tabletop game depends on a social contract; if it involves people who may never have met (like at conventions, game stores and organized play events), then it's better to make it explicit. The longer quotation starts off talking about that, and clearly Paizo is saying what they think should be in it. Discouraging in advance players like S'mon's who will start calling other players names if they are frustrated is probably not a bad thing.



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



In the context of the line before it in the longer quotation, it's clearly about not censoring out NPCs who are already in the adventure because someone doesn't like what they are.



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

Your mindset is the weakest (thankfully, at the moment) version of fascism and everything you're pushing is poison.

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

But it's ALWAYS been for all.

The only reason certain demographics (Women, popular kids) didn't, was because it was stigmatized that only losers played D&D.  Then Big Bang Theory fooled a bunch of normies into thinking that being a Geek is an In thing, but the issue is that now that they are IN the group, they (women, popular 'kids') want the undesirables out of this group they've appropriated, after being invited in.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055303But it's ALWAYS been for all.

The only reason certain demographics (Women, popular kids) didn't, was because it was stigmatized that only losers played D&D.  Then Big Bang Theory fooled a bunch of normies into thinking that being a Geek is an In thing, but the issue is that now that they are IN the group, they (women, popular 'kids') want the undesirables out of this group they've appropriated, after being invited in.

Ding ding, winner!

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

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055303But it's ALWAYS been for all.

The only reason certain demographics (Women, popular kids) didn't, was because it was stigmatized that only losers played D&D.  Then Big Bang Theory fooled a bunch of normies into thinking that being a Geek is an In thing, but the issue is that now that they are IN the group, they (women, popular 'kids') want the undesirables out of this group they've appropriated, after being invited in.

Let's take that for a spin....

In the UK at least, the Fighting Fantasy novels were regularly bestsellers a quarter of a century before The Big Bang Theory

The Harry Potter books came out a decade before the The Big Bang Theory.

TBBT probably helped add some numbers, but the crowd was there long before.


Finally, you can't have it both ways. Either gaming was always for all, or the folks giving you sleepless nights were invited in. Pick one.

In most gaming groups it was for all. In my neck of the woods at least until the mid-90s women would not be caught dead playing in any tabletop rpgs as it was a hobby that came with a huge social stigmata. For geeks, nerds, losers and the less cool and popular members of a social group. It was only when I went to college in the mid-90s that I saw a decent number of women playing rpgs. Even then it was still a smaller number than men. I'm pretty sure before coming out about being gay was a accepted thing. Which some sJWs like to act like it always was. I'm pretty sure we had gay members who kept quiet about being gay as well. My table we never turned away anyone no matter gender, creed or religion. We never failed to boot someone who acted rudely like a jerk. Think being a female member made you immune from being booted out of a group for acting poorly guess again.

I despise the SJW movement in rpgs because the narrative they push is that at every table, convention, or socieity level play. Or worse every single white, straight, male gamer is a racist, rapist, intolerant, privileged male just waiting to ban and talk shit about anyone different from them. Don't get me started on those who seem to be offended by everything and anything when they go to Gencon or something similar. How do they survive daily life. Probably developing a new ulcer everytime they take the subway or bus to work.

Quote from: sureshot;1055316I despise the SJW movement in rpgs because the narrative they push is that at every table, convention, or socieity level play. Or worse every single white, straight, male gamer is a racist, rapist, intolerant, privileged male just waiting to ban and talk shit about anyone different from them. Don't get me started on those who seem to be offended by everything and anything when they go to Gencon or something similar. How do they survive daily life. Probably developing a new ulcer everytime they take the subway or bus to work.

I honestly don't see this in the significant numbers of places that I go. We have eight (ish) games shops within an hour of me, five are within twenty minutes of me. We have multiple conventions (both gaming-focus and gaming-peripheral). Adventurers' League is huge, but my local FB and MeetUp pages are bombarded with people starting new games and looking for games (of all kinds). The Gauntlet started round here and is now pretty much global.

I travel all the time (work), that enables me to go to conventions around the country, I stop by games stores I didn't know about the day before just to poke around and chat, I occasionally meet gamer-strangers for a beer.

All I see is a growing, thriving hobby, with all creeds and colours represented, an age demographic that I am happily astonished by (5e has been awesome for bringing people back after 20+ years away).

Other than on webforums like these...where is this negativity being represented? The FTF hobby has always had plenty of social misfits, it strikes me that that is not the issue out in the wild.  I game with plenty of conservatives, it really isn't politics that is the problem IMO. I suspect it is people that are unable to restrain their intolerance for others, and bring their issues to the table.