TheRPGSite

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5204-Harassment-Policies-New-Allegations-Show-More-Work-To-Be-Done

This is character assassination period. This is NOT journalism. It is a fevered machinations of a clearly emotionally-compromised human being desperate for the false-love of his fevered SJW sycophants.

I officially hereby take back everything nice I've ever said about Christopher Helton. He is using ENWorld as a platform to carry out his arrogant witch-hunt to satisfy his obviously personal shame for who-knows-what.

Don't let Chris Helton fool you. He is not a journalist. He is a demented self-appointed inquisitor.

I have cancelled my support of ENWorld, my EONS subscription and will be seriously considering my support of WOIN.

Regards,

Don't let Chris Helton fool you. He is not a journalist. He is a demented self-appointed inquisitor.


Well that's certainly true.

If he's telling the truth, he does seem to have multiple sources in this case; it seems better supported than the last witch hunt.

I do think conventions need to stop inappropriate behaviour should it occur. I'm not sure the codes make any positive difference though. I've left my son (10) to play games at one convention table while I went to another, most recently in a nearby room - I think before doing that I would go far more by whether I got bad vibes from anyone at the table (never have), than by whether the convention had an anti-molestation code. Especially as worrying about children seems to be an exclusively right-wing preoccupation, so a code created with feminist dialectic in mind may be entirely orthogonal to child safety.

Eh, accusations by multiple women who don't know each other. When it goes from he said, she said to they said, he said, it becomes more credible.

I have attended many conventions over the many years (since 1983). This "oh noes harrassment!" is the SJW's version of the Satanic Panic.  

BTW, I am impressed that several ENworld posters are pushing back on the "allegations", "allegedly" and "accusations".

So as of today, Sean Patrick Fannon's career is demolished, perhaps destroyed if he loses his job over this screed. He should sue ENworld for defamation and libel. ENworld and others pushing this "court of public opinion" nonsense will only learn there lesson when they suffer financially.
 
As for convention safety, cons are as safe as your grocery store. No more, no less.

Also, very soon we're gonna be able to have All Naughty Con with dozens of guests of honor who have been banned from everywhere else!!

Quote from: JeremyR;1036870Eh, accusations by multiple women who don't know each other. When it goes from he said, she said to they said, he said, it becomes more credible.

Absolutely! I don't disagree. But should allegations, even credible ones, instantly turn into punishments? Chris just assassinated SPF's career. He leveraged the ultimate consequences with only a short statement from SPF before he published.

It is plainly obvious that Chris Helton is virtue signaling the emotional crowd for clicks. Sensationalist tabloid fodder meant to incite, not solve any problems. If we stand by and let CH get away with this, he WILL become the ultimate inquisitor with the power to defame anyone.

The accused doxxed his accusers over at TBP. In Tabletop Roleplaying Open.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1036883The accused doxxed his accusers over at TBP. In Tabletop Roleplaying Open.

What sensationalist bullshit. That same post is on the ENWorld forum as a reply to the article. He posted his conversations with Morrus and Helton about this issue. That is not Doxxing bro.

The purple plague post is a shitshow as usual. "I believe you" stated to a dude who believes SPF threatened his life. Watch as the snowflakes dazzle you with their online words while doing NOTHING to actually solve the problem!

Sean has a public reply on his Facebook page. It's set to public view as opposed to Friends Only, so anyone can view it.

Quote from: trechriron;1036895What sensationalist bullshit. That same post is on the ENWorld forum as a reply to the article. He posted his conversations with Morrus and Helton about this issue. That is not Doxxing bro.

  He did identify one of Helton's sources, but not the anonymous accusers themselves. I don't know if that makes a difference.

  But I don't know if any of this makes a difference, what with posts like this one on EN World, that takes the "heckler's veto" to a reductio ad absurdam:

QuoteThat's an interesting corner case. If someone accused you of harrassment, under Option 1) would you have to assume you are yourself guilty?

I would say yes; because harassment is not defined by any particular action but by whether the person aggrieved feels they were harassed.

So to answer "By that logic, I could accuse you, someone I've never previously met or otherwise interacted with, of inappropriate or harassing behavior and you would have to believe me." my answer would be: yes, I believe you, and I apologize unreservedly for my behaviour.

 

Quote from: trechriron;1036895The purple plague post is a shitshow as usual. "I believe you" stated to a dude who believes SPF threatened his life. Watch as the snowflakes dazzle you with their online words while doing NOTHING to actually solve the problem!

  Well, some posts on that thread do seem to take the stand that there is no room for repentance, mercy or forgiveness--the stain can never be washed away.

  Time for all we Oppressors to vacate the hobby; it's the only way it will ever be safe for those who deserve it more.

Quote from: JeremyR;1036870Eh, accusations by multiple women who don't know each other. When it goes from he said, she said to they said, he said, it becomes more credible.

No.  It does not.  It just means that multiple people are making accusations.  Until undeniable proof is shown, than that's all they are: Accusations.

If SPF is such a monster, why didn't one (or more) of his "victims" not write the article herself?

Why does Helton have to white knight for them in the age of equality and MeToo?

Quote from: trechriron;1036877But should allegations, even credible ones, instantly turn into punishments? Chris just assassinated SPF's career. He leveraged the ultimate consequences with only a short statement from SPF before he published.

Helton just made himself and ENworld the prime target of a lawsuit. Now we'll see if SPF has the stones to throw down on them, or whether he just flees in shame.

Quote from: trechriron;1036877It is plainly obvious that Chris Helton is virtue signaling the emotional crowd for clicks. Sensationalist tabloid fodder meant to incite, not solve any problems. If we stand by and let CH get away with this, he WILL become the ultimate inquisitor with the power to defame anyone.

What do you recommend we do?

I don't visit ENworld anymore (not related to this, but ENW's usefulness dropped off for me some time ago).

I never heard of Helton before. I only know SPF from Savage Rifts.

Quote from: Mistwell;1036908Sean has a public reply on his Facebook page.

Link? Or just cut and paste it!

Quote from: trechriron;1036895He posted his conversations with Morrus and Helton about this issue.

Linkage! Or cut and paste.

Quote from: trechriron;1036895Watch as the snowflakes dazzle you with their online words while doing NOTHING to actually solve the problem!

That's working from the assumption that a problem exists to be solved. That's buying into their bullshit.

If SPF did everything Helton claims, SPF still broke no laws, but he would be a social misfit (like many men). Again, that's not a crime.

Here is the post Mistwell speaks of that is also most of the post response on ENWorld. It was also posted on TBP, but those asshats edited out stuff because #StupidFuckingRules

https://www.facebook.com/notes/sean-patrick-fannon/in-response-to-the-en-world-piece-against-me/10156096759290289/

Ok, I read his simpering nonsense on Farcebook.

It's clearly a case of SJWs devouring one of their own. Let him burn.

Somebody get the marshmallows and beer.

Quote from: trechriron;1036970Here is the post Mistwell speaks of that is also most of the post response on ENWorld. It was also posted on TBP, but those asshats edited out stuff because #StupidFuckingRules

https://www.facebook.com/notes/sean-patrick-fannon/in-response-to-the-en-world-piece-against-me/10156096759290289/

I like that TBP has found a way to move beyond "listen and believe" to just "don't even bother trying to defend".  According to the mods "innocent until proven guilty" has been deemed a sexist derailing tactic.

Quote from: rgalex;1037045I like that TBP has found a way to move beyond "listen and believe" to just "don't even bother trying to defend".  According to the mods "innocent until proven guilty" has been deemed a sexist derailing tactic.

Yep. This has seriously become a radical inquisition.

While I think it's too early to burn Sean Patrick Fannon at the stake, it sounds like he's fucked.  That's because he was doing fucked up shit repeatedly.  When more accusers come forward (and I'll bet you $1 that they will), denial time will go into damage control... which will eventually spiral into a godawful dumpster fire.

Yeah, Sean Patrick Fannon has had plenty of shitting things to say about me, Alpha Blue, and other stuff I care deeply about.  I am biased.  And I'm cautiously waiting, an individual amidst the mob, with matches in hand and flask of gasoline at my hip.

VS

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1036918No.  It does not.  It just means that multiple people are making accusations.  Until undeniable proof is shown, than that's all they are: Accusations.

I disagree. All JeremyR said was it becomes "more credible" when you have multiple sources saying the same thing. Not aht its undeniable proof, just more credible.

And he's right. On a scale of a credibility line that runs from "as not credible as possible" to "absolute proof",  multiple people saying the same thing about the same person moves you closer to the "absolute proof" end of that line and further from the "not credible at all" end.

Of course it's "accusations", but you use that word as if it means "just people saying stuff". It's not just "saying stuff", it's specific stuff, all about the same person, which is consistent with a pattern and practice of behavior over time. So it's not "absolute proof" of that behavior, but it's more than just "saying stuff". It's worth investigating to figure out if it's true, don't you agree?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1036924Linkage! Or cut and paste.

Link (https://www.facebook.com/notes/sean-patrick-fannon/in-response-to-the-en-world-piece-against-me/10156096759290289/)

Quote from: Mistwell;1037128I disagree. All JeremyR said was it becomes "more credible" when you have multiple sources saying the same thing. Not aht its undeniable proof, just more credible.

'Credible'?  Did they contact the police?  Was there an investigation done?  Because if not, then no, it's not credible, it's just a bunch of people screaming into the wind, UNTIL proof is released.  I believe in Due Process and Innocent, Until Proven Guilty, the two biggest processes that underpin the United States Justice system.  Maybe in your nation it's not that way, but over here in North America, it's supposed to be.

I'm personally interested in how this would go down if all the involved parties had to resolve this matter in meat space. Given what I've seen, I can't imagine a room with that much ugly in it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037135'Credible'?

Yes. More credible. Did I stutter?

Credible means, "able to be believed; convincing." Yes, when multiple people report the same thing, the accusation becomes MORE able to be believed and more convincing.

You understand the difference between "This is more convincing than before" and "This is proven to be truth", right?

What exactly is your objection to saying something is more credible if multiple witnesses report similar behavior over a period of time?

QuoteDid they contact the police?  Was there an investigation done?

Neither is required to make something "more credible". You appear to be absolutely convinced the words "more credible" mean "proven to be true". The more you continue to make an argument that the words "more credible" mean that, the less credible your position becomes. You understand now what I mean by less credible, right? It doesn't mean you're proven wrong, it means you become less believable over time as you appear to not understand the words you're arguing about :)

QuoteBecause if not, then no, it's not credible, it's just a bunch of people screaming into the wind, UNTIL proof is released.

"Credible" is not a black or white issue. It's not an on/off button. "Proven" is like that. "False" is like that. But "more credible" is a spectrum, not a black and white judgement. A scientist who specializes in cancer medicine is more credible on speaking about cancer treatments than a person who is neither a scientist nor a specialist in cancer medicines. That doesn't make the scientist "proven to be correct" it makes them MORE CREDIBLE on the topic. Are you getting it? Is this thing on?

QuoteI believe in Due Process and Innocent, Until Proven Guilty

So do I. If this comes to trial, I sure hope the jury and judge do as well.  Particularly since I'm an attorney.  However, as this is merely a discussion of opinions by laymen, we can talk about what we find to me more or less convincing as we're not a court of law and not bound by such requirements. We're not the justice system.  And even if we were, this is more a civil matter rather than a criminal one, in which case the entire standard is "51% sure". IE you make judgements about how convincing people are and you do not require "absolute proof" of fault.

So settle down Francis. We can discuss if we think something is more or less credible without a law book or absolute proof.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037135'Credible'?  Did they contact the police?  Was there an investigation done?  Because if not, then no, it's not credible, it's just a bunch of people screaming into the wind, UNTIL proof is released.  I believe in Due Process and Innocent, Until Proven Guilty, the two biggest processes that underpin the United States Justice system.  Maybe in your nation it's not that way, but over here in North America, it's supposed to be.

Sexual harrassment is not a crime in the U.S. yet (thankfully) See also: First amendment. Apparently you can still tell a girl she is hot whether she asked or not but that does appear to be where society is headed as a whole.

As long as he did not touch anyone inappropriately and everyone was of age, he just acted like a Jack Ass. Do the police need to investigate every jack ass in the country?

Your under reaction is almost as bad as the SJW over reaction.

I think a slime ball got caught hitting on chicks (while apparently engaged to another lady, and spreading images of her lady parts by his own slimy admission) by another slime ball "acting" as a journalist in a world where slime balls of all types think they can tell everyone what to say and think.

It's not the crime of the century until they make free speech illegal. Give it a few years then you can call the cops.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;1037108Yeah, Sean Patrick Fannon has had plenty of shitting things to say about me, Alpha Blue, and other stuff I care deeply about.  I am biased.  

Explain. Link. Detail.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;1037108And I'm cautiously waiting, an individual amidst the mob, with matches in hand and flask of gasoline at my hip.

Some wizard you are!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037135I believe in Due Process and Innocent, Until Proven Guilty, the two biggest processes that underpin the United States Justice system

SPF did not break any laws. There isn't any assault here. It's not even harassment by legal definition. The allegations amount to "dude without game may have creeped on some women" and he claims that some of the women sought out his attention. Even if every accusation is true, there is nothing illegal here. Thus, the Mob has nowhere to go for revenge other than the Court of Public Opinion where there is no Due Process and its all destruction of reputation by innuendo and lies.

The only recourse against the Mob would be SPF going on a legal offensive. But his Farcebook post is wimp noise so expect more wimpering.

Quote from: Mistwell;1037137Yes. More credible. Did I stutter?

Credible means, "able to be believed; convincing." Yes, when multiple people report the same thing, the accusation becomes MORE able to be believed and more convincing.

But they weren't reporting the same thing. SPF is being accused of three different things:

• Sharing explicit photos featuring himself and another woman, with the continued suggestion that the woman participate.
• Pressuring a woman for hugs after she said no.
• Leering at a woman's cleavage, making lewd comments, including suggestive sounds.

Unless by "the same thing" you mean something about his character (e.g. "being a sexist jerk") rather than actual acts.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037135'Credible'?  Did they contact the police?  Was there an investigation done?  Because if not, then no, it's not credible, it's just a bunch of people screaming into the wind, UNTIL proof is released.  I believe in Due Process and Innocent, Until Proven Guilty, the two biggest processes that underpin the United States Justice system.  Maybe in your nation it's not that way, but over here in North America, it's supposed to be.

Even in the U.S., there are a ton of things that are never determined in a court of law that nevertheless have an effect on people's careers. Here on this board we've had a bunch of threads with accusations of people mishandling Kickstarter money, for example - without any criminal conviction.

I believe in innocent until proven guilty as far as criminal penalties go. However, there are things that are not criminal behavior that will influence my purchases - like screwing over their employees or Kickstarter backers, for example, delivering shoddy product or late product, etc. I don't care much about an author's politics (within reasonable bounds), but if they are an extraordinary asshole and/or unprofessional, then that can influence me. I think of the private message tirade that Frank Mentzer supposedly gave on Dragonsfoot, for example. (ref) (https://alp-tools.kidaptive.net/jenkins/job/deploy.alp-wj-poeditor/)  I didn't look that much into it, but if I was thinking of purchasing from him, that might have influenced me.

Quote from: Aglondir;1037166But they weren't reporting the same thing. SPF is being accused of three different things:

• Sharing explicit photos featuring himself and another woman, with the continued suggestion that the woman participate.
• Pressuring a woman for hugs after she said no.
• Leering at a woman's cleavage, making lewd comments, including suggestive sounds.

Unless by "the same thing" you mean something about his character (e.g. "being a sexist jerk") rather than actual acts.

I mean (as I said in the part you cut) a pattern and practice of roughly similar behavior towards women at conventions or convention-like events. Which...I think you understood.  The combined reports are more compelling than each report taken in isolation.  They provide a more meaningful context.

I again question why a MAN had to write the hit piece when WOMEN had these concerns.

What happened to our grand age of female empowerment?

Quote from: jhkim;1037171Here on this board we've had a bunch of threads with accusations of people mishandling Kickstarter money, for example - without any criminal conviction.

Financial fraud are generally civil actions, not criminal. The Federal Trade Commission did launch and settle a lawsuit against a KS creator.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/06/crowdfunding-project-creator-settles-ftc-charges-deception

Also, in the case of KS, the accusations are pretty solid. Did you pledge? Did you get what you pledged for? If not, was the creator transparent about where the money went? I smell bullshit in the FanCon KS because $350k allegedly vanished and backers had to learn about the KS failure via their hotel cancellations. Palladium's Robotech KS is not fraud, its just horrible mismanagement and bad communication.

Quote from: jhkim;1037171I believe in innocent until proven guilty as far as criminal penalties go. However, there are things that are not criminal behavior that will influence my purchases

That is understandable. We vote with our wallets and we validate with our purchases. However, there are plenty of Hollywoodites I find abhorrent, but I either separate Creator from Created or I don't go to movies anymore. And yes, I am aware that my dollars support their continued abhorrent behavior.

Let's say SPF is a creepy dude. Does that mean all Pinnacle product or Savage Rifts product deserve boycotting? Must Pinnacle fire SPF for his actions outside of work? And what if SPF is telling the truth that his perving was consensual until he choose to not continue the dalliance?

Also, isn't all this panic over guys trying to hook up rather Victorian and puritanical?

So this is nothing more than a bullying campaign again, because the guy in question is not considered socially acceptable.  And people say High School is over.

Sean Patrick Fannon wrote "#MeToo is important – vital, as far as I am concerned – to our evolution as a species."

I'm pretty sure that is NOT how evolution works Mr. Fannon.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037189Let's say SPF is a creepy dude. Does that mean all Pinnacle product or Savage Rifts product deserve boycotting?

It's already started. The Purple Paladins aren't happy with the "Not good enough" reponse by Pinnacle:

Quote from: Pinnacle COOGiven Sean's many projects for Evil Beagle and the need to respond appropriately to allegations of harassment made on ENWorld, Sean has stepped down as Savage Rifts® Brand Manager. He will continue to edit the rules sections he's been so integral to and the rest of the team is carrying on and consulting with Sean as needed.

Sean has been a personal friend of ours for a long time and we hope for positive and useful progress for all involved.

https://www.pegforum.com/forum/main-forum/9095-savage-rifts%C2%AE-changes-in-duties

Personally I hope to see more industry figures stop being overly familiar with women at conventions and similar venues. If not for self-respect, then hopefully the fear of a potential witch hunt makes them act less like dopey clowns.

Quote from: trechriron;1036850http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5204-Harassment-Policies-New-Allegations-Show-More-Work-To-Be-Done

This is character assassination period. This is NOT journalism. It is a fevered machinations of a clearly emotionally-compromised human being desperate for the false-love of his fevered SJW sycophants.

I officially hereby take back everything nice I've ever said about Christopher Helton. He is using ENWorld as a platform to carry out his arrogant witch-hunt to satisfy his obviously personal shame for who-knows-what.

Don't let Chris Helton fool you. He is not a journalist. He is a demented self-appointed inquisitor.

I have cancelled my support of ENWorld, my EONS subscription and will be seriously considering my support of WOIN.

Meh... Enworld really hasn't been very good as a gaming forum for gamers since Eric Noah left in 2003, and that was a decade and a half ago, fifteen years now. I have caught Morrus on more than one occassion making some screwed up unverifiable statements about the game Industry, called him on it, and been threatened with a banhammer for that... so haven't really posted there myself since about 2013 or so...

Just an interesting side note for you. This character assassination, and that's all it is, because the testimony provided in this case so far is only hearsay, ...not even admissible in a Civil Court case. This particular case continues in a common vein with all of the other character assassinations cases I have witnessed over the last eighteen months. That is, ...a Successful Independent game publisher is accused of wrongdoing in a public forum, and is publicly humiliated. No actual trial occurs, yet the Indy Publisher suffers tremendous damage to his/her reputation in the gaming community with no actual proof of wrongdoing, and their income is also affected. Where are the photographs of the supposed victim with the wrongdoer? We don't see them. There are no recorded conversations, no Independent confirmation, no Independent third party corroboration. Nothing. ...No real evidence at all, of any wrongdoing. Just whispers in the dark. This reminds me of Wormtongue, Theoden's advisor.

They call themselves Social Justice Warriors, and the compare themselves to heroes who fight for the oppressed and downtrodden, but with these cases it is clear that the successful Indy Game Publishers that are the only ones being permanently harmed.  The big game and toy companies are renowned for fighting dirty like this, and have since the Tabletop Games Industries was founded early last century. The SJW show only a fleeting knowledge of the games and people they interact with, and are pretentious, shallow, callow, and openly disrespectful of anything outside of their reality bubble. Sometimes I really wish the Department of Defense had the draft still in place, so these losers could get sucked into serving their country for four years and get stationed in some dunghole that smells like a dunghole, where there are very real sexual predators. Pretty sure they would find that an enlightening  experience.

I'm also 100% certain that there are women in the gaming Industry who have been harassed, or imposed upon. There is a couple of really simple solutions for this, just to start they should really use their iPhone and all that fine portable tech like their tablets and such, to very discreetly record one of these real losers making unwanted advances, and record themselves rejecting such an advance. If it happens once... no big deal. the nerd was probably just trying to get a date. If it happens repeatedly, take his or her A$$ to court, and get a Judgement, then publicise the hell out of that. I would support a lynching for that 100%.

This whispers in the dark character assassination campaign though, ...holds no interest for me, and as you mention reflects very poorly on the organizations that sponsor and support such douchebaggery.

P.S. you socially inept nerd gamers who want a date, shouldn't be looking for a date at a gaming convention, you should be bringing your date to the gaming convention, 'just sayin...

ENworld sent out its weekly update...and guess what "article" was included? One day, these clowns are going to pick a target who bites back.

I suspect they know this and that's why the focus on devouring their own. [which produces LoLz as a side effect]

Gamedaddy, there is no reason for gamers to not hookup at conventions. Just make it consensual and don't be creepy. Same rules for trying to hookup anywhere else. Our local cons have several couples who met through gaming and now have gaming kids. I'm sure plenty of sports fans meet at sports events or sports bars. And sports fandom has plenty of social inept members too, most who invariably figure out how to make the sexytime.

The Family Law courts aren't packed with divorce and custody cases just from the pretty people with social skills!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2453[/ATTACH]

Forget harassment allegations, SPF thinks delving into dungeons is for unheroic losers. That alone should have gotten him tarred and feathered years ago.

I kid, I kid (at least about the tarring and feathering part). From what I've seen over the years, I wouldn't care to know either Helton or Fannon personally. I don't think I've ever agreed with any of the Helton articles I've read, and it was only a few years ago that I saw Fannon asking people on Facebook about their views on certain subjects because he "wanted to cut evil out of his life." As far as they are both concerned, the only thing I can say is that at least Fannon has contributed to the hobby in a worthwhile way far more than Helton has.

I can easily see the allegations being true, but I don't see that there's enough evidence in public view for Fannon to be condemned and his career torched.  I hope that doesn't happen unless there's more to the story that comes to light. So screw any idiots looking to punish PEG for not immediately throwing the guy under the bus in the bloodiest way possible. Other than that, at least we're getting quite the show out of this mess.

I dont' care about harassment anymore. It's none of my business, and...

Quote from: Spinachcat;1036977It's clearly a case of SJWs devouring one of their own.

... an awful lot of this going on.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037240Gamedaddy, there is no reason for gamers to not hookup at conventions. Just make it consensual and don't be creepy.

I agree with GameDaddy. Besides the fact that what is creepy is highly subjective, a fair sample of female attendees to cons subscribe to sex-based hysterics. BYOD all the way.

Fannon has now withdrawn his defense.

Looks like someone flying high on his own success and not picking up on social cues.  

Is there enough evidence for a conviction?  No especially since no crime has suggested.  Being creepy is not against the law.  

Is there enough evidence to punish?  By withdrawing support or not buying his stuff.  I would say not.  

Would I have second thoughts about inviting him to a convention?  Yes.  Multiple accounts of him ruining other peoples fun over a period of time. In his denial we learn that he does have pictures of him having sex on his phone and he does show them to women in the hopes of picking them up.  Not illegal but creepy, even if it works its sleezy.  

I would say he is at high risk to reoffend.  That is be creepy again.

1) If someone has behaved like an asshole at gaming events, then it is generally fair game to talk about it.  That's part of keeping lawncrappers out of events. I think that demanding silence about incidents like these would do more harm than good. Trying to hook up by itself isn't being an asshole, but other actions are - like sending unwanted sex pics.

2) My concern would be that events are reported honestly and responsibly. That includes getting multiple accounts, checking on their background and any discrepancies, and giving the person discussed a chance to respond. Irrelevant information should be left out. Warning flags to me are relying on a single person's account and/or not giving the person a chance to respond.

3) To me, Helton's article appears to be roughly responsible. He contacted Fannon for a response and included it with the article. He got multiple accounts and corroboration. Neither Fannon nor those standing up for him seem to be saying that there were any specific lies told.

4) This doesn't mean that I think that people should boycott Pinnacle or that Fannon should never work in the industry again.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037229This character assassination, and that's all it is, because the testimony provided in this case so far is only hearsay, ...not even admissible in a Civil Court case. This particular case continues in a common vein with all of the other character assassinations cases I have witnessed over the last eighteen months. That is, ...a Successful Independent game publisher is accused of wrongdoing in a public forum, and is publicly humiliated. No actual trial occurs, yet the Indy Publisher suffers tremendous damage to his/her reputation in the gaming community with no actual proof of wrongdoing, and their income is also affected. Where are the photographs of the supposed victim with the wrongdoer? We don't see them. There are no recorded conversations, no Independent confirmation, no Independent third party corroboration. Nothing. ...No real evidence at all, of any wrongdoing.

This is simply wrong. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay, and is admissible in court. A conversation doesn't have to be recorded or photos taken in order for it to be admissible as related by people who were there. The vast majority of both civil and criminal cases hinge on witness testimony.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037229I'm also 100% certain that there are women in the gaming Industry who have been harassed, or imposed upon. There is a couple of really simple solutions for this, just to start they should really use their iPhone and all that fine portable tech like their tablets and such, to very discreetly record one of these real losers making unwanted advances, and record themselves rejecting such an advance. If it happens once... no big deal. the nerd was probably just trying to get a date. If it happens repeatedly, take his or her A$$ to court, and get a Judgement, then publicise the hell out of that. I would support a lynching for that 100%.

So do you think that women should try to constantly secretly videotape themselves in order to attend a convention?  Or do you think that they should specifically target someone that they believe to be a harasser, and go up to them trying to get harassed while secretly videotaping it?

Either way, I have problems with this. Secretly video recording people in general is itself creepy, and the latter is essentially entrapment.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037240Gamedaddy, there is no reason for gamers to not hookup at conventions. Just make it consensual and don't be creepy. Same rules for trying to hookup anywhere else. Our local cons have several couples who met through gaming and now have gaming kids. I'm sure plenty of sports fans meet at sports events or sports bars. And sports fandom has plenty of social inept members too, most who invariably figure out how to make the sexytime.

It is weird how it seems to be only geek conventions that have erupted with hysteria, and where consensual hook-ups are regarded as so unlikely or dangerous that they shouldn't even be attempted.

On a boardgame forum about a year ago there was a discussion on the topic of harassment and flirting at conventions. There seemed to be consensus that a gaming convention was no place to pursue romantic interests (the thread was thick with SJWs). When I suggested flirting and maybe pursuing romantic interests is perfectly natural and healthy behaviour any place there are large numbers of people on vacation and staying away from home, the virtual fainting and pearl-clutching would have put a 1890s church sermon about sex out of wedlock to shame.

You don't see this hysteria around other types of gathering. About music festivals or softball tournaments. What in fuck is it about modern nerd culture that makes so many people people so neurotic and anxious about anything to do with sex? You would think that as nerd culture became more mainstream, nerds would behave more like normal people. But George RR Martin frequently attests to how wild and raunchy the early Hugos conventions in the 70s and 80s were, booze-soaked affairs with hook-ups (many that turned into long-term relationships) galore. So there's something new going on here.

It's like a Venn diagram, and where the Nerd circle overlaps the Millennial circle you get pearl-clutching hysteria.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037151Explain. Link. Detail.

Blogged about it:

https://vengersatanis.blogspot.com/2018/05/sean-patrick-fannon-sexual-harassment.html

VS

Quote from: jhkim;10373123) To me, Helton's article appears to be roughly responsible. He contacted Fannon for a response and included it with the article. He got multiple accounts and corroboration. Neither Fannon nor those standing up for him seem to be saying that there were any specific lies told.

Clarification: Helton did not contact Fannon at all, and attempted to publish the article earlier with no response or even notice to Fannon. Morrus saw the article in editorial review and said wait a second hold on there, have you asked Fannon his side of this or if he has a response? He vetoed the article as it was, and insisted Fannon be contacted and given an opportunity to respond, prior to publication. So given no choice, Helton did that.

Also, Fannon is in fact calling out some of what was said as a total fabrication from a person with a known vendetta against him. Whether that is true or not is left up for everyone to decide for themselves, but he definitely called at least some of it a lie.

You also said,

QuoteThis is simply wrong. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay, and is admissible in court.

Yes, except the sources here are anonymous and are unwilling to be identified, face the accused, or be subject to questioning from the accused. Which would make it not admissible. The right to face your accuser and question them is fundamental to eyewitness testimony and due process, baring extremely unusual circumstances (like the witness is dying or has died, or is a young child).  I mean, we have an entire Constitutional bill of rights amendment just about this right, to make it really super clear how important it is (sixth amendment - confrontation clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause)).

Quote from: jhkim;10373121) If someone has behaved like an asshole at gaming events, then it is generally fair game to talk about it.  That's part of keeping lawncrappers out of events. I think that demanding silence about incidents like these would do more harm than good. Trying to hook up by itself isn't being an asshole, but other actions are - like sending unwanted sex pics.

I agree with you. I don't demand silence. I want exactly the opposite. I want the WOMEN to speak for themselves loud and proud without any white knighting.

I want the women to come forward and say this happened to me, at this place, at this time. AKA, the basics of the #MeToo LoLzfest.

Quote from: Haffrung;1037320You don't see this hysteria around other types of gathering. About music festivals or softball tournaments. What in fuck is it about modern nerd culture that makes so many people people so neurotic and anxious about anything to do with sex?

VERY good question.

Anyone have an idea?

Quote from: Haffrung;1037320But George RR Martin frequently attests to how wild and raunchy the early Hugos conventions in the 70s and 80s were, booze-soaked affairs with hook-ups (many that turned into long-term relationships) galore. So there's something new going on here.

I can heartily confirm that ComicCon, Gallifrey and other California GeekCons have their share of extremely raucous after parties.

I've attended many and left a few before the bow-chicka-wow factor was obviously kicking into high gear.

So yes, geeks can drink, suck and fuck galore...all three in semi-public places. But something seems to go screwy with modern gamers?

BTW, LARPers hook up big time. In the 90s, I knew guys into Vampire mostly for the post-LARP parties.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037334VERY good question.

Anyone have an idea?

Shot from the hip. Nerds get bullied. Bullies are attracted to nerds as soft targets.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1037339Shot from the hip. Nerds get bullied. Bullies are attracted to nerds as soft targets.

Bingo.  It's really that simple.

Quote from: Mistwell;1037332Clarification: Helton did not contact Fannon at all, and attempted to publish the article earlier with no response or even notice to Fannon. Morrus saw the article in editorial review and said wait a second hold on there, have you asked Fannon his side of this or if he has a response? He vetoed the article as it was, and insisted Fannon be contacted and given an opportunity to respond, prior to publication. So given no choice, Helton did that.

Also, Fannon is in fact calling out some of what was said as a total fabrication from a person with a known vendetta against him. Whether that is true or not is left up for everyone to decide for themselves, but he definitely called at least some of it a lie.

If so, then good on Morrus. I was commenting on the content of the article as I read it. That's a vital part of this.

Which parts has Fannon said are total fabrications?  I saw several comments of his that there were misunderstandings, but I didn't see anything that called out any such.

Quote from: Mistwell;1037332Yes, except the sources here are anonymous and are unwilling to be identified, face the accused, or be subject to questioning from the accused. Which would make it not admissible. The right to face your accuser and question them is fundamental to eyewitness testimony and due process, baring extremely unusual circumstances (like the witness is dying or has died, or is a young child).  I mean, we have an entire Constitutional bill of rights amendment just about this right, to make it really super clear how important it is (sixth amendment - confrontation clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause)).

I would agree that anonymous sources are generally less credible than named ones (and the article did have one named witness). However, I don't think that news reporting should give up on all anonymous sources. There is plenty of good reporting from anonymous sources, and lots of reasons why people might not want to make their names public for a news article. Besides, gamedaddy didn't ask about the names of the anonymous sources - but rather suggested that only photographs or recordings would constitute evidence.

Quote from: Haffrung;1037320You don't see this hysteria around other types of gathering. About music festivals or softball tournaments. What in fuck is it about modern nerd culture that makes so many people people so neurotic and anxious about anything to do with sex? You would think that as nerd culture became more mainstream, nerds would behave more like normal people. But George RR Martin frequently attests to how wild and raunchy the early Hugos conventions in the 70s and 80s were, booze-soaked affairs with hook-ups (many that turned into long-term relationships) galore. So there's something new going on here.

From my point of view, #MeToo has had an effect far more broadly than just nerd gatherings. After Weinstein, movie productions and meetings have had a lot more scrutiny, and after Nassar, girls gymnastics and other sports venues have had a lot of scrutiny. After Bailey Davis, the biased fraternization rules of the Saintsations and other cheerleaders have been the subject of controversy. I would say NFL players and cheerleaders are pretty far removed from nerd culture.

Quote from: Haffrung;1037320You don't see this hysteria around other types of gathering. About music festivals or softball tournaments. What in fuck is it about modern nerd culture that makes so many people people so neurotic and anxious about anything to do with sex? You would think that as nerd culture became more mainstream, nerds would behave more like normal people. But George RR Martin frequently attests to how wild and raunchy the early Hugos conventions in the 70s and 80s were, booze-soaked affairs with hook-ups (many that turned into long-term relationships) galore. So there's something new going on here.

Look at photos of those 70s hugo parties; look particularly at the men.  Look at photos of current year geek con du jour; look particularly at the men.  Could you switch them and (apart from fashion) not tell the difference?  Do the same for your local softball tournament or music festival compared against the geek con du jour.

Think about what feeds a short-term attraction loop, as confirmed by much scientific research, and then think about geek culture.  What part of geek culture optimizes the traits that drives short-term attraction?  (physical appearance, easy confidence, outcome independence, evident existing acceptance/high status in the local social order, etc.)

I don't find much about the current situation surprising.  The majority of women don't want to be touched by the majority of gamer men, who've in turn convinced themselves that - for the first time in human history - the key to a man's sexual success isn't relentless personal improvement, but instead cheering on from their place against the auditorium wall, patiently waiting to be chosen to dance.

Well I better get my copy of Nova Praxis before Void Star Studios is pressured to pull Sean's letter from the book (or the whole book from POD).

Also, I hope Drivethrurpg.com doesn't pull POD support for things like Shaintar.

Quote from: jhkim;1037346If so, then good on Morrus. I was commenting on the content of the article as I read it. That's a vital part of this.

Which parts has Fannon said are total fabrications?  I saw several comments of his that there were misunderstandings, but I didn't see anything that called out any such.

I am getting the sense you only read the article and never read Sean's response to it. He erased his response since then, but a copy with names redacted is here (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?827813-Infraction-for-Sean-Patrick-Fannon-5)-Seven-Day-Ban).  For instance, you seem to have missed him saying this:

QuoteThe actual witness Helton is using for this allegation - (MOD EDIT: Accuser name redacted) - is someone who has a position of top leadership within the Royal Manticoran Navy. She actively sought a romantic relationship with me; while this was something I was initially amenable to, I later determined significant reasons to not pursue it (including a mercurial and vengeful personality whenever someone ever took a position against her). I was a guest, at her invitation, to Manticon, where I believe she is attempting to set this fiction.

And fiction it is. Not one single word of this piece is based in anything to do with fact, outside of (a) my attending the con as a guest and (b) assisting the convention (despite protests that I should not, being a guest) with moving things into and out of a truck. The comments and actions attributed to me simply did not happen; I categorically and absolutely deny them in their entirety. This is not a way I have ever acted with anyone I did not have an active and intimate connection to, and not in any public venue such as this.

Pretty sure that's a very firm claim of fabrication for that particular incident.

QuoteI would agree that anonymous sources are generally less credible than named ones (and the article did have one named witness). However, I don't think that news reporting should give up on all anonymous sources. There is plenty of good reporting from anonymous sources, and lots of reasons why people might not want to make their names public for a news article. Besides, gamedaddy didn't ask about the names of the anonymous sources - but rather suggested that only photographs or recordings would constitute evidence.

Wow....moving target much? You said, "This is simply wrong. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay, and is admissible in court." I quoted you back, so there was no room for confusion.

We were talking about if anonymous eyewitness testimony was hearsay in a court of law. I pointed out it was. Now you're replying, "but yeah, journalists in articles!" Yes, imagine that, if you completely change the topic to something entirely different your argument works? Come on man, you were "simply wrong," to use your own words. If you meant "Journalists" rather than "hearsay evidence" then you might have considered saying that completely other thing instead rather telling someone they were wrong when they were right? He was 100% correct, anonymous eyewitness testimony as reported by someone else is the very definition of hearsay. That's the correct word to use to describe them - it's practically word for word the definition of the word hearsay, which is "the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law."

I am not taking sides here. I think Sean made some bad choices, and I also question some of the accusations. But, I do think everyone should challenge their assumptions, both in defense of Sean and in condemnation of him.

Quote from: jhkim;1037346Which parts has Fannon said are total fabrications?  I saw several comments of his that there were misunderstandings, but I didn't see anything that called out any such.

I believe Fannon said the first two incidents (involving the hug and picture) were misunderstandings on his part and he explained his side of those stories. He said that the later incident, where it was claimed he was leering at a woman's breasts and making crude noises/remarks, is a total lie from someone with an axe to grind over the fact he quit their organization last year. Whether or not he's changed his tune since putting out that original defense, I have no idea.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1037350Well I better get my copy of Nova Praxis before Void Star Studios is pressured to pull Sean's letter from the book (or the whole book from POD).

Also, I hope Drivethrurpg.com doesn't pull POD support for things like Shaintar.

I doubt that will happen, but if it does the Fate version will still be available, for what it's worth. Fannon only worked on the SW conversion of the game. I just wish we'd gotten more Nova Praxis material, period. It's a really solid setting and VSS puts out the best PDFs I've ever seen.

Quote from: jhkim;1037347From my point of view, #MeToo has had an effect far more broadly than just nerd gatherings.

It's definitely destroying humanity with it's witch hunting.

Quote from: jhkim;1037347After Weinstein, movie productions and meetings have had a lot more scrutiny,

No they're not, actually.  Selected celebrities are, but the actual infrastructure is not looked at.  Because, let's continue pick on Weinstein:  So he's admitted to doing it to three women.  Fine. But this was not a one man crime, especially given how many knew of it.  What about the lawyers that work for him that 'made' these women sign an NDA?  According to American Law, they're complicit in the crime.  As is anyone who knew of what he did.  And what about the women who went through with it, got bribed and said nothing, setting up the next actress to take the fall?  What about them.  Aren't they complicit because of their silence?  American Law says yes.

Which brings up an issue with all this.  And this horribly off topic and I apologize, but...  At what point did it become mandatory to allow every pretty girl who decides that she wants to be a star, automatically become one?  The problem with #MeToo is the same problem that Feminism has always brought to the table:  It's the base assumption that all men are monsters.  Every single one of us born males are women beaters and rapists, and that we're to be watched and roundly punished for the slightest infraction that some other man does as ALL men are beasts that will destroy the universe if we're left unchecked.  And that women are all blameless victims with no control of their actions.  And quite frankly, women whoring themselves out for a reward has been happening for much longer than anyone wants to admit, some are just more honest about it than most.

If a woman doesn't like a man's attentions, she has every right to say no.  And have been for as long as humanity has been around.  In fact, women have had the power over relationships for as long.  And you know, most guys will be upset and move on, probably wallow in self-pity for a few weeks, but that's life in general, but very few, like vanishingly so, will physically assault a woman after a rejection.

'Being a creeper' is not a crime, despite the Left wanting to make it into one.  And if it does become one, then everyone here, every single male gamer here is a potential criminal, because there will always be that one girl who you're being nice to, because she's cute and interesting (even if you're married and not looking), except that you're not actually flirting, but she thinks you are, and finds you terribly unattractive.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;1037330Blogged about it:

https://vengersatanis.blogspot.com/2018/05/sean-patrick-fannon-sexual-harassment.html

Thank you Venger! Doesn't surprise me that a SJW creeper would rag on Alpha Blue. But oh, the sweet irony.

But I noticed you railed against people seeking jury trials and guilty verdicts. While I understand your sentiment, please understand that those of us demanding DUE PROCESS aren't doing it to protect abusers. Absolutely and utterly not. Due Process protects everyone and if the day ever comes when someone comes for you, you will want due process for yourself.

And you'd need it. Satanic cult leaders who write space porno definitely should be on the due process side. And I say this as someone who supports your rights to free speech, religious choice and free expression. But hot damn VS, you would need all the due process the law allows if the mob came for you.

The court of public opinion has always been a very bad idea. In the age of social media, it's anathema to our society.

Quote from: jhkim;1037346I would agree that anonymous sources are generally less credible than named ones (and the article did have one named witness). However, I don't think that news reporting should give up on all anonymous sources. There is plenty of good reporting from anonymous sources, and lots of reasons why people might not want to make their names public for a news article.

I highly disagree. Anonymous sources are tools to push agenda. We've seen that time after time from both Team Red and Team Blue.

Instead, we need stronger whistleblower protections and we need less anonymous sniping from the shadows.

Quote from: EOTB;1037349Look at photos of those 70s hugo parties;

Links?

Quote from: Brand55;1037355I doubt that will happen, but if it does the Fate version will still be available, for what it's worth. Fannon only worked on the SW conversion of the game. I just wish we'd gotten more Nova Praxis material, period. It's a really solid setting and VSS puts out the best PDFs I've ever seen.

When I figure out how to play Fate, that might be comfort.

But yeah I could use more Nova Praxis. Sadly it looks like the studio is focusing on Strands of Fate 2e rather than more Nova Praxis content.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1037370When I figure out how to play Fate, that might be comfort.

But yeah I could use more Nova Praxis. Sadly it looks like the studio is focusing on Strands of Fate 2e rather than more Nova Praxis content.

The Strands of Fate engine behind NP is a lot easier to work with than stuff like Fate Core, but I feel your pain. Aspects are a bitch and I still don't really like 'em.

That's the problem with tiny, usually one-man shows like VSS. They just can't put out enough books for us greedy gamers to stay satisfied.

Quote from: EOTB;1037349Look at photos of those 70s hugo parties; look particularly at the men.  Look at photos of current year geek con du jour; look particularly at the men.  Could you switch them and (apart from fashion) not tell the difference?  Do the same for your local softball tournament or music festival compared against the geek con du jour.

Think about what feeds a short-term attraction loop, as confirmed by much scientific research, and then think about geek culture.  What part of geek culture optimizes the traits that drives short-term attraction?  (physical appearance, easy confidence, outcome independence, evident existing acceptance/high status in the local social order, etc.)

Can we have the answers now? I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Quote from: Mistwell;1037351I am getting the sense you only read the article and never read Sean's response to it. He erased his response since then, but a copy with names redacted is here (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?827813-Infraction-for-Sean-Patrick-Fannon-5)-Seven-Day-Ban).

I read Sean's response on Facebook that was linked earlier, but by the time I read it, he had already erased the previous version. Thanks for the link. That is very different than what he posted later. I agree that he was calling specific parts fabrications.

Quote from: Mistwell;1037351Wow....moving target much? You said, "This is simply wrong. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay, and is admissible in court." I quoted you back, so there was no room for confusion.

We were talking about if anonymous eyewitness testimony was hearsay in a court of law. I pointed out it was. Now you're replying, "but yeah, journalists in articles!" Yes, imagine that, if you completely change the topic to something entirely different your argument works? Come on man, you were "simply wrong," to use your own words. If you meant "Journalists" rather than "hearsay evidence" then you might have considered saying that completely other thing instead rather telling someone they were wrong when they were right? He was 100% correct, anonymous eyewitness testimony as reported by someone else is the very definition of hearsay. That's the correct word to use to describe them - it's practically word for word the definition of the word hearsay, which is "the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law."

Any news article itself is hearsay - regardless of whether the sources are named or anonymous. No court would have a news article itself read in court as evidence of what was reported on. That's not a criticism of the journalism or a complaint that the journalist is doing something wrong by taking in bad data - it's inherent in journalism.

If a journalist talks to a witness, records what they say, and then writes the article - then the journalist's article is hearsay. That is true regardless of whether the witness wants their name published or not. But the source itself is admissible evidence.

The point of gamedaddy's complaint was that only photographs or recording of the interaction would constitute real evidence, which I pushed back against. Eyewitness testimony is valid evidence in court, and if the journalist is writing based on eyewitness testimony, then they are writing based on evidence that could be admissible.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037364Links?

I don't have any links.  At some point in the past few years - somewhere gaming related: blog, forum or wherever I don't remember - the subject of the hugo parties came up as an early example of cosplay, with pictures.  The participants looked to be in shape and generally "good looking", with costumes that showed it all off.  A lot of Star Trek and similar stuff, IIRC.    

But I have no idea where that conversation was, and google isn't easily turning up anything.  It did turn up photos of a couple of other 60s cons here: http://belatednerd.com/tag/worldcon/

These aren't those I was thinking of, but you see similar things: men who are fit and trim, wearing suits, and who look like they could move from an event at a con to a boardroom without stopping off at their room.

QuoteCan we have the answers now? I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Then be stumped.

Quote from: Haffrung;1037320It is weird how it seems to be only geek conventions that have erupted with hysteria, and where consensual hook-ups are regarded as so unlikely or dangerous that they shouldn't even be attempted.

On a boardgame forum about a year ago there was a discussion on the topic of harassment and flirting at conventions. There seemed to be consensus that a gaming convention was no place to pursue romantic interests (the thread was thick with SJWs). When I suggested flirting and maybe pursuing romantic interests is perfectly natural and healthy behaviour any place there are large numbers of people on vacation and staying away from home, the virtual fainting and pearl-clutching would have put a 1890s church sermon about sex out of wedlock to shame.

You don't see this hysteria around other types of gathering. About music festivals or softball tournaments. What in fuck is it about modern nerd culture that makes so many people people so neurotic and anxious about anything to do with sex? You would think that as nerd culture became more mainstream, nerds would behave more like normal people. But George RR Martin frequently attests to how wild and raunchy the early Hugos conventions in the 70s and 80s were, booze-soaked affairs with hook-ups (many that turned into long-term relationships) galore. So there's something new going on here.

It's like a Venn diagram, and where the Nerd circle overlaps the Millennial circle you get pearl-clutching hysteria.

I've wondered the same thing. Gamers seem to really freak about sex and it seemed to increase since I started in the 80s. Materials, interaction, games could pretty raunchy. Later as online play took off only more so but its like that trend has swung a hard 180. Gamers sometimes appear almost prudish about the subject, even online though, IME, still less so thatn F2F play. You see some sex oriented games but they're often presented as parodies or are really sub niches and often heckled (Black Tokyo, Foreplay, etc). F.A.T.A.L did allot of damage to the very notion of handling sex with the same or similar detail and attention as violence and other activities. But that  doesn't adequately explain the attitude shift in real life.

Look at rpg.net, for example. It went from hosting an annual NC-17 content contest for Exalted with the prize being an X-rated (if desired) illustration from Melissa Uran who was openly praised for her talent for erotic art.  Now pictures of a woman in a slit gown that wouldn't cause a stir on a children cartoon draw cries of outrage.

Its not just there, the reaction to some of the nude illustrations proposed for Zweihander felt a it morally outraged though with some preference and aesthetic driven critiques as well. I wonder how they would have been met among a wider audience; didn't run across other threads about them elsewhere but I didn't really look either.

Sex, with politics and religion, are the big three topics that can suck the rationality and objectivity out of  a conversation though so perhaps as geeks become more mainstream its no surprise their outlook would shift in that direction. In fact, mainstream society appears to be getting more prudish and prickly about sexual matters though in some ways but not in the other where it may even be moving in the other direction.

As Haffrung mentioned, the shift involves the vilification of activities that seem normal like people hooking up at gathering. Yet some of the same crowd that advocate that kind of restraint and standoffishness in social situations because some will act like assholes (not just men either) are some of the same that mock men that try to avoid being alone with opposite sex professionally, particularly when the hold power over and the situation could be misconstrued or even lead to deliberate false allegations, decrying that as sexist and unfairly restrictive to women.

Quote from: Mistwell;1037332Clarification: Helton did not contact Fannon at all, and attempted to publish the article earlier with no response or even notice to Fannon. Morrus saw the article in editorial review and said wait a second hold on there, have you asked Fannon his side of this or if he has a response? He vetoed the article as it was, and insisted Fannon be contacted and given an opportunity to respond, prior to publication. So given no choice, Helton did that.

I haven't seen anything about this anywhere. My understanding from following this story in a couple of different places was that Helton did indeed reach out to Fannon on his own, and was not 'told' to do so. Where did you hear this?

Quote from: CarlD.;1037378Its not just there, the reaction to some of the nude illustrations proposed for Zweihander felt a it morally outraged though with some preference and aesthetic driven critiques as well. I wonder how they would have been met among a wider audience; didn't run across other threads about them elsewhere but I didn't really look either.

Not really comparable. Zweihander was shamelessly pimping his product by trying to pander both to edginess and SJ sensibilities, got both wrong, and ignored all constructive input to claim victimhood.

Agree on the general rise in prudishness, tho. Just not that specific case.

SPF, in his original response, shared all the correspondence. There were at least 2 drafts of the article completed before CH was pushed to reach out by M. SPF has since deleted that post and replaced it with a more succinct apology.

Quote from: jhkim;10373122) My concern would be that events are reported honestly and responsibly. That includes getting multiple accounts, checking on their background and any discrepancies, and giving the person discussed a chance to respond. Irrelevant information should be left out. Warning flags to me are relying on a single person's account and/or not giving the person a chance to respond.

This is simply wrong. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay, and is admissible in court. A conversation doesn't have to be recorded or photos taken in order for it to be admissible as related by people who were there. The vast majority of both civil and criminal cases hinge on witness testimony.

So do you think that women should try to constantly secretly videotape themselves in order to attend a convention?  Or do you think that they should specifically target someone that they believe to be a harasser, and go up to them trying to get harassed while secretly videotaping it?

Either way, I have problems with this. Secretly video recording people in general is itself creepy, and the latter is essentially entrapment.

Eyewitness testimony from only the presumed victim is highly suspect without some additional corroboration. Are you trying to tell me there are no women left on the planet that would not, in desperation, destroy the reputation of a man, if they could not get what they wanted from him. If you believe that, I really need you to go to court and look at cases that have already concluded, so you will know the truth.

I also have some reservations about secretly videotaping any events, however, if harrassment or misconduct of a sexual or intimidating manner is really occurring, especially on a continuous or ongoing basis, then I would tend to overlook the circumstances and would prefer to know the truth of what is really going on, and an actual video or audio recording of the suspect intimidating, threatening, or violating someone elses privacy can go a long way to determining the truth of a matter.

Quote from: jhkim;1037376The point of gamedaddy's complaint was that only photographs or recording of the interaction would constitute real evidence, which I pushed back against. Eyewitness testimony is valid evidence in court, and if the journalist is writing based on eyewitness testimony, then they are writing based on evidence that could be admissible.

In a single instance, then yes, hard evidence would constitute real evidence. and if there are multiple eyewitnesses, and they come forward coroborating or affirming the victims story, that is another matter. What I'm speaking of, is he said, she said, one one journalist who just happend to be "her" friend writing a defamatory article. Yes it is defamatory if a person is falsely publicly humiliated, if they lose income, and other business opportunities due to allegations without any foundation.

Quote from: CarlD.;1037378I've wondered the same thing. Gamers seem to really freak about sex and it seemed to increase since I started in the 80s. Materials, interaction, games could pretty raunchy. Later as online play took off only more so but its like that trend has swung a hard 180. Gamers sometimes appear almost prudish about the subject, even online though, IME, still less so thatn F2F play. You see some sex oriented games but they're often presented as parodies or are really sub niches and often heckled (Black Tokyo, Foreplay, etc). F.A.T.A.L did allot of damage to the very notion of handling sex with the same or similar detail and attention as violence and other activities. But that  doesn't adequately explain the attitude shift in real life.

I have said this before, and I'll say it again, Tabletop gaming shouldn't be about sex, it should be about gaming. All the folks that are getting that confused have some problems or hangups about sex, and are unable to properly channel their sexual energy. They insist on bringing it to the gaming table with them. Some people, ...myself included, find that raw unchanneled energy in a gaming environment offensive.  

I confess to having a bit of trouble also with the notion that one should go to a gaming convention to "hookup" or meet your soulmate, ...or whatever. I always thought that a couple that had met their soulmates would just know it, and in that case, wouldn't matter in any event, and later on surely wouldn't be making allegations, or ruining reputations, or claiming sexual misconduct. This casual sex thing exclusively at gaming venues is a stupid idea that is bound to create all kinds of interesting problems especially with a group that is interested in lust, and power, and one-upsmanship, ...instead of real love. Which actually hasn't been discussed at all that much here, until now.

For those of you calling it prude... It's not about prudishness, it's about love, ...instead of lust ...or rutting. Can you dig that?

Quote from: VengerSatanis;1037108While I think it's too early to burn Sean Patrick Fannon at the stake, it sounds like he's fucked.  That's because he was doing fucked up shit repeatedly.  When more accusers come forward (and I'll bet you $1 that they will), denial time will go into damage control... which will eventually spiral into a godawful dumpster fire.

Yeah, Sean Patrick Fannon has had plenty of shitting things to say about me, Alpha Blue, and other stuff I care deeply about.  I am biased.  And I'm cautiously waiting, an individual amidst the mob, with matches in hand and flask of gasoline at my hip.

VS

This is the hilarious thing really. One of the SJWs now being reviled by the other SJWs.

As for the claims something happened. Claims are just that. Anyone can say anything. Without proof it has to fall under suspicion too. Especially in the midst of this MeToo movement. But instead the SJWs have cultivated this mindset of "Guilty until proven Guilty.".

This is how these groups tend to go too. Ive seen artists backing the usual "prude patrol" and then backing the extremists of that group and then themselves coming under fire and looking bewildered that their buddies attacked them.

Quote from: jhkim;1037171Even in the U.S., there are a ton of things that are never determined in a court of law that nevertheless have an effect on people's careers. Here on this board we've had a bunch of threads with accusations of people mishandling Kickstarter money, for example - without any criminal conviction.

Actually weve had one go to court and the scammer now has his finances under some sort of penalty till the amount he stole is payed off. And in at least two others it has gone to court but no word yet of action. Theres others. Its alot more common with board games KS scams. But yes some are going to court.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1036883The accused doxxed his accusers over at TBP. In Tabletop Roleplaying Open.

He revealed their addresses or other private information?  Or do you mean he simply named some of the people making anonymous accusations, and you want to borrow a word that means something else?

Overall I have no dog in this fight though.  Men are going to make romantic overtures to women, and by the nature of the thing, they can't know for certain if those advances are wanted until they try them.  Sometimes those advances may seem crude, creepy or nerdy to an outside observer - but I know from observation that somewhere there's someone they would work on.  The trick is to be able to take no for an answer - which Fallon is indeed accused of not doing in two instances.  This is the only part of the accusations that bother me; it's also the part that's anonymous and undocumented, so who knows.

I do know Fallon's screwed, not because I'm following this closely, but from the moment I saw his Facebook post on Google+.  Never apologize; it doesn't save you or stop the controversy, it just moves it to the show trial, parade and execution stage.

Quote from: S'mon;1037372Can we have the answers now? I don't know what point you're trying to make.

He's not making a point. He's trying to deflect to inter-generational shit because reality is more nuanced than his dichotomous bullshit.

Quote from: jhkim;1037347From my point of view, #MeToo has had an effect far more broadly than just nerd gatherings. After Weinstein, movie productions and meetings have had a lot more scrutiny, and after Nassar, girls gymnastics and other sports venues have had a lot of scrutiny. After Bailey Davis, the biased fraternization rules of the Saintsations and other cheerleaders have been the subject of controversy. I would say NFL players and cheerleaders are pretty far removed from nerd culture.

The anxiety around flirting and romantic overtures at gaming cons predates #MeToo by several years.

Quote from: CarlD.;1037378Its not just there, the reaction to some of the nude illustrations proposed for Zweihander felt a it morally outraged though with some preference and aesthetic driven critiques as well. I wonder how they would have been met among a wider audience; didn't run across other threads about them elsewhere but I didn't really look either.

Sex, with politics and religion, are the big three topics that can suck the rationality and objectivity out of  a conversation though so perhaps as geeks become more mainstream its no surprise their outlook would shift in that direction. In fact, mainstream society appears to be getting more prudish and prickly about sexual matters though in some ways but not in the other where it may even be moving in the other direction.

When I see someone expressing disapproval of the pose or clothing of a character in a boardgame or RPG illustration, I know they're either: A) a SJW, or B) a religious conservative. It's one of many contexts where it's impossible to discern a difference between the two. I think SJWs share a lot of the psychological traits with religious conservatives, and if born in another time and place would be standing at the front pews conspicuously singing hymns and casting a dark eye on the hussy at the back of the church who is known to drink gin and consort with men.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037421I have said this before, and I'll say it again, Tabletop gaming shouldn't be about sex, it should be about gaming. All the folks that are getting that confused have some problems or hangups about sex, and are unable to properly channel their sexual energy. They insist on bringing it to the gaming table with them. Some people, ...myself included, find that raw unchanneled energy in a gaming environment offensive.  

I confess to having a bit of trouble also with the notion that one should go to a gaming convention to "hookup" or meet your soulmate, ...or whatever. I always thought that a couple that had met their soulmates would just know it, and in that case, wouldn't matter in any event, and later on surely wouldn't be making allegations, or ruining reputations, or claiming sexual misconduct. This casual sex thing exclusively at gaming venues is a stupid idea that is bound to create all kinds of interesting problems especially with a group that is interested in lust, and power, and one-upsmanship, ...instead of real love. Which actually hasn't been discussed at all that much here, until now.

For those of you calling it prude... It's not about prudishness, it's about love, ...instead of lust ...or rutting. Can you dig that?

Of course tabletop gaming doesn't need to be about sex or hooking up. But in virtually every social environment where you have a lot of people under the age of 60, and especially if they are away from home and taking a vacation, some of those people are going to be open to romantic possibilities. Doesn't mean they're set on getting laid - they're just open to the possibility. It has nothing to do with gaming, and everything to do with normal human socialization. They go through thousands of condoms in the athlete's village every Olympics.

So what do you think are the correct social environments for people to pursue romantic interests? And why do you think you should be able to restrict where and when other willing and adults flirt with one another?

As someone who is functionally a normal adult, who is comfortable at places like music festivals and sports tournaments and bars, and has happily engaged in carnal interludes on short acquaintance, I guess I sometimes forget how many gamers are anxious about sex, and find all that stuff icky and worrisome. Which is fine for them. I just don't understand why they feel they should be able to dictate the behavior of others. Again, nobody at a group skiing trip or a music festival would feel they have a right to prohibit other attendees from flirting and hooking up. Why are gaming and gamers different?

For the record, I met my wife at a drunken debauch on Robbie Burns Night, and we've been happily married now for 19 years, raising two wonderful kids.

Quote from: Haffrung;1037446So what do you think are the correct social environments for people to pursue romantic interests? And why do you think you should be able to restrict where and when other willing and adults flirt with one another?

As someone who is functionally a normal adult, who is comfortable at places like music festivals and sports tournaments and bars, and has happily engaged in carnal interludes on short acquaintance, I guess I sometimes forget how many gamers are anxious about sex, and find all that stuff icky and worrisome. Which is fine for them. I just don't see where they feel they should be able to dictate the behavior of others. Again, nobody at a group skiing trip or a music festival would feel they have a right to prohibit other attendees from flirting and hooking up. Why are gaming and gamers different?

For the record, I met my wife at a drunken debauch on Robbie Burns Night, and we've been happily married now for 19 years, raising two wonderful kids.

I can see now why you are having troubles with comprehending this. It's in the cultural context.  With Gaming and gamers there is no difference, at least not in Europe. The problems we are describing and trying to grapple with are uniquely American. When you are talking about American Gamers though, there is a whole different series of events occurring. I'm sure the Robbie Burns party was great. You got drunk, you got laid, you talked into the early hours of the morning, and then decided to meet again... all good and very romantic. If that was all that happened here at gaming conventions, I'd be all good with that.

The problem is, ...here in the United States, that happens extremely rarely. There is a disparity in the relationships between men and women here. The best and most telling statistic, is that from a medical standpoint, the current age group that is most depressed, and least likely to maintain social relationships is the 18-22 age group. In addition, that is also the group that feels most alone, or lonely. In addition there is an suicide epidemic occurring amongst younger single males here in the United States. Youngsters aged 18-35 are four times more likely to attempt to commit suicide, than my generation was. There are some deep and persistent underlying social problems that is creating this crisis, and it has not been getting alot of attention in the media, I'm pretty sure there's a link connecting all the mass shootings and ultraviolence, including domestic unrest here as well, however haven't personally been able to ID a single cause or source of this angst, just yet. It is very similar to the dark times that occurred in Germany from the mid 1920's right up until the nazi takeover in 1933. It is very much the same kind of social unrest that was occurring with young people in Germany back then, happening here now.

I'll be honest, I have no dog in the whole prohibiting other people from flirting and hooking up. If that is what they are really doing. If they are just going to break up later though, and fling poo at each other, why the hell do I have to suffer through all that drama at my gaming table?

So it's not really a desire to control or prohibit others from flirting and having fun, its more of a desire to be able to continue to enjoy my games without all the retarded bullshjt like this occurring, because people here in the States don't know how to maintain healthy relationships, ...you dig? You grokking this now?

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037451I'll be honest, I have no dog in the whole prohibiting other people from flirting and hooking up. If that is what they are really doing. If they are just going to break up later though, and fling poo at each other, why the hell do I have to suffer through all that drama at my gaming table?

So it's not really a desire to control or prohibit others from flirting and having fun, its more of a desire to be able to continue to enjoy my games without all the retarded bullshjt like this occurring, because people here in the States don't know how to maintain healthy relationships, ...you dig? You grokking this now?

I'm Canadian, and the gamers - the ones I see at the local boardgaming con anyway - seem fairly normal. So I'll have to take your word for it that American gamers are rife with pathologies. And I can see how, if they can't handle flirtation and romantic overtures, it would be a headache for other attendees to deal with the fallout. It all seems so sad that grown adults haven't yet learned basic socialization.

Quote from: EOTB;1037377I don't have any links.  At some point in the past few years - somewhere gaming related: blog, forum or wherever I don't remember - the subject of the hugo parties came up as an early example of cosplay, with pictures.  The participants looked to be in shape and generally "good looking", with costumes that showed it all off.  A lot of Star Trek and similar stuff, IIRC.    

But I have no idea where that conversation was, and google isn't easily turning up anything.  It did turn up photos of a couple of other 60s cons here: http://belatednerd.com/tag/worldcon/

These aren't those I was thinking of, but you see similar things: men who are fit and trim, wearing suits, and who look like they could move from an event at a con to a boardroom without stopping off at their room.


Then be stumped.

Well I think you've answered it now with the above - I gather you're saying that old SF Con goers were attractive so they had sex, modern Con goers are unattractive so they don't.

Here are a list of games with overtly sexual and/or romantic themes.

Blue Rose, written by Jeremy Crawford

It Was a Mutual Decision written by Hannah Shaffer

Monsterheats written by Avery Alder aka Joe Mcdaldno

All of these game feature romance and/or seduction as an integral part of their game.

In fact the last in the list features a "sex move" which is triggered when they have sex with somebody and moreover a PC may roll to turn on/seduce any other character, including other PCs.

And it does not seem 100% consensual, either: you don't get to choose what turns you on, and because "Monsterhearts is a game about the confusion that arises when your body and your social world start changing without your permission

In fact, a fairly positive review in Bitch Magazine (a self-described femminist website) rather reluctantly expresses concern.

QuoteMy one concern is that the game pushes participants to uncomfortable emotional places without balancing that in the text with caution.

QuoteNot everyone starts their roleplaying experience off with story games, and if your first time at the table is a bad game of Monsterhearts, it's not likely you'll be running back for more.

https://www.bitchmedia.org/post/save-vs-sexism-the-sexuality-of-Monsterhearts-story-games-teen-sexuality

It must be a coincidence that all three authors could be accurately described as SJW.

These seem odd games to write and promote during this current climate.

I hasten to add that as somebody who has been the target of unwanted and persistent advances from both men and women, I make no excuses for harassment and sexual pestering or generally lewd behaviour.

I need to invest in pearls and popcorn futures! :eek:

Quote from: EOTB;1037349Look at photos of those 70s hugo parties; look particularly at the men.  Look at photos of current year geek con du jour; look particularly at the men.  Could you switch them and (apart from fashion) not tell the difference?  Do the same for your local softball tournament or music festival compared against the geek con du jour.

Think about what feeds a short-term attraction loop, as confirmed by much scientific research, and then think about geek culture.  What part of geek culture optimizes the traits that drives short-term attraction?  (physical appearance, easy confidence, outcome independence, evident existing acceptance/high status in the local social order, etc.)

I don't find much about the current situation surprising.  The majority of women don't want to be touched by the majority of gamer men, who've in turn convinced themselves that - for the first time in human history - the key to a man's sexual success isn't relentless personal improvement, but instead cheering on from their place against the auditorium wall, patiently waiting to be chosen to dance.

Are you either a current or former PUA?

I wonder sometimes if I am on the same planet as others.

People come to conventions to game. Gaming is a social activity, so socializing will occur. Sometimes socializing leads to romance or simply to sex, mostly it is just socializing while sharing a common interest - gaming.

If you remember that the object of your attention is there to game and probably not for anything else and don't be a creep, then you will do fine.

I have never heard of a one time, reasonable attempt at expressing interest leading to any issues except when there is a clear power difference (and I do not mean men oppress women so that is always a power differential or similar beliefs).

The chest beating and rending of clothes over this makes me wonder just how many people who game are stuck in their teens in their development.

I barely go to gaming conventions but I do attend similar cons. I can tell you that the gaming cons I have been to are highly male dominated in attendance, I see many women that are attending are part of a couple already, and the single women that are there have to be annoyed at all the extra carnal attention when they are just there to game. Game with them and only socialize on that level and if there is any other mutual attraction it will be obvious.

Otherwise, #metoo is important. Earlier in my career I worked with the HR group (large company) that investigated sexual harassment complaints (I investigated financial fraud). I had some naive views about he said/she said and not all men and innocent until proven guilty until even my dumb-ass was beaten into submission by the number of creeps that were actually out there and I quickly came to see that really, the accuser needs to be believed and that it is not a court of law.

Yes, witch trials and public mob justice is a potential problem, but not really relevant in most cases. With social media even more pervasive than forums like this, eventually the shit comes out.

So no need to be a Puritan but go to cons to game and treat everyone as a fellow gamer and your name will not show up in the same type of discussion as this thread is about.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037364Thank you Venger! Doesn't surprise me that a SJW creeper would rag on Alpha Blue. But oh, the sweet irony.

But I noticed you railed against people seeking jury trials and guilty verdicts. While I understand your sentiment, please understand that those of us demanding DUE PROCESS aren't doing it to protect abusers. Absolutely and utterly not. Due Process protects everyone and if the day ever comes when someone comes for you, you will want due process for yourself.

And you'd need it. Satanic cult leaders who write space porno definitely should be on the due process side. And I say this as someone who supports your rights to free speech, religious choice and free expression. But hot damn VS, you would need all the due process the law allows if the mob came for you.

The court of public opinion has always been a very bad idea. In the age of social media, it's anathema to our society.

If someone were physically trying to haul SPF into a jail cell, fire him from his job (resigning from sites that let you post affiliate links doesn't cut it in my opinion), surround his house with pitchforks and torches, or harass his friends and loved ones, then I would totally agree that due process is and should be required.  If those things were happening to the man, I'd be defending his rights under the criminal justice system.  But none of that is happening.  The dude is getting publicly shamed in a very tiny corner within the geeky sector of the internet and he'll have to take a sabbatical from SJW RPG gigs and events.  That's pretty much it.  

Also, lest we forget, SPF admitted to some (if not most) of the wrongdoing!  

As for me, I've received hate mail, public admonishment and such ever since I started speaking my mind and creating whatever the fuck I wanted to (which is to say, pretty much always).  I'm not doing anything illegal.  That doesn't mean I can't be targeted, but yeah... there are no guarantees.  

VS

No one deserves this treatment more than Sean Patrick Fannon: the guy is an epic turd who has been involved in harassment campaigns, boycotts, coercion, etc., against his ideological and political opponents (James Desborough for instance, a long with many many others).

As others have pointed out, his behavior probably would have been considered OK by the women involved if he was good-looking or had some charisma. But no, he is a bitch-titted slob who awkwardly tried to come on to women and was shut down.

This is literally Robespierre being led to the guillotine --a guy who helped make SJW witch-hunts mainstream. I hope he never works in the RPG industry again. He is already being kicked out of other conventions, such as Chupacabracon ...

Quote from: Silas1066;1037530No one deserves this treatment more than Sean Patrick Fannon: the guy is an epic turd who has been involved in harassment campaigns, boycotts, coercion, etc., against his ideological and political opponents (James Desborough for instance, a long with many many others).

As others have pointed out, his behavior probably would have been considered OK by the women involved if he was good-looking or had some charisma. But no, he is a bitch-titted slob who awkwardly tried to come on to women and was shut down.

This is literally Robespierre being led to the guillotine --a guy who helped make SJW witch-hunts mainstream. I hope he never works in the RPG industry again. He is already being kicked out of other conventions, such as Chupacabracon ...

Well I guess there is justice in the world!

Quote from: S'mon;1037540Well I guess there is justice in the world!

Did someone say Justice?

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037524Otherwise, #metoo is important. Earlier in my career I worked with the HR group (large company) that investigated sexual harassment complaints (I investigated financial fraud). I had some naive views about he said/she said and not all men and innocent until proven guilty until even my dumb-ass was beaten into submission by the number of creeps that were actually out there and I quickly came to see that really, the accuser needs to be believed and that it is not a court of law.

As a male virgin who has so little motivation to pursue the opposite sex that if it wasn't for explicit content I would wonder if I was asexual, I find the idea that a single woman's word should be believed and end careers to be terrifying.

I have this odd perspective that women are just like men in that some of them are total shit-bags and would totally lie once to remove a rival from the work place or industry and these cited statistics and studies don't negate the sickening idea that destroying the lives of some innocent men is fine if most the ones targeted actually did do something.

Now SPF did something inappropriate in a work space (conventions are work spaces for RPG authors), damaged his brand, and deserves to be fired by his own admission.
That doesn't mean we should give half the population unquestioned trust and power over the other half of the population (it should be obviously stupid).

Quote from: jhkimThe point of gamedaddy's complaint was that only photographs or recording of the interaction would constitute real evidence, which I pushed back against. Eyewitness testimony is valid evidence in court, and if the journalist is writing based on eyewitness testimony, then they are writing based on evidence that could be admissible.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037420In a single instance, then yes, hard evidence would constitute real evidence. and if there are multiple eyewitnesses, and they come forward coroborating or affirming the victims story, that is another matter. What I'm speaking of, is he said, she said, one one journalist who just happend to be "her" friend writing a defamatory article. Yes it is defamatory if a person is falsely publicly humiliated, if they lose income, and other business opportunities due to allegations without any foundation.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037419Eyewitness testimony from only the presumed victim is highly suspect without some additional corroboration. Are you trying to tell me there are no women left on the planet that would not, in desperation, destroy the reputation of a man, if they could not get what they wanted from him. If you believe that, I really need you to go to court and look at cases that have already concluded, so you will know the truth.

I also have some reservations about secretly videotaping any events, however, if harrassment or misconduct of a sexual or intimidating manner is really occurring, especially on a continuous or ongoing basis, then I would tend to overlook the circumstances and would prefer to know the truth of what is really going on, and an actual video or audio recording of the suspect intimidating, threatening, or violating someone elses privacy can go a long way to determining the truth of a matter.

It is not just one anonymous person's account, though. The article cited four people's accounts - including a second witness who corroborated the named witness Bulkeley's account. Rather than bringing up anything specific to these witnesses, you're suggesting that only video recording of the behavior would demonstrate that such a behavior happened, and that otherwise witnesses should be dismissed as lying.

I think that's going too far. As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of court trials rely on eyewitness testimony - going from slander on up to murder. The vast majority of wrongdoings are not committed while being recorded or in front of multiple witnesses, whether women or men. A single eyewitness can lead to conviction if that witness is deemed to be sufficiently credible. Conversely, both witness testimony and physical evidence can be unreliable. People can lie, and evidence can be doctored. At this point, I don't know anything about Bulkeley. If it turns out that she is a judge with an impeccable reputation, then that would make it more credible - if she is a paranoid mental patient, that would make it less credible.

I'm not going to unquestioningly believe it just because one should always believe witnesses, but I'm also not going to dismiss it because no witnesses should ever be believed.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1037547As a male virgin who has so little motivation to pursue the opposite sex that if it wasn't for explicit content I would wonder if I was asexual, I find the idea that a single woman's word should be believed and end careers to be terrifying.

It's an interesting level of power that some seem to think should be bestowed upon a group of people only based on their genitals. (Setting aside the topic of gender identity for a moment)

QuoteI have this odd perspective that women are just like men in that some of them are total shit-bags and would totally lie once to remove a rival from the work place or industry and these cited statistics and studies don't negate the sickening idea that destroying the lives of some innocent men is fine if most the ones targeted actually did do something.

And it's an interesting conclusion that some have come to that an entire group of people can be condemned based only on their genitals. (Again, setting aside the topic of gender identity for a moment)

I tend to think it's a very sexist and traditionalist view, with a thin veneer of modern justifications.

Regarding hooking up at conventions in general.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037421I have said this before, and I'll say it again, Tabletop gaming shouldn't be about sex, it should be about gaming. All the folks that are getting that confused have some problems or hangups about sex, and are unable to properly channel their sexual energy. They insist on bringing it to the gaming table with them. Some people, ...myself included, find that raw unchanneled energy in a gaming environment offensive.  

I confess to having a bit of trouble also with the notion that one should go to a gaming convention to "hookup" or meet your soulmate, ...or whatever. I always thought that a couple that had met their soulmates would just know it, and in that case, wouldn't matter in any event, and later on surely wouldn't be making allegations, or ruining reputations, or claiming sexual misconduct. This casual sex thing exclusively at gaming venues is a stupid idea that is bound to create all kinds of interesting problems especially with a group that is interested in lust, and power, and one-upsmanship, ...instead of real love. Which actually hasn't been discussed at all that much here, until now.

For those of you calling it prude... It's not about prudishness, it's about love, ...instead of lust ...or rutting. Can you dig that?

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037524I wonder sometimes if I am on the same planet as others.

People come to conventions to game. Gaming is a social activity, so socializing will occur. Sometimes socializing leads to romance or simply to sex, mostly it is just socializing while sharing a common interest - gaming.

I agree with Myrdin that it's pretty normal for socializing to lead to hooking up. It happens at most social gatherings. Back when I was single, I had hooked up at conventions, and knew others who did so.

On the other hand, I can understand it being controversial, in that if it happens a lot it does change the atmosphere of a gathering. So people who want to push for there to be less hook-ups are fine. It comes down to the preferences of the majority - understanding that a number of people don't care one way or the other. People should be able to advocate for either way without being called either prudes or perverts.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037421I have said this before, and I'll say it again, Tabletop gaming shouldn't be about sex, it should be about gaming. All the folks that are getting that confused have some problems or hangups about sex, and are unable to properly channel their sexual energy. They insist on bringing it to the gaming table with them. Some people, ...myself included, find that raw unchanneled energy in a gaming environment offensive.  

I confess to having a bit of trouble also with the notion that one should go to a gaming convention to "hookup" or meet your soulmate, ...or whatever. I always thought that a couple that had met their soulmates would just know it, and in that case, wouldn't matter in any event, and later on surely wouldn't be making allegations, or ruining reputations, or claiming sexual misconduct. This casual sex thing exclusively at gaming venues is a stupid idea that is bound to create all kinds of interesting problems especially with a group that is interested in lust, and power, and one-upsmanship, ...instead of real love. Which actually hasn't been discussed at all that much here, until now.

For those of you calling it prude... It's not about prudishness, it's about love, ...instead of lust ...or rutting. Can you dig that?

   You're blaspheming against the chief idol of the Apostate West, Venus Paneros. ;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;1037504I need to invest in pearls and popcorn futures! :eek:

Way more stable investments than Bitcoin!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1037554I tend to think it's a very sexist and traditionalist view, with a thin veneer of modern justifications.

That's exactly what White Knights are.

They have to defend women, for women are frail and must be protected, and by being their protectors, the women shall bless them with nookie.

Thus the "warrior" in SJW.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1037554And it's an interesting conclusion that some have come to that an entire group of people can be condemned based only on their genitals. (Again, setting aside the topic of gender identity for a moment)

I tend to think it's a very sexist and traditionalist view, with a thin veneer of modern justifications.

Are you saying I am condemning people (by saying some) or are you talking about others?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1037580Are you saying I am condemning people (by saying some) or are you talking about others?

Others. I try not to use loaded terms like "the SJWs", but avoiding those terms seems to be making my posts confusing. Sorry about that.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037421I have said this before, and I'll say it again, Tabletop gaming shouldn't be about sex, it should be about gaming. All the folks that are getting that confused have some problems or hangups about sex, and are unable to properly channel their sexual energy. They insist on bringing it to the gaming table with them. Some people, ...myself included, find that raw unchanneled energy in a gaming environment offensive.  

You're entitled to you opinion. I don't agree with it but if its want you want to enforce at your tables/games that cool.  I don't think different outlooks are objectively wrong or somehow deviant on indicative of mental or social issues. If people want to include sex and sexuality in their gaming all power to them. If people hook up at a gaming con, a social gathering, I don't see what's wrong with that as it happens at every other social event I have heard of including church rallies.

Being an overbearing asshole about it is a real thing and its not just men but the idea its just flat out improper or wrong somehow is just not something I can get behind.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1037466Here are a list of games with overtly sexual and/or romantic themes.

Blue Rose, written by Jeremy Crawford

It Was a Mutual Decision written by Hannah Shaffer

Monsterheats written by Avery Alder aka Joe Mcdaldno

All of these game feature romance and/or seduction as an integral part of their game.

In fact the last in the list features a "sex move" which is triggered when they have sex with somebody and moreover a PC may roll to turn on/seduce any other character, including other PCs.

And it does not seem 100% consensual, either: you don't get to choose what turns you on, and because "Monsterhearts is a game about the confusion that arises when your body and your social world start changing without your permission

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1037466It must be a coincidence that all three authors could be accurately described as SJW.

These seem odd games to write and promote during this current climate.

Blue Rose does not belong on this list. It uses the word "romantic" in the title, but that refers to the subgenre of fantasy worlds that it emulates - i.e. fantasy authors like Mercedes Lackey and Diane Duane rather than J.R.R. Tolkien and R.E. Howard. There is nothing in the game (at least in True20 edition) that focuses play on PC romantic relations.

Also, It Was a Mutual Decision is by Ron Edwards of Adept Press. Hannah Shaffer is a game designer who makes several other games ("Damn the Man, Save the Music!", Questlandia, and 14 Days), but none of them seem romance-themed. Her website is http://makebigthings.com/

I've played some Blue Rose about a half-dozen times, as well as Monsterhearts and some other romance-themed games a little more. Note that there is a random roll in Monsterhearts for what turns you on - which means the player doesn't control what turns the character on. However, that doesn't mean that sexual actions among PCs are non-consensual. It's possible, but that's not part of the turn on mechanic. I'd say that the authors are definitely liberal, but I'm not sure that SJW is accurate - though liberal and SJW are synonymous to some people, so it's a subjective question.  

There are a bunch of others as well. Off the top of my head -

Emily Care Boss' trio of games Breaking the Ice, Shooting the Moon, and Under My Skin are all romance themed.

Some more recent-ish Kickstarter projects include -

Good Society: A Jane Austen Roleplaying Game https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/259750074/good-society-a-jane-austen-roleplaying-game

Star-Crossed: The Two-Player Game of Forbidden Love https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/bullypulpitgames/star-crossed-the-two-player-game-of-forbidden-love

Quote from: Rhedyn;1037547As a male virgin who has so little motivation to pursue the opposite sex that if it wasn't for explicit content I would wonder if I was asexual, I find the idea that a single woman's word should be believed and end careers to be terrifying.

I have this odd perspective that women are just like men in that some of them are total shit-bags and would totally lie once to remove a rival from the work place or industry and these cited statistics and studies don't negate the sickening idea that destroying the lives of some innocent men is fine if most the ones targeted actually did do something.

Now SPF did something inappropriate in a work space (conventions are work spaces for RPG authors), damaged his brand, and deserves to be fired by his own admission.
That doesn't mean we should give half the population unquestioned trust and power over the other half of the population (it should be obviously stupid).

Women are no less shitty than men but the power structure still is tilted heavily toward men.

What you do not seem to grasp is that one woman making an accusation does not end the career of the man. By not dismissing the accusation, in a corporate environment can get investigated and dealt with. The number of false accusations is very small and the long history of complaints being ignored is real.

Like I said, I too had a naive view on this until I actually had to deal with it as part of my job and realized that I was naive and that not treating the accusations as real and believing them simply allowed assholes to keep workikgmat my company.

It is a real slippery slope to extrapolate some huge disaster based on one accusation. It really does not happen. In a corporate environment such things are investigated (usually the accused goes on paid leave that is not explained to anyone). In the case of small companies and conventions, those resources just do not exist.

This is not a court of law and innocent until proven guilty is not required and no company will run into an issue for firing someone is there is any credibility to the accusation.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037601It is a real slippery slope to extrapolate some huge disaster based on one accusation. It really does not happen.

The Duke Lacross case and the Rolling Stones case say it does happen. And it took people with money to expose both.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037601What you do not seem to grasp is that one woman making an accusation does not end the career of the man.

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article122429824.html

Quote from: jhkim;1037590It Was a Mutual Decision is by Ron Edwards of Adept Press. Hannah Shaffer is a game designer who makes several other games ("Damn the Man, Save the Music!", Questlandia, and 14 Days), but none of them seem romance-themed. Her website is http://makebigthings.com/

Thanks for the correction. My bad.

Quote from: jhkim;1037590I'd say that the authors are definitely liberal, but I'm not sure that SJW is accurate -

Well Jeremy Crawford sure quacks like a duck and Joe Mcdaldno/Avery Alder is the real deal. (https://twitter.com/dreamaskew?lang=en)

Quote from: jhkim;1037590though liberal and SJW are synonymous to some people, so it's a subjective question.  

Not to this leftie.;)

Point is that you would be a fool to play "romantic" games that feature Player on Player flirting in character at a con in the current climate.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1037603The Duke Lacross case and the Rolling Stones case say it does happen. And it took people with money to expose both.

And those were public in the press and revealed to be false.

The typical corporate case is not reported anywhere and HR usually does not reveal any details.

The two cases you cited are the rare cases where there was a false accusation and one of them was more a reporter problem (Rolling Stone) than anything else.

There are not women routinely making false accusations and it is not costless for them to make an accusation in the first place. In theory we are all gamers here and we should understand rules and probabilities. If we can absorb all the details of a made up background we should be able to parse the statistics for these types of cases.

Quote from: CarlD.;1037589Being an overbearing asshole about it is a real thing and its not just men but the idea its just flat out improper or wrong somehow is just not something I can get behind.

That's because you haven't unknowingly and unwillingly been around other staff at conventions that have been convicted of rape, and then had to deal with the fallout of all that without somehow destroying the convention, ...like I have. I'm not talking about anything recent, by the way.  Once you have seen the damage one of these dirtball losers can do, and you know the kind of permissive environment they are attracted to, you wouldn't be so excited to create an environment that draws real sexual predators like bees to honey.

It is improper and wrong to focus on sex, and sexual power as a game, in public, or at a gaming convention. If you want to do it in your own home, or in a private club or whatever, or setup your own special gaming sex romp conventions, be my guest. Exposing boardgamers and tabletop gamers to that is unconscionable, for the very reasons I mentioned in this post.

Quote from: jhkim;1037590Blue Rose does not belong on this list. It uses the word "romantic" in the title, but that refers to the subgenre of fantasy worlds that it emulates - i.e. fantasy authors like Mercedes Lackey and Diane Duane rather than J.R.R. Tolkien and R.E. Howard. There is nothing in the game (at least in True20 edition) that focuses play on PC romantic relations.

Agreed, Blue Rose doesn't belong on any black list, it's a game about Romance, Romantics, and the age of Chivalry. Anyone that is not playing it like that, is playing it wrong, just in order to smear Green Ronin.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037620Agreed, Blue Rose doesn't belong on any black list,

Black list?

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1037617Point is that you would be a fool to play "romantic" games that feature Player on Player flirting in character at a con in the current climate.

I don't think so. Several friends of mine played in a run of Under My Skin (the larp version) at DunDraCon this past February. Everyone seemed pretty positive about it, and had a good time. The organizers had some ground rules about people expressing their comfort levels and how to opt out, and they seemed to work pretty well. Since there are a bunch of people playing in the game and thus observing the interactions, it would be difficult for a fabricated accusation to get far. Plus there are clear rules about opting out of uncomfortable situations.

People I know who run such games don't seem to have any concerns about the current climate, in part because they have always had some concerns that romance in games could be awkward/uncomfortable for either women or men. Long before the #MeToo movement, people handling very personal stuff in games have had a bunch of conversations about how to handle issues maturely. They have always made sure that everyone is clear about their lines and have rules to follow.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037601Women are no less shitty than men but the power structure still is tilted heavily toward men.

What you do not seem to grasp is that one woman making an accusation does not end the career of the man. By not dismissing the accusation, in a corporate environment can get investigated and dealt with. The number of false accusations is very small and the long history of complaints being ignored is real.

Like I said, I too had a naive view on this until I actually had to deal with it as part of my job and realized that I was naive and that not treating the accusations as real and believing them simply allowed assholes to keep workikgmat my company.

It is a real slippery slope to extrapolate some huge disaster based on one accusation. It really does not happen. In a corporate environment such things are investigated (usually the accused goes on paid leave that is not explained to anyone). In the case of small companies and conventions, those resources just do not exist.

This is not a court of law and innocent until proven guilty is not required and no company will run into an issue for firing someone is there is any credibility to the accusation.

The power dynamic only comes into play if it is a manager doing something to an underling. The sexes of those involved are irrelevant.

If men inherently intimidate women by virtue of pure physical strength, then that means we should be better arming individuals so such things are irrelevant not blindly trust the first person to claim victim. Because once that is accepted as OK, it will be abused. We aren't there yet (women do fear being blacklisted if they make an abuse claim, which is probably entirely true), but people are pushing for it.

Quote from: jhkim;1037640I don't think so. Several friends of mine played in a run of Under My Skin (the larp version) at DunDraCon this past February. Everyone seemed pretty positive about it, and had a good time. The organizers had some ground rules about people expressing their comfort levels and how to opt out, and they seemed to work pretty well. Since there are a bunch of people playing in the game and thus observing the interactions, it would be difficult for a fabricated accusation to get far. Plus there are clear rules about opting out of uncomfortable situations.

People I know who run such games don't seem to have any concerns about the current climate, in part because they have always had some concerns that romance in games could be awkward/uncomfortable for either women or men. Long before the #MeToo movement, people handling very personal stuff in games have had a bunch of conversations about how to handle issues maturely. They have always made sure that everyone is clear about their lines and have rules to follow.

What is Under my Skin?

Quote from: jhkim;1037640People I know who run such games don't seem to have any concerns about the current climate, in part because they have always had some concerns that romance in games could be awkward/uncomfortable for either women or men. Long before the #MeToo movement, people handling very personal stuff in games have had a bunch of conversations about how to handle issues maturely. They have always made sure that everyone is clear about their lines and have rules to follow.

Maybe I wasn't clear: I was talking about playing such game at cons with players who you have just met.

Quote from: CarlD.;1037646What is Under my Skin?

Emily Care Boss' game about romantic crossings and commitment. cf. http://www.blackgreengames.com/shop/under-my-skin-pdf

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1037647Maybe I wasn't clear: I was talking about playing such game at cons with players who you have just met.

Yes. This was a game played at DunDraCon, using randomized selection of anyone who tried to sign up for it. I knew some of the people who got in because I've been a regular at the con and know a lot of people there, but the game was played with some people who had never met before.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037601Women are no less shitty than men but the power structure still is tilted heavily toward men.

This is where you're completely wrong.  It's not tilted to anyone but women.  Always has been.  They may not be ON the thrones of power, but they have always held ultimate power

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037601What you do not seem to grasp is that one woman making an accusation does not end the career of the man..

We can't grasp it because you've been duped into believing a lie.  Most people will believe this lie.  The lie is that women have always been oppressed.  Well, sadly, the only part of that is true is when you consider that men were equally oppressed and often at the same time, for the same reason.

It's a social class problem, not a gender one.  Never has been, but to make it easier on everyone else, because men have always been disposable, they frame it by screaming 'OH THE WIMMINS, we gotta save the poor, defenseless WIMMINS!'

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1037616http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article122429824.html

Here's another one, older but she utterly destroyed these two.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/woman-18-falsely-accused-football-players-rape-cops-article-1.2979555 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/woman-18-falsely-accused-football-players-rape-cops-article-1.2979555)

And most of the time, they don't face charges when the crime has been proven false.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037421I have said this before, and I'll say it again, Tabletop gaming shouldn't be about sex, it should be about gaming. All the folks that are getting that confused have some problems or hangups about sex, and are unable to properly channel their sexual energy. They insist on bringing it to the gaming table with them. Some people, ...myself included, find that raw unchanneled energy in a gaming environment offensive.  

And some people, myself included, believe that this is tantamount to looking to be offended about something;).

QuoteFor those of you calling it prude... It's not about prudishness, it's about love, ...instead of lust ...or rutting. Can you dig that?

I get what you're saying.
I just find it doesn't apply to today's age, where lots of people just don't consider love to be an important value. We're not allowed to impose our values on them, BTW:).

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037451I can see now why you are having troubles with comprehending this. It's in the cultural context.  With Gaming and gamers there is no difference, at least not in Europe. The problems we are describing and trying to grapple with are uniquely American. When you are talking about American Gamers though, there is a whole different series of events occurring. I'm sure the Robbie Burns party was great. You got drunk, you got laid, you talked into the early hours of the morning, and then decided to meet again... all good and very romantic. If that was all that happened here at gaming conventions, I'd be all good with that.

The problem is, ...here in the United States, that happens extremely rarely. There is a disparity in the relationships between men and women here. The best and most telling statistic, is that from a medical standpoint, the current age group that is most depressed, and least likely to maintain social relationships is the 18-22 age group. In addition, that is also the group that feels most alone, or lonely. In addition there is an suicide epidemic occurring amongst younger single males here in the United States. Youngsters aged 18-35 are four times more likely to attempt to commit suicide, than my generation was. There are some deep and persistent underlying social problems that is creating this crisis, and it has not been getting alot of attention in the media, I'm pretty sure there's a link connecting all the mass shootings and ultraviolence, including domestic unrest here as well, however haven't personally been able to ID a single cause or source of this angst, just yet. It is very similar to the dark times that occurred in Germany from the mid 1920's right up until the nazi takeover in 1933. It is very much the same kind of social unrest that was occurring with young people in Germany back then, happening here now.

I'll be honest, I have no dog in the whole prohibiting other people from flirting and hooking up. If that is what they are really doing. If they are just going to break up later though, and fling poo at each other, why the hell do I have to suffer through all that drama at my gaming table?

So it's not really a desire to control or prohibit others from flirting and having fun, its more of a desire to be able to continue to enjoy my games without all the retarded bullshjt like this occurring, because people here in the States don't know how to maintain healthy relationships, ...you dig? You grokking this now?

As an European, I want you to confirm whether you really trying to tell us gamers in the USA are less emotionally mature than elsewhere. Or were you talking about people in the USA, fullstop, since you went to talk about general societal statistics?
And thus they shouldn't be allowed to progress from a social activity (like gaming) to romance, regarding of mutual attraction? Because they're going to fail anyhow, and thus spoil your gaming time:D?

I'm really, really hoping you're not saying that. Or, if that's what you're saying, that you're wrong about gamers/people in the USA;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1037668I'm really, really hoping you're not saying that. Or, if that's what you're saying, that you're wrong about gamers/people in the USA;).

I really wish I was wrong on this, however gaming in public spaces has changed significantly in the last couple of decades, and it seems like event staff / publishers just can't keep their minds/hands off each other, and their guests, and focus on the games on the table instead of the other game that is going on in their heads, an unasked for additional game i would add, that is ruining the tabletop games for everyone else, ...by the way.

I also believe firmly that this at the very least questionable behavior is not limited to just Independent Game Publishers, and is prevalent with some of the staff from larger gaming companies, which are currently being deliberately excluded from being in the spotlight of the general public. It seems to me, that the larger gaming companies are gaining market share at the expense of the independent gaming companies, and I find this especially disconcerting, because the Indy people are actually not being convicted of any actual crime, their names are just being dragged through the mud.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037618And those were public in the press and revealed to be false.

The typical corporate case is not reported anywhere and HR usually does not reveal any details.

The two cases you cited are the rare cases where there was a false accusation and one of them was more a reporter problem (Rolling Stone) than anything else.

There are not women routinely making false accusations and it is not costless for them to make an accusation in the first place. In theory we are all gamers here and we should understand rules and probabilities. If we can absorb all the details of a made up background we should be able to parse the statistics for these types of cases.

http://allthatsinteresting.com/student-accused-taxi-driver
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-23645807
https://nypost.com/2017/04/05/passenger-from-hell-threatens-to-accuse-uber-driver-of-rape/
https://qz.com/985832/uber-drivers-are-filming-their-riders-with-dash-cams-to-protect-against-bad-reviews-and-false-accusations/

How many of these men would be in jail if they didn't have footage of their false accusations? At the risk of making a prediction, I think that the ubiquity of cell phones that take video footage are going to put a serious dent in the idea that false rape accusations are rare. But probably at the same time result in more evidence and therefore more punishments for the false accusers.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037661Here's another one, older but she utterly destroyed these two.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/woman-18-falsely-accused-football-players-rape-cops-article-1.2979555 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/woman-18-falsely-accused-football-players-rape-cops-article-1.2979555)

And most of the time, they don't face charges when the crime has been proven false.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/young-womans-agony-over-mum-10512152

I saw this one last night. Double suicide. First the man, then his mother.

ENWorld seems as lost as TBP to any sort of reasoned discussion, but maybe this place will be better.

https://postmortemstudios.wordpress.com/2018/05/05/rpg-ttrpg-more-on-sean-patrick-fannon-con-community-issues/ (https://postmortemstudios.wordpress.com/2018/05/05/rpg-ttrpg-more-on-sean-patrick-fannon-con-community-issues/)

 felt the need to comment on a forum, but me and forums (or at least moderators) don't tend to get on, however reasonable I'm being at the time. So I'm putting a copy here since I want to preserve what I've written, just in case.

Update: Seems this was a good idea and that ENWorld is also lost!

"Welcome back. Probably should have checked the rules before trotting out derogatory terms like "social justice warrior" and "virtue signalling". Don't post in the thread again, please."

Oy gevalt... the below was me being PAINFULLY diplomatic and careful.

***

Eh, probably not a good idea to stick my neck out and make this my 're-entry' to this forum, but what the heck. There's a heck of a lot of stuff here to address and talk about.

I can't say that Sean and I got on and, in fact, I probably have every reason to celebrate his 'fall from grace'. As a member of the extreme end of 'social justice warriors,' he's in good company having had this happen though. It's almost a trope. He helped the campaign to have at least one of my games pulled from sale – and yes, that is a form of censorship according to the ACLU and I'm sure other people can point to other well-meaning misdeeds on his behalf. That seems to be something that has been mentioned in this thread.

From what I can decipher of what he's said, this seems roughly analogous to the accusations made against Lawrence Krauss, which read as socially awkward misunderstandings and cringeworthy obliviousness. Social awkwardness and people on the spectrum may be something both the skeptic community and the gaming community have in common, which could account for the bacchanal atmosphere some 'Nerd Proms' descend into.

Even though I've got a good reason to personally dislike him on that basis, I'm just not prepared to throw him under the bus any more than I would anyone else. There are accusations, but that doesn't make them facts. As others have pointed out we have a legal principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Others have suggested that this is somehow a bad principle or limited to a purely legal context. That isn't the case, it's a basic logical principle – the burden of proof – which is why it's utilised in legal cases as well as science, and why it's a good general rule for life. Sure, personal bias and relationships can get in the way, but that's precisely why we have processes in both these spheres to encourage objectivity.

We are, however, operating in the social sphere and it seems unlikely that any legal action will result from this. So we have a largely anonymous set of claims against a publicly identified figure, with no way for most of us to confirm whether or not any of it has happened. Furthermore, he's apparently not allowed to present his side of things without being censored. This hardly seems fair or just, though one can certainly appreciate why it would worry people for accusers to be identified. Ideally, this would be handled by the courts and both accuser and accused would remain anonymous until such time as a judgement was rendered.

The world is less than ideal though and we must make do.

Part of that 'making do' should be extending the benefit of the doubt. Accusations such as this, true or false, ruin people. As little as a couple of tweets can see people lose their relationships, jobs, future prospects and end up with an internet profile that renders them socially toxic and unemployable for years to come. This happens whether or not they've actually done anything at all. Surely we can agree that this isn't a good way to proceed? To – metaphorically – lynch someone, purely because an accusation is made? That can lead to some very dark places.

By all means take precautions, investigate further, but don't lose sight of the principle of justice and fairness in the pursuit of social 'justice'.

Contrary to what some likely think, I'm all for social justice in terms of treating people equally and fairly. Ironically it's these left/lib values that are the very things that have lead me to oppose the ideologically drive 'regressive left' which seems to be in full voice throughout this thread. That doesn't mean I'm on the side of the populist right, the Jordan Petersons and their ilk either, certainly not on the side of them 'they're all lying' kind of people in this thread.

That said, it's worth pointing out that this kind of thing isn't unknown, certainly in activist circles. There was collusion and plotting in the case against Gregory Allen Elliot and, more sinisterly, in the Jian Ghomeshi trial – both instances in Canada. I'm most aware of issues in Canada thanks to Diana Davison's work with The Lighthouse Project. The fact of the matter is that we really have no idea how many accusations are false. Estimates vary horrendously and while people rightly decry how few sexual misconduct or rape cases are prosecuted, the same is true – perhaps even more so – for false accusations. They're hard to prosecute for many of the same reasons that sex crimes are hard to prosecute, with additional political issues not unlike the ones that have caused problems with prosecuting grooming gangs in the UK.

It's anywhere from that tiny percentage we're aware of, up to the full number of claims that are never prosecuted. Neither extreme is likely, but anecdotally police officers and investigators state that it's higher than we might think. Still that's colloquial and we shouldn't put too much weight on that either.

It's a conundrum. How do we address the clear issues that there are in prosecuting these cases while still providing due process and consideration for the accused? That's a problem more for the courts than us, but not prosecuting witchhunts also seems like a no-brainer. 'Trust but verify' rather than 'Listen and believe' as we used to say in GG. Speaking of which, it was brought up in the context of supposedly being a hate movement, which it was not and actual evidence exists contrary to that belief. That just goes to show that even evidence won't convince some people.

Some people want to address it by lowering the standard of evidence, but the advent of genetic forensics has cleared a lot of people who were convicted on the basis of testimony and accusations. Lowering the standard of evidence doesn't seem like a good idea and that does mean that guilty people are going to go free. Blackstone's Formulation remains a useful ethical guide and it was rather horrifying to see people in this thread decrying it and being willing to see innocent people jailed, or worse.

Others, even more horrifyingly, have tried to get things shifted to an inquisitorial system of justice in sexual cases. Why this is a terrible idea should be clear to anyone.

So there doesn't appear to be any good solutions to that problem, but that's one for the legal systems and the courts. I would suggest that we – as individuals – give the benefit of the doubt and try to take some of the heat out of this febrile atmosphere, but I don't see that kind of logic going over too well with many people. In fact, it – and much of this post most likely – will be taken as something that it isn't. A protection of abusers, or an attack on the (allegedly) abused. That's how bad things have gotten. Not to mention that often the people you have to defend the rights of, are unpleasant. They might be creepy, they might be fascists, they might be paedophiles, but even genuinely, provenly repugnant people still have human rights.

As to conventions? I don't think anti-harassment policies are a good idea. I think we already have a societal one called 'the law'. This doesn't mean I'm pro-harassment, and I have had to intercede myself at events in the past. I am, however, concerned about these policies as many of them seem to be ideologically driven and to 'Trojan Horse' agendas and censorship. I've attended more than one convention which, if the policy were strictly enforced, would have had no sales room and no games. Many of these policies derive from the pattern on the Geek Feminism Wiki, and this has caused problems elsewhere, let alone gaming cons. I am very pleased to see that Dragonmeet has walked back their version some since the last one I attended. Still, they seem completely unnecessary and very open for abuse. All it takes is one person to be a jerk and either the con staff will be outed as hypocrites, or things will go horribly wrong.

Between the law and looking out for each other, I think we have all the tools we need. Having anti-harassment policies seems pointless and, I hate to say it since the term gets abused, but it seems like 'virtue signalling'. I mean, they're even measuring skirts at PAX now. It's like we've gone back in time 70 years, not forward, and yet it's being driven by people who call themselves 'progressive'. It's all rather confusing to a grumpy old leftie libertine.

Of course, these things all move so fast that something else may have come out even while I was writing this, but I think there's enough there that's generally applicable to the broader issue I think.

To reiterate, because people tend to be a bit hard of understanding on these issues and to infer things that aren't said.

These are serious issues, which I take seriously.
Sexual crimes and misdemeanours are horrible and a strong stance should be taken against them.
Accusations should be taken seriously.
I don't think the current witchhunt atmosphere is productive or useful and may have gone too far the other way.
Justice and fairness demand we consider people innocent until proven guilty, even in our personal lives.
People shouldn't be ruined on the basis of a mere accusation alone.
These things are business for the courts.
Antiharassment policies are unnecessary, which doesn't mean I accept or condone harassment.
Hopefully people will address the points.

Now that was well said.

Grim. You called Jordan Peterson a Right Wing Populist!
After this crime, what forgiveness?

Quote from: GRIM;1037716ENWorld seems as lost as TBP to any sort of reasoned discussion..

They disgust me. I'm sorry for all the many years I spent there.

I especially liked the very last (as of now) post: Have you ever interrupted a woman? Then you're a harasser. Have you ever looked at a woman's cleavage? Then you're a harasser.

You'll notice he was mentioned in a different part of the sentence and separated. I think he's a snake oil salesman, but not a right wing populist.

Quote from: S'mon;1037723They disgust me. I'm sorry for all the many years I spent there.

I especially liked the very last (as of now) post: Have you ever interrupted a woman? Then you're a harasser. Have you ever looked at a woman's cleavage? Then you're a harasser.

Yes, that was... precious. It's twisting my gut not being allowed to reply :P

Quote from: GRIM;1037725You'll notice he was mentioned in a different part of the sentence and separated. I think he's a snake oil salesman, but not a right wing populist.

Well, fair enough I guess. Apology accepted. :D

Why does this seem to pop up only in creative endeavors?  Some creative acts badly and it's the end of the world.  I'm sure as shit someone in the supply chain that brought me my Coke Zero was as asshole, but I don't blame Coke.

Nicely said Grim. I am not checking news or posts out there any longer. I'm pretty soured from the whole experience.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037684I really wish I was wrong on this, however gaming in public spaces has changed significantly in the last couple of decades, and it seems like event staff / publishers just can't keep their minds/hands off each other, and their guests, and focus on the games on the table instead of the other game that is going on in their heads, an unasked for additional game i would add, that is ruining the tabletop games for everyone else, ...by the way.

I also believe firmly that this at the very least questionable behavior is not limited to just Independent Game Publishers, and is prevalent with some of the staff from larger gaming companies, which are currently being deliberately excluded from being in the spotlight of the general public. It seems to me, that the larger gaming companies are gaining market share at the expense of the independent gaming companies, and I find this especially disconcerting, because the Indy people are actually not being convicted of any actual crime, their names are just being dragged through the mud.

OK, I will leave it to your compatriots to answer the USA-specific part.

As for the part about big companies, I know business is a dirty game, but can't accuse anyone of that without proof:).

Quote from: S'mon;1037723They disgust me. I'm sorry for all the many years I spent there.

I especially liked the very last (as of now) post: Have you ever interrupted a woman? Then you're a harasser. Have you ever looked at a woman's cleavage? Then you're a harasser.

So, if you're a hetero or bi male, you're a harrasser. If you are gay and are anything but the most meek and polite guy ever, you're also a harrasser.
Presumably the above only applies to males,  if not, the number of harasser would grow even more.

You can quote the calculation, if you like;).

This whole thing reminds me of the satanic ritual abuse bollocks in the 80's.

This whole thing reminds me of a quote I heard once:

"Sucks to suck."

I read that ENWorld thread, and the only thing I discovered is that if you dare question the veracity of a woman's sexual harassment allegation, you're just a horrible misogynist.

Quote from: Brad;1037793I read that ENWorld bread, and the only thing I discovered is that if you dare question the veracity of a woman's sexual harassment allegation, you're just a horrible misogynist.

Have they ever heard of Emmett Till?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/emmett-till-lynching-carolyn-bryant-donham.html

QuoteWoman Linked to 1955 Emmett Till Murder Tells Historian Her Claims Were False

Quote from: S'mon;1037723They disgust me. I'm sorry for all the many years I spent there.

You shouldn't feel bad for partaking in a forum in the past.  Current changes shouldn't dismiss all the fun debates and socialization from its history.  When you think about it, ENWorld has been in existence in one form or another for almost 20 years.  That's a long time and think about how many things change in two decades.

Speaking of that, is Morrus (the owner) the only person left there in terms of moderation?  I was poking around and it seems like all of the old moderating team left.  I bookmark the thread where Gary Gygax had a gaming session with a lot of the mods in the final year of his life, and I don't see them around anymore.  People like Piratecat, Rel, Hypersmurf, etc.  If the mods have changed over time it can explain why things have changed.  

I have to wonder how much of the changes are due to the general climate in general and what millennials expect in a forum or a reflection of how partisan we've become as a society.  Or if it's just because Morrus sees this as a business and not just a fan thing.  

I am disappointed--I've been dropping out of most forum participation in general, but when I see all this stuff I sort of lament when ENWorld was mostly a great place to discuss gaming and didn't really bother trying to be a news site--of course, Eric Noah's intent was that, but now it's a lot of freelancer contributed content and some of those guys have an agenda--entertainment reporting in general suffers now from a sort of puritanical tone where you can't review a movie or a video game without discussing problematic elements, etc.

Quote from: JRT;1037801Speaking of that, is Morrus (the owner) the only person left there in terms of moderation?  

Seems that way. And he decided around 6 years ago in the 2012 hysteria to replace the commendable 'no politics' policy with 'SJW politics' - though very heavily emphasising sex over race. It's gotten much worse since.

Quote from: GRIM;1037716ENWorld seems as lost as TBP to any sort of reasoned discussion, but maybe this place will be better.

https://postmortemstudios.wordpress.com/2018/05/05/rpg-ttrpg-more-on-sean-patrick-fannon-con-community-issues/ (https://postmortemstudios.wordpress.com/2018/05/05/rpg-ttrpg-more-on-sean-patrick-fannon-con-community-issues/)

 felt the need to comment on a forum, but me and forums (or at least moderators) don't tend to get on, however reasonable I'm being at the time. So I'm putting a copy here since I want to preserve what I've written, just in case.

Update: Seems this was a good idea and that ENWorld is also lost!

"Welcome back. Probably should have checked the rules before trotting out derogatory terms like "social justice warrior" and "virtue signalling". Don't post in the thread again, please."

Oy gevalt... the below was me being PAINFULLY diplomatic and careful.

***

Eh, probably not a good idea to stick my neck out and make this my 're-entry' to this forum, but what the heck. There's a heck of a lot of stuff here to address and talk about.

I can't say that Sean and I got on and, in fact, I probably have every reason to celebrate his 'fall from grace'. As a member of the extreme end of 'social justice warriors,' he's in good company having had this happen though. It's almost a trope. He helped the campaign to have at least one of my games pulled from sale – and yes, that is a form of censorship according to the ACLU and I'm sure other people can point to other well-meaning misdeeds on his behalf. That seems to be something that has been mentioned in this thread.

From what I can decipher of what he's said, this seems roughly analogous to the accusations made against Lawrence Krauss, which read as socially awkward misunderstandings and cringeworthy obliviousness. Social awkwardness and people on the spectrum may be something both the skeptic community and the gaming community have in common, which could account for the bacchanal atmosphere some 'Nerd Proms' descend into.

Even though I've got a good reason to personally dislike him on that basis, I'm just not prepared to throw him under the bus any more than I would anyone else. There are accusations, but that doesn't make them facts. As others have pointed out we have a legal principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Others have suggested that this is somehow a bad principle or limited to a purely legal context. That isn't the case, it's a basic logical principle – the burden of proof – which is why it's utilised in legal cases as well as science, and why it's a good general rule for life. Sure, personal bias and relationships can get in the way, but that's precisely why we have processes in both these spheres to encourage objectivity.

We are, however, operating in the social sphere and it seems unlikely that any legal action will result from this. So we have a largely anonymous set of claims against a publicly identified figure, with no way for most of us to confirm whether or not any of it has happened. Furthermore, he's apparently not allowed to present his side of things without being censored. This hardly seems fair or just, though one can certainly appreciate why it would worry people for accusers to be identified. Ideally, this would be handled by the courts and both accuser and accused would remain anonymous until such time as a judgement was rendered.

The world is less than ideal though and we must make do.

Part of that 'making do' should be extending the benefit of the doubt. Accusations such as this, true or false, ruin people. As little as a couple of tweets can see people lose their relationships, jobs, future prospects and end up with an internet profile that renders them socially toxic and unemployable for years to come. This happens whether or not they've actually done anything at all. Surely we can agree that this isn't a good way to proceed? To – metaphorically – lynch someone, purely because an accusation is made? That can lead to some very dark places.

By all means take precautions, investigate further, but don't lose sight of the principle of justice and fairness in the pursuit of social 'justice'.

Contrary to what some likely think, I'm all for social justice in terms of treating people equally and fairly. Ironically it's these left/lib values that are the very things that have lead me to oppose the ideologically drive 'regressive left' which seems to be in full voice throughout this thread. That doesn't mean I'm on the side of the populist right, the Jordan Petersons and their ilk either, certainly not on the side of them 'they're all lying' kind of people in this thread.

That said, it's worth pointing out that this kind of thing isn't unknown, certainly in activist circles. There was collusion and plotting in the case against Gregory Allen Elliot and, more sinisterly, in the Jian Ghomeshi trial – both instances in Canada. I'm most aware of issues in Canada thanks to Diana Davison's work with The Lighthouse Project. The fact of the matter is that we really have no idea how many accusations are false. Estimates vary horrendously and while people rightly decry how few sexual misconduct or rape cases are prosecuted, the same is true – perhaps even more so – for false accusations. They're hard to prosecute for many of the same reasons that sex crimes are hard to prosecute, with additional political issues not unlike the ones that have caused problems with prosecuting grooming gangs in the UK.

It's anywhere from that tiny percentage we're aware of, up to the full number of claims that are never prosecuted. Neither extreme is likely, but anecdotally police officers and investigators state that it's higher than we might think. Still that's colloquial and we shouldn't put too much weight on that either.

It's a conundrum. How do we address the clear issues that there are in prosecuting these cases while still providing due process and consideration for the accused? That's a problem more for the courts than us, but not prosecuting witchhunts also seems like a no-brainer. 'Trust but verify' rather than 'Listen and believe' as we used to say in GG. Speaking of which, it was brought up in the context of supposedly being a hate movement, which it was not and actual evidence exists contrary to that belief. That just goes to show that even evidence won't convince some people.

Some people want to address it by lowering the standard of evidence, but the advent of genetic forensics has cleared a lot of people who were convicted on the basis of testimony and accusations. Lowering the standard of evidence doesn't seem like a good idea and that does mean that guilty people are going to go free. Blackstone's Formulation remains a useful ethical guide and it was rather horrifying to see people in this thread decrying it and being willing to see innocent people jailed, or worse.

Others, even more horrifyingly, have tried to get things shifted to an inquisitorial system of justice in sexual cases. Why this is a terrible idea should be clear to anyone.

So there doesn't appear to be any good solutions to that problem, but that's one for the legal systems and the courts. I would suggest that we – as individuals – give the benefit of the doubt and try to take some of the heat out of this febrile atmosphere, but I don't see that kind of logic going over too well with many people. In fact, it – and much of this post most likely – will be taken as something that it isn't. A protection of abusers, or an attack on the (allegedly) abused. That's how bad things have gotten. Not to mention that often the people you have to defend the rights of, are unpleasant. They might be creepy, they might be fascists, they might be paedophiles, but even genuinely, provenly repugnant people still have human rights.

As to conventions? I don't think anti-harassment policies are a good idea. I think we already have a societal one called 'the law'. This doesn't mean I'm pro-harassment, and I have had to intercede myself at events in the past. I am, however, concerned about these policies as many of them seem to be ideologically driven and to 'Trojan Horse' agendas and censorship. I've attended more than one convention which, if the policy were strictly enforced, would have had no sales room and no games. Many of these policies derive from the pattern on the Geek Feminism Wiki, and this has caused problems elsewhere, let alone gaming cons. I am very pleased to see that Dragonmeet has walked back their version some since the last one I attended. Still, they seem completely unnecessary and very open for abuse. All it takes is one person to be a jerk and either the con staff will be outed as hypocrites, or things will go horribly wrong.

Between the law and looking out for each other, I think we have all the tools we need. Having anti-harassment policies seems pointless and, I hate to say it since the term gets abused, but it seems like 'virtue signalling'. I mean, they're even measuring skirts at PAX now. It's like we've gone back in time 70 years, not forward, and yet it's being driven by people who call themselves 'progressive'. It's all rather confusing to a grumpy old leftie libertine.

Of course, these things all move so fast that something else may have come out even while I was writing this, but I think there's enough there that's generally applicable to the broader issue I think.

To reiterate, because people tend to be a bit hard of understanding on these issues and to infer things that aren't said.

These are serious issues, which I take seriously.
Sexual crimes and misdemeanours are horrible and a strong stance should be taken against them.
Accusations should be taken seriously.
I don't think the current witchhunt atmosphere is productive or useful and may have gone too far the other way.
Justice and fairness demand we consider people innocent until proven guilty, even in our personal lives.
People shouldn't be ruined on the basis of a mere accusation alone.
These things are business for the courts.
Antiharassment policies are unnecessary, which doesn't mean I accept or condone harassment.
Hopefully people will address the points.

You were more charitable than I, hoss.

VS

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037619That's because you haven't unknowingly and unwillingly been around other staff at conventions that have been convicted of rape, and then had to deal with the fallout of all that without somehow destroying the convention, ...like I have.

What happened?

Quote from: GRIM;1037716ENWorld seems as lost as TBP to any sort of reasoned discussion, but maybe this place will be better.

Always good to read your thoughts. I was just flipping through your SciFi seeds book this afternoon.

theRPGsite isn't perfect, but its a unsafe place with unsafe speech. We've got freedom of speech, so its messy, but worth the occasional ass explosion.

Hope you jump into some RPG threads and talk about your recent work.

That goes for you too Venger.

Quote from: trechriron;1037765Nicely said Grim. I am not checking news or posts out there any longer. I'm pretty soured from the whole experience.

Remember though, as a D.O.N.G Black Belt you have to stick to your principles.  

You've said you try to separate the personal lives of the author from the game they produce.  Now you have a game you like and an author who's doing something that really pisses you off.  Don't give up on WOIN yet, you sounded really inspired and wanting to publish your own OGL/CC content.

Don't let the politics affect your gaming...that's what also-ran's like Helton want.

So in other words, before you toss the hardcopies of WOIN on the bonfire, and purge your digital copies, take some time to write out that long, in-depth review of the game highlighting everything that you liked about it that set your creativity into high gear.

Hi Grim, very calm, logical, reasoned post.  I'm sure you'll be banned for posting it anywhere but here.

Good to see you posting, hoping everything is going good for you personally and professionally.  Maybe you'll stick around some and talk about your games.

Quote from: Brad;1037793I read that ENWorld thread, and the only thing I discovered is that if you dare question the veracity of a woman's sexual harassment allegation, you're just a horrible misogynist.

Margaret frickin' Atwood herself has learned this the hard way. Seems Millennial women think she's a bad feminist because she still believes in the rule of law and the presumption of innocence.

Seriously, next time some True Believer starts spouting their pieties, just reply with an unattributed quote from Atwood about the presumption of innocence from this opinion piece (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/article37591823/) show wrote. Maybe this line:

QuoteMy fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They're not angels, incapable of wrongdoing. If they were, we wouldn't need a legal system.

And when the True Believers go into their typical hysterics, reveal the source of the quote. If nothing else, it's good for a laugh.

Quote from: Haffrung;1037910Margaret frickin' Atwood herself has learned this the hard way. Seems Millennial women think she's a bad feminist because she still believes in the rule of law and the presumption of innocence.

Seriously, next time some True Believer starts spouting their pieties, just reply with an unattributed quote from Atwood about the presumption of innocence from this opinion piece (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/article37591823/) show wrote. Maybe this line:



And when the True Believers go into their typical hysterics, reveal the source of the quote. If nothing else, it's good for a laugh.

Whenever I hear the line "Women don't lie about these things." it equates in my mind to them saying "Women aren't human."

The sad part the same people in the hobby will in five to ten years time wonder why no men want to have women at their table. Pretend to wonder why no men want to talk to women at conventions, outside of them or in general. Pretend to wonder why men walk on eggshells around women all the time. While then using it as pure 1000% evidence that men hate women and are misogynistic etc.

Quote from: sureshot;1037931The sad part the same people in the hobby will in five to ten years time wonder why no men want to have women at their table. Pretend to wonder why no men want to talk to women at conventions, outside of them or in general. Pretend to wonder why men walk on eggshells around women all the time. While then using it as pure 1000% evidence that men hate women and are misogynistic etc.

  From my point of view, the tragic irony is that most of these people, or their intellectual and spiritual forbears, have spent the past half-century trying to dismiss, denigrate and demolish nearly every conceivable curb on sexual desire ... and are now acting shocked at the current state of affairs.

  Hosea 8:7. See also Humanae Vitae.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1037937From my point of view, the tragic irony is that most of these people, or their intellectual and spiritual forbears, have spent the past half-century trying to dismiss, denigrate and demolish nearly every conceivable curb on sexual desire ... and are now acting shocked at the current state of affairs.

  Hosea 8:7. See also Humanae Vitae.

There are lots of places in the world more sexually liberal than North America, and they aren't wracked with this hysteria around harassment. And I'd wager that on the sexually active spectrum, most people going to gaming conventions are closer to the inactive end than they are to the highly active end. Seems more likely it's their inexperience and anxiety around normal sexual flirting behaviour that's responsible for these incidents than some kind of unbridled promiscuity.

Believing someone when they say they were harassed does not mean you march the accused the the gallows and Hang them on the spot. If means you take their claim seriously as if it were true. At a Con, yiu do an investigation and if it looks like it might be true, you remove the accused from the convention. In a larger company with a real HR department, basically the same with administrative leave (paid) used if the accusation seems plausible at all.

In the case of the article in question, it looks like it was bounced a few times and the accused was informed and asked for their opinion before it was published. Journalists (and that is a pretty sweeping word for amateurs posting on the web)are likely to be even more terrible at it than Rolling Stone was.

So all the slippery slope arguments above are not reasonable. No one is perfect, woman or man, but this is not cry for immediate firing squads, this is a cry for so,e reasonable action to be taken.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1038000Believing someone when they say they were harassed does not mean you march the accused the the gallows and Hang them on the spot. If means you take their claim seriously as if it were true. At a Con, yiu do an investigation and if it looks like it might be true, you remove the accused from the convention. In a larger company with a real HR department, basically the same with administrative leave (paid) used if the accusation seems plausible at all.

In the case of the article in question, it looks like it was bounced a few times and the accused was informed and asked for their opinion before it was published. Journalists (and that is a pretty sweeping word for amateurs posting on the web)are likely to be even more terrible at it than Rolling Stone was.

So all the slippery slope arguments above are not reasonable. No one is perfect, woman or man, but this is not cry for immediate firing squads, this is a cry for so,e reasonable action to be taken.

But that's exactly what is happening, so I don't understand your "slippery slope" comment.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1038000Believing someone when they say they were harassed does not mean you march the accused the the gallows and Hang them on the spot.

This is what the normies want, though.  Maybe not physically killing them, but definitely socially and professionally.

Quote from: Brad;1038039But that's exactly what is happening, so I don't understand your "slippery slope" comment.

Didn't see this, but exactly.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1038000So all the slippery slope arguments above are not reasonable. No one is perfect, woman or man, but this is not cry for immediate firing squads, this is a cry for so,e reasonable action to be taken.

This is not reasonable.  But that's the way it is now.  Especially if you're a man.

Quote from: sureshot;1037931The sad part the same people in the hobby will in five to ten years time wonder why no men want to have women at their table. Pretend to wonder why no men want to talk to women at conventions, outside of them or in general. Pretend to wonder why men walk on eggshells around women all the time. While then using it as pure 1000% evidence that men hate women and are misogynistic etc.

There is an effort by women and homosexuals to essentially take over the hobby, and declare it as "their space--the safe space (for them)". This is done in the name of "inclusiveness", as if the game was ever non-inclusive.

Now not all women are doing this of course, just a minority of far-left activists.

But once the game publishers, conventions, and online entities begin to cater to the demands of women and homosexuals, it completely changes the hobby. This is reflected in the efforts of Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls to make D&D queer and transgender-friendly, by putting things into the rulebooks and supplements that push this ideology. Conventions routinely invite female gaming bloggers, who typically have few, if any, design or art credits to their names, to the shows. These women then hold seminars on feminism in gaming, white oppression, etc.

Beyond this, we have leftists like Hans Cummings, the submissions director for the Ennies, who openly admits that when a submission comes in from an author he isn't familiar with, he checks the social media of that author, and if he sees that the guy is a conservative, straight, etc., the submission goes right into the trash: the judges never see it. So the games that win Ennie Awards are gay friendly, feature women of color, etc.

Even Paizo feels the need to have a giant, full-color banner up at Origins that shows a black woman dressed as a Crusader-style knight (plate mail, etc.). While gamers can create any kind of character they want, this is just obvious signaling.

It is time to take the hobby back from radical activists. It's time to make it family-friendly again, and based on fantasy and adventure, not identity politics, teenage angst, gender confusion, and degeneracy.

And while I own the game, and think the design is quite good, even games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess are an issue: it is gindcore D&D with a splash of pornography. I'm not sure the OSR was intended as a springboard for torture porn, bondage, and cannibalism. Some of the people involved with that game are the same SJWs pushing the feminist agenda in gaming: it is almost like an attempt to desecrate D&D.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202And while I own the game, and think the design is quite good, even games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess are an issue: it is gindcore D&D with a splash of pornography. I'm not sure the OSR was intended as a springboard for torture porn, bondage, and cannibalism. Some of the people involved with that game are the same SJWs pushing the feminist agenda in gaming: it is almost like an attempt to desecrate D&D.

Thank you for stating this. A number of the adventures are unnecessarily off-putting because of the extremities and DCC handles the same matters much more tastefully.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202And while I own the game, and think the design is quite good, even games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess are an issue: it is gindcore D&D with a splash of pornography. I'm not sure the OSR was intended as a springboard for torture porn, bondage, and cannibalism. Some of the people involved with that game are the same SJWs pushing the feminist agenda in gaming: it is almost like an attempt to desecrate D&D.

Agreed 101%.  I just don't get the love for the game at all.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202And while I own the game, and think the design is quite good, even games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess are an issue: it is gindcore D&D with a splash of pornography. I'm not sure the OSR was intended as a springboard for torture porn, bondage, and cannibalism. Some of the people involved with that game are the same SJWs pushing the feminist agenda in gaming: it is almost like an attempt to desecrate D&D.

Yep. There are a few scenarios that while I was reading I just thought, "good grief, give it a rest".

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202It's time to make it family-friendly again, and based on fantasy and adventure, not identity politics, teenage angst, gender confusion, and degeneracy.

I think you have a point here.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202Beyond this, we have leftists like Hans Cummings, the submissions director for the Ennies, who openly admits that when a submission comes in from an author he isn't familiar with, he checks the social media of that author, and if he sees that the guy is a conservative, straight, etc., the submission goes right into the trash: the judges never see it.

  Documentation, please? This is such an overt and outrageous statement that I have trouble wrapping my head around it.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202But once the game publishers, conventions, and online entities begin to cater to the demands of women and homosexuals, it completely changes the hobby. This is reflected in the efforts of Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls to make D&D queer and transgender-friendly, by putting things into the rulebooks and supplements that push this ideology. Conventions routinely invite female gaming bloggers, who typically have few, if any, design or art credits to their names, to the shows. These women then hold seminars on feminism in gaming, white oppression, etc.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202And while I own the game, and think the design is quite good, even games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess are an issue: it is gindcore D&D with a splash of pornography. I'm not sure the OSR was intended as a springboard for torture porn, bondage, and cannibalism. Some of the people involved with that game are the same SJWs pushing the feminist agenda in gaming: it is almost like an attempt to desecrate D&D.

This is a load of crap.

D&D should be for all of women, homosexuals, men, and heterosexuals. D&D wasn't ruined for women back in the days when it was only catering to men, and it isn't ruined for men now by sometimes catering to women. It's not just Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls - even RPGPundit fully endorsed putting in transgender-friendly statements into the D&D5 rulebooks. (ref) (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/07/if-youre-going-to-hate-me-at-least-do.html)  If the existence of material for women and homosexuals ruins the game for you personally, that's your problem. The game plays just fine for me, even though my weekly group right now are all hetero men.

I'm not personally into Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and I like family-friendly game material - but other people enjoy it. It doesn't hurt my D&D if they want to play their other games - and I think it is a crock of shit to think that your game is "desecrated" by other people playing Lamentations.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202And while I own the game, and think the design is quite good, even games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess are an issue: it is gindcore D&D with a splash of pornography. I'm not sure the OSR was intended as a springboard for torture porn, bondage, and cannibalism. Some of the people involved with that game are the same SJWs pushing the feminist agenda in gaming...

I don't think they are the same SJWs, no. Regular sex-hating SJWs are very hostile to Zak Sabbath, James Raggi et al. I'm not saying those guys aren't a bunch of filthy degenerate pornographer feminist commie pinko liberals :D - and Mandy Morbid does a bunch of Youtube stuff in the WoTC orbit - but they are definitely not the same group as the RPG industry's SJW Red Guard cadre.

Quote from: jhkim;1038234This is a load of crap.

I would say that inclusiveness works both ways.

Quote from: jhkim;1038234This is a load of crap.

D&D should be for all of women, homosexuals, men, and heterosexuals. D&D wasn't ruined for women back in the days when it was only catering to men, and it isn't ruined for men now by sometimes catering to women. It's not just Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls - even RPGPundit fully endorsed putting in transgender-friendly statements into the D&D5 rulebooks. (ref) (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/07/if-youre-going-to-hate-me-at-least-do.html)  If the existence of material for women and homosexuals ruins the game for you personally, that's your problem. The game plays just fine for me, even though my weekly group right now are all hetero men.

I'm curious. Do you think that D&D before the inclusionary language was de-facto *exclusionary* for not specifying inclusive language for LGBT+ crowd? If so on the basis of what? Because by that logic then D&D will always be exclusionary to someone. This is the fun part of the ideology that conflates the importance of the small over the large without context or presumption of intention to be actually exclusionary.

What this does is turn the endeavor itself into a game of meta-politics. It becomes enslaved by the projections of those whose feelings can never be assuaged because of their own self-loathing that is married to the narcissism of self-entitlement merely by appearance.

This has become true of almost *everything* today. To what end? <----there is the real question.

I like to use a simple litmus test to show how this is purely arbitrary sentiment. Why isn't there inclusionary language for Left-Handed People? Why is there not more representation of Left Handed characters in the artwork? Or in movies? Or in books (unironically - as I'm writing about that now), or where is the restitution for my Left-Handed brothers and sisters that have been historically murdered for merely wanting to do things with their ass-wiping hand?

You *might* laugh (I do) - but yet everything I'm saying is true. And the only reason it's not taken seriously is because enough people aren't whining about it. Why do you think that is?

Quote from: jhkim;1038234D&D should be for all of women, homosexuals, men, and heterosexuals.

Why?

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202There is an effort by women and homosexuals to essentially take over the hobby, and declare it as "their space--the safe space (for them)". This is done in the name of "inclusiveness", as if the game was ever non-inclusive.

Now not all women are doing this of course, just a minority of far-left activists.

But once the game publishers, conventions, and online entities begin to cater to the demands of women and homosexuals, it completely changes the hobby. This is reflected in the efforts of Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls to make D&D queer and transgender-friendly, by putting things into the rulebooks and supplements that push this ideology. Conventions routinely invite female gaming bloggers, who typically have few, if any, design or art credits to their names, to the shows. These women then hold seminars on feminism in gaming, white oppression, etc.

Beyond this, we have leftists like Hans Cummings, the submissions director for the Ennies, who openly admits that when a submission comes in from an author he isn't familiar with, he checks the social media of that author, and if he sees that the guy is a conservative, straight, etc., the submission goes right into the trash: the judges never see it. So the games that win Ennie Awards are gay friendly, feature women of color, etc.

Even Paizo feels the need to have a giant, full-color banner up at Origins that shows a black woman dressed as a Crusader-style knight (plate mail, etc.). While gamers can create any kind of character they want, this is just obvious signaling.

It is time to take the hobby back from radical activists. It's time to make it family-friendly again, and based on fantasy and adventure, not identity politics, teenage angst, gender confusion, and degeneracy.

And while I own the game, and think the design is quite good, even games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess are an issue: it is gindcore D&D with a splash of pornography. I'm not sure the OSR was intended as a springboard for torture porn, bondage, and cannibalism. Some of the people involved with that game are the same SJWs pushing the feminist agenda in gaming: it is almost like an attempt to desecrate D&D.

I'm going to call bullshit.

The ttRPG industry can't be exclusionary because RPGs are relatively cheap to make and rules can't be the subject of a copyright.

You may get pushed out of your favorite brands like D&D, but there is still older editions and other games to play. You may have to teach people to play the game you like, but it isn't impossible.

Paizo is a good example of a company getting worse and worse as their forums become echo chambers due to terrible moderation and 2e looks like a hot dumpster fire of bad ideas that no one said no to. And of course, the SJW crowd still hates Paizo because marketing to that crowd is stupid. They don't spend much money and enjoy outrage more than gaming, all reaching out to them will ever net a company is being on their hit list.

So no, I don't think the SJWs are going to ruin RPGs, they may ruin your favorite RPG, but I know that I already have enough stuff that the industry could be gone tomorrow and I would be fine.

Quote from: tenbones;1038244I'm curious. Do you think that D&D before the inclusionary language was de-facto *exclusionary* for not specifying inclusive language for LGBT+ crowd? If so on the basis of what? Because by that logic then D&D will always be exclusionary to someone. This is the fun part of the ideology that conflates the importance of the small over the large without context or presumption of intention to be actually exclusionary.

What this does is turn the endeavor itself into a game of meta-politics. It becomes enslaved by the projections of those whose feelings can never be assuaged because of their own self-loathing that is married to the narcissism of self-entitlement merely by appearance.

No, I don't think that the game was inherently exclusionary for not specifying. As I said, women can and did have fun playing D&D in previous editions. Conversely, though, if a game has mostly women in the pictures and examples and background, that doesn't inherently exclude men.

I do think that pictures and examples and background do have some effect - but that is encouragement, not exclusion.

I do consider it hypocritical whining if someone says (a) women could perfectly well play older edition D&D even though there were few illustrations, examples, and background showing heroic women; and (b) men are excluded from a new D&D edition if it includes women in the illustrations, examples, and background.

Quote from: jhkim;1038234This is a load of crap.
... I think it is a crock of shit to think that your game is "desecrated" by other people playing Lamentations.

Agreed.

Let me point out that I'm against the tabloid journalism of amateurs using a platform to punish/lambaste a person. There are better ways to address sexual harrassment (or inequality, or unequal representation), than burning people publicly.

I absolutely support people making WHAT EVER kinds of games they want. LGBTQ people should make games that appeal to their desires and preferences. It certainly does NOT mean that now hetero white dudes should stop making games. There is PLENTY of room in the industry for everyone!

I am absolutely opposed to ANY censorship, ANY gate-keeping, ANY rules that exclude ANYONE from this hobby. Period!

Everyone has a right to express concerns, opinions and produce the kind of games they want to see. People need to focus on what makes them happy and leave others alone with what makes them happy.

I'm tired of the White Knights / over-zealous SJWs / over-zealous Religious types telling us what to do! Take care of your shit, and leave my shit alone! Why can't we just appreciate what we have and be happy for others who appreciate what they have? When did this become so fucking difficult.

Quote from: jhkim;1038234D&D should be for all of women, homosexuals, men, and heterosexuals.

Even those who are uninterested in actually playing the game?

Quote from: jhkim;1038252No, I don't think that the game was inherently exclusionary for not specifying. As I said, women can and did have fun playing D&D in previous editions. Conversely, though, if a game has mostly women in the pictures and examples and background, that doesn't inherently exclude men.

I do think that pictures and examples and background do have some effect - but that is encouragement, not exclusion.

Fair enough. But then conversely to that - without actual evidence that including images on some magical forumula (as seen in the Harvard Study where the professor spent his time counting pictures for representation balance) has some form of impact on demographics, where is this data? Is that actually provable? (this might be an aside...) Or is it just a feeling based on demographics they can't seem to analyze beyond the surface appearance so it must be some male heterodoxy at work.

Because the real question becomes: in order to not be exclusionary, why then is it necessary, or even fiscally responsible to denigrate your largest and primary demographic for the purposes of going after a much smaller demographic that *may not actually exist*?

We both agree that there is a difference between being inclusionary/exclusionary by choice without having to be overt at *either*. But yet - WotC's devs have actually made that choice. They have, whether you agree it's done in humor or not, said or implied that D&D needs less men. If the implication of more images have some desired effect, why in the world would that implication not extend to the overt messaging of the opposite of that? And again - *to what end*?

Quote from: jhkim;1038252I do consider it hypocritical whining if someone says (a) women could perfectly well play older edition D&D even though there were few illustrations, examples, and background showing heroic women; and (b) men are excluded from a new D&D edition if it includes women in the illustrations, examples, and background.

Okay I may have missed that. I dunno where anyone said those things. I personally find the use of surface-level observations as causal factors disingenuous at best. It leads to the picture-counting scenario being evident of something that to my knowledge has zero support scientifically, though people seem perfectly happy to make that leap if it serves their larger narrative. But I'll stand on the larger fact of these demographics that WotC are making a direct appeal to something that may not exist (the diversity demographic) - and they're making that appeal directly at the expense of their primary demographic, whom they are casting shade on based purely on huge generalizations. Those things might be zero-sum in how they're tackling it as well.

Some of those generalizations, I might add, seem to crop up with those in their own ideological camp far more frequently than they would admit. Meanwhile... how does this serve the game - or the industry at large?

Here's something I think is some middle-ground on this topic...

I believe it's less of an issue of ideology than methodology. For instance most people not in the SJW camp, generally didn't care about most of the perceived issues the SJW's have groused about. Some are legit (but I'm going to ballpark the vast majority aren't to non-SJW's). But it's the methodology of how SJW's go about trying to "address" those issues that freak people out.

For instance - there is gigantic presumption the surface appearance of things are what is important, and no one is responsible for their own agency in any interactions, but if you're appear to be on the list of oppressed people - then you have some form of diplomatic immunity from bad decision-making. Case in point: Presumed guilt based on arbitrary accusations free of evidence. Presumed guilt based on gender. Presumed guilt based on sexual plumbing. Presumed guilt based on non-proscribed language. Presumed guilt on non-proscribed thoughts.

And the emergent playbook of how you insert these ideas into the culture has trickled down into nearly every nook and cranny of society. It's become a meta-game of not trying engage in endeavors for their own sake, but to throw a wet blanket on all endeavors unless they now meet the criteria of untouchable Oppression Olympians who are immune to their own ideology depending on their own hierarchy which they conveniently pretend they don't exist.

This literally is why we can't have good things. Because all the things have to be pre-judged in the light of what the Oppression Police have dictated what is proper free of any actual facts. I think the reality is SJW's don't really want any of the things they say they want. I don't think it's demonstrably true in any meaningful fashion where they have, in fact, made a difference they themselves can live with. This thread - and the Guilt-by-accusation to be tried and prosecuted in public is part of that failed methodology. And it's not about justice. It's about revenge.

And I'm not saying those two things aren't linked. But in the hands of naive, ignorant, and overly emotional people - they become weapons. And unfortunately, not everyone submits when attacked. Hence - we have the current state we're in.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038262Even those who are uninterested in actually playing the game?

Well, obviously they're uninterested in playing the game because they're not included, so therefore we need to rectify that...

Quote from: Brad;1038272Well, obviously they're uninterested in playing the game because they're not included, so therefore we need to rectify that...

Who is not including them? And what does inclusion entail? What evidence is their disinterest has to do with their belief they're not feeling included that isn't motivated by something else other than feelings?

Quote from: tenbones;1038282Who is not including them? And what does inclusion entail? What evidence is their disinterest has to do with their belief they're not feeling included that isn't motivated by something else other than feelings?

Probably needed sarcasm tags on that. I guess it's like saying basketball only appeals to tall guys because there aren't any midgets in the NBA. Obviously we need midget players to be more inclusive!

Quote from: tenbones;1038282And what does inclusion entail?

Simple! Every possible current and future favored group must be explicitly positively portrayed and there can be NO negative portrayal of anything that could even remotely be construed as a representing a favored group (no matter how absurd). The thought police shall render judgement of adherence and violators will be publicly shamed out of existence.

Quote from: Brad;1038283Probably needed sarcasm tags on that. I guess it's like saying basketball only appeals to tall guys because there aren't any midgets in the NBA. Obviously we need midget players to be more inclusive!

LOL Halflings! Dorfs! Gnomes! O-my!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1037288I dont' care about harassment anymore. It's none of my business, and...



... an awful lot of this going on.

That's the problem with any movement based on Identitarianism. It eats itself. They're always going through Purity Purges.

Quote from: S'mon;1038239I don't think they are the same SJWs, no. Regular sex-hating SJWs are very hostile to Zak Sabbath, James Raggi et al. I'm not saying those guys aren't a bunch of filthy degenerate pornographer feminist commie pinko liberals :D - and Mandy Morbid does a bunch of Youtube stuff in the WoTC orbit - but they are definitely not the same group as the RPG industry's SJW Red Guard cadre.

For the most part, they're not SJWs.
Silas is trying to mix up two different groups. The crowd taking over D&D (Crawford, etc) are virulently against female sexuality but are fervently pro-LGBT. They aren't pro-LGBT because they want to spread some kind of 'degeneracy' but because they are in an ideological war. These are the kind of people who would be demanding Gender Fluid Elves in RPG books but also demanding that Venger Satanis' books be censored.

The SJWs, like our friend Silas, are moral prudes that have a high disgust factor at anything they personally wouldn't like to the point of thinking it shouldn't exist.

The other guys he brought up (the DIY OSR people) are just libertines, albeit a lot of them are otherwise leftist without realizing the irony of it.
And of course Zak, who is absolutely DESPERATE to be admitted as a member of the SJW club to the point that he's disavowed pretty much the entire OSR to try to win them over, but they're never ever going to want him because he did Porn.

The fallout from all this will likely not recede as fast as the previous outrage outcries have. If anything it seems to be spreading more and more.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038294For the most part, they're not SJWs.
Silas is trying to mix up two different groups. The crowd taking over D&D (Crawford, etc) are virulently against female sexuality but are fervently pro-LGBT. They aren't pro-LGBT because they want to spread some kind of 'degeneracy' but because they are in an ideological war. These are the kind of people who would be demanding Gender Fluid Elves in RPG books but also demanding that Venger Satanis' books be censored.

The SJWs, like our friend Silas, are moral prudes that have a high disgust factor at anything they personally wouldn't like to the point of thinking it shouldn't exist.

The other guys he brought up (the DIY OSR people) are just libertines, albeit a lot of them are otherwise leftist without realizing the irony of it.
And of course Zak, who is absolutely DESPERATE to be admitted as a member of the SJW club to the point that he's disavowed pretty much the entire OSR to try to win them over, but they're never ever going to want him because he did Porn.

Don't group me in with SJWs. I am not a "moral prude", nor do I think book should be banned, etc.

There are RPGs specifically designed for a mature audience (Necroscope, Creepshow, Blue Rose, or even Call of Cthulhu to some degree) and there are RPGs that have a history of being family-friendly, such as D&D. I have no problem with someone writing a RPG for a specific audience, but I do have a problem with gay activists hijacking an existing game and turning it into something else. As a consumer, I can object.

LotFP falls somewhere in-between, as it uses the OSR rules, but directs the game into new, gory territory. At the end of the day, I don't have an issue with it, but I do see some of the motivations behind it. The Ennies judges love to give it rewards, even though guys like Zack are held in suspicion.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1038223Documentation, please? This is such an overt and outrageous statement that I have trouble wrapping my head around it.

He has openly talked about it at conventions, and will probably tell you he does it if you reach out to him. He doesn't see any issue with doing this, as Republicans and Trump supporters are literal Nazis who do not belong in the gaming industry, or even in the US.

He isn't quite as bad as Jeff Dee though (author of V&V). Jeff argues that conservatives should be treated like the Nazi war criminals at the Nurnberg trials (executed basically), that the First Amendment doesn't apply to people who disagree with him, and that violence should be used against the political right. He makes Yvette Falarca look like a moderate.

Go check out the social media of these guys for a month or two. It is as frightening as it is humorous.

My wife passed away 5 years ago, and 2-3 prior to that she was battling cancer. Since that time I have remarried a non-gamer, so after a 7-8 year hiatus im just now getting back around to reading RPG forums, and I have to ask myself... what the hell has happened to the hobby? I don't even recognize it anymore.

If I was just getting into gaming now, and read the SJW crap I'm reading now I would start looking for a different hobby...

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1038312... what the hell has happened to the hobby? I don't even recognize it anymore.

The internet happened to the hobby.  The crazy is the same as it has ever been, but before it was easy to not encounter it.  There are a vast sea of gamers that are just like you remember.  Just be aware as you look that the other kind is out there too.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1038206Thank you for stating this. A number of the adventures are unnecessarily off-putting because of the extremities and DCC handles the same matters much more tastefully.

Quote from: Apparition;1038220Agreed 101%.  I just don't get the love for the game at all.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038221Yep. There are a few scenarios that while I was reading I just thought, "good grief, give it a rest".

Yeah, Lamentations gives the impression of just trying too hard.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1038312My wife passed away 5 years ago, and 2-3 prior to that she was battling cancer. Since that time I have remarried a non-gamer, so after a 7-8 year hiatus im just now getting back around to reading RPG forums, and I have to ask myself... what the hell has happened to the hobby? I don't even recognize it anymore.

If I was just getting into gaming now, and read the SJW crap I'm reading now I would start looking for a different hobby...

After this last shit storm, I've seriously considered it. I just love RPGs too much. :-D

Quote from: Silas1066;1038298there are RPGs that have a history of being family-friendly, such as D&D

I guess because I came in with 1e AD&D, I don't really think of D&D as being particularly family-friendly. Obviously compared to LotFP even 1e is pretty family-friendly, and never used extreme gore art & tropes - unlike Paizo's Pathfinder, which has some art as gory as anything in LoTFP, just with less monstrous vaginae.

Edit: If you meant homosexuality a la Blue Rose, yes D&D never had explicitly gay & lesbian characters until recently. That was always a Paizo/Pathfinder thing. Jeremy Crawford has a rather narcissistic crusade to make D&D gay because he's gay and he 'deserves to be represented', which I wouldn't mind if he didn't make a big deal of it - I liked pre-2012 Paizo stuff where their setting Golarion had gay NPCs in the Adventure Paths, but didn't make a huge deal of it. But over time it became heavily fetishised, with a Look at Me! Look at Me! tone.

Authoritarians/Totalitarians come in all stripes, regardless of class, creed, or politics. And the most addictive, and destructive, "drug abuse" is getting high off of one's Self Righteousness. Pride goes before the fall... :)

The rest is just people disagreeing on how best to be people with other people. Some can unclench and be with others. Yet there will be those who get off on clenching so hard they're going to share their new revelations with the rest of us, willing or not. Pity them, reject their fear-based revelation, but do not counter-clench in retaliation -- it falls into the same trap.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202Now not all women are doing this of course, just a minority of far-left activists.

THIS is what must be remembered. The average gamer (of either gender or sexuality) just wants to have fun with friends.

THIS is a political crusade by a tiny, loud, almost entirely online group of assholes (who are mostly non-gamers).

Fuck those fucking fuckheads.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202It is time to take the hobby back from radical activists. It's time to make it family-friendly again, and based on fantasy and adventure, not identity politics, teenage angst, gender confusion, and degeneracy.

I've been gaming since 1978. When were RPGs "family friendly"? My AD&D books have boobies, mass murder and Gary's random hooker table.

The hobby isn't in the hands of radical activists because the online world / social media is a delusional parallel universe that doesn't reflect what's actually going on in the real world.

Quote from: tenbones;1038244Why isn't there inclusionary language for Left-Handed People? Why is there not more representation of Left Handed characters in the artwork?

Because left handed people are born without souls, much like gingers.

Didn't you pay attention to anything in school?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1038249So no, I don't think the SJWs are going to ruin RPGs, they may ruin your favorite RPG, but I know that I already have enough stuff that the industry could be gone tomorrow and I would be fine.

Agreed.

SJWs can't do shit to my game table...or the game table to anyone else who recruits players capable finding their ass with both hands.  

Quote from: Chainsaw;1038284The thought police shall render judgement of adherence and violators will be publicly shamed out of existence.

Until somebody pushes back hard, then watch these fucking cowards cry and run.

SJWs are incredibly fragile. The wankers crying for safe spaces aren't built for a fight.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038294The crowd taking over D&D (Crawford, etc) are virulently against female sexuality but are fervently pro-LGBT.

I don't believe the SJWs are actually pro-LGBT. Only their purse puppy TV imagery of homosexuality.

AKA, I doubt they'd have much support for Log Cabin Republicans, Gay Christians or any LGBT people who don't fit their preconceived stereotypes.

Also...if these retards can't handle female sexuality, they can't handle any human sexuality.  

Quote from: Omega;1038295The fallout from all this will likely not recede as fast as the previous outrage outcries have. If anything it seems to be spreading more and more.

Links?

Let me be abso-fucking-clear here since there are some people who will think I agree with them and some 'enemies' who will use that as ammunition. I know the Drama Llamas and the trolls of YDIS like to cruise here for meat.

If you're seeking to constrict or define what other people can create or play in their games, I'm not on your side.

My objection to the censorious puritanism of the 'SocJus' pseudo-left is the same objection I always had to the censorious puritanism of the evangelical right of the past. I think games - and all other creative endeavours - should be as free as possible to explore ideas and material. After all nobody HAS to play anything. The moment you start to try and control what someone else can publish or play, or what gets awards or gets sold, that's where I start to have issues.

If you think all games need to be family friendly, get fucked.
If you think all games have to have modern-era progressive ideology present in their settings, get fucked.
If you don't think games should have nudity or address adult themes, get fucked.

Basically as soon as you're saying something either must or mustn't be present in someone else's work - get fucked.

I have no objection to grindcore, satanic, cannibalistic, dungeon crawling games existing.
I have no objection to hippy-dippy, narrative focused, borderline ephebophile mecha games existing.

I don't want to excise the 'Social Justice Warriors' from the hobby any more than I wanted to excise the religious from the hobby. I just want them to stop trying to dictate to everyone else and to stop passing judgement and establishing purity tests. To stop trying to take control.

FOAMYOS.
(Fuck off, and make your own shit).

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038364Links?

https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?827817-Related-to-the-Sean-Fannon-thread-Prowlers-amp-Paragons-UE-and-Leonard-Pimentel

Some poor indie is about to be pressured to drop SPF from his stuff and lose that brand recognition, but it sounds like the indie dev says he knows SPF personally and that these claims don't make sense.

Some people may have overplayed their hand this time and targeted a decently large network of quality content creators by going this hard after someone who has not even been accused of inappropriately touching a woman.

At Pinnacle, he lost his brand manager job but is still working on the rules he wrote for Savage Rifts. Which seems perfectly reasonable that a big hit to your brand inhibits you from being a good brand manager, but it's not like PEG cut all ties or stopped being friends with him. The mob may want more from PEG but their not going to get it.

Quote from: GRIM;1038371I don't want to excise the 'Social Justice Warriors' from the hobby any more than I wanted to excise the religious from the hobby. I just want them to stop trying to dictate to everyone else and to stop passing judgement and establishing purity tests. To stop trying to take control.

FOAMYOS.
(Fuck off, and make your own shit).

[video=youtube;IxAKFlpdcfc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAKFlpdcfc[/youtube]

Quote from: GRIM;1038371I don't want to excise the 'Social Justice Warriors' from the hobby any more than I wanted to excise the religious from the hobby. I just want them to stop trying to dictate to everyone else and to stop passing judgement and establishing purity tests. To stop trying to take control.

Problem is the religious can and have been playing the entire time, most without trying to convert people.

By their very nature SJW have to fight (hence the Warrior portion of their moniker). As we are witnessing now, they have to to to war and destroy what they perceive as a wrong.

I'm more concerned with dreary revisions of games that never excluded anybody in the first place.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2478[/ATTACH]

Let me clarify what I said about "family-friendly"

I meant that specifically in regards to D&D, not other games. There are plenty of games with adult themes that I enjoy playing, and I have no issue with people creating stuff that is for a mature audience.

And when I say D&D was family-friendly, I mean Classic D&D, not AD&D. From the brown box, to the Holmes edition, to BECMI, etc., TSR set the age range at 11+. There was no nudity (that I remember), excessive gore, homosexual themes, etc. in those editions. You could play the game with your kids and not have to worry.

Now AD&D was for a somewhat older crowd, but even that was tame compared to modern stuff. There may have been supporting material in Dragon magazine, etc. that was specifically for adults.

Other RPGs from the late 70s and early 80s were pretty family-friendly: Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls, Man, Myth, and Magic, etc.

When the "Book of Vile Darkness" arrived in 3rd edition, things began to change. Now we had incestuous demons who engaged in rape. Later, gay characters were introduced, transgenderism in the rule books, etc. Now we have Crawford declaring he wants to make D&D more queer.

But heaven forbid we have any slave lords! That is going too far!

In other words, a small group of people is steering the game where they want it to go

Quote from: Silas1066;1038416Let me clarify what I said about "family-friendly"

I meant that specifically in regards to D&D, not other games. There are plenty of games with adult themes that I enjoy playing, and I have no issue with people creating stuff that is for a mature audience.

So how does this square with your complaint that Lamentations of the Flame Princess is desecrating D&D? Is it that you consider Lamentations to be inherently D&D, and thus it shouldn't have adult themes? Or do you not actually have a problem with Lamentations, and take back your complaint?

Quote from: Silas1066;1038416And when I say D&D was family-friendly, I mean Classic D&D, not AD&D. From the brown box, to the Holmes edition, to BECMI, etc., TSR set the age range at 11+. There was no nudity (that I remember), excessive gore, homosexual themes, etc. in those editions. You could play the game with your kids and not have to worry.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038416When the "Book of Vile Darkness" arrived in 3rd edition, things began to change. Now we had incestuous demons who engaged in rape. Later, gay characters were introduced, transgenderism in the rule books, etc. Now we have Crawford declaring he wants to make D&D more queer.

But heaven forbid we have any slave lords! That is going too far!

In other words, a small group of people is steering the game where they want it to go

As far as family-friendly goes - you seem to clearly be saying that gay characters and/or gay themes are not family-friendly. I could accept your saying "I don't want products with any gay characters in them" as a personal preference. However, I and many other families don't think there is anything wrong with gay people. I am happy introducing my children to gay friends, having gay teachers, watching shows with gay characters, etc. Gay themes and gay characters are family-friendly, in my opinion.

And here is the crux. We both play D&D - we both have different things that we want from it. It is up to the owners and the market of D&D to determine what direction it goes in. Over time, it will go in different directions, and it will be up to a small number of people inherently, because there are only so many people who will actually write new official material. The market will have feedback about that, but by many accounts, D&D is doing great right now in the market. I don't think that older players have a moral right to keep D&D gay-free like it used to be, and this is a change that I'm fine with.

Quote from: jhkim;1038428I don't think that older players have a moral right to keep D&D gay-free like it used to be, and this is a change that I'm fine with.

D&D never was gay-free, or anything like that. Two of the guys in my original gaming group from the 70's were gay. One was a life-long closet gay, and the other, exactly the opposite.

That said, we are having a problem now with a bunch of gay, bi, and transgender guys trying to gatekeep our hobby, and to deliberately exclude people, for no good reason at all... other than they don't like them. Check out all the fun and games this morning over at the LotFP G+ ...

Also I'd appreciate screenshots if anyone here cares to share, as a few of the more vocal slimeballs ID'ed as being witchhunters have actually blocked me, so I can no longer see their posts in that thread, all because I'm making arguments on behalf of Sean Patrick Fannon as well as theRPGPundit... So much for free speech on G+.

https://plus.google.com/112262093672917983853/posts/dgAPkjyTxEs?fscid=z13sd1linpq5t5cqv04cix5zjravjn3z0lo0k.1525969016471360 (https://plus.google.com/112262093672917983853/posts/dgAPkjyTxEs?fscid=z13sd1linpq5t5cqv04cix5zjravjn3z0lo0k.1525969016471360)

Quote from: Silas1066;1038416Let me clarify what I said about "family-friendly"

I meant that specifically in regards to D&D, not other games. There are plenty of games with adult themes that I enjoy playing, and I have no issue with people creating stuff that is for a mature audience.

And when I say D&D was family-friendly, I mean Classic D&D, not AD&D. From the brown box, to the Holmes edition, to BECMI, etc., TSR set the age range at 11+. There was no nudity (that I remember), excessive gore, homosexual themes, etc. in those editions. You could play the game with your kids and not have to worry.

Now AD&D was for a somewhat older crowd, but even that was tame compared to modern stuff. There may have been supporting material in Dragon magazine, etc. that was specifically for adults.

Other RPGs from the late 70s and early 80s were pretty family-friendly: Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls, Man, Myth, and Magic, etc.

When the "Book of Vile Darkness" arrived in 3rd edition, things began to change. Now we had incestuous demons who engaged in rape. Later, gay characters were introduced, transgenderism in the rule books, etc. Now we have Crawford declaring he wants to make D&D more queer.

But heaven forbid we have any slave lords! That is going too far!

In other words, a small group of people is steering the game where they want it to go

Homosexuality being an explicit topic is no longer a default assumption.

Now a days, it's presence in a medium is like the presence of witchcraft in the medium, it offends some but is not considered offensive.

The same can be said for gender issues, though to a lesser extent since it's not as widely accepted as Homosexuality.

I personally don't mind this, what I do mind is when it sides from, "some characters are gay" to "this character is more interesting because he is gay". Ummm no, sexuality and gender identity don't make characters more interesting by themselves. It's just a different starting motivation to build a character out of, the interesting parts of a character come from the character arch.

Quote from: jhkim;1038428So how does this square with your complaint that Lamentations of the Flame Princess is desecrating D&D? Is it that you consider Lamentations to be inherently D&D, and thus it shouldn't have adult themes? Or do you not actually have a problem with Lamentations, and take back your complaint?




As far as family-friendly goes - you seem to clearly be saying that gay characters and/or gay themes are not family-friendly. I could accept your saying "I don't want products with any gay characters in them" as a personal preference. However, I and many other families don't think there is anything wrong with gay people. I am happy introducing my children to gay friends, having gay teachers, watching shows with gay characters, etc. Gay themes and gay characters are family-friendly, in my opinion.

And here is the crux. We both play D&D - we both have different things that we want from it. It is up to the owners and the market of D&D to determine what direction it goes in. Over time, it will go in different directions, and it will be up to a small number of people inherently, because there are only so many people who will actually write new official material. The market will have feedback about that, but by many accounts, D&D is doing great right now in the market. I don't think that older players have a moral right to keep D&D gay-free like it used to be, and this is a change that I'm fine with.

As far as the gay issue goes, my stance is that when I sit down with the kids to play D&D, getting into discussions about the gay lifestyle is not on the menu. It isn't the time or place for that.

I don't let gays interject their shit into every facet of life simply because they feel entitled. Likewise, I don't think Christians should be interjecting Biblical messages into the PHB either.

LotFP is derived from old-school D&D, and is technically part of the OSR. Do they mean to desecrate the tradition? I don't know, but some have made this observation.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038433D&D never was gay-free, or anything like that. Two of the guys in my original gaming group from the 70's were gay. One was a life-long closet gay, and the other, exactly the opposite.

That said, we are having a problem now with a bunch of gay, bi, and transgender guys trying to gatekeep our hobby, and to deliberately exclude people, for no good reason at all... other than they don't like them. Check out all the fun and games this morning over at the LotFP G+ ...

Also I'd appreciate screenshots if anyone here cares to share, as a few of the more vocal slimeballs ID'ed as being witchhunters have actually blocked me, so I can no longer see their posts in that thread, all because I'm making arguments on behalf of Sean Patrick Fannon as well as theRPGPundit... So much for free speech on G+.

https://plus.google.com/112262093672917983853/posts/dgAPkjyTxEs?fscid=z13sd1linpq5t5cqv04cix5zjravjn3z0lo0k.1525969016471360 (https://plus.google.com/112262093672917983853/posts/dgAPkjyTxEs?fscid=z13sd1linpq5t5cqv04cix5zjravjn3z0lo0k.1525969016471360)

Is Raggi a member of this group? Why is he putting up my posts on other forums?

Now I stand by what I said about LotFP, but this discussion was for this audience, not for the general public.

Also, let me point out that I did not say Raggi himself is a SJW. He clearly is NOT, and SJWs tend not to like him.

But Zack S ?

LotFP could be a truly great game if it toned down some of the grindcore elements. The artwork and design are excellent (I love the boxed set), the writing is good, rules are pretty streamlined and intuitive.

I just don't think they needed to put in the shocking stuff just to cause controversy or get attention. The game can stand on its own merits.

I'm not saying don't include horror, some gore, etc. --but they went too far.

There was a game years ago called "The World of Necroscope" by West End. Cool system, pretty good writing, interesting game world, but the art in the first module was outright torture-porn (the adventure featured serial killers, etc.). It really turned me off to the game (the art was even worse than that found in LotFP).

Quote from: Silas1066;1038443Is Raggi a member of this group? Why is he putting up my posts on other forums?

Now I stand by what I said about LotFP, but this discussion was for this audience, not for the general public.

Not that I know of. He just just posted about some twit who wasn't a very clear thinker. The Swine/Tangency from Enworld (and probably from the RPG.net as well, That echo chambers there have been dreadfully boring as of late without any new targets, but each other...) jumped in with their torches and pitchforks and actually dragged the RPGSite as well as Zak into the ongoing conversation, whereupon a bunch of losers dogpiled the Pundit. I just stepped in to verify whether these same losers were part of that torch bearing lynch mob that went after Sean Patrick Fannon last week and was rewarded with an unequivocal affirmation of that fact, so I burned a few of the more vocal ones for their stupidity, and then was blocked by a few others that were ashamed of being caught in the company of such a crew of losers.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038453Not that I know of. He just just posted about some twit who wasn't a very clear thinker. The Swine/Tangency from Enworld (and probably from the RPG.net as well, That echo chambers there have been dreadfully boring as of late without any new targets, but each other...) jumped in with their torches and pitchforks and actually dragged the RPGSite as well as Zak into the ongoing conversation, whereupon a bunch of losers dogpiled the Pundit. I just stepped in to verify whether these same losers were part of that torch bearing lynch mob that went after Sean Patrick Fannon last week and was rewarded with an unequivocal affirmation of that fact, so I burned a few of the more vocal ones for their stupidity, and then was blocked by a few others that were ashamed of being caught in the company of such a crew of losers.

Raggi says that Ennies judges receive product directly and that the staff isn't involved. That's bullshit and he knows it. It says right on the Ennies site:

"If a publisher is submitting electronic products they should fill out the submission form first before sending anything. They should then e-mail their electronic submissions to Hans Cummings, our Submissions Coordinator."

"When the Submissions Coordinator receives an electronic entry, he will also update the spreadsheet. He will then upload the product to a Dropbox to which each judge has access. They can then download it, updating the spreadsheet when they do, and start to review it."

Publishers also drop off physical product to the submissions coordinator at Gencon and other conventions.

Very few submissions bypass the coordinator. So I need to call out that bullshit outright.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038433D&D never was gay-free, or anything like that. Two of the guys in my original gaming group from the 70's were gay. One was a life-long closet gay, and the other, exactly the opposite.

To clarify - Silas1066 is complaining about the appearance of gay characters in official D&D materials - and in reaction, I was referring to "gay-free" as D&D adventures/sourcebooks being free of gay characters. As far as I know, for a long time there were no gay characters in official published D&D adventures and sourcebooks.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038433That said, we are having a problem now with a bunch of gay, bi, and transgender guys trying to gatekeep our hobby, and to deliberately exclude people, for no good reason at all... other than they don't like them. Check out all the fun and games this morning over at the LotFP G+

OK, what I see there on James Raggi's channel is mostly him and other people complaining about Silas1066's charge that Lamentations is desecrating D&D.  Who are you saying that James Raggi and Lamentations fans are trying to exclude from the hobby?

Quote from: jhkim;1038456To clarify - Silas1066 is complaining about the appearance of gay characters in official D&D materials - and in reaction, I was referring to "gay-free" as D&D adventures/sourcebooks being free of gay characters. As far as I know, for a long time there were no gay characters in official published D&D adventures and sourcebooks.


OK, what I see there on James Raggi's channel is mostly him and other people complaining about Silas1066's charge that Lamentations is desecrating D&D.  Who are you saying that James Raggi and Lamentations fans are trying to exclude from the hobby?

I'm just wondering why my post found its way over to Raggi's group.

Some dogpile by proxy effort?

He is welcome to come here and discuss LotFP in detail. As I pointed out above, I actually think it is a pretty good game, but I do have a few issues with it.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038452There was a game years ago called "The World of Necroscope" by West End. Cool system, pretty good writing, interesting game world, but the art in the first module was outright torture-porn (the adventure featured serial killers, etc.). It really turned me off to the game (the art was even worse than that found in LotFP).

   I believe that was licensed, so it may have been the source material.

  But all these controversies and varied camps are making me want to stick with dead and abandoned product lines.

Quote from: GRIM;1038371...get fucked.

...I don't want to excise the 'Social Justice Warriors' from the hobby any more than I wanted to excise the religious from the hobby. I just want them to stop trying to dictate to everyone else and to stop passing judgement and establishing purity tests. To stop trying to take control.
...

Bingo! Exactly.

Quote from: GRIM;1038371Let me be abso-fucking-clear here since there are some people who will think I agree with them and some 'enemies' who will use that as ammunition. I know the Drama Llamas and the trolls of YDIS like to cruise here for meat.

If you're seeking to constrict or define what other people can create or play in their games, I'm not on your side.

My objection to the censorious puritanism of the 'SocJus' pseudo-left is the same objection I always had to the censorious puritanism of the evangelical right of the past. I think games - and all other creative endeavours - should be as free as possible to explore ideas and material. After all nobody HAS to play anything. The moment you start to try and control what someone else can publish or play, or what gets awards or gets sold, that's where I start to have issues.

If you think all games need to be family friendly, get fucked.
If you think all games have to have modern-era progressive ideology present in their settings, get fucked.
If you don't think games should have nudity or address adult themes, get fucked.

Basically as soon as you're saying something either must or mustn't be present in someone else's work - get fucked.

I have no objection to grindcore, satanic, cannibalistic, dungeon crawling games existing.
I have no objection to hippy-dippy, narrative focused, borderline ephebophile mecha games existing.

I don't want to excise the 'Social Justice Warriors' from the hobby any more than I wanted to excise the religious from the hobby. I just want them to stop trying to dictate to everyone else and to stop passing judgement and establishing purity tests. To stop trying to take control.

FOAMYOS.
(Fuck off, and make your own shit).

Absolutely agreed. There is room for a wide range of tastes and preferences not just in D and D but rpgs. The urge to 'gatekeep' seems mostly born from either a sense of entitlement or self righteous moral superiority. No one has a play any certain game or setting or has to use every piece of material created for it in their games.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather have material I find questionable, even disturbing or offensive produced from time to time in this hobby than material that is mostly watered down for mass appeal, regardless of the special 'mass' its trying to appeal too. There's a board range of people playing rpgs and, if that number grows, that spectrum is going to get wider and more diverse. I look forward to that as a chance to at least get a look at some other approaches and styles.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1038436Homosexuality being an explicit topic is no longer a default assumption.

Now a days, it's presence in a medium is like the presence of witchcraft in the medium, it offends some but is not considered offensive.

The same can be said for gender issues, though to a lesser extent since it's not as widely accepted as Homosexuality.

I personally don't mind this, what I do mind is when it sides from, "some characters are gay" to "this character is more interesting because he is gay". Ummm no, sexuality and gender identity don't make characters more interesting by themselves. It's just a different starting motivation to build a character out of, the interesting parts of a character come from the character arch.

I feel the same way. Sexual orientation is a facet of a characters, one of the building blocks that can make for an interesting persona not the key to one. John Smith is homosexual is no more innately interesting than John Smith is heterosexual without a full persona around it, even if their orientation is in someway its core.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1038319Yeah, Lamentations gives the impression of just trying too hard.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess has come up repeatedly in this discussion and unfortunately I'm not familiar with it beyond having seen the name around. What are the issues with it?

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1037150Your under reaction is almost as bad as the SJW overreaction.

Hence my repeated statement that this place is turning into the Mirror Universe RPGnet.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038416Later, gay characters were introduced, transgenderism in the rule books, etc. Now we have Crawford declaring he wants to make D&D more queer.

But heaven forbid we have any slave lords! That is going too far!

So gay and transgender people are as bad as slavelords?  You are a walking talking piece of shit.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038476So gay and transgender people are as bad as slavelords?  You are a walking talking piece of shit.

No, check your reading comprehension skills and take a tranquilizer

I was saying that the guys who write and design D&D have no issues putting gay characters into the books and modules, but raise a shit storm about adventures like "In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords". In other words, they are still policing content, but only the content they personally find objectionable.

Gay and transgender people are just like most people. Some are nice people, and some are complete shit heads. They don't get a pass because of sexual preference or membership in some identity group. No with me anyway.

Quote from: jhkim;1038456To clarify - Silas1066 is complaining about the appearance of gay characters in official D&D materials - and in reaction, I was referring to "gay-free" as D&D adventures/sourcebooks being free of gay characters. As far as I know, for a long time there were no gay characters in official published D&D adventures and sourcebooks.


OK, what I see there on James Raggi's channel is mostly him and other people complaining about Silas1066's charge that Lamentations is desecrating D&D.  Who are you saying that James Raggi and Lamentations fans are trying to exclude from the hobby?

The Pundit and pretty much everyone over here on the RPGSite. For awhile they were busy over on G+ trash talking the Pundit and the RPGSite starting with;

Ramaman: "Your first mistake seems to be reading theRPGSite."

followed by Andy stating

Andy Action: "Wow. This person is almost as unhinged and confused as Pundit."

So instead of talking about how to make better games, which is what we usually do on G+, a bunch of swine gossip hogs just decided to pat each other on the back all the while talk down about something they know next to nothing about, the RPGSite. For instance, they didn't even know I was a frequent poster here. When they did discover it, some of the most egregious of the swine ringleaders blocked me, so I could no longer challenge their obvious fake news mongering and so they could hide their lying ways. I burned a few swine, and called them on their misconduct leaving them very discontent.

Since it seems to be relevant, I'll look through my old TSR gaming modules and see if I can find any openly gay characters, pretty sure there are a few in there, since TSR delighted and took about every opportunity to tweak everyone's misconceptions regarding gender and equality.

For example, even if the writing wasn't, the artwork older gaming material was much more open minded then from contemporary gaming companies other than LotFP, specifically;

OSR Art Friday: The Cover of Eldritch Wizardry
http://saveversusallwands.blogspot.com/2014/09/osr-art-friday-cover-of-eldritch.html

and

The Good, the Bad, and the Clothed;
http://saveversusallwands.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-good-bad-and-clothed.html

In short, old school RPG art is actually more open minded than the majority of our contemporaries now, yet the tards over on G+ are stating for the record, ...exactly the opposite, and were happily bullying and disparaging people to boot. I finished addressing that, by the way, and will look for more examples in my old published modules of characters and npcs of divergent preferences. We were just subtle about expressing these things back then more out of courtesy and respect than in any desire to "suppress" or "minimize" a specific ethnic group or sex, although I will say that there was an awful lot of scantily clad women in early D&D art, but then, that is true of ancient history in general, if our archaeological records are to be believed.

Also, there were actually two gay people and one bisexual guy (he came out in 1982) out of my original gaming group of eleven from the 70's. The flaming gay guy,  ...used to, ...of course, like playing nekkid barbarians, and went to great lengths to make sure we all had an opportunity to see his character drawings. Our whole thing was, ...great! whatever makes you happy! and we just went on with our gaming without any further comments or much ado, ...because, it was the 70's and early 80's and everyone gets to live the groovy lifestyle they envision. That all changed rather abruptly between 1985-1986. We didn't have alot to do with that though.

Kids these days though...

Quote from: Silas1066;1038478I was saying that the guys who write and design D&D have no issues putting gay characters into the books and modules, but raise a shit storm about adventures like "In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords". In other words, they are still policing content, but only the content they personally find objectionable.

That's rich. The Dungeons of the Slave Lords was released by the RPGA in 1980 as a tournament module. The Slave Lords,  ...was of course a subliminal reference to TSR, and the RPGA, and was their private little joke between them about how they would get control of all of RPG gaming by requiring mandatory registration of AD&D games at conventions, that could only use RPGA approved content.

It backfired on them, and split their core fan group. This was the first of many bad moves that eventually bankrupted TSR.

Quote from: GRIM;1038371I don't want to excise the 'Social Justice Warriors' from the hobby any more than I wanted to excise the religious from the hobby. I just want them to stop trying to dictate to everyone else and to stop passing judgement and establishing purity tests. To stop trying to take control.

But that's what they do.  The SJW is the new Puritan.  Do it their way, or you're the infidel.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038475Hence my repeated statement that this place is turning into the Mirror Universe RPGnet.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038476So gay and transgender people are as bad as slavelords?  You are a walking talking piece of shit.

Here, I think you dropped these: [ATTACH=CONFIG]2479[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Silas1066;1038478Gay and transgender people are just like most people. Some are nice people, and some are complete shit heads. They don't get a pass because of sexual preference or membership in some identity group. No with me anyway.

OK, but if they're just like most people - why are you saying it isn't family-friendly to have gay characters in games?

Quote from: jhkimOK, what I see there on James Raggi's channel is mostly him and other people complaining about Silas1066's charge that Lamentations is desecrating D&D. Who are you saying that James Raggi and Lamentations fans are trying to exclude from the hobby?

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038479The Pundit and pretty much everyone over here on the RPGSite. For awhile they were busy over on G+ trash talking the Pundit and the RPGSite

So you're saying that if someone trash-talks you, they're trying to exclude you from the hobby? Hell, here on theRPGsite, we trash-talk each other here a ton.  We're excluding ourselves from the hobby better than the LotFP fans can!!!  It takes a special kind of Oppression Olympian, I think, to regularly trash-talk others - but then if they're trash-talked, to cry about being excluded and oppressed.  Here on theRPGsite, I don't feel excluded or oppressed by people calling me names - and we call other people lots of names.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038479Since it seems to be relevant, I'll look through my old TSR gaming modules and see if I can find any openly gay characters, pretty sure there are a few in there, since TSR delighted and took about every opportunity to tweak everyone's misconceptions regarding gender and equality.

Sure. I'd be interested to see examples of that. I recall some speculation about Rufus and Burne in The Village of Hommlet, but that's about it.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038479For example, even if the writing wasn't, the artwork older gaming material was much more open minded then from contemporary gaming companies other than LotFP, specifically;

OSR Art Friday: The Cover of Eldritch Wizardry
http://saveversusallwands.blogspot.com/2014/09/osr-art-friday-cover-of-eldritch.html

and

The Good, the Bad, and the Clothed;
http://saveversusallwands.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-good-bad-and-clothed.html

In short, old school RPG art is actually more open minded than the majority of our contemporaries now

Wow!  This is seriously like some kind of funhouse-mirror imitation of the recent academic analysis counting up pictures of men and women in the D&D books.  You're counting up how many PH pictures have nudity / partial nudity, and judging 5e D&D as uptight and anti-fun because of its lack of nudity.  I have no problem with the Eldritch Wizardry cover, but I also don't have any problem with the 5e illustrations.  I don't think that a lack of nude illustrations in 5e is inherently either uptight or anti-fun.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038433That said, we are having a problem now with a bunch of gay, bi, and transgender guys trying to gatekeep our hobby, and to deliberately exclude people, for no good reason at all... other than they don't like them.

I game (and have gamed for decades) with plenty of LGBT people and NONE of them have every sought to exclude people from our hobby. 99% strive for the opposite. I do know some gay guys locally have their own Meetups, but that's no more exclusive than the boardgame club that meets at a local church and most of the gamers belong to that church.

I wonder how many SJWs vomiting stupid on their keyboards are actually LGBT. SJW culture seems to draw self-haters, often with significant mental issues, and online anonymity allows them to become pretend crusaders.

Quote from: jhkim;1038456To clarify - Silas1066 is complaining about the appearance of gay characters in official D&D materials - and in reaction, I was referring to "gay-free" as D&D adventures/sourcebooks being free of gay characters. As far as I know, for a long time there were no gay characters in official published D&D adventures and sourcebooks.

I suspect there were no EXPLICITLY homosexual characters. But how did we know any of the NPC's sexuality unless it was discussed in the text? How often did that occur?

Morty, Half Elf, Fighter 4, Magic User 3, HP 27, AC 3, +1 sword, Boots of Elvenkind, Potion of Undead Control, 29 GP, 34 SP
Morty can be found drinking at the Giant Lizard Tavern and will accompany adventurers on quests if promised a magic item as payment.

So based on this data...in whom does Morty like to put his dick?

Quote from: jhkim;1038494So you're saying that if someone trash-talks you, they're trying to exclude you from the hobby? Hell, here on theRPGsite, we trash-talk each other here a ton.  We're excluding ourselves from the hobby better than the LotFP fans can!!!  It takes a special kind of Oppression Olympian, I think, to regularly trash-talk others - but then if they're trash-talked, to cry about being excluded and oppressed.  Here on theRPGsite, I don't feel excluded or oppressed by people calling me names - and we call other people lots of names.

Hrmm?... No, they were trash talking, ...however when I counter-challenged... they blocked me so I could no longer see what they were talking about, which is ...ahh, blatant censorship Which G+ approves of. It's why G+ is being labeled by some as politically incorrect over there, and rightfully so. Also, they couldn't get away with trash talking and lying like that over here, and would instantly called out for their two-faced hypocrisy.

Quote from: jhkim;1038494Sure. I'd be interested to see examples of that. I recall some speculation about Rufus and Burne in The Village of Hommlet, but that's about it.  

Wasn't aware of that one. There's a few folks that were once over at TSR, and I'll get back to them and inquoire directly, and of course Jennell Jaquays who delighted in adding Easter Eggs into her JUdges Guild publications.

Quote from: jhkim;1038494Wow!  This is seriously like some kind of funhouse-mirror imitation of the recent academic analysis counting up pictures of men and women in the D&D books.  You're counting up how many PH pictures have nudity / partial nudity, and judging 5e D&D as uptight and anti-fun because of its lack of nudity.  I have no problem with the Eldritch Wizardry cover, but I also don't have any problem with the 5e illustrations.  I don't think that a lack of nude illustrations in 5e is inherently either uptight or anti-fun.

Oakes was just making the point the older D&D books were much more relaxed towards gender and race issues than current publishers (...with the exception of James, and Zak of course). I wasn't looking into that to define 5e as uptight, although he does.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038495I game (and have gamed for decades) with plenty of LGBT people and NONE of them have every sought to exclude people from our hobby. 99% strive for the opposite. I do know some gay guys locally have their own Meetups, but that's no more exclusive than the boardgame club that meets at a local church and most of the gamers belong to that church.

I wonder how many SJWs vomiting stupid on their keyboards are actually LGBT. SJW culture seems to draw self-haters, often with significant mental issues, and online anonymity allows them to become pretend crusaders.

Well today, I had a few folks censoring me over on G+ trying to deliberately exclude me from a hobby that I have been a part of since before they were born. They were socializing with a self-identified LGBT crowd over there, that almost all 30/8 responded very negatively to James's allegations in regards to members of the RPGSite which in retrospect, appear misplaced. Just 'sayin.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038495I suspect there were no EXPLICITLY homosexual characters. But how did we know any of the NPC's sexuality unless it was discussed in the text? How often did that occur?

Morty, Half Elf, Fighter 4, Magic User 3, HP 27, AC 3, +1 sword, Boots of Elvenkind, Potion of Undead Control, 29 GP, 34 SP
Morty can be found drinking at the Giant Lizard Tavern and will accompany adventurers on quests if promised a magic item as payment.

So based on this data...in whom does Morty like to put his dick?

I find that it's not uncommon for modules to specify couples in the text. Here are some examples from Temple of Elemental Evil, for example -

QuoteWench: Dala, a cutpurse (Level 3 Thief), AC 6 (no armor); hp 15; XP 95
S 11 111 W 10 D 18 Co 15 Ch 13
Thief abilities: PP 70; OL 48; F/RT 35; MS 37; HS 30; HN 15; CW 87. Carried: dagger (concealed), 1-4 pieces of cheap jewelry (total value 2-12 gp). She often picks pockets.
In a small room upstairs, Dala has a philtre of love and a pair of jeweled earrings (worth 700 gp) under a loose floor board, and 87 gp in her mattress. She is Dick Rentsch's lover.

QuoteWench: Pearl, a cutpurse (Level 3 Thief), AC 8 (no armor); hp 13; XP 89
S 13 I 14 W9 D16 Co 12 Ch 11
Thief abilities: PP 60; OL 38; F/RT 30; MS 27; HS 20; HN 15; CW 87.
Carried: dagger (concealed), 1-4 pieces of cheap jewelry (total value 2-12 gp). She occasionally picks pockets, but usually limits such work to inebriated victims.
In a small room upstairs, Pearl has a sil- ver case (worth 75 gp and adorned with a sapphire worth 1,000 gp) which contains 19 pp. However, the whole is covered with thick dripped wax, topped by a half-burnt candle and seems to be a perfectly normal and worthless candleholder. The coins are likewise imbedded in wax to prevent telltale rattling. Pearl is Wat's paramour.

QuoteBarmaid: Lodriss, Level 0, Ability scores average; hp 5, no armor, XP 53. Carried: normal dagger (tucked into her girdle), a poisoned dagger (under her skirt), purse with 2 cp, 7 ep, 4 gp, and 8 pp; also wears jeweled earrings (worth 400 gp), gold neck chains (the lot worth 120 gp), four bracelets (values 50, 200, 210, and 500 gp), and a pair of rings (200 and 800 gp).

Lodriss is actually the owner of the Boatmens' Tavern. She is a former camp follower, and is now mistress to Tolub (see below), one of the river pirate leaders who frequents Nulb to sell ill-gotten cargoes and to restock supplies.

QuoteThis cell holds four elves. If freed, they ask to be shown the route out so they can immediately return to their homeland, but express great gratitude and promise rewards for their rescuers. Two elves are normal, but two are Noble--Countess Trillahi of Celene and her consort, Sir Juffer.
Elves, normal (2): AC 9, MV 12", HD 1 + 1, hp 7, 6, no weapons; Dexterity 15 each; XP 21, 20
Countess Tillahi of Celene: AC 6, MV 12", Level 5/4 Fighter/Magic-User, hp 22, no current weapons or spells, Dexterity 18; XP651
Sir Juffer: AC 8, MV 12", Level 4/4 Cleric/Ranger, hp 28, no current weapons, no spells castable (due to curse upon him), Dexterity 16; XP 468

QuoteHerein dwells Smigmal Redhand, a half-orc Fighter/Assassin. She is the leman of Falrinth (in area 337) and leader of the band of brigands in the outer ruins (Tower).
...
Smigmal Redhand: AC 4 (leather +1) & shield +2), MV 12", Level 7/7 Fighter/Assassin, hp 41, XP 4924 S 17 115 W 7 D 16 Co 17 Ch 14 #AT 3/2, D 3-8, SA poison on sword (insinuative type B, + 3 bonus to saving throw, Dmg 25 in 2 rounds), SD ring of invisibility; Thief Abilities: PP 45, OL 52, F/RT 45, MS 40, HS 31, HN 25, CW 95, RL 15

Smigmal wears leather armor + 1, uses a shield + 2, and wields a shortsword + 1 in normal combat (or a non-glowing normal shortsword in assassination attempts). She is thoroughly evil, and loves her work. She hungers for power to make humans suffer, and hates her human ancestry. She sees Falrinth as her tool, the one who will best aid her in gaining her power. She will fight to protect Falrinth if such action appears worthwhile, but will certainly try to save herself from certain death.

Note that "leman" is an old term for lover.

I've been racking my brain for a couple of hours and I can't recall anybody during a game be concerned over what sexual preferences a Player or GM or their PCs or NPCs had. We were interested in running and playing the game. This is what confuses me since I think this all started to be important to some only about 4-5 years ago. Up until then, nobody cared.

So what was the major turning point to cause this to become important to gaming and important to SJWs?

Quote from: jeff37923;1038506I've been racking my brain for a couple of hours and I can't recall anybody during a game be concerned over what sexual preferences a Player or GM or their PCs or NPCs had. We were interested in running and playing the game. This is what confuses me since I think this all started to be important to some only about 4-5 years ago. Up until then, nobody cared.

So what was the major turning point to cause this to become important to gaming and important to SJWs?

Beats me.  I've had this discussion with LBGT gamers.  I've said my take on it is

"Luke... I love you."
"Wonderful, Han.  Now toss me a spare energy cell for my lightsaber and try to gimmick the door while I hold them off, and if we get out of here alive we can talk about it."

Response has been overwhelmingly positive.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038495I game (and have gamed for decades) with plenty of LGBT people and NONE of them have every sought to exclude people from our hobby.

For that matter, sex in most of our games has been "I'm gonna buy some expensive drinks and try to pick up a guy/girl."

* roll dice *

"Okay/no luck"

ON the rare occasions it comes up at all.  "Fussypants the dwarf has my back in every fight, I don't give a crap who he pokes in his fun times."

Quote from: jeff37923;1038506I've been racking my brain for a couple of hours and I can't recall anybody during a game be concerned over what sexual preferences a Player or GM or their PCs or NPCs had. We were interested in running and playing the game. This is what confuses me since I think this all started to be important to some only about 4-5 years ago. Up until then, nobody cared.

So what was the major turning point to cause this to become important to gaming and important to SJWs?

When people bought game books to read instead of using them for source material for playing the game?  I don't know; I got nothing.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1038512When people bought game books to read instead of using them for source material for playing the game?  I don't know; I got nothing.

People have been doing that since the little brown books were released.  It was probably rarer back then but I remember seeing both Ryan Dancy and Monte Cook comment that TSR/WoTC were aware of that audience and that was back around 3e's release.

This specific issue seems to have been linked to this particular decade, and it is more of a cultural thing...and it's mostly about Entertainment in general, not just gaming.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038495Morty, Half Elf, Fighter 4, Magic User 3, HP 27, AC 3, +1 sword, Boots of Elvenkind, Potion of Undead Control, 29 GP, 34 SP
Morty can be found drinking at the Giant Lizard Tavern and will accompany adventurers on quests if promised a magic item as payment.

So based on this data...in whom does Morty like to put his dick?

How is that even a question?  Half-Elf...Boots of Elvenkind...the answer of course is anything with two legs, plus gynosphinxes and lamia.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038506I've been racking my brain for a couple of hours and I can't recall anybody during a game be concerned over what sexual preferences a Player or GM or their PCs or NPCs had. We were interested in running and playing the game. This is what confuses me since I think this all started to be important to some only about 4-5 years ago. Up until then, nobody cared.

So what was the major turning point to cause this to become important to gaming and important to SJWs?

As for the origin - I don't recall any significant liberal campaigns complaining about lack of gay characters in gaming material.  Instead, I recall it becoming an issue when gay characters started appearing in game books, and conservative gamers complained that it was a problem - like Silas1066 saying that it is making games not family-friendly, and that the intrusion of gays and women is completely changing the game. The first instance I recall was in complaints about the Blue Rose RPG pushing a homosexual agenda.

Personally, I don't consider it all that significant. Presence or lack of gay characters doesn't figure into my purchasing decisions of game material. In this thread, I was reacting to other people's complaints about it - not bringing it up as an issue myself.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1038556How is that even a question?  Half-Elf...Boots of Elvenkind...the answer of course is anything with two legs, plus gynosphinxes and lamia.

Krueger, you are three times a gentleman. My top hat is off to you, sir.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038506So what was the major turning point to cause this to become important to gaming and important to SJWs?

After they successfully confounded "sex" the noun about biology with "gender" the noun about social constructs.

Control the language. Control the debate. 1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.

Quote from: Tod13;1038564After they successfully confounded "sex" the noun about biology with "gender" the noun about social constructs.

Control the language. Control the debate. 1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.

The term SJW is totally doubleplus Newspeak. :D

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038495So based on this data...in whom does Morty like to put his dick?

And herein lies the crux, or rather, crotch, of the matter.

IIRC there was hardly mention of ANY sexuality hetro, gay, bi or otherwise in RPGs back in the day.

Players and GM were always free to include it or ignore it as they chose.

And ultimately always will be.

I think what is resented is being TOLD that we HAVE to include it.

I simply don't like being told what to do.

I support LGBQT rights in the real world without reservation, but the next 5e game I run, the elves in my campaign will be largely uninterested in sex beyond rare procreation, dwarves will be fervently heterosexual (making up for the fact that their women are perceived as being masculine in appearence) and hobbits are too shy to talk about such matters.

Oh and Orcs are spawned from the earth as assexual monsters that have no genitalia making  half-orcs a mad bad demi-diety wizard's experiment.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038567IIRC there was hardly mention of ANY sexuality hetro, gay, bi or otherwise in RPGs back in the day.

Players and GM were always free to include it or ignore it as they chose.

And ultimately always will be.

I think what is resented is being TOLD that we HAVE to include it.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  Who is TELLING you that you HAVE to include it?  Seriously, can you cite some examples, for comparison to old-school like my Temple of Elemental Evil examples.

Quote from: jhkim;1038572I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  Who is TELLING you that you HAVE to include it?  Seriously, can you cite some examples, for comparison to old-school like my Temple of Elemental Evil examples.

Anyone who decries RPGs as male only and not 'inclusive' enough.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1038574Anyone who decries RPGs as male only and not 'inclusive' enough.

Are we mixing topics here?  I was talking about gay characters in game books. Being male-only is a positive thing for gay inclusion.  :D :D :D

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2481[/ATTACH]

Feh on gynosphinxes.

Quote from: jhkim;1038560As for the origin - I don't recall any significant liberal campaigns complaining about lack of gay characters in gaming material.

Wow, that must be the best example of selective amnesia.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1038512When people bought game books to read instead of using them for source material for playing the game?  I don't know; I got nothing.

Quote from: JRT;1038547People have been doing that since the little brown books were released.  It was probably rarer back then but I remember seeing both Ryan Dancy and Monte Cook comment that TSR/WoTC were aware of that audience and that was back around 3e's release.

This specific issue seems to have been linked to this particular decade, and it is more of a cultural thing...and it's mostly about Entertainment in general, not just gaming.

The issue seems to be audiences, especially younger audiences, want to crawl right into the skins of the characters they seen in books, movies, games, etc. Close third-person, with hot (in the literary sense) emotional proximity, has  become the default writing mode for any author who wants to reach readers under 40. The reason those same readers most often cite for rejecting novels written in the style of 30 or 60 years ago is they find them cold and un-engaging. If they can't get right inside the emotional wheelhouse of the protagonist, they can't engage with the fiction.

I also think catering to an increasingly female audience plays a big part. Women, more than men, seem to want to a) know who the characters are romantically or sexually linked with, and b) play with various combinations of couplings. You see this in the slash fan fiction for all kinds of nerd properties, written almost exclusively by women. A lot of it features gay romance between characters who were not originally written as gay (Sherlock and Watson, Spock and Kirk, etc.) I don't know why so many nerdy women are fascinated by gay male coupling, but it seems to be a thing.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1038489Here, I think you dropped these: [ATTACH=CONFIG]2479[/ATTACH]

Ball bearings?

Fie to you, sir.  I bear my balls with grace, dignity, and pride.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038586Ball bearings?

Fie to you, sir.  I bear my balls with grace, dignity, and pride.

This is what sets therpgsite apart from lesser forums. It is, at its heart, a collection of gentleman and ladies, dilettantes all, possessed of the highest caliber of social grace.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2484[/ATTACH]

Quote from: jhkim;1038560As for the origin - I don't recall any significant liberal campaigns complaining about lack of gay characters in gaming material.  Instead, I recall it becoming an issue when gay characters started appearing in game books, and conservative gamers complained that it was a problem - like Silas1066 saying that it is making games not family-friendly, and that the intrusion of gays and women is completely changing the game. The first instance I recall was in complaints about the Blue Rose RPG pushing a homosexual agenda.

Personally, I don't consider it all that significant. Presence or lack of gay characters doesn't figure into my purchasing decisions of game material. In this thread, I was reacting to other people's complaints about it - not bringing it up as an issue myself.

So this all started with Blue Rose? I remember the derision for the setting, but I don't recall complaints that it was pushing a "homosexual agenda". Do you have any links?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038495Morty, Half Elf, Fighter 4, Magic User 3, HP 27, AC 3, +1 sword, Boots of Elvenkind, Potion of Undead Control, 29 GP, 34 SP
Morty can be found drinking at the Giant Lizard Tavern and will accompany adventurers on quests if promised a magic item as payment.

So based on this data...in whom does Morty like to put his dick?

Jessica.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038598So this all started with Blue Rose? I remember the derision for the setting, but I don't recall complaints that it was pushing a "homosexual agenda". Do you have any links?

Blue Rose was intended for a gay audience, and that's fine.

That is different from taking a game that didn't feature sex and romance as one of its core concepts, aka D&D, and introducing homosexuality and transgenderism into it, out of some effort to be "inclusive". No one ever said gays couldn't create their own adventures, PCs, whatever. D&D had been around for decades before this became an "issue".

I think we have to remember that not everyone is down with homosexuality. Many people have an objection to it on either religious grounds (mainstream Christians and Muslims alike reject it), or ideological/philosophical. That doesn't mean they are out to persecute gays, or even deny them the ability to marry, but they aren't going to tacitly accept the gay lifestyle, and they don't feel any need to "include" something they object to in their activities.

A lot of people likewise believe that transgenderism is a mental health issue, not an identity issue. I'm not going to debate that here, but I will point out that LBG doesn't belong with "T" --those are different issues entirely, and have spoken with gay men that don't like the "T" to be included. Not all gays are leftist Democrats that embrace postmodernism, etc. Some are a lot more centrist or practical in their thinking.

So why is this important? Because gay issues are controversial, polarizing, and don't belong in a mainstream RPG game that has been traditionally directed towards teens and even younger kids. You can say I am being to rigid or conservative here, but that is what I think on this matter. It belongs outside the game.

Well whaddaya know, ELCA Lutherans, Episcopalians, and United Methodists aren't "mainstream Christians."

As my sister says, "Who knew?"

Quote from: jeff37923;1038598So this all started with Blue Rose? I remember the derision for the setting, but I don't recall complaints that it was pushing a "homosexual agenda". Do you have any links?

I distinctly recall such discussion here - but the search feature and blocking Google prevent me finding it. This would be in late 2006, I think. I posted a rebuttal about this to my own site back then. Below are some samples that I can find with Google.

From https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11354.phtml

QuoteHomosexuality: I am almost afraid to mention this topic, given the decidedly PC/un-PC nature of the debate. However, given just how important it seems to be in Aldis, I feel I would be remiss in ignoring it. Hmm... okay the first God of Light is also the god of Homosexual relations. All the twilight Gods have male and female aspects, one of the major points of conflict with Jarzon is the 'immoral' sexual relations in Aldis, Men wear dresses in the Central valley, the Sea People have a 50% homosexual population, and on and on. In fact, listed in the designers 'identifying factors' of the Genre, Homosexual relationships are listed first. To be honest, none of this, taken separately would bother me in the least. It is the weight, the constant repetition of this that irritates. To be blunt, 40% of the potential readership of this book is likely to not be gay, to not care about or want to read about being Gay. Another 40% are more ambivalent but also not particularly gay. My estimation is that the actual readership, the numbers are far more skewed towards the first group. (Ed. Note: My numbers are based off the following assumptions. 10% of the population is gay, say another 10% is bi. Half of the population is male, who as non-gays are generally uncomfortable with the topic, the other half are female, and apparently enjoy reading about male gay relationships. As a reader, my experiences are that far more female authors write male homosexual relationships than male authors write, say, lesbian relationships. I would guess that this fact is one reason more females read female authors than males do, not chauvinism or any other ism.)

The biggest problem I actually have with this is the repetition of it, over and over and over and over... you get the picture. I realize that many female authors, the only kind listed by the game designers, write gay relationships. I've read my share, ranging from central characters to offhand mention. I can't think of a single instance where it was a prominent feature of the culture. The idea of a sovereign or noble 'marrying' this way is problematic from a feudal inheritance sort of view. Oh, wait, nobility isn't hereditary... apparently people don't die and have to pass on their property to heirs. Given how nice everything else is, I'd guess that no one owns anything, they just borrow it from the land, and no one argues.

From https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=361

Quote(quoting RPGPundit)

Blue Rose's presentation of homosexuality seems so forcedly "important" to the setting that it appears heavy-handed; and the politically-charged way it presents homosexuality in Aldis (what one gay commenter in the review called the "gay equivalent to the 'mystic negro' myth of black men as all being wise spiritually deep non-villanous stereotypes") ends up feeling childish, saccharine and infantilized. While I myself am not gay, I have no reason to think that any rational intelligent gay person would find the treatment of homosexuals in this saccharine way to be just as stupid and unrealistic as the treatment that straight romance receives in the setting and genre, with absurd ideas about "soulmates" and love conquering all etc. etc.

The fact is, the debate regarding Blue Rose and the Romantic Fantasy genre as a whole isn't between gay and straight, or tolerant and intolerant, its between rational and irrational, mature and immature. The Romantic Fantasy genre plays to the twisted world-views typically held by teenage girls, using literary and political concepts that only teenage girls or the mentally defective could possibly find satisfying.

YES, I did just say that anyone who actually finds the ideas in Romantic Fantasy readably pleasant or appealing or realistic is mentally defective; in the sense that if you are anything other than a 15 year old girl, you have clearly failed to develop reasoning, intellect, or life experience beyond the adolescent level of maturity. Even the very idea of accusing people who fail to see how wonderful the aldis setting is of being homophobes smacks of a sophomoric teenage temper tantrum, a knee-jerk response by those who are incapable or unwilling to actually debate.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602Blue Rose was intended for a gay audience, and that's fine.

Could you support this assertion? I'm having trouble finding the correlation between "supports romantic fantasy gaming" and "intended for a gay audience".

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602That is different from taking a game that didn't feature sex and romance as one of its core concepts, aka D&D, and introducing homosexuality and transgenderism into it, out of some effort to be "inclusive". No one ever said gays couldn't create their own adventures, PCs, whatever. D&D had been around for decades before this became an "issue".

D&D never supported steampunk fantasy mecha, but Iron Kingdoms did and it rocked.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602So why is this important? Because gay issues are controversial, polarizing, and don't belong in a mainstream RPG game that has been traditionally directed towards teens and even younger kids. You can say I am being to rigid or conservative here, but that is what I think on this matter. It belongs outside the game.

So are politics and religion in general. Case in point, Christianity.

When Deities & Demigods came out, one of the most recurring questions was, "Where are the stats for Jesus?" Now since stats were usually used to help determine the outcome of combat encounters, and nobody wanted to be part of the group that "fought Jesus and killed him for XP", the vast majority of us decided to just say that Jesus and Christianity didn't exit in the game. The average age range for us back then was about 11-13.

I don't think that LGBT presence was a subject that was excluded so much as it was one that nobody cared about in game. I'd like to know when it became something to care about and why. If it is because of Blue Rose, is this the result of Green Ronin trying to appeal to a target demographic and thus having unintended consequences?

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602A lot of people likewise believe that transgenderism is a mental health issue, not an identity issue. I'm not going to debate that here, but I will point out that LBG doesn't belong with "T" --those are different issues entirely

T is different because it's not* a sexual orientation, you are right on that. But anything can be a source of identity - people can create an "LBGT community" even though Ls and Gs have very little in common, and Ts have even less in common with either.  I knew a girl so eager to be part of that community that she identified as B and was active in her LGBT student society even though IRL she had a monogamous relationship with her boyfriend and they were planning to get married and stay together for life; her B didn't seem to go much beyond finding other girls mildly attractive.   In an earlier age her sexual orientation would have been considered completely normal - but she valued the sense of identity she got from the LGBT community.

*officially, at least, identifying as T is not supposed to be about sexual orientation.

Quote from: jhkim;1038609I distinctly recall such discussion here - but the search feature and blocking Google prevent me finding it. This would be in late 2006, I think. I posted a rebuttal about this to my own site back then. Below are some samples that I can find with Google.

From https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11354.phtml


From https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=361

Reading both of these seems to be more critical of the writing of Blue Rose than it is to saying that it is pushing a "homosexual agenda". Are you sure that you are not reading something into these posts that isn't there?

Quote from: jeff37923;1038610Could you support this assertion? I'm having trouble finding the correlation between "supports romantic fantasy gaming" and "intended for a gay audience".

Yeah, Romantic Fantasy genre may apparently be as full of Magical Gays as Hollywood movies are of Magical Negros, but I get the impression the RF genre is aimed mostly at straight women, the nerdy kind who write s/Lash fanfic.

Why not leave "core" D&D as devoid of sex and then open up the space through community/third party work?  How about a LGBTQ category on DM's Guild where you can see all the products that creators have flagged as LGBTQ in a quick to find category?  Let's see how big that market is.

LGBTQ doesn't want to pay "extra" to get their special butterfly content then make up some shit that they think is cool just like the fucking rest of us.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602Blue Rose was intended for a gay audience, and that's fine.

That is different from taking a game that didn't feature sex and romance as one of its core concepts, aka D&D, and introducing homosexuality and transgenderism into it, out of some effort to be "inclusive". No one ever said gays couldn't create their own adventures, PCs, whatever. D&D had been around for decades before this became an "issue".

I think we have to remember that not everyone is down with homosexuality. Many people have an objection to it on either religious grounds (mainstream Christians and Muslims alike reject it), or ideological/philosophical. That doesn't mean they are out to persecute gays, or even deny them the ability to marry, but they aren't going to tacitly accept the gay lifestyle, and they don't feel any need to "include" something they object to in their activities.

A lot of people likewise believe that transgenderism is a mental health issue, not an identity issue. I'm not going to debate that here, but I will point out that LBG doesn't belong with "T" --those are different issues entirely, and have spoken with gay men that don't like the "T" to be included. Not all gays are leftist Democrats that embrace postmodernism, etc. Some are a lot more centrist or practical in their thinking.

So why is this important? Because gay issues are controversial, polarizing, and don't belong in a mainstream RPG game that has been traditionally directed towards teens and even younger kids. You can say I am being to rigid or conservative here, but that is what I think on this matter. It belongs outside the game.

Not everyone is down with witchcraft and thinks it is evil. That doesn't mean Harry Potter is inappropriate for children or that it shouldn't be a mainstream children's book series.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038612Reading both of these seems to be more critical of the writing of Blue Rose than it is to saying that it is pushing a "homosexual agenda". Are you sure that you are not reading something into these posts that isn't there?

I don't really care about dissecting people's reasons for the old discussion.  The point is that there is controversy around gay characters appearing in game books.  The center of this doesn't seem to be liberal gamers trying to block or shut down non-gay content - but rather over books where gay characters appear. It's not like we have to dig into posts from a dozen years ago to find that.

Case in point:

Quote from: KingCheops;1038617Why not leave "core" D&D as devoid of sex and then open up the space through community/third party work?  How about a LGBTQ category on DM's Guild where you can see all the products that creators have flagged as LGBTQ in a quick to find category?  Let's see how big that market is.

LGBTQ doesn't want to pay "extra" to get their special butterfly content then make up some shit that they think is cool just like the fucking rest of us.

D&D has always had sexuality, as I showed earlier with quotes from Temple of Elemental Evil.  It's not a game about romance, but adventures and modules include lots of characters - and those characters are sometimes husbands, wives, paramours, consorts, etc.  It would be pretty strange, IMO, for adventures to be full worlds with lots of characters but for them never to be in relationships with each other.

If you want official D&D adventures to have hetero couples but never gay couples, then you can call on WotC to try to cater to you and others with your preference. On the other hand, I and others will be communicating to them that we're fine with both.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038610Could you support this assertion?

No, because it's entirely a product of his screaming homophobia.

Quote from: jhkim;1038621I don't really care about dissecting people's reasons for the old discussion.  

I really think you should or else none of the material you are bringing up as "proof" has any relevance.

Quote from: jhkim;1038621The point is that there is controversy around gay characters appearing in game books.

From what credible sources? One or two people being offended by it does not represent the entire hobby.

I disagree with you because what I am seeing most of from people is a feeling that gay characters are being used as tokens, which is just as bad but the opposite of homophobia. Most people, myself being one of them, never had a problem with any of the demographics or inclusiveness of our games for decades and resent being told that we are bigots and evil for not joining in the torch wielding mob demanding their presence now.

Quote from: jhkim;1038621If you want official D&D adventures to have hetero couples but never gay couples, then you can call on WotC to try to cater to you and others with your preference. On the other hand, I and others will be communicating to them that we're fine with both.

How about instead we let individual game groups decide for themselves how to run their own games? Or can we not trust the common gamer with that much freedom?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038628No, because it's entirely a product of his screaming homophobia.

Maybe.

However, everyone has the right to be wrong. That is part of what freedom means.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1038620Not everyone is down with witchcraft and thinks it is evil. That doesn't mean Harry Potter is inappropriate for children or that it shouldn't be a mainstream children's book series.

The difference is, I don't think anyone has actually burned copies of Blue Rose. :D As for D&D, well we certainly weren't allowed to play it in Catholic School, even though for some reason the DM from the local Boy's and Girls club was allowed to come in and tell us about it. I'm guessing a certain teacher knew there wasn't a rule against that. It was all good, we played Marvel Superheroes during lunch.

I don't see why it matters that a gay game exists, even though I never got that impression from Blue Rose. I saw it on the shelf, saw that I could play a cat that sneaks up on things and eats them while they are still struggling, and bought it right there. I never even knew about there supposedly being some sort of gay agenda until like 2010 or something. Sure there was language for people of different orientations, but I thought nothing of it because there are people with different orientations in this world. During the 90s there was at least one person in the group at any given time. But it didn't matter. We didn't run games with sexual content. Sometimes there was romance, but the furthest it got was a fade to black.

Just run the game how you want it. If I swapped out Jarzon for Hawkmoon's Granbretan or Melnibone, and made some reference to a decadent pansexual orgy amongst the nobles, no one would even bat an eye. The people who complain about Blue Rose seem to be able to play D&D just fine despite the fact pagan gods actually exist while their Abrahamic Deity has no representation. But if I had a group of Christian players that wanted a monotheistic D&D game were they were Crusaders spreading Christ's message, then that's what we're going to do. Boot all the other Gods off Toril. No problem. Blue Rose is just a setting. Settings can be modified to suit the campaign that you want to run.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038364THIS is what must be remembered. The average gamer (of either gender or sexuality) just wants to have fun with friends.

THIS is a political crusade by a tiny, loud, almost entirely online group of assholes (who are mostly non-gamers).

This is getting more and more offline unfortunately. Its being seen alot more at conventions in the last few years. Which is possibly part of why its infesting game design and companies more and more.

Sooner or later theres going to be a blowup at a major con and I hope it sends a wakeup call for these morons buying into this screed.

Quote from: jhkimIf you want official D&D adventures to have hetero couples but never gay couples, then you can call on WotC to try to cater to you and others with your preference. On the other hand, I and others will be communicating to them that we're fine with both.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038633How about instead we let individual game groups decide for themselves how to run their own games? Or can we not trust the common gamer with that much freedom?

This doesn't make sense. I was clearly talking about the printed content of official published adventures. Obviously, individual GMs can and do change things to be different in their game than what is in the published module - and that's a good thing.

If someone doesn't want gay characters in their adventures, then if they get a module with a gay character, they can not have that character appear in their game - or make them not gay. Conversely, if someone wants gay characters in their adventures, then if they get a module with no gay characters, they can add in a gay character.

So it's not game-breaking either way, I think. But the printed module will have something one way or the other, and that's what is being debated.

Quote from: jhkim;1038560As for the origin - I don't recall any significant liberal campaigns complaining about lack of gay characters in gaming material.

Quote from: jhkim;1038572I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  Who is TELLING you that you HAVE to include it?  Seriously, can you cite some examples, for comparison to old-school like my Temple of Elemental Evil examples.

Oh, well in that case, my bad. Must've been fake news or something. Anyway, thanks for putting me in the picture. It's a relief to nothing like this ever happens.

Phew.

Should anybody mention that I should be more inclusive, I will just tell them that jhkim told me that they were a figment of a deranged immagination and that they are to be ignored.

:cool:

Quote from: jhkim;1038456To clarify - Silas1066 is complaining about the appearance of gay characters in official D&D materials - and in reaction, I was referring to "gay-free" as D&D adventures/sourcebooks being free of gay characters. As far as I know, for a long time there were no gay characters in official published D&D adventures and sourcebooks.

Its more like NPCs wer usually lest totally open to whatever interpretation the DM wanted. Unless married or such most were totally neutral.

The only exception I can remember was a odd one. A Draconian in a Dragonlance module who was dressing and acting female. Forget why but pretty sure there was a reasoning for it.

And of course the portal of gender change on Tomb of Horrors. And not sure if this counts but wasnt there a module where Tensor or one of the other big Greyhawk mages was trapped in the body of a woman by a demon or somesuch and had had his/her memories altered? Been ages.

Quote from: jhkim;1038572I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  Who is TELLING you that you HAVE to include it?  Seriously, can you cite some examples, for comparison to old-school like my Temple of Elemental Evil examples.

Sure. Here is Monte Cook, talking about writing The Return to the Templ of Elementa Evil in 2005

Quote from: Monte At HomeIt was not the intention of the original creators of Rufus and Burne (who were PCs together and played through the adventure) that they were gay.

However, it was absolutely my intention to portray them as such in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (there's only the one bedchamber for them in the entire castle), without saying "and they're gay," which would be silly. (Silly because it's really not an issue, and because I didn't identify straight characters as such.)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?157547-Gay-PCs-or-NPCs/page8&p=2746140&viewfull=1#post2746140

Which is odd, because the description he is referring to is this on page 18.

An inner wall identical to the curtain wall surrounds this
main structure. It has towers with a single gate (same as those
in the barbican), creating an inner bailey surrounding a keep,
called the donjon. The donjon has four levels with a grand
hall, a feast hall, a huge kitchen, many storerooms, an apart-
ment for Rufus and Burne, a vast library, and guest chambers.


Er.. that's it.

Bizzare, really.

Should have called them Bert and Ernie.

Quote from: jhkimI'm not sure what you're talking about here. Who is TELLING you that you HAVE to include it? Seriously, can you cite some examples, for comparison to old-school like my Temple of Elemental Evil examples.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038654Sure. Here is Monte Cook, talking about writing The Return to the Templ of Elementa Evil in 2005

Quote from: Monte At HomeIt was not the intention of the original creators of Rufus and Burne (who were PCs together and played through the adventure) that they were gay.

However, it was absolutely my intention to portray them as such in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (there's only the one bedchamber for them in the entire castle), without saying "and they're gay," which would be silly. (Silly because it's really not an issue, and because I didn't identify straight characters as such.)

So, the only thing he's talking about here is how he's portraying characters in the new module he's writing. Do you think that everything in a module is TELLING you that you HAVE to include it?  That is, do you resent that Gary Gygax was TELLING you that you HAD to include Smigmal as the lover of Falrinth?  For that matter, do you resent that Gary was telling you that you had to have 10 goblins as their guards?

A module is going to have a bunch of content - including a bunch of NPCs who have relationships to each other as well as a ton of other details.  Individual GMs are free to use the module as written, or change it.

It sounds to me like you're saying that no NPCs in any module should be written as gay - and if they are, you'll resent it as intrusive.  That wasn't clear to me from your original statement.

Quote from: jhkim;1038668It sounds to me like you're saying that no NPCs in any module should be written as gay - and if they are, you'll resent it as intrusive.  That wasn't clear to me from your original statement.

"It sounds to me like" is the perfect way to introduce a straw man. Well done.

When you are ready, we'll discuss each other ideas and what we really think, instead.

Quote from: jhkim;1038646This doesn't make sense.

You're right, it doesn't. You are getting far too agitated over this.

Quote from: jhkim;1038646I was clearly talking about the printed content of official published adventures. Obviously, individual GMs can and do change things to be different in their game than what is in the published module - and that's a good thing.

If someone doesn't want gay characters in their adventures, then if they get a module with a gay character, they can not have that character appear in their game - or make them not gay. Conversely, if someone wants gay characters in their adventures, then if they get a module with no gay characters, they can add in a gay character.

So it's not game-breaking either way, I think. But the printed module will have something one way or the other, and that's what is being debated.

No, that is what you are trying to turn this conversation into. I am asking both "When did sexual orientation become important to playing the RPG?" and "Why is it important?" You are acting like these questions are personal attacks.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038673"It sounds to me like" is the perfect way to introduce a straw man. Well done.

When you are ready, we'll discuss each other ideas and what we really think, instead.

I have to agree with Mike the Mage here.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038654Sure. Here is Monte Cook, talking about writing The Return to the Templ of Elementa Evil in 2005



http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?157547-Gay-PCs-or-NPCs/page8&p=2746140&viewfull=1#post2746140

Which is odd, because the description he is referring to is this on page 18.

An inner wall identical to the curtain wall surrounds this
main structure. It has towers with a single gate (same as those
in the barbican), creating an inner bailey surrounding a keep,
called the donjon. The donjon has four levels with a grand
hall, a feast hall, a huge kitchen, many storerooms, an apart-
ment for Rufus and Burne, a vast library, and guest chambers.


Er.. that's it.

Bizzare, really.

Should have called them Bert and Ernie.

OK, and now that we have a place to start exploring, my question is why? Why was Monte Cook adamant about including this bit of character in the module?

Quote from: jeff37923;1038685OK, and now that we have a place to start exploring, my question is why? Why was Monte Cook adamant about including this bit of character in the module?

Because West Coast America will destroy him professionally if he didn't.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038683.... (spekaing to JHKim) "...You're right, it doesn't. You are getting far too agitated over this."

I am asking both "When did sexual orientation become important to playing the RPG?" and "Why is it important?" You are acting like these questions are personal attacks.

Have to agree with Jeff on this John. I'm not sure why a post by James Raggi over on G+ about his dissatisfaction with the moral outlook of one of our regulars triggered the SJW community over there which includes a healthy overlap with the LGBT community. It didn't just stop there with a counter-attack against just the individual who was in my opinion too clear in his condemnation of LotFP, and not very clear in his thinking, however there was spillover, and the torch and pitchfork crowd over on G+ decided to make a general attack against the RPGSite and the Pundit as well, which is when I stepped in over there and started hosing down losers, just to cool them off a bit.

I asked the same question and decided to ask around and go looking in the original material published by TSR. ...I'm still looking, and there are a few people I'd like to talk to about this some of whom I may not be able to get a response from until I see them in person, which may take up to a year.

One thing that I have observed though, is that sexual orientation in games does seem to be a push-button issue for a large group of the LotFP fans over on G+. Either that, or this is just a trash attack on the RPGSite for being an open and free forum where members can state their opinion and/or facts without being censored.

I would be rather concerned if it were the latter, but not surprised.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038689One thing that I have observed though, is that sexual orientation in games does seem to be a push-button issue for a large group of the LotFP fans over on G+. Either that, or this is just a trash attack on the RPGSite for being an open and free forum where members can state their opinion and/or facts without being censored.

I would be rather concerned if it were the latter, but not surprised.

Embrace the power of "and".

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038689which is when I stepped in over there and started hosing down losers, just to cool them off a bit.

Yeah, that always works.

Quote from: S'mon;1038692Yeah, that always works.

Addressing Injustice always works better than silently confirming a bullies desire to prosecute victims without interference. When it costs the bullies too much to make the attack profitable or worthwhile, they'll stop. When you do nothing, you affirm that it is ok for bullies to target victims. That makes you a bully as well, ...just a silent one, also committed to seeing these injustices done.

In this case it worked well enough. Sometimes the only thing that bullies understands, especially the mindless sociopaths, is when they get stepped on themselves for bullying. In no case should bullying, or hate speech be ignored, or otherwise rewarded.

James Raggi wasn't bullying or committing himself to hate speech in his disagreement on G+ with Silas. It was the dogpile of losers that followed him, that attacked the RPGSite and the Pundit with considerable malice that got my attention. This had not ever happened before on G+, at least not in my gaming circles. The same cannot be said for Zak S. though, who delights in profiting socially and economically from creating chaos, and anarchy.

G+ is losing users though, it is a quietly dying social network because Alphabet/Google and all their AI's are clueless, and they are not properly committing themselves to upholding and promoting, freedom, equality, and justice within their social network. Their current idea of that involves allowing the userbase to mute or filter any disagreeable content without regard to whether that content is just, right or wrong. By not championing or upholding the rights of the innocent to speak freely Google is complicit in promoting bullying as well as engaging in censorship in a direct violation of their users rights to free speech.

This also happens to be the argument of James Damore, by the way. He is correct, he was run out of Google by an angry mob of overpaid hate-mongering SJW who have zero regard for any of his values. There is always going to be conflicts of values, however that only needs to be addressed if some real harm comes to an individual or group. In his case, real harm came to him, including loss of social standing as well as income.

I don't believe someone should be able to subject you to poverty and disgrace, just because they disagree with you. The SJW cucks do though, and they like to pretend they are fighting for justice for all, when in reality, they are 100% against it, and are only interested in having rights for themselves, which, ...thinking about it, makes them cruel young Oligarchs.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

~Martin Niemöller

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038689Either that, or this is just a trash attack on the RPGSite for being an open and free forum where members can state their opinion and/or facts without being censored.

I would be rather concerned if it were the latter, but not surprised.

Physical people that I'm friends with totally believe people shouldn't be allowed to say offensive things.

That was one of the big angle's of attack against Trump, so it's become politically normal to just not value the ideal of free speech.

Actual people feel like it is their moral obligation to "not give a platform to hate" or "punch a Nazi".

Quote from: Rhedyn;1038702Physical people that I'm friends with totally believe people shouldn't be allowed to say offensive things.

And, of course, homosexuality was once considered offensive. But by exercising their free speech, activists have made grounds on the public opinions on homosexuality.
And they want to throw that all away...

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038673"It sounds to me like" is the perfect way to introduce a straw man. Well done.

When you are ready, we'll discuss each other ideas and what we really think, instead.

OK, I'm sorry that I implied a position on your part. Your previous reply was pretty short, so please elaborate. What is your opinion of including Rufus and Burne as a gay couple in the module? Is there a problem, and if so, what is it?

Personally, I'm pretty familiar with the original Elemental Evil module - and have no problems with it. I haven't read the Return module, but I don't see any inherent problem with Rufus and Burne being a gay couple.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038633How about instead we let individual game groups decide for themselves how to run their own games? Or can we not trust the common gamer with that much freedom?

Quote from: jhkim;1038646I was clearly talking about the printed content of official published adventures. Obviously, individual GMs can and do change things to be different in their game than what is in the published module - and that's a good thing.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038683No, that is what you are trying to turn this conversation into. I am asking both "When did sexual orientation become important to playing the RPG?" and "Why is it important?" You are acting like these questions are personal attacks.

I don't see how this connects to your earlier question, but sure.

In my experience, sexual orientation has been a part of playing the RPG from the very beginning. Even when I was a pre-teen playing in the late 1970s and early 1980s, fantasy heroes might get a kiss from a grateful rescued princess, or be distracted by the shapeshifting succubus. Once I started playing Champions, it was pretty standard for PCs to have a steady girlfriend as a Dependent NPC. And once I was a teenager and got into James Bond 007, then active romance plots became a thing. The main focus was on beating the bad guy, but sexual orientation was a regular part of sessions.

I think we were just imitating the fantasy fiction and comics that we read. It was natural to include such things. Romance plots are often central to action movies, comics, and fantasy fiction - so we would tend to put them in our games.

From reading through modules and retrospectives, this doesn't seem uncommon, either. Plenty of modules for various games in the 1980s games mention couples and/or potential romance.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1038704But by exercising their free speech, activists have made grounds on the public opinions on homosexuality.
And they want to throw that all away...

Well I think they reckon they've won - by exercising free speech - so now it's important to get rid of free speech for their enemies, so the norms they've established can't be reversed.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038697First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

~Martin Niemöller

Wow.  OK, I'm convinced.  James Raggi is literally Hitler!  These Lamentations fans have got to be stopped to prevent the purges!  

But seriously.  I supported Pundit against some of the attack pieces on him with false accusations, say, and I'm opposed to most boycott campaigns. But now we're at the point that just trash-talking someone on G+ is Nazism. That sounds more like a stereotype of SJWs than anything the Lamentations fans have said.

I'll say it - We can be goddamn foul-mouthed, argumentative, offensive mother-fuckers here on theRPGsite.  We trash-talk other people, and we should expect other people to trash-talk us.

Quote from: jhkim;1038705I don't see how this connects to your earlier question, but sure.

You appeared to be advocating for inclusiveness in RPGs by pressuring the publishers and not letting the individual game groups decide. This may have just been your agitation and I could be wrong.

Quote from: jhkim;1038705In my experience, sexual orientation has been a part of playing the RPG from the very beginning. Even when I was a pre-teen playing in the late 1970s and early 1980s, fantasy heroes might get a kiss from a grateful rescued princess, or be distracted by the shapeshifting succubus. Once I started playing Champions, it was pretty standard for PCs to have a steady girlfriend as a Dependent NPC. And once I was a teenager and got into James Bond 007, then active romance plots became a thing. The main focus was on beating the bad guy, but sexual orientation was a regular part of sessions.

I think we were just imitating the fantasy fiction and comics that we read. It was natural to include such things. Romance plots are often central to action movies, comics, and fantasy fiction - so we would tend to put them in our games.

From reading through modules and retrospectives, this doesn't seem uncommon, either. Plenty of modules for various games in the 1980s games mention couples and/or potential romance.

OK, so in your experience sexual orientation was important for roleplaying. In my experience it just didn't come up very often, if at all. Not because a focus on sexual orientation was unwelcome in the game, but because it was hardly ever a driving motivation for the PCs in the adventure.

Come to think of it, it has been my experience that sexual orientation and romantic subplots in the game usually resulted in the GM killing off the PCs love interest as some kind of adventure motivation.

Quote from: jhkim;1038705What is your opinion of including Rufus and Burne as a gay couple in the module? Is there a problem, and if so, what is it?

Personally, I'm pretty familiar with the original Elemental Evil module - and have no problems with it. I haven't read the Return module, but I don't see any inherent problem with Rufus and Burne being a gay couple.

I'm probably going to get dogpiled for this, but there is an inherent problem with Rufus and Burne being listed as a gay couple in the module. It limits the choices that individual GMs have for those two non-player characters' motivations and actions. The more information that an author provides in an adventure about the NPCs, the less utility they have because that information limits their range of possible actions to what would be considered "in character". If the NPC is just a stat block and thus tabula rosa for the most part regarding their character and motivations, the more utility that NPC has for the GM. Nothing homophobic about that, it is just looking at the game product as a game product that needs to be as utilitarian as possible for the buyer to find useful.

From my personal experience most gay people are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy level just like mentally ill sexomaniac, so it's natural to them to seek sex in everything including rpgs.

Quote from: John Scott;1038717From my personal experience most gay people are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy level just like mentally ill sexomaniac, so it's natural to them to seek sex in everything including rpgs.

My personal experience is definitely not the same, most gays I know are definitely not sex-obsessed. There are 'lifestyle gays' who are, but outside Soho they seem a small minority.

Quote from: John Scott;1038717From my personal experience most gay people are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy level just like mentally ill sexomaniac, so it's natural to them to seek sex in everything including rpgs.

IME, most of the sex-obsessed players I've encountered have been old straight men.

Quote from: jhkim;1038708Wow.  OK, I'm convinced.  James Raggi is literally Hitler!  These Lamentations fans have got to be stopped to prevent the purges!  

But seriously.  I supported Pundit against some of the attack pieces on him with false accusations, say, and I'm opposed to most boycott campaigns. But now we're at the point that just trash-talking someone on G+ is Nazism. That sounds more like a stereotype of SJWs than anything the Lamentations fans have said.

I'll say it - We can be goddamn foul-mouthed, argumentative, offensive mother-fuckers here on theRPGsite.  We trash-talk other people, and we should expect other people to trash-talk us.

Ummm... no. I was perfectly ok with Silas being trash-talked by Raggi for his criticism of LotFP. I was not ok with the LotFP fans jumping in and joining in. The lynch mob was to put it lightly, disconcerting, and I was quite surprised when they expanded their attacks to include everyone here. Mmm'kay, ....now that latter expansion of hostilities was completely unwarranted.

You can say it if you want to, and be proud of the fact you can be foul-mouthed, argumentative, and offensive, however you shouldn't, ...and don't speak for all of us, since, as a general rule I make every effort to avoid those behaviors because I realize those behaviors, ...in excess, can do actual damages, and am extra conscious of the actual effects of that. There are other members of this forum that are similarly inclined, so we shouldn't be lumped in with the irregular foul-mouthed visitors that regularly come over here trolling for a fight whenever the action over at the Piazza or RPG.net dies down and they become dreadfully bored and boring.

As a simple example over on G+ I mentioned the Star Lords, ...on purpose, and an exact quote here now... S%$# Lords. Of course the very first thing the mindless SJW Cucks thought was that I was mentioning the Shit Lords, and they all got up in arms about it, and were much more offended when I addressed them thusly, but that was entirely their own imaginations working overtime in the poisonous manner that it does. I did that on purpose a few days ago to demonstrate their clear and present malice and complete disregard for other gamers.

Generally If I really want to call you a name, I will, and I'll do it very openly, however if you go through my posts here for the last fourteen years, I'll be really surprised if you can find more than three examples counting this one, of a time I actually used actual profanity in addressing other gamers. I just don't do it, ...for a very good reason.

So don't include me in the Mos Eisley scum and villainy fantasy, ...because that's not why I'm here now.

Part of the problem is that some people have been brainwashed to see -isms everywhere. To a piece of toilet paper, everything looks shitty.

The overzealous Left sees '-isms' everywhere, the overzealous Right doesn't see them anywhere. This goes double online.

Quote from: John Scott;1038717From my personal experience most gay people are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy level just like mentally ill sexomaniac, so it's natural to them to seek sex in everything including rpgs.

Oh man you must not have met many straight people. You know the ones that don't play RPGs and spend every free moment outside of work trying to mate?

All the people that really have no interests outside of "getting it down"?

I get that we don't swim in the same circles but they exist and their sexuality is obvious because of their primary passions.

Quote from: John Scott;1038717From my personal experience most gay people are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy level just like mentally ill sexomaniac, so it's natural to them to seek sex in everything including rpgs.

Oh man you must not have met many straight people. You know the ones that don't play RPGs and spend every free moment outside of work trying to mate?

All the people that really have no interests outside of "getting it down"?

I get that we don't swim in the same circles but they exist and their sexuality is obvious because of their primary passions.

Edit: I am glad that forums like this exist where people can still share these kinds of observations and actually have them discussed rather than telling the person to shut up and only talk with people of like minds.
I honestly can't think of any other RPG forum where you could get away with saying something like this and not just being banned for it.

I wish they would unleash the sex robot hordes in the US so I wouldn't have to deal with these thirsty dudes in my games.

Quote from: CarlD.;1038730The overzealous Left sees '-isms' everywhere, the overzealous Right doesn't see them anywhere. This goes double online.

Wut? Communism, Feminism and Liberalism are everywhere! Now we have Transgenderism too!

Quote from: Rhedyn;1038732Oh man you must not have met many straight people. You know the ones that don't play RPGs and spend every free moment outside of work trying to mate?

All the people that really have no interests outside of "getting it down"?

I get that we don't swim in the same circles but they exist and their sexuality is obvious because of their primary passions.

Edit: I am glad that forums like this exist where people can still share these kinds of observations and actually have them discussed rather than telling the person to shut up and only talk with people of like minds.
I honestly can't think of any other RPG forum where you could get away with saying something like this and not just being banned for it.

Generally I agree especially with the last paragraph, but we are not exactly like that you describe. We all have or had a number of girlfriends and some of us have wives now. Me and my friends when we gather we don't give a F about sex, about politics or about transgender hentai elfs! We want to play games. RPG is a form of escapism anything that remind us real life is a no go.

I have no desire to offend anyone f I did then I apologize, the reason I made the comment you see is that I have many personal "horror stories" with gay people (most older than me) hitting on me, some are quite comical. (at least from my perspective) No drama here, we are grown up but they where not "emotionaly" very stable.

Although I am a lurker to many sites TheRPG site is the only one that I considered registering both for it allows many different voices to be heard and because I find "the sage advice" of the participants here of high quality.

Quote from: John Scott;1038741Generally I agree especially with the last paragraph, but we are not exactly like that you describe. We all have or had a number of girlfriends and some of us have wives now. Me and my friends when we gather we don't give a F about sex, about politics or about transgender hentai elfs! We want to play games. RPG is a form of escapism anything that remind us real life is a no go.

I have no desire to offend anyone f I did then I apologize, the reason I made the comment you see is that I have many personal "horror stories" with gay people (most older than me) hitting on me, some are quite comical. (at least from my perspective) No drama here, we are grown up but they where not "emotionaly" very stable.

Although I am a lurker to many sites TheRPG site is the only one that I considered registering both for it allows many different voices to be heard and because I find "the sage advice" of the participants here of high quality.

To clarify, I'm straight. I'm just not very sexually motivated, but some of my co-workers, spend like every waking moment devoted to mating rituals, who are also straight.

Quote from: Azraele;1038590This is what sets therpgsite apart from lesser forums. It is, at its heart, a collection of gentleman and ladies, dilettantes all, possessed of the highest caliber of social grace.

Awesome! Thank you Azraele!

Quote from: jhkim;1038501I find that it's not uncommon for modules to specify couples in the text. Here are some examples from Temple of Elemental Evil, for example - .

Thank you jhkim. You're right that hetero couples did exist in modules.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602Blue Rose was intended for a gay audience, and that's fine.

The romantic fantasy genre is primarily a female audience and for whatever reason, many heterosexual women are excited by gay male romances.  Maybe its the gender flip version of why many heterosexual men are excited by lesbian porn?  

However Blue Rose was not intended for a gay audience, but a "gay friendly, politically "progressive" audience.

A Conan RPG with loads of oiled body builder Franzetta art? Now THAT's gonna get your gay audience.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038610D&D never supported steampunk fantasy mecha, but Iron Kingdoms did and it rocked.

Fuck yeah!

Quote from: jeff37923;1038610and nobody wanted to be part of the group that "fought Jesus and killed him for XP",

You didn't go to a Catholic all boys high school.

Yeah...listening to black metal, drawing upside down crosses and statting out Jesus to get whacked was a thing.

We played a time travel campaign where we stole Mourneblade and Stormbringer and went sucking the souls of guys from the Bible. I collected 6 apostles in Mourneblade. Jesus totally kicked our ass, so we went back and killed Moses and empowered the Egyptian gods so the Hebrews never were freed from Egypt. God got pissed and send the angels after us and that fucked us up badly so we time traveled back to Noah and destroyed the Ark so everything in the world died in the Flood.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1038725IME, most of the sex-obsessed players I've encountered have been old straight men.

I wouldn't call them obsessed but the most interested in sexuality and related topics in our games have been women with men showing more interest after the ice was broken, so to speak.

Quote from: KingCheops;1038617Why not leave "core" D&D as devoid of sex and then open up the space through community/third party work?

As jhkim pointed out, core D&D has not been devoid of sex. The old modules had some heterosexual couples defined in the text.

Thus, in the modern age, the modern audience would expect new modules to have both hetero and homosexual couples defined in the text.

And we can kill and loot those NPCs just like old times.

Or am I really the only poster here who's gonna admit to depopulating Hommlet?

Quote from: KingCheops;1038617How about a LGBTQ category on DM's Guild where you can see all the products that creators have flagged as LGBTQ in a quick to find category?  Let's see how big that market is.

THAT is a good idea. I bet it would do well.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038628No, because it's entirely a product of his screaming homophobia.

I don't think Silas is homophobic. He's clearly stated support for gay rights. He just believes discussions of homosexuality are politically charged and not family friendly and doesn't want anything politically charged in his RPGing.

He's why comedian Patton Oswalt says liberals should accept "imperfect allies" instead of driving them away.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038633Or can we not trust the common gamer with that much freedom?

Freedom doesn't guarantee adherence to doubleplusgoodthink.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038654Should have called them Bert and Ernie.

Bert is a power bottom.

Quote from: jhkim;1038708I'll say it - We can be goddamn foul-mouthed, argumentative, offensive mother-fuckers here on theRPGsite.  We trash-talk other people, and we should expect other people to trash-talk us.

Fuck yeah x 1000!!

I fully support and thank Game Daddy for pushing back on the trash talk and its utter bullshit that G+ allows the easy silencing of opposing voices BUT supporting free speech demands we unconditionally support the rights of those worthless G+ fucknut cowards to say crap we don't like.

Quote from: John Scott;1038717From my personal experience most gay people are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy level just like mentally ill sexomaniac, so it's natural to them to seek sex in everything including rpgs.

Most guys joke and banter about sex. Some just banter more about ass than pussy. But I've been on this planet almost half a century and I'm still unsure whether straight guys or gay guys obsess more over dicks. Some straight dudes jabber a LOT about dicks.

I know gay guys who love being outrageous and embarrassing easy targets, but even they drop the schtick when we get serious about the game.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1038733I wish they would unleash the sex robot hordes in the US so I wouldn't have to deal with these thirsty dudes in my games.

[video=youtube_share;IrrADTN-dvg]https://youtu.be/IrrADTN-dvg[/youtube]

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038757As jhkim pointed out, core D&D has not been devoid of sex. The old modules had some heterosexual couples defined in the text.

Having NPCs linked as wife, girlfriend, paramour or whatever isn't really introducing sex.... no more than having a king and queen would be introducing sex.

QuoteThus, in the modern age, the modern audience would expect new modules to have both hetero and homosexual couples defined in the text.

That's the rub isn't it? According to jhkim no one should be bothered by the orientations of NPCs in a book because no one can force (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38902-Chris-Helton-ENWorld-and-Witch-Hunts-Buyer-Beware&p=1038668&viewfull=1#post1038668) you to play the game a certain way. He kinda of keeps going to that well. But, he is being intellectually dishonest. If a game was written without non-hetro couples, it would be a problem to him. The whole argument of change the game how ever you like (including adding in non-hetro relationships) falls away and is no longer a legitimate "argument".

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1038725IME, most of the sex-obsessed players I've encountered have been males.

Fixed it for you.

Quote from: CarlD.;1038730The overzealous Left sees '-isms' everywhere, the overzealous Right doesn't see them anywhere. This goes double online.

Probably the smartest thing I've heard on the whole subject.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1038732I honestly can't think of any other RPG forum where you could get away with saying something like this and not just being banned for it.

We prefer to mock him mercilessly rather than ban him.  It's much, much better sport.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038757Or am I really the only poster here who's gonna admit to depopulating Hommlet?

I know a bunch of Boot Hill players who got dubbed "The Drinkwater Gang" after they killed every single man, woman, child, and puppy dog in the town of Drinkwater, Texas (former pop. 175).

I never played in that particular game, but it was very much "Wild Bunch as black humor."  Like the distraction for robbing the back being placing 20 full cases of dynamite under the one-room schoolhouse and detonating them at 9:20 Tuesday morning.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602Blue Rose was intended for a gay audience

Uh, no. I think you have some unusual and false preconceived notions about that game. I mean, think it's intended to include gay people, and a goal of the game is inclusion (but not just of gay people). But the game is "intended" for those who like romantic fantasy.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1038687Because West Coast America will destroy him professionally if he didn't.

This does not sound rational to me. I've lived on the West Coast all my life, except for a brief stint when I was ages 1-3. There is no gay police here that patrols your works and makes sure gay people are portrayed in them. Nobody is destroyed if you just don't mention sexuality, or if you only mention heterosexuality. Whatever boogeyman you imagine exists out here, I assure you it's badly exaggerated by whatever entertainment media you've been consuming that apparently poses as factual.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038713I'm probably going to get dogpiled for this, but there is an inherent problem with Rufus and Burne being listed as a gay couple in the module. It limits the choices that individual GMs have for those two non-player characters' motivations and actions. The more information that an author provides in an adventure about the NPCs, the less utility they have because that information limits their range of possible actions to what would be considered "in character". If the NPC is just a stat block and thus tabula rosa for the most part regarding their character and motivations, the more utility that NPC has for the GM. Nothing homophobic about that, it is just looking at the game product as a game product that needs to be as utilitarian as possible for the buyer to find useful.

Actually I disagree.  Tabula Rasa stat blocks aren't as useful as fleshed out NPCs.
A tabula rasa stat block I have to fill in - always.
A fleshed out NPC I may have to fill in - only if I don't like what they gave me.

By definition, a fleshed out NPC would be of more utility since simple averages would mean some of them you use as is.

I don't like Rufus & Burne banging each other, I can make them friends, brothers, mentor and student, master and servant, business partners who can't stand each other "off the clock" or anything else I can think of.

Quote from: Mistwell;1038784This does not sound rational to me. I've lived on the West Coast all my life, except for a brief stint when I was ages 1-3. There is no gay police here that patrols your works and makes sure gay people are portrayed in them. Nobody is destroyed if you just don't mention sexuality, or if you only mention heterosexuality. Whatever boogeyman you imagine exists out here, I assure you it's badly exaggerated by whatever entertainment media you've been consuming that apparently poses as factual.

I guess if you ignore movies, tv shows and video games you'd be right.... but alas.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038713I'm probably going to get dogpiled for this, but there is an inherent problem with Rufus and Burne being listed as a gay couple in the module. It limits the choices that individual GMs have for those two non-player characters' motivations and actions. The more information that an author provides in an adventure about the NPCs, the less utility they have because that information limits their range of possible actions to what would be considered "in character". If the NPC is just a stat block and thus tabula rosa for the most part regarding their character and motivations, the more utility that NPC has for the GM. Nothing homophobic about that, it is just looking at the game product as a game product that needs to be as utilitarian as possible for the buyer to find useful.

I see nothing wrong with building in motivations for NPCs and/or flavor text. The only issue I could see is the reason for doing it. If it was to add to the story or something along those lines, then great. If it is simply virtue signaling, then we have an issue. Folks should tell their stories with their characters and not feel obligated to check box down the list (gay character(s), person of color, etc).

Tell a good story, great. Pander, no so great.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1038771Having NPCs linked as wife, girlfriend, paramour or whatever isn't really introducing sex.... no more than having a king and queen would be introducing sex.

It's introducing the two NPCs as a heterosexual couple.

It's different from introducing Queen and her wife the Duchess which would be NPCs introduced as a homosexual couple.

The NPCs may or may not engage in sex, but they do have relationships defined by sexuality.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1038771The whole argument of change the game how ever you like (including adding in non-hetro relationships) falls away and is no longer a legitimate "argument".

Why not?

Let's say Paizo publishes the best adventure ever next week and every NPC is non-white and non-hetero, except for the villains who are Redneck Christian Honky Orcs. The entire adventure is a SJW wankfest, but its an amazing adventure and everybody in the hobby wants to run it for their group.

What stops anyone from changing the NPCs to whatever they want?

I don't see this as a worthwhile battle. Modern culture is pro-LGBT & POC inclusion in entertainment, thus we can't expect major publishers to ignore that trend when trying to sell books to the buying public. At best, a smart publisher will make the effort to avoid tokenism and virtue signalling, but I am not holding my breath.

Yet again more reasons to write your own stuff for your own table. Only individual GMs know the political flavor of their table and what works best for the entertainment of those actually seated at the table.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038774We prefer to mock him mercilessly rather than ban him.  It's much, much better sport.

Hell yeah!

Quote from: Mistwell;1038784This does not sound rational to me. I've lived on the West Coast all my life, except for a brief stint when I was ages 1-3. There is no gay police here that patrols your works and makes sure gay people are portrayed in them. Nobody is destroyed if you just don't mention sexuality, or if you only mention heterosexuality. Whatever boogeyman you imagine exists out here, I assure you it's badly exaggerated by whatever entertainment media you've been consuming that apparently poses as factual.

Hush, you're contradicting the "EEEBUL SJW GAYGAYGAYGAY AGENDA" narrative this place clings to with the fervency of a dachshund humping your leg.

Quote from: John Scott;1038741I have no desire to offend anyone f I did then I apologize, the reason I made the comment you see is that I have many personal "horror stories" with gay people (most older than me) hitting on me, some are quite comical. (at least from my perspective) No drama here, we are grown up but they where not "emotionaly" very stable.

Start a #METOO style movement and get them thrown out of their jobs and made unemployable.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038802Hush, you're contradicting the "EEEBUL SJW GAYGAYGAYGAY AGENDA" narrative this place clings to with the fervency of a dachshund humping your leg.

I agree that this is a narrative that is largely independent from reality: phrases like "gay agenda" and "Cultural Marxsim" are usually more revealing about the person using these terms than what they are describing. That being said, let's not pretend that people on all sides of the political spectrum(s) are not allowing their political beliefs to enter their discourse when discussing gaming or even, for that matter, the writing of gaming material. That's at best naive or at worst disingenuous.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1038785Actually I disagree.  Tabula Rasa stat blocks aren't as useful as fleshed out NPCs.
A tabula rasa stat block I have to fill in - always.
A fleshed out NPC I may have to fill in - only if I don't like what they gave me.

By definition, a fleshed out NPC would be of more utility since simple averages would mean some of them you use as is.

I don't like Rufus & Burne banging each other, I can make them friends, brothers, mentor and student, master and servant, business partners who can't stand each other "off the clock" or anything else I can think of.

OK, I can grok where you are coming from with this. I think that our disagreement is based on personal taste. I prefer there to be some blanks in the information given in a paid product that
allow me to fill in and customize while you prefer there to be fully fleshed out information.

(I'm also now wondering if it is a product of our age because I was remembering why I bought the module - it had hit that sweet spot of information for price. When I first bought Village of Hommlet as a teenager, I had more money than time and now as as a late middle aged adult I have more money than time.)

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1038788I see nothing wrong with building in motivations for NPCs and/or flavor text. The only issue I could see is the reason for doing it. If it was to add to the story or something along those lines, then great. If it is simply virtue signaling, then we have an issue. Folks should tell their stories with their characters and not feel obligated to check box down the list (gay character(s), person of color, etc).

Tell a good story, great. Pander, no so great.

OK, I understand this as well, but how do you determine if it is pandering or not?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038792It's introducing the two NPCs as a heterosexual couple.

It's different from introducing Queen and her wife the Duchess which would be NPCs introduced as a homosexual couple.

The NPCs may or may not engage in sex, but they do have relationships defined by sexuality.

But it's not "sexual content". It's about as absurd as claiming any TV show, no matter how tame, is sexual in nature if it has folks in it who are married.

QuoteWhy not?

Let's say Paizo publishes the best adventure ever next week and every NPC is non-white and non-hetero, except for the villains who are Redneck Christian Honky Orcs. The entire adventure is a SJW wankfest, but its an amazing adventure and everybody in the hobby wants to run it for their group.

What stops anyone from changing the NPCs to whatever they want?

I don't see this as a worthwhile battle. Modern culture is pro-LGBT & POC inclusion in entertainment, thus we can't expect major publishers to ignore that trend when trying to sell books to the buying public. At best, a smart publisher will make the effort to avoid tokenism and virtue signalling, but I am not holding my breath.

Yet again more reasons to write your own stuff for your own table. Only individual GMs know the political flavor of their table and what works best for the entertainment of those actually seated at the table.

You could get away with your example but reverse it and you have a shit-storm of outrage.

But I think you misunderstood the point.

"According to jhkim no one should be bothered by the orientations of NPCs in a book because no one can force you to play the game a certain way. He kinda of keeps going to that well. But, he is being intellectually dishonest. If a game was written without non-hetro couples, it would be a problem to him. The whole argument of change the game how ever you like (including adding in non-hetro relationships) falls away and is no longer a legitimate "argument"."

His claim is that inclusion of non-hertro couples is no biggie as the GM/Players can change whatever they want/need to as they desire. My point is, the same logic applied to not including non-hetro couples should be no biggie as players and GMs can change what they want (including adding in non-hetro couples) would not be supported by him and others of the outrage brigade.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038821OK, I understand this as well, but how do you determine if it is pandering or not?

If they have to tell you they're doing it they're probably pandering.

Quote from: Mistwell;1038784This does not sound rational to me. I've lived on the West Coast all my life, except for a brief stint when I was ages 1-3. There is no gay police here that patrols your works and makes sure gay people are portrayed in them. Nobody is destroyed if you just don't mention sexuality, or if you only mention heterosexuality. Whatever boogeyman you imagine exists out here, I assure you it's badly exaggerated by whatever entertainment media you've been consuming that apparently poses as factual.

Strawman.  I didn't say legally, I said professionally.  If you don't toe the line, you will be doxed, you're place of work notified and you will be shamed over whatever crime you committed.  And you can find all the lurid details just by doing a search on the interwebs.

If we go back to the original thread--one thing that disappoints me is that ENWorld, being as big as it is and representing a lot of D&D, can be more neutral in tone.  I think by Morrus actually deciding that the terms "Social Justice Warrior" and virtue signalling to be insults and verbotten words is the strongest condemnation of where it's being taken.  

Morrus wants writers, correct.  Well, like any big newspaper we should have different columnists with different opinions.  Imagine if they allowed somebody more conservative or at least with different political leanings to have a column.  Take a columnist who's a little more "old school" (liking only 1e/oD&D era), or a columnist with other ideas like the type of post Grim put in earlier.  

I mean, considering the size of the audience its a big site, it should reflect more views.   (See the link indicating their traffic patterns).

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5201-Thank-You!-EN-World-Still-Growing-After-20-Years!#comments

I may have lost my rag on him a little.
[video=youtube;xHhMw2Q8QN4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHhMw2Q8QN4[/youtube]

"Enemy of Progress", eh? Congratulations! :cool:

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038813I agree that this is a narrative that is largely independent from reality: phrases like "gay agenda" and "Cultural Marxsim" are usually more revealing about the person using these terms than what they are describing. That being said, let's not pretend that people on all sides of the political spectrum(s) are not allowing their political beliefs to enter their discourse when discussing gaming or even, for that matter, the writing of gaming material. That's at best naive or at worst disingenuous.

It's a spectrum, and this place is leaping into the abyss of one extreme.  The Mirror Universe version of insisting that orcs are actually black people.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038870It's a spectrum, and this place is leaping into the abyss of one extreme.  The Mirror Universe version of insisting that orcs are actually black people.

The difference here is that, for the most part*, dissent is allowed. Try telling someone on TBP that one of their sacred cows (Look 'em up on the rules) is wrong. That's a bannable offense over there. Hell, I got red-texted for posting the opinion that women have certain advantages in society. *gasp*

*I know some people will argue that point. Pundit has always been a hot-head. *shrug* Sometimes he's right.

People who insist Orcs are black people exist in places other than RPGnet.

At best, that place is a cautionary tale no matter what your politics may be.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038870It's a spectrum, and this place is leaping into the abyss of one extreme.  The Mirror Universe version of insisting that orcs are actually black people.

The Mirror Universe version of people insisting that orcs are black people is guys like you and me playing D&D and treating orcs as just normal humanoid monsters to kill for XP in a role-playing game.

I checked out GRIM's video. And frankly, the ecxerpts with Fannon make him come off as a huge hypocrite.

Fannon is not a progressive. He is a predator that uses the veneer of being progressive as a vehicle to continue finding victims to prey on.

Bear in mind. I knew Fannon face to face about 20 years ago. I got a front row seat at how he treated his wife of the time. As well as the bullying behavior he displayed toward me. And his absolute two-faced behavior toward others when they would leave the room.

And to those who pop up and say, "Oh that was 20 years ago!" People don't change unless they face real punishment and consequences for their unacceptable actions. Otherwise they don't progress as people.

Fannon is right about one thing. He's privileged. Which means he cannot relate to the concept of struggle within someone else's life.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038870It's a spectrum, and this place is leaping into the abyss of one extreme.  The Mirror Universe version of insisting that orcs are actually black people.

Your shtick has worn out, you need a new one.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1038879Fannon is not a progressive. He is a predator...

Can't he be both? He might genuinely believe in Social Justice, but love abusing women, bullying, two-facedness etc even more.

Quote from: S'mon;1038882Can't he be both? He might genuinely believe in Social Justice, but love abusing women, bullying, two-facedness etc even more.

Doesn't work that way.

The restrictions he wants to place on media and women in general are about making them the perfect compliant prey.. It has nothing to do with social justice. It's all about control of his prey. Which means he is the last person you want in a serious conversation about addressing society's ills.

He's not supporting equality of women. He's trying to cast them as naturally being lesser than men. To serve a misogynistic worldview

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1038880Your shtick has worn out, you need a new one.

"Dear Pot,

Quite right, black as pitch.

Love,
Kettle"

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038870It's a spectrum, and this place is leaping into the abyss of one extreme.  The Mirror Universe version of insisting that orcs are actually black people.

It's more like people with other opinions can actually speak here and those who strongly believe the opposite refuse to even visit a site that allows people to voice those kinds of opinions. So you disproportionately see certain kinds of opinions, but that really has more to do with those that hold the opposite opinions tend to believe it is morally wrong to associate/use a site that dares let people disagree with them.

The 3rd group of RPG forums just ban all discussion about "politics".

Quote from: jhkim;1038705OK, I'm sorry that I implied a position on your part. Your previous reply was pretty short, so please elaborate. What is your opinion of including Rufus and Burne as a gay couple in the module? Is there a problem, and if so, what is it?

I really appreciate that and I acknowledge that my post was unclear as to where I stood. I don't think there was any clear indication in the original text that would support the author's claim that the two NPCs were in a sexual relationship. Moreover, I  don't believe that asserting that ad hoc served to improve or carry the story forward. It reminds me of JK Rowling telling her readership that Dumbledore was gay or that Hermione is black long after the books and films were over. Both aurthors may have the best of intentions but to me they come over as using the worst kind of tokenism and it one could be forgiven for suspecting their motives: is it really inclusiveness, or is it more to do with PR and limelight?

That is not to say that I am in any way opposed to featuring homosexual NPCs at all, but make it part of the NPC's story rather than just tag it on.

For example, a scenario in which the Baron's eldest son wants the PCs to help him escape an arranged wedding because he is in love with his squire. After the PCs succesfully help him escape, the young lord and the squire become an adventuring duo and allies of the party for several escapades. Meanwhile the evil younger brother becomes the heir but secretly puts a bounty on his brother's head and the PCs too. Finally when the Baron dies, young evil brother puts the squeeze on the common folk and the elder gay son returns to depose him with the PCs help. Saga ends with the eldest son becoming the Baron, his squire as his captain (and open secret that he is his "beloved") and the PCs rewarded with their own keep to clear out and occupy as their own in the hinterlands of the Barony (only to discover the deposed younger brother waiting there to take his revenge).

This way the PCs actually care and hopefully the players too.

That to my mind is better than just tagging Elminster as gender-fluid cos, yeah, inclusiveness and neither is it just some "by the way the Prince of Elves is queer" followed up with...
 [ATTACH=CONFIG]2485[/ATTACH]

Moreover, if the scenario above was published, I would put in options to allow the DM to include what he/she and his/her group were comfortable with.

1. The lover is not his squire but is actually his maid or some other member of the common class (changing theme from homosexual love to class conflict).
2. The lover is an elfin maiden sent as a diplomat/ambassador by  Queen Galdrielrond (changing the theme from homosexual love to miscegeny).
3. The eldest son is actually the eldest daughter and the squire is a handmaiden. (lesbian and femminism issues)
4. The eldest son is actually the eldest daughet and the squire is the stableboy. (class and femminism issues)
5. There is no love interest with the loyal squire. The eldest son has sworn an oath of celibacy to God because he's a secret Paladin. The squire loves his lord platonically. (religious freedom)

That would allow for the GM and players to have themes they want to explore without being given no choice: after all, issues of class/caste, the rights of women and racial equality are just as important as those of LGBQT rights.

I think people should have the choice and should be allowd to come round to ideas if and when they want.

Meanwhile this:

QuoteFantastic Beasts 2: why can't they just let Dumbledore be gay?

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2018/feb/01/fantastic-beasts-2-why-cant-they-just-let-dumbledore-be-gay

A quick look at the comments section is very revealing:  a lot of reactions to the article are not dissimilar to the ones of this forum. (FYI the Guardian readership is the left wing demographic of the UK)

Quote from: trechriron;1038258Agreed.

Let me point out that I'm against the tabloid journalism of amateurs using a platform to punish/lambaste a person. There are better ways to address sexual harrassment (or inequality, or unequal representation), than burning people publicly.

I absolutely support people making WHAT EVER kinds of games they want. LGBTQ people should make games that appeal to their desires and preferences. It certainly does NOT mean that now hetero white dudes should stop making games. There is PLENTY of room in the industry for everyone!

I am absolutely opposed to ANY censorship, ANY gate-keeping, ANY rules that exclude ANYONE from this hobby. Period!

Everyone has a right to express concerns, opinions and produce the kind of games they want to see. People need to focus on what makes them happy and leave others alone with what makes them happy.

I'm tired of the White Knights / over-zealous SJWs / over-zealous Religious types telling us what to do! Take care of your shit, and leave my shit alone! Why can't we just appreciate what we have and be happy for others who appreciate what they have? When did this become so fucking difficult.

We should make this a manifesto. I'm going to sign, and point a few people to it as well:)!

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038929That is not to say that I am in any way opposed to featuring homosexual NPCs at all, but make it part of the NPC's story rather than just tag it on.

For example, a scenario in which the Baron's eldest son wants the PCs to help him escape an arranged wedding because he is in love with his squire. After the PCs succesfully help him escape, the young lord and the squire become an adventuring duo and allies of the party for several escapades. Meanwhile the evil younger brother becomes the heir but secretly puts a bounty on his brother's head and the PCs too. Finally when the Baron dies, young evil brother puts the squeeze on the common folk and the elder gay son returns to depose him with the PCs help. Saga ends with the eldest son becoming the Baron, his squire as his captain (and open secret that he is his "beloved") and the PCs rewarded with their own keep to clear out and occupy as their own in the hinterlands of the Barony (only to discover the deposed younger brother waiting there to take his revenge).

This way the PCs actually care and hopefully the players too.

That to my mind is better than just tagging Elminster as gender-fluid cos, yeah, inclusiveness and neither is it just some "by the way the Prince of Elves is queer" followed up with...
 [ATTACH=CONFIG]2485[/ATTACH]

Moreover, if the scenario above was published, I would put in options to allow the DM to include what he/she and his/her group were comfortable with.

1. The lover is not his squire but is actually his maid or some other member of the common class (changing theme from homosexual love to class conflict).
2. The lover is an elfin maiden sent as a diplomat/ambassador by  Queen Galdrielrond (changing the theme from homosexual love to miscegeny).
3. The eldest son is actually the eldest daughter and the squire is a handmaiden. (lesbian and femminism issues)
4. The eldest son is actually the eldest daughet and the squire is the stableboy. (class and femminism issues)
5. There is no love interest with the loyal squire. The eldest son has sworn an oath of celibacy to God because he's a secret Paladin. The squire loves his lord platonically. (religious freedom)

That would allow for the GM and players to have themes they want to explore without being given no choice: after all, issues of class/caste, the rights of women and racial equality are just as important as those of LGBQT rights.

I think people should have the choice and should be allowd to come round to ideas if and when they want.

That's how I've been always doing it when writing my own campaigns. Maybe I should write an adventure or two, as well:D! (Some friends that live in another city keep pestering me about a Traveller adventure they can play).

QuoteMeanwhile this:


https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2018/feb/01/fantastic-beasts-2-why-cant-they-just-let-dumbledore-be-gay

A quick look at the comments section is very revealing:  a lot of reactions to the article are not dissimilar to the ones of this forum. (FYI the Guardian readership is the left wing demographic of the UK)

Of course, but "left wing" and "right wing" don't mean the same thing in the USA and the UK;).

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038754You didn't go to a Catholic all boys high school.

Yeah...listening to black metal, drawing upside down crosses and statting out Jesus to get whacked was a thing.

We played a time travel campaign where we stole Mourneblade and Stormbringer and went sucking the souls of guys from the Bible. I collected 6 apostles in Mourneblade. Jesus totally kicked our ass, so we went back and killed Moses and empowered the Egyptian gods so the Hebrews never were freed from Egypt. God got pissed and send the angels after us and that fucked us up badly so we time traveled back to Noah and destroyed the Ark so everything in the world died in the Flood.

Am I the only one who believes that's a great campaign in context:p?

Quote from: CarlD.;1038756I wouldn't call them obsessed but the most interested in sexuality and related topics in our games have been women with men showing more interest after the ice was broken, so to speak.

FWIW, that's my experience as well;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038888"Dear Pot,

Quite right, black as pitch.

Love,
Kettle"

So mighty white of you.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038821OK, I understand this as well, but how do you determine if it is pandering or not?

One way, is if it fits in with the setting and it makes sense for motivations/plot.

Example from a novel: in a modern era novel, the heroine meets a male shop owner, who isn't supposed to be a romantic interest. Making him gay cleanly makes it clear he isn't going to be a romantic interest for the heroine. It also isn't made a big deal of, at some point they discuss their relationship, and the guy says she isn't his type and why, and that's the end of it.

It might still be pandering, but it fits in and doesn't distract from the main plot.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1038842But I think you misunderstood the point.

"According to jhkim no one should be bothered by the orientations of NPCs in a book because no one can force you to play the game a certain way. He kinda of keeps going to that well. But, he is being intellectually dishonest. If a game was written without non-hetro couples, it would be a problem to him. The whole argument of change the game how ever you like (including adding in non-hetro relationships) falls away and is no longer a legitimate "argument"."

His claim is that inclusion of non-hertro couples is no biggie as the GM/Players can change whatever they want/need to as they desire. My point is, the same logic applied to not including non-hetro couples should be no biggie as players and GMs can change what they want (including adding in non-hetro couples) would not be supported by him and others of the outrage brigade.

Ras, you claim that I have a problem with any game that lacks non-hetero couples, but I deny it.  I think I've been pretty vocal and consistent that:

1) I support free speech, and hearing a variety of viewpoints in general.
2) Specifically within gaming, I don't think that RPGs are an important channel for politics.
3) For both these reasons, I think there should be a variety of RPGs - some traditional, some story game, some conservative, some liberal, etc.
4) To illustrate this, I am fairly liberal in politics, but I don't play only liberal, socially-conscious games. I play a variety of games - D&D, Amber, Mutant Year Zero, etc. as well as  Plenty of the personal games I run have not had any gay characters. Many do - but even those vary a lot in what they are like. In my recent thread, I've cited playing a gay Nazi in an Amber campaign in the other thread - which probably offends everyone.

Yes, there are some people who don't hold these views - liberals who want to shut down conservative games, and conservatives who want to shut down liberal games. But a lot of people are fine with a variety of games being around.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038929I really appreciate that and I acknowledge that my post was unclear as to where I stood. I don't think there was any clear indication in the original text that would support the author's claim that the two NPCs were in a sexual relationship. Moreover, I  don't believe that asserting that ad hoc served to improve or carry the story forward. It reminds me of JK Rowling telling her readership that Dumbledore was gay or that Hermione is black long after the books and films were over. Both aurthors may have the best of intentions but to me they come over as using the worst kind of tokenism and it one could be forgiven for suspecting their motives: is it really inclusiveness, or is it more to do with PR and limelight?

That is not to say that I am in any way opposed to featuring homosexual NPCs at all, but make it part of the NPC's story rather than just tag it on.

For example, a scenario in which the Baron's eldest son wants the PCs to help him escape an arranged wedding because he is in love with his squire. After the PCs succesfully help him escape, the young lord and the squire become an adventuring duo and allies of the party for several escapades.

I'm not sure I see what your issue is with tagging on character traits.  Do you think that this should be true of all character traits in general?  Or is this specific to homosexuality?  For example, jeff37923's wants to have NPCs be bare stat blocks without any details - like Dala the cutpurse being Dick Rentsch's lover from the original Temple of Elemental Evil.  Do you think that detail should have been edited out, unless their being lovers was really important?  Or in general, should NPCs not have colorful details tagged on like being bald, having a fondness good food and wine, etc.?

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038929Moreover, if the scenario above was published, I would put in options to allow the DM to include what he/she and his/her group were comfortable with.

1. The lover is not his squire but is actually his maid or some other member of the common class (changing theme from homosexual love to class conflict).
2. The lover is an elfin maiden sent as a diplomat/ambassador by  Queen Galdrielrond (changing the theme from homosexual love to miscegeny).
3. The eldest son is actually the eldest daughter and the squire is a handmaiden. (lesbian and femminism issues)
4. The eldest son is actually the eldest daughet and the squire is the stableboy. (class and femminism issues)
5. There is no love interest with the loyal squire. The eldest son has sworn an oath of celibacy to God because he's a secret Paladin. The squire loves his lord platonically. (religious freedom)

That would allow for the GM and players to have themes they want to explore without being given no choice: after all, issues of class/caste, the rights of women and racial equality are just as important as those of LGBQT rights.

To me, this sounds like trying to make every module for everyone.  If that's what you as module-writer really want to do, go ahead.  But I don't think that it should be expected of all module writers. People using a module do have choices - they can not buy the module at all, or they can change what is in the module, or use it as written.

More broadly than homosexuality, not every module is for everyone. If a writer makes a Lamentations of the Flame Princess module with weird, twisted material that makes some people uncomfortable - that's their business as author and/or publisher. It's fair game to bring up that material in reviews of the module, of course. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Quote from: jhkim;1038979To me, this sounds like trying to make every module for everyone.  

I'm glad you like it. I think it is inclusive and gives a choice of a range of themes to the people running it at the table.

Quote from: jhkim;1038979If that's what you as module-writer really want to do, go ahead.

Thank you for your encouragement. I have never tried to get anything published yet, but I may actually have found something with a market.

 

Quote from: jhkim;1038979If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Ah. That's what I will tell the next SJW bitching about Lion & Dragon. I am sure it will help.:D

Hi, Mike.  Thanks for the reply - but I am still curious about what you think about tag-on character traits.  Do you think that character traits for NPCs in general should be omitted unless they are important for the plot?  Or is it only specific ones?

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038986I'm glad you like it. I think it is inclusive and gives a choice of a range of themes to the people running it at the table.

I'm not sure if this was ironic, but just to be clear.  I don't personally like it.  If I read a module that had sections like "Well you could do (a) or (b) or (c)." - I might still buy it, but it would mostly likely decrease the likelihood of my buying it.  As a GM, I am perfectly aware that I can change the content of the module to fit my campaign - so it would put me off as wasted space.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038986Ah. That's what I will tell the next SJW bitching about Lion & Dragon. I am sure it will help.:D

I haven't followed discussion of Lion & Dragon, but I am skeptical that putting in such options would actually change the bitching about it.  I suspect much of what bitching exists is more about Pundit's other activity than about the game itself.

Quote from: jhkim;1038991Hi, Mike.  Thanks for the reply - but I am still curious about what you think about tag-on character traits.  Do you think that character traits for NPCs in general should be omitted unless they are important for the plot?  Or is it only specific ones?

I wrote "That is not to say that I am in any way opposed to featuring homosexual NPCs at all, but make it part of the NPC's story rather than just tag it on." I was quite clear, or so I thought, that just bunging on "oh and he's gay" is just lazy writing at best and tokenism and/or cynical marketing at best. I think this is true of a whole range of character traits and never suggested for a minute that this was an approach exclusive to homosexuality.

Quote from: jhkim;1038991I'm not sure if this was ironic, but just to be clear.  I don't personally like it.  If I read a module that had sections like "Well you could do (a) or (b) or (c)." - I might still buy it, but it would mostly likely decrease the likelihood of my buying it.  As a GM, I am perfectly aware that I can change the content of the module to fit my campaign - so it would put me off as wasted space.

Well it is not uncommon at all for a scenario to give a list of options: A module I was reading last night entitled The Stygian Garden of Abelia Prem for Lamentations Of The Flame Princess does exactly that about several core aspects of the adventure including the object of the PCs quest. I found it delightful to have options and I regret to say that (unlike you may have been), I was not nearly as imaginative as the writer so it did not occur to me.

I was very glad the author, Clint Krause, suggested these options. I am now looking up his other stuff.:cool:

ETA links: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/152829/The-Stygian-Garden-of-Abelia-Prem?affiliate_id=330920

And a review (SPOILERS)

Spoiler

QuoteOn the other hand, what I really like about the ending of the module is that there are different possibilities about the river and the rose, it doesn't need to be the river Styx and there doesn't need to be a Stygian Rose. Mr. Krause included a simple table to roll on or you can decide.

https://dieheart.net/stygian-garden/

Quote from: jhkim;1038991I haven't followed discussion of Lion & Dragon, but I am skeptical that putting in such options would actually change the bitching about it.  I suspect much of what bitching exists is more about Pundit's other activity than about the game itself.

So they aren't really reviewing the product so much as they are being spiteful to the author. Got it. Thanks for the heads up.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038994I wrote "That is not to say that I am in any way opposed to featuring homosexual NPCs at all, but make it part of the NPC's story rather than just tag it on." I was quite clear, or so I thought, that just bunging on "oh and he's gay" is just lazy writing at best and tokenism and/or cynical marketing at best. I think this is true of a whole range of character traits and never suggested for a minute that this was an approach exclusive to homosexuality.

OK, but it isn't clear to me what other character traits it applies to.  Are you advocating that characters be tabula rasa except for story-central traits?  If not, what sort of details are good and what sort of details are not?  For example, I brought up the example of Dala the cutpurse from the original Temple of Elemental Evil module. Here was the section on her:

QuoteWench: Dala, a cutpurse (Level 3 Thief), AC 6 (no armor); hp 15; XP 95
S 11 111 W 10 D 18 Co 15 Ch 13
Thief abilities: PP 70; OL 48; F/RT 35; MS 37; HS 30; HN 15; CW 87. Carried: dagger (concealed), 1-4 pieces of cheap jewelry (total value 2-12 gp). She often picks pockets.
In a small room upstairs, Dala has a philtre of love and a pair of jeweled earrings (worth 700 gp) under a loose floor board, and 87 gp in her mattress. She is Dick Rentsch's lover.

Is this lazy writing unless there is a story-important reason for her to be Rentsch's lover?

Quote from: jhkim;1038995Is this lazy writing unless there is a story-important reason for her to be Rentsch's lover?

It follows the advice I always hear about writing modules: setup situations and problems, not solutions. Maybe it is important, maybe it isn't. It depends on what the players do. Maybe the PCs kill Dala and show up trying to get on Rentsch's good side, while wearing her jewelry. Or maybe they kidnap Rentsch and use that as leverage to get Dala to steal something for them, since the party lost their thief.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1038787I guess if you ignore movies, tv shows and video games you'd be right.... but alas.

So, like I said, badly exaggerated by whatever entertainment media you've been consuming.  Those are all pretend. They set things in Los Angeles and New York because those are the two biggest cities the nation has, and also are where the entertainment conglomerates are at. The west coast isn't actually much like movies and tv shows and video games. In fact, much of Los Angeles doesn't even speak English, and isn't much aware of gay people, much less an agenda regarding sexuality. There is no gay police.  90%+ of the time nobody cares if you don't mention sexuality or if you only mention heterosexuality.

Quote from: jhkim;1038979Ras, you claim that I have a problem with any game that lacks non-hetero couples, but I deny it.

Perhaps, but you lie often when your agenda is at stake.

Quote from: Mistwell;1038997So, like I said, badly exaggerated by whatever entertainment media you've been consuming.  Those are all pretend. They set things in Los Angeles and New York because those are the two biggest cities the nation has, and also are where the entertainment conglomerates are at. The west coast isn't actually much like movies and tv shows and video games. In fact, much of Los Angeles doesn't even speak English, and isn't much aware of gay people, much less an agenda regarding sexuality. There is no gay police.  90%+ of the time nobody cares if you don't mention sexuality or if you only mention heterosexuality.

So, it doesn't happen except when it does. Great, glad you agree.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1038845Strawman.  I didn't say legally, I said professionally.  If you don't toe the line, you will be doxed, you're place of work notified and you will be shamed over whatever crime you committed.  And you can find all the lurid details just by doing a search on the interwebs.

It's not a strawman, I also didn't say "legally" unless you mistook "gay police" for an actual police force as opposed to the joke it was. I too meant professionally. This idea that gamergate is somehow representative of professions in general is fantasy. There is no line to toe. Sexuality doesn't come up in most endeavors. And if it does, it usually comes up as heterosexuality, and nobody gives a crap. The number of doxing events is so minuscule as to be nearly non-existent. 99%+ of people don't even know what that term means. And you'd HAVE to use the net to search out those details because the depths of the net is the only place that really mentions that kinds of stuff. It's not reality for most people.  

The real world of the west coast is much like the real world anywhere else. Almost everyone is just doing boring jobs that have no political agendas at all. Heck, most people on the west coast don't even vote! Throw a rock and you're liable to hit someone who doesn't give one crap about politics of any kind out here (though they might sue you for throwing a rock at them). For the most part there is nobody monitoring your profession here to make sure you follow some evil liberal agenda, with extremely rare exception. The entertainment industry has focused almost exclusively on those tiny exceptions, and convinced you that's the generalization here. It's really not. People are pretty ordinary out here, as a generalization.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1039000So, it doesn't happen except when it does. Great, glad you agree.

It doesn't happen as a generalization. It's exceptionally rare. Portraying exceptionally rare things as typical is a misrepresentation. You've been called on it.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039003It doesn't happen as a generalization. It's exceptionally rare. Portraying exceptionally rare things as typical is a misrepresentation. You've been called on it.

Which is whole shtick.  He really gets off on running in circles screaming "SJW!  SJW!" while frantically pissing all over the place.

If SJWs really exist, he's the best tool I ever encountered for creating more of them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039006Which is whole shtick.  He really gets off on running in circles screaming "SJW!  SJW!" while frantically pissing all over the place.

If SJWs really exist, he's the best tool I ever encountered for creating more of them.

Oh they exist and I know some of them (and for the most part they're fine folks, as long as you stay away from their hobby). It's that almost their entire existence concerning social justice issues is online, and to each other online, as a sort of hobby. In their regular jobs, they don't behave that way, mostly because politics of any kind just doesn't come up at work for most people.

I mean, did people think virtue signalling was being done for no reason? They signal that stuff online to each other because otherwise people wouldn't know about that aspect of their opinion. Because most of the time, it just would never come up.  

Sort of like most of the time nobody would know at work I play D&D a lot, or read fantasy novels. I am not hiding those aspects of my life...it just doesn't come up in regular conversation very often. Because we're discussing work. Which is what most social justice people I know do as well.

I think people just don't want to admit how boring people are in professions. It's more interesting to imagine a gay police operating in professions on the west coast, than it is to imagine the same conversations they also have at work. About forms. And what's for lunch. And vacation.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039003It doesn't happen as a generalization. It's exceptionally rare. Portraying exceptionally rare things as typical is a misrepresentation. You've been called on it.

27 LGBT Characters Were Killed Off TV This Year (http://www.newnownext.com/gay-characters-killed-tv/12/2016/)

62 Lesbian & Bisexual Female Characters Killed Over Past Two Television Seasons (https://www.out.com/news-opinion/2017/7/11/62-lesbian-bisexual-female-characters-killed-over-past-two-television-seasons)

TV Writers Need to Stop Killing Off Their Gay Characters (https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a28685/gay-lesbian-character-deaths-tv/)

More lesbian and bisexual characters on TV have been killed off than ever before (https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/07/10/more-lesbian-and-bisexual-characters-on-tv-have-been-killed-off-than-ever-before/)

LGBTQ+ representation in film and TV is simply not good enough (http://www.divamag.co.uk/Diva-Magazine/Views/LGBTQ-representation-in-film-and-TV-is-simply-not-good-enough/)

Don't Play With Our Emotions: Black Panther and Queer Representation (https://theglowup.theroot.com/dont-play-with-our-emotions-black-panther-and-queer-re-1823022917)

What Will It Take to Get a Gay Character in Star Wars? (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/12/star-wars-last-jedi-poe-finn-lgbt-representation)

WHY WE NEED MORE GAY CHARACTERS IN VIDEO GAMES (http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/14/why-we-need-more-gay-characters-in-video-games)

Is The Walking Dead About to Repeat One of Its Worst Mistakes? (Hint gay character death) (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/10/walking-dead-recap-season-8-episode-2-rick-killed-negan-eric-death-aaron)

#BuryYourGays: 11 LGBT TV Characters Killed Off in 2017, From 'Kingdom' to 'The Walking Dead'  (https://www.thewrap.com/buryyourgays-13-lgbt-tv-characters-killed-off-2017-kingdom-walking-dead-photos/)

Kingdom Come Owes Its Popularity To 'Realism' And Conservative Politics (https://steamed.kotaku.com/kingdom-come-owes-its-popularity-to-realism-and-conserv-1823420208)

Kingdom Come Deliverance was accused of racism for not having people of color in game. Historically how many people of color were in Medieval Europe (1300-1400), in what regions were they concentrated and how did they get there? (https://www.quora.com/Kingdom-Come-Deliverance-was-accused-of-racism-for-not-having-people-of-color-in-game-Historically-how-many-people-of-color-were-in-Medieval-Europe-1300-1400-in-what-regions-were-they-concentrated-and-how-did-they)

Kingdom Come Deliverance's quest for historical accuracy is a fool's errand (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/03/05/kingdom-come-deliverance-historical-accuracy/)

Yep, rarely happens.

Quote from: jhkimIs this lazy writing unless there is a story-important reason for her to be Rentsch's lover?

Quote from: Tod13;1038996It follows the advice I always hear about writing modules: setup situations and problems, not solutions. Maybe it is important, maybe it isn't. It depends on what the players do. Maybe the PCs kill Dala and show up trying to get on Rentsch's good side, while wearing her jewelry. Or maybe they kidnap Rentsch and use that as leverage to get Dala to steal something for them, since the party lost their thief.

Yeah, I should have said - that would be my usual preference.  I generally like having NPCs come across as real people, with various details and color.  I even like a number of sourcebooks that portray a detailed location and/or NPCs - and that don't even necessarily have a main adventure, or just have a short list of adventure hooks that the GM has to flesh out.  Various city or village modules are like this, say.  Give some NPCs with various details and conflicting plans and motivations, throw the PCs into the mix, and there are all sorts of different adventures that can result.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039007I think people just don't want to admit how boring people are in professions. It's more interesting to imagine a gay police operating in professions on the west coast, than it is to imagine the same conversations they also have at work. About forms. And what's for lunch. And vacation.

"Chartered accountancy is dull.  Dull, dull, dull, my GOD it's dull!"

"But you, Mister Pewtey, are a dull person."

Quote from: Mistwell;1039007I think people just don't want to admit how boring people are in professions. It's more interesting to imagine a gay police operating in professions on the west coast, than it is to imagine the same conversations they also have at work. About forms. And what's for lunch. And vacation.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039013"Chartered accountancy is dull.  Dull, dull, dull, my GOD it's dull!"

"But you, Mister Pewtey, are a dull person."

Echo chambers and all that.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;103900927 LGBT Characters Were Killed Off TV This Year (http://www.newnownext.com/gay-characters-killed-tv/12/2016/)

62 Lesbian & Bisexual Female Characters Killed Over Past Two Television Seasons (https://www.out.com/news-opinion/2017/7/11/62-lesbian-bisexual-female-characters-killed-over-past-two-television-seasons)

TV Writers Need to Stop Killing Off Their Gay Characters (https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a28685/gay-lesbian-character-deaths-tv/)

More lesbian and bisexual characters on TV have been killed off than ever before (https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/07/10/more-lesbian-and-bisexual-characters-on-tv-have-been-killed-off-than-ever-before/)

LGBTQ+ representation in film and TV is simply not good enough (http://www.divamag.co.uk/Diva-Magazine/Views/LGBTQ-representation-in-film-and-TV-is-simply-not-good-enough/)

Don't Play With Our Emotions: Black Panther and Queer Representation (https://theglowup.theroot.com/dont-play-with-our-emotions-black-panther-and-queer-re-1823022917)

What Will It Take to Get a Gay Character in Star Wars? (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/12/star-wars-last-jedi-poe-finn-lgbt-representation)

WHY WE NEED MORE GAY CHARACTERS IN VIDEO GAMES (http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/14/why-we-need-more-gay-characters-in-video-games)

Is The Walking Dead About to Repeat One of Its Worst Mistakes? (Hint gay character death) (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/10/walking-dead-recap-season-8-episode-2-rick-killed-negan-eric-death-aaron)

#BuryYourGays: 11 LGBT TV Characters Killed Off in 2017, From 'Kingdom' to 'The Walking Dead'  (https://www.thewrap.com/buryyourgays-13-lgbt-tv-characters-killed-off-2017-kingdom-walking-dead-photos/)

Kingdom Come Owes Its Popularity To 'Realism' And Conservative Politics (https://steamed.kotaku.com/kingdom-come-owes-its-popularity-to-realism-and-conserv-1823420208)

Kingdom Come Deliverance was accused of racism for not having people of color in game. Historically how many people of color were in Medieval Europe (1300-1400), in what regions were they concentrated and how did they get there? (https://www.quora.com/Kingdom-Come-Deliverance-was-accused-of-racism-for-not-having-people-of-color-in-game-Historically-how-many-people-of-color-were-in-Medieval-Europe-1300-1400-in-what-regions-were-they-concentrated-and-how-did-they)

Kingdom Come Deliverance's quest for historical accuracy is a fool's errand (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/03/05/kingdom-come-deliverance-historical-accuracy/)

Yep, rarely happens.

You are, again, confusing entertainment with reality.

Here is the statement you're supporting, "Why was Monte Cook adamant about including this bit of character in the module? Because West Coast America will destroy him professionally if he didn't."

Of course you can Google stuff people have written about sexuality and entertainment.   That doesn't make it "not rare".  I can probably find 200 articles on furries and entertainment for example.

None of that has anything to do with professionals receiving orders in their ordinary professions. There is no actual gay police. This is mostly just crap people talk about on the internet as their hobby. You will note that all those articles you posted didn't get anyone's profession destroyed. It's all just a bunch of cranks cranking about their pet topic. If Big Bang Theory writers don't include a gay character in their episodes, do you honestly think someone's career will be destroyed for it? No. Some crank might write an article about it...which will have no meaningful impact on anyone's career.

Let me ask you, what is it you think really happens in businesses on the west coast with reference to this topic? Do you think there is some sort of watch-dog in companies? Describe for me what you think is typical for this topic. I'd be fascinated to hear the perceptions of those outside of the West Coast concerning what they think happens to working people out here.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038994I wrote "That is not to say that I am in any way opposed to featuring homosexual NPCs at all, but make it part of the NPC's story rather than just tag it on."

Musing about this - I think I'm the exact opposite - certainly with D&D, I like one-liners like "Sam the hobbit brigand and his love Frodo live here - 3d6gp each" or "Aragorn the evil Ranger dwells here dreaming of Arwen, his elven paramour, he has 543gp and a +1 sword".

It's when I get massive text walls of authorial fanfic concerning NPC romances that I get annoyed. Keep it one-line tags and I can develop it if I want, or ignore.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039018You are, again, confusing entertainment with reality.

Ahh, so we're back to it "doesn't happen, except when it does" again.

QuoteHere is the statement you're supporting, "Why was Monte Cook adamant about including this bit of character in the module? Because West Coast America will destroy him professionally if he didn't."

No, the statement I am supporting is what I said, "I guess if you ignore movies, tv shows and video games you'd be right.... but alas" (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38902-Chris-Helton-ENWorld-and-Witch-Hunts-Buyer-Beware&p=1038787&viewfull=1#post1038787). You know, the one you quoted (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38902-Chris-Helton-ENWorld-and-Witch-Hunts-Buyer-Beware&p=1038997&viewfull=1#post1038997) and responded to. You don't get to shift the goal posts because you don't like the corner you've found yourself in.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1039021Ahh, so we're back to it "doesn't happen, except when it does" again.

Why do you think that reply is pithy? I'm serious. If a meteor kills someone once a century, don't you think it's an honest and fair comment to say, "Don't concern yourself with meteors striking you down"?

Yes, it doesn't happen except IN THE EXTREMELY RARE INSTANCE that it does. That doesn't make a good point for you here. It's not making you look smart or wise or observant. Nobody is being informed or persuaded by you pointing out that some rare thing has happened some rare times in the past, when you describe it in terms of it being common.  

QuoteNo, the statement I am supporting is what I said, "I guess if you ignore movies, tv shows and video games you'd be right.... but alas" (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38902-Chris-Helton-ENWorld-and-Witch-Hunts-Buyer-Beware&p=1038787&viewfull=1#post1038787). You know, the one you quoted (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38902-Chris-Helton-ENWorld-and-Witch-Hunts-Buyer-Beware&p=1038997&viewfull=1#post1038997) and responded to. You don't get to shift the goal posts because you don't like the corner you've found yourself in.

I didn't shift goals. What I quoted is what was being responded to (that's the comment YOU were quoting with your "if you ignore" comment...that's what was "being ignored", people having their professions destroyed for not including a gay character in something). What you're saying isn't true so far. You quoted a bunch of cranks on the net who wrote stuff about how they want entertainment to change...but NOBODY HAD THEIR PROFESSION DESTROYED BY IT. Which was your point.

If you disagree, show me how "in movies" for example people are having their professions destroyed because they didn't include a gay character in their movie where sexuality wasn't even a topic of the movie (like Monte Cooks adventure). I will wait. That's the f'ing claim you made, so let's see it.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039023Blather

Enjoy the corner. The paint will eventually dry.

Mistwell and Ras - can we keep this at least somewhat focused on games?

Quote from: Mistwell;1039018You are, again, confusing entertainment with reality.

Of course you can Google stuff people have written about sexuality and entertainment.   That doesn't make it "not rare".  I can probably find 200 articles on furries and entertainment for example.

None of that has anything to do with professionals received orders in their ordinary professions. There is no actual gay police. This is mostly just crap people talk about on the internet as their hobby.

Speaking from a liberal enclave - I've heard similar stuff to what Ras refers to from in-person gamers.  So it's not just from the Internet. There have been discussions at some local SF Bay area game conventions about increasing LGBT inclusion within games.  That doesn't mean that non-gay-including creators are banned from the con or whatever, but there are some people who push that. Depending on how they want to go about encouraging that, I don't inherently have any issue with that.

On the other hand, I don't think we're anywhere close to enforcing a requirement that all game modules must have gay characters. Even locally here within the super-gay SF Bay area, that seems very far from reality.  I think even where there are people encouraging more gay characters, it's about having some modules that include gay characters and some that don't.

Quote from: jhkim;1039031Mistwell and Ras - can we keep this at least somewhat focused on games?

From 2014, but here is a CNN article (https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/tech/gaming-gadgets/nintendo-game-gay-protest/index.html) on Nintendo apologizing for not have same sex couples in their life simulation game. I am still bewildered that Black Panther, such a much hailed film, was critiqued for not having gays in it (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/20/black-panther-hailed-diversity-has-no-gay-characte/).  When BP II hits, do you think it will have some, even if simple tokenism, to avoid that negative feedback again?

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1039028Enjoy the corner. The paint will eventually dry.

So...despite claiming "Because West Coast America will destroy [creators of movies, tv shows and video games] professionally if [they don't] include [gay characters in their creations]" you have not one shred of evidence to back up that claim you made.

Still waiting dude. Still waiting for you to back up your whackadoo conspiracy theory claim. Note that people complaining is not the same as someone's profession being destroyed due to the complaint. I am complaining about your posts right now, and I seriously doubt it's destroying you because I made this complaint.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1039034From 2014, but here is a CNN article (https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/tech/gaming-gadgets/nintendo-game-gay-protest/index.html) on Nintendo apologizing for not have same sex couples in their life simulation game. I am still bewildered that Black Panther, such a much hailed film, was critiqued for not having gays in it (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/20/black-panther-hailed-diversity-has-no-gay-characte/).  When BP II hits, do you think it will have some, even if simple tokenism, to avoid that negative feedback again?

So whose professions were destroyed by that criticism? Was someone at Nintendo fired over that? That's the claim you made, that if you don't do what they want you to do then your profession will be destroyed. Is the creator of Black Panther seeing his career "destroyed" because some didn't think it included gay characters? Show me that article.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039035So...despite claiming "Because West Coast America will destroy [creators of movies, tv shows and video games] professionally if [they don't] include [gay characters in their creations]" you have not one shred of evidence to back up that claim you made.

Still waiting dude. Still waiting for you to back up your whackadoo conspiracy theory claim. Note that people complaining is not the same as someone's profession being destroyed due to the complaint. I am complaining about your posts right now, and I seriously doubt it's destroying you because I made this complaint.

Making up quotes to attribute to me won't get you out of your time out. Sit there and think about what you've done.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1038842But it's not "sexual content". It's about as absurd as claiming any TV show, no matter how tame, is sexual in nature if it has folks in it who are married.

Not "sexual in nature", nor "sexual content", but we live in an age where every choice regarding the sexuality of any characters is political. Even if that sexuality is never consummated or overtly discussed. AKA, Sulu having a husband in Star Trek. Totally non-sexual scene, but clearly a political stance by the film.

Thus, stating "Rod Hammer and Sally Bottom are married" vs. "Rod Hammer and Tod Bottom are married" in an RPG are both political stances in today's world.

Heck, its absolutely political whether any character is male or female, let alone straight or gay.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1038842His claim is that inclusion of non-hertro couples is no biggie as the GM/Players can change whatever they want/need to as they desire. My point is, the same logic applied to not including non-hetro couples should be no biggie as players and GMs can change what they want (including adding in non-hetro couples) would not be supported by him and others of the outrage brigade.

I agree with you, but Jhkim showed proof of relationships being defined in TSR product.  Thus, if GMs could make straight NPCs into gay NPCs in the past, then anyone can change gay NPCs in the present and future. Of course, if a GM did change a gay or trans NPC and posted about it online, I'm sure RPG.net would burn bright from the chained panty explosions.

We live in the "everything is political" age. I expect outrage over everything on the internet. Social media is the bane of humanity.

Personally, I do not know the right answer. Defined relationships between NPCs are normal aspects of drama. And if that relationship is key or important to the drama or module, then it would be weird for that relationship to not be defined. However, if the relationship is not meaningful to the NPC presentation, then I don't see the need to include sexuality and leave it to the GM.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038929That would allow for the GM and players to have themes they want to explore without being given no choice: after all, issues of class/caste, the rights of women and racial equality are just as important as those of LGBQT rights.

I think your idea has tremendous merit. The variable NPC identities to set the issue at hand is very creative. In some ways, it reminds me of the Traveller adventures in 76 Patrons where you rolled 1D6 to see how certain aspects the base adventure were radically changed.

I wouldn't use your idea ONLY because my table is explicitly about an escape from real world politics.

But its still a rocking idea for publishing an adventure for people who do like to explore political themes in gaming.

Quote from: jhkim;1038995Is this lazy writing unless there is a story-important reason for her to be Rentsch's lover?

Yes.

I hate RPG crap that wastes space on stuff that doesn't matter to the actual game. I hate long dissertations on NPC histories. Give me stuff that I can quickly use to flesh out the NPC to be performed. If the NPC's relationship is meaningful to the adventure, then excellent, I want it defined. Otherwise, its clutter.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039001The real world of the west coast is much like the real world anywhere else. Almost everyone is just doing boring jobs that have no political agendas at all. Heck, most people on the west coast don't even vote! Throw a rock and you're liable to hit someone who doesn't give one crap about politics of any kind out here (though they might sue you for throwing a rock at them). For the most part there is nobody monitoring your profession here to make sure you follow some evil liberal agenda, with extremely rare exception. The entertainment industry has focused almost exclusively on those tiny exceptions, and convinced you that's the generalization here. It's really not. People are pretty ordinary out here, as a generalization.

Silicon Valley is also focused heavily on social politics, as is the California legislature and the entire public education system. As Silicon Valley, the California gov't and the Entertainment Industry are major employers, there is a far greater threat of coercion than in other states, even other blue states.

However, Mistwell is quite right that if you don't live in a heavily SJW neighborhood or work in one of those prominent industries, you can avoid most (perhaps all) of the [usually quiet] coercion.

AKA, if you live inland and work in the agriculture, military or the oil/gas industry (all major employers), you won't hear much SJW nonsense.

Quote from: Phil Slackmeyer;1039040Making up quotes to attribute to me won't get you out of your time out. Sit there and think about what you've done.

"It's okay when I do it, but you'd better not!"

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039043"It's okay when I do it, but you'd better not!"

It's not OK when you do it either.

QuoteWench: Dala, a cutpurse (Level 3 Thief), AC 6 (no armor); hp 15; XP 95
S 11 111 W 10 D 18 Co 15 Ch 13
Thief abilities: PP 70; OL 48; F/RT 35; MS 37; HS 30; HN 15; CW 87. Carried: dagger (concealed), 1-4 pieces of cheap jewelry (total value 2-12 gp). She often picks pockets.
In a small room upstairs, Dala has a philtre of love and a pair of jeweled earrings (worth 700 gp) under a loose floor board, and 87 gp in her mattress. She is Dick Rentsch's lover.

Quote from: jhkim;1038995Is this lazy writing unless there is a story-important reason for her to be Rentsch's lover?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039042Yes.

I hate RPG crap that wastes space on stuff that doesn't matter to the actual game. I hate long dissertations on NPC histories. Give me stuff that I can quickly use to flesh out the NPC to be performed. If the NPC's relationship is meaningful to the adventure, then excellent, I want it defined. Otherwise, its clutter.

I would hardly call this a long dissertation on NPC history.  The descriptive text is shorter than the abbreviated stat block.  Maybe you're thinking this is an excerpt from a long text block?  The above text is everything there is about Dala in the module.

I also feel that brevity is important in NPC descriptions. But I think that this is quite brief. I would be fine with even a little more.  In general I am good with at least (a) a one-sentence physical description, (b) a quick handle or mannerism to portray them with, (c) their top one or two motivations, (d) their top one or two relationships to other NPCs.

As for whether it is important to the adventure, I thought Tod13 described it well earlier -

Quote from: Tod13;1038996It follows the advice I always hear about writing modules: setup situations and problems, not solutions. Maybe it is important, maybe it isn't. It depends on what the players do. Maybe the PCs kill Dala and show up trying to get on Rentsch's good side, while wearing her jewelry. Or maybe they kidnap Rentsch and use that as leverage to get Dala to steal something for them, since the party lost their thief.

I agree with this. I dislike NPCs who exist just for one function, because the PCs could do all sorts of things that aren't part of the expected plot of how the adventure will go.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039042We live in the "everything is political" age. I expect outrage over everything on the internet. Social media is the bane of humanity.

Personally, I do not know the right answer.

I have an idea. It is one that I was alluding to earlier in the thread.

Don't make everything political.

Of interest to the conversation about SJWs harassing published authors, I submit this piece from Larry Correia.

Quote from: Larry Correia on FacebookSo I'm no longer the writer guest of honor at origins. My invitation has been revoked. It was the usual nonsense. Right after I was announced as a guest some people started throwing a temper tantrum about my alleged racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever (of course, with zero proof or actual examples), and the guy in charge (John Ward) immediately folded. He didn't even talk to me first. He just accepted the slander and gave me the boot in an email that talked about how "inclusive" they are. I actually heard about it on facebook before I even saw the email.

Oh well.

They did this to John Ringo at ConCarolinas a little while ago, and took a lesson from it. This is just another new way for bullies to target people who disagree with them. Throw a fit, make up some accusations, and cry about how you feel unsafe. Now that they know it works, it is just another tool in their tool box.

For the record, I'm not any of the things they accuse me of. Despite writing a whole bunch of books, and a ton of political articles, and all of my many personal interactions with fans (I've done up to 15 cons and events in one year), none of these people can ever find any actual examples of me being sexist, racist, or homophobic (and the Guardian looked hard and still came up with nothing).

That's because in reality, I'm a libertarian who does not give a shit who you are, or what you do, and it is none of my business, as long as you stay off my lawn. :)

This time they kept calling me a "rape apologist". They dug up that classic that John Scalzi created about me several years ago. It's total nonsense. I spent many years teaching self defense to women, and I'm all in favor of every rape attempt ending with the rapist receiving a couple hollow points to the chest. But that just goes to show the power of lies, rumor, and narrative.

So years later, complete strangers come out of the woodwork to talk about how evil I am. Yeah... That does get tiresome. It is wearying.

I'm really sorry for any fans who were planning on seeing me at Origins. Hopefully I'll get to meet you at some other event.

For me personally, meh. I go to enough events. I'll just do something else fun that weekend.
The saddest person in all of this is my son, who was my plus one. He was looking forward to playing a bunch of games, and then we were going to go to the zoo on Sunday. (they have manatees there!).

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1039040Making up quotes to attribute to me won't get you out of your time out. Sit there and think about what you've done.

Oh for F's sake I didn't make up a quote (do you understand what brackets mean in a quote?). That is in fact what you said, it's just that you were doing it with quotes and in three posts so I had to piece it together IN CONTEXT. See, I knew you had lost the thread. You don't even recall what you were replying to.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039042Silicon Valley is also focused heavily on social politics

That's false. Most of it isn't. Most of it is just as boring as every other job and involves no politics at all. That would be my former job by the way, for a decade.

Quote, as is the California legislature

Yes I will grant you that, but it's a minuscule number of people.

Quoteand the entire public education system.

Nope. Most of it is apolitical. And I work in that sector now (and for the past 13 years) by the way and speak from direct knowledge that most don't give two whits about politics.

QuoteHowever, Mistwell is quite right that if you don't live in a heavily SJW neighborhood or work in one of those prominent industries, you can avoid most (perhaps all) of the [usually quiet] coercion.

AKA, if you live inland and work in the agriculture, military or the oil/gas industry (all major employers), you won't hear much SJW nonsense.

I live in Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks. I hear some social justice nonsense, but not typically in any work settings. I hear some libertarian and right leaning nonsense sometimes too...also not at work.

Larry needs to do what Richard Meyer (Diversity & Comics) did when Waid interfered with Meyer's contract negotiations with Antarctic Press: file charges with the state AG and the Federal Trade Commission. Also, where applicable, file criminal defamation charges against the accusers. The SJWs that do this shit will stop once they realize that they will have to face Federal and state law-enforcement agents inquiring about their actions, and one of them doubles-down on the stupid by lying to them (an offense in itself).

Quote from: jeff37923;1039059I have an idea. It is one that I was alluding to earlier in the thread.

Don't make everything political.

Hopefully its a fad. Maybe social media will outgrow this. But its certainly the state of the current culture, especially online and in the media.

Quote from: jhkim;1039050I also feel that brevity is important in NPC descriptions. But I think that this is quite brief. I would be fine with even a little more.  In general I am good with at least (a) a one-sentence physical description, (b) a quick handle or mannerism to portray them with, (c) their top one or two motivations, (d) their top one or two relationships to other NPCs.

I can live with that.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039064That's false. Most of it isn't. Most of it is just as boring as every other job and involves no politics at all. That would be my former job by the way, for a decade.

Silicon Valley wasn't a political shitstorm in the past, but its certainly a doubleplusgoodthink cesspool now. That's why all the push for censorship in social media and YouTube. It's creepy and confusing how an industry built on freedom of expression and freedom of thought would devolve into this.

I've been consulting for two decades. The Orwellian weirdness of the past 5 years wasn't there in the early 00s.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039064Yes I will grant you that, but it's a minuscule number of people.

The state bureaucracy is massive and it's a huge employer.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039064Nope. Most of it is apolitical. And I work in that sector now (and for the past 13 years) by the way and speak from direct knowledge that most don't give two whits about politics.

The California education system is apolitical??? Compared to what? North Korea?

It was politicized when I taught special education in the 90s.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039064I live in Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks.

Have you been to Paper Heroes (on Burbank/Hazeltine)? It's a decent FLGS with several good Meetups.
Not as active as Game Empire in Pasadena, but PH is still growing.
https://www.yelp.com/biz/paper-heros-games-los-angeles

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;1039066The SJWs that do this shit will stop once they realize that they will have to face Federal and state law-enforcement agents inquiring about their actions, and one of them doubles-down on the stupid by lying to them (an offense in itself).

Absolutely.

All of this "trial by internet" bullshit will continue and grow unless there's significant legal pushback.

Quote from: jeff37923;1039059I have an idea. It is one that I was alluding to earlier in the thread.

Don't make everything political.

So how do you that when everything around you wants to?

Quote from: Mistwell;1039064That's false. Most of it isn't. Most of it is just as boring as every other job and involves no politics at all. That would be my former job by the way, for a decade.

That's where you're wrong.  Silicon Valley is a bastion of the Extreme Left.  Google being a prime source of it, as well as being one of the largest companies.

I will grant Mistwell a caveat about California. Most of the coercion is social and quiet. For many people, its simply an accepted undercurrent in the culture. Of course, political correctness is fine for company policy! Why complain when it's easier to accept? Why fight "progress"? Why should we allow other ideas to be spoken when the right opinion is best?

An apolitical person can exist just fine in California...as long as they go along to get along at work (and on Facebook and Twitter).

A friend of mine was raised in the Bible Belt, lived in Texas and Los Angeles. His take on the California undercurrent is the same as the Bible Belt. There are social assumptions of conformity of thought in most communities, most especially in politically polarized areas where either Team Red or Team Blue holds sway. When he lived in the Bible Belt, the community had its "standards and expectations" of behavior, political allegiances and taboos and LA has its own.

In this respect, I don't think California is any different than many areas of the country, except California is the hub of the media world so it has an outsized influence the Bible Belt never could.

Of course, the more empowered SJWs become with uncontested "trials by internet", the more we will see aggressive coercion to make examples of wrongthinkers.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038713I'm probably going to get dogpiled for this, but there is an inherent problem with Rufus and Burne being listed as a gay couple in the module. It limits the choices that individual GMs have for those two non-player characters' motivations and actions. The more information that an author provides in an adventure about the NPCs, the less utility they have because that information limits their range of possible actions to what would be considered "in character". If the NPC is just a stat block and thus tabula rosa for the most part regarding their character and motivations, the more utility that NPC has for the GM. Nothing homophobic about that, it is just looking at the game product as a game product that needs to be as utilitarian as possible for the buyer to find useful.

Exactly. Most of the NPCs from the TSR era were never stated what their "sexual orientation" was. And didnt need to. The DM could make them anything, or nothing, because 99.99 percent of the time it is not relevant even. Any by that same token we do not need to be told anyone is NOT gay, lesbian, illithid, whatever.

That said. Some adventures it can be a relevant plot point for a DM to know. Especially in say an intrigue or espionage type campaign. Though even there you could just leave them neutral and have a note for the DM about how tossing in such an orientation can make for an intriguing problem for the PCs to overcome.

But the ongoing spate of forced "inclusionism" just comes across as just virtue signalling rather than writing what should be there. And most of the time you can spot it because the writer will point it out. "oooh look ! seeee how inclusive I am!" and thats bound to rub someone the wrong way.

Quote from: jhkim;1038995Is this lazy writing unless there is a story-important reason for her to be Rentsch's lover?

It depends if the module is meant to be run as a story or as a simulation. If it's meant to be a story (A leads to B, B leads to C, and that plot has meaning) then yes, it's lazy writing if there's no reason for it. Extraneous might be a better word (see Chekov's Gun.)

But if it's a simulation, then it's valuable. Let's say you're running this as a sandbox. The players could use that information in a variety of ways. They could attend Dala and Dick's wedding. They could plan the wedding. If Dala was a man, the PC's could demand that the local baker (a devotee of St. Cuthbert) decorate the wedding cake. Or defend his right not to. (META!) Or if they were of an evil mind, they could kindnap Dick and demand ransom from Dala. Or vice versa.  

I'm inclined to think more info is better, especially since OSR is all about the sandbox. I'm also inclined to think it's interesting to include a gay couple in a module, and a short phrase at the end of the description is a perfect way to do it.

It feels so vicariously exciting to be living in the SF Bay Area, what apparently is the modern "Berlin of the Cold War" culture war, with these alt-right uprisings, gay police/mafia, SJW lockdown, MAGA, antifa, incels...

Actually, it's mostly expensive. With horrible traffic. And great changeable weather and food. But you all make it seem so cloak & dagger, so interesting! Please continue. :) It sounds so ready-made for an RPG setting! :D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1039077So how do you that when everything around you wants to?

Don't. Just because there are a bunch of people making everything around you political doesn't mean you have to buy into that worldview. Just do your own thing. Dust off your Viking Hat and wear that motherfucker with pride.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1039077That's where you're wrong.  Silicon Valley is a bastion of the Extreme Left.  Google being a prime source of it, as well as being one of the largest companies.

Twenty years ago, maybe.  These days Silicon Valley is filled to bursting with Randroids and dudebros.  My sister lives just over the hills, and is a self-described "free range granola cruncher."  She's also a therapist and spends her time dealing with people.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039042I think your idea has tremendous merit. The variable NPC identities to set the issue at hand is very creative. In some ways, it reminds me of the Traveller adventures in 76 Patrons where you rolled 1D6 to see how certain aspects the base adventure were radically changed.

Thank you very much. I think that 76 Patrons and (Classic) Traveller in general has still loads to offer: I really like adding the random d6 roll (roll or choose)

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039042I wouldn't use your idea ONLY because my table is explicitly about an escape from real world politics.

Indeed I agree. I would also use it to offer alternatives to a whole bunch of backrounds and plots. One example is the old origin of the abomination/monster: i.e. 1) extraterrestreal 2) demon: 3) ancient scientific experiment 4) magical experiment 5)  dark fae 6) wrath of God.

Another might  be the nature of elves/magic/orcs etetera.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039042Of course, if a GM did change a gay or trans NPC and posted about it online, I'm sure RPG.net would burn bright from the chained panty explosions.

This is what I hoped to avoid with the use of modules explicitly providing the options of different themes. If the module clearly states that there are, let's say 6 different ways of running the adventure (s) then there is little chance of the DM becoming the target of scorn.

After all, if the inclusion of a gay couple at the heart of the adventure like the one I described earlier is political, then to rewrite them as heterosexual could be seen to be even more political: I think the term is "erasure".

Providing the option on black and white with a "roll d6 or choose" at the top would allow GMs to run an adventure with the theme of his choice or to roll a d6 and step outside his/her comfort zone, perhaps. I would include the d6 so as to further avoid accusations  of "erasure".

Let's compare:

SJW: "Why is the heir to the barony not gay?"
GM: "I changed it."
SJW: "Homophobe!"


with

SJW: "Why is the heir to the barony not gay?"
GM: "I rolled a 2"
SJW: "....."

Quote from: jhkim;1038991People using a module do have choices - they can not buy the module at all, or they can change what is in the module, or use it as written.

Quote from: jhkim;1038991I don't personally like it.  If I read a module that had sections like "Well you could do (a) or (b) or (c)." - I might still buy it, but it would mostly likely decrease the likelihood of my buying it. As a GM, I am perfectly aware that I can change the content of the module to fit my campaign - so it would put me off as wasted space.

Please consider the last point above and then tell me if you still think that it is a waste of space.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039101Twenty years ago, maybe.  These days Silicon Valley is filled to bursting with Randroids and dudebros.  My sister lives just over the hills, and is a self-described "free range granola cruncher."  She's also a therapist and spends her time dealing with people.

Sadly, no.  James Damore, a former Google engineer that used science to prove his thesis, and was actually TRYING to get MORE women into STEM, by explain how men and women differ, got fired by people who didn't actually read his little memo.  And every single article coming from there is written in such a way that paints him as THE misogynist villain.

Read the memo, it's actually well written, thoughtful and trying to get more women IN STEM by explaining what women have shown to prefer in terms of works.

Silicon Valley is Political Extreme Left, whether or not you want to believe, it is.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1039112Sadly, no.  James Damore, a former Google engineer that used science to prove his thesis, and was actually TRYING to get MORE women into STEM, by explain how men and women differ, got fired by people who didn't actually read his little memo.  And every single article coming from there is written in such a way that paints him as THE misogynist villain.

Read the memo, it's actually well written, thoughtful and trying to get more women IN STEM by explaining what women have shown to prefer in terms of works.

Silicon Valley is Political Extreme Left, whether or not you want to believe, it is.

It's not like Zuckerburg didn't tell congress "...because Facebook and the tech industry is located in silicon valley which is an extremely left-leaning place (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/944318/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-political-bias-ted-cruz-congress-senate-hearing)." Was he lying to Congress?

What about Palmer Luckey  (https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/30/palmer-luckey-facebook/)who was run out of Facebook after a Daily Beast article  (https://www.thedailybeast.com/palmer-luckey-the-facebook-near-billionaire-secretly-funding-trumps-meme-machine)showed he was associated with a pro-Trump group?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039042We live in the "everything is political" age. I expect outrage over everything on the internet. Social media is the bane of humanity.

Personally, I do not know the right answer. Defined relationships between NPCs are normal aspects of drama. And if that relationship is key or important to the drama or module, then it would be weird for that relationship to not be defined. However, if the relationship is not meaningful to the NPC presentation, then I don't see the need to include sexuality and leave it to the GM.

Pretty much this. The problem isn't really about NPC sexual identities (I don't give a crap if an NPC is gay). It's about modules these days including all sorts of irrelevant backstory because half of them are bought by people who don't actively game and use RPG books as toilet reading material. So we get fictional backstory material written by frustrated fantasy writers who aren't even good enough at their craft to crack the disposable schlock end of the market. I tried getting into a couple Paizo adventure paths, and they're chock full of this fluff. The barkeep is saving to go back to school and become a scribe, while the head of the drover's guild is bitter about his wife running away with his former business partner, whose sister got into trouble with gambling debts and was disowned by her parents, etc. etc. It's also comically anachronistic ren faire stuff, inhabited by characters who stepped straight out of a Seattle Starbucks, rather than anyone who could plausibly live in a pre-modern social setting.

Quote from: Omega;1039086Exactly. Most of the NPCs from the TSR era were never stated what their "sexual orientation" was. And didnt need to. The DM could make them anything, or nothing, because 99.99 percent of the time it is not relevant even. Any by that same token we do not need to be told anyone is NOT gay, lesbian, illithid, whatever.

I think I have figured this out now... With the new 'social signaling' your gay, lesbian, trans, illithid, or whatever game designer/publisher/GM is social signaling their "sexual orientation" right into the mechanics or other social interactions of the game. This can only be relevant for two reasons, one, ...to locate other similarly sexually oriented gamers, and two, to setup a club, click, or subgroup who specifically and subtly, and maybe not so subtly excludes other gamers.

In the specific case last week when the very mixed sjw crowd attacked Sean Patrick Fannon, including Chris Helton, they really were not attacking him because he had been giving other mixed sexual orientation SJW cucks grief, as they do that to each other, just for entertainment purposes. They even have terms specifically identifying such relationships, calling various members of said dysfunctional relationships dominant/submissives, etc. and then expecting them to behave according to how they are labeled or acting, ...accordingly. Anyway because Sean had went hetero and betrayed the LGBT cause and dogma by chasing after some skirt, they all got out their torches and pitchforks and proceeded to drag him, as well as anyone anyone sympathetic (like me) to the town square in order to publicly burn them.

After some consideration, I can't think of any good reasons to overtly include sexual orientation in my RPGs, for the npcs, or making it excessively relevant as part of our fantasy RPGs, as it never really was relevant when I was younger, and we didn't discuss it much. There is actually very good reasons for keeping our fantasy worlds separate from the real world, not to protect the real world from our fantasies, but to protect our fantasies from the poisons and ills that are prevalent in the real world.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1039110Let's compare:

SJW: "Why is the heir to the barony not gay?"
GM: "I changed it."
SJW: "Homophobe!"


with

SJW: "Why is the heir to the barony not gay?"
GM: "I rolled a 2"
SJW: "....."

Before either situation happened, the GM at some point willingly made the conscious decision to allow the SJW into their game.

Quote from: Krimson;1039173Before either situation happened, the GM at some point willingly made the conscious decision to allow the SJW into their game.

I don't have problems with SJWs. They can have problems with me, but politics doesn't affect my friendships.

I will cut people out of my life who do let politics affect their friendships. Those gross people can be by themselves until they stop over caring about trivial bullshit that we barely have a say in every couple of years.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1039178I don't have problems with SJWs. They can have problems with me, but politics doesn't affect my friendships.

I will cut people out of my life who do let politics affect their friendships. Those gross people can be by themselves until they stop over caring about trivial bullshit that we barely have a say in every couple of years.

A GM that allows a disruptive player at the table still had to at some point make the decision to allow them. If you consciously decide to allow someone in your home who you know to be disruptive, then you have only yourself to blame.

Quote from: Haffrung;1039151Pretty much this. The problem isn't really about NPC sexual identities (I don't give a crap if an NPC is gay). It's about modules these days including all sorts of irrelevant backstory because half of them are bought by people who don't actively game and use RPG books as toilet reading material. So we get fictional backstory material written by frustrated fantasy writers who aren't even good enough at their craft to crack the disposable schlock end of the market. I tried getting into a couple Paizo adventure paths, and they're chock full of this fluff. The barkeep is saving to go back to school and become a scribe, while the head of the drover's guild is bitter about his wife running away with his former business partner, whose sister got into trouble with gambling debts and was disowned by her parents, etc. etc. It's also comically anachronistic ren faire stuff, inhabited by characters who stepped straight out of a Seattle Starbucks, rather than anyone who could plausibly live in a pre-modern social setting.

I used to hear stories about GMs who filled notepads and binders full of niggly details about their campaign setting that no one in their right mind would ever find a use for at the gaming table. It's practically a D&D trope at this point. Granted, you're talking about modules and not sourcebooks but still.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1039162After some consideration, I can't think of any good reasons to overtly include sexual orientation in my RPGs, for the npcs, or making it excessively relevant as part of our fantasy RPGs, as it never really was relevant when I was younger, and we didn't discuss it much. There is actually very good reasons for keeping our fantasy worlds separate from the real world, not to protect the real world from our fantasies, but to protect our fantasies from the poisons and ills that are prevalent in the real world.

Have you ever had the PCs meet the King and Queen?  What about an innkeeper and his wife?  How about a farm worked/owned by a family?  If so, then according to some you have overtly included sexual orientation in your RPGs.  I've even seen it claimed that those examples are shoving your heterosexual norms down their throats and reason enough to force the opposite into games.

Quote from: rgalex;1039197Have you ever had the PCs meet the King and Queen?  What about an innkeeper and his wife?  How about a farm worked/owned by a family?  If so, then according to some you have overtly included sexual orientation in your RPGs.  I've even seen it claimed that those examples are shoving your heterosexual norms down their throats and reason enough to force the opposite into games.

  Which is a fine example of begging the question--that is, it's assuming that all forms of sexual orientation, family life, etc. are equally normative and deserving of representation, which is one of the points under debate.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1039201Which is a fine example of begging the question--that is, it's assuming that all forms of sexual orientation, family life, etc. are equally normative and deserving of representation, which is one of the points under debate.

When I run a game, I not only look at the player's sheets, I copy them onto a sheet by hand, and then copy a summary of all of them on another sheet. Sometimes I discuss plot points with the players and find out what kind of content they are looking for in a game, and come up with relevant side plots. If LGBT representation was deemed important, I would include it. Most of the time, players just want to hit things and take their stuff.

Quote from: jhkimIs this lazy writing unless there is a story-important reason for her to be Rentsch's lover?

Quote from: Aglondir;1039088Let's say you're running this as a sandbox. The players could use that information in a variety of ways. They could attend Dala and Dick's wedding. They could plan the wedding. If Dala was a man, the PC's could demand that the local baker (a devotee of St. Cuthbert) decorate the wedding cake. Or defend his right not to. (META!) Or if they were of an evil mind, they could kindnap Dick and demand ransom from Dala. Or vice versa.  

I'm inclined to think more info is better, especially since OSR is all about the sandbox. I'm also inclined to think it's interesting to include a gay couple in a module, and a short phrase at the end of the description is a perfect way to do it.

Yeah, I definitely prefer more of a sandbox approach to modules. Maybe Dala and Dick never come up at all, maybe they do. But I've had some great adventures that came out of little details in a module.

Quote from: Omega;1039086Exactly. Most of the NPCs from the TSR era were never stated what their "sexual orientation" was. And didnt need to. The DM could make them anything, or nothing, because 99.99 percent of the time it is not relevant even. Any by that same token we do not need to be told anyone is NOT gay, lesbian, illithid, whatever.

That said. Some adventures it can be a relevant plot point for a DM to know. Especially in say an intrigue or espionage type campaign. Though even there you could just leave them neutral and have a note for the DM about how tossing in such an orientation can make for an intriguing problem for the PCs to overcome.

Omega - did you see my earlier examples from Temple of Elemental Evil? I posted five couples explicitly mentioned in the module in Post #202 (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38902-Chris-Helton-ENWorld-and-Witch-Hunts-Buyer-Beware&p=1038501&viewfull=1#post1038501), and that's not even counting all the husband/wife households in the village... plus of course Rufus and Burne in their one bedroom :-).

I would agree that the majority aren't defined, but there are often several couples mentioned in a module - if the module has any NPCs and not just monsters and traps. Personally, I like my NPCs to come across like real people - and among real people, it is very common to have a spouse/partner.

So let me get this straight...(err... you know what I mean).

In order to enjoy D&D in the privacy of your own home, to play as you wish, with others ostensibly as you see fit, the game itself has to have representation of every alternative lifestyle and every culture you've never heard of, doing things that may/may not be morally, ethically, philosophically, physically, emotionally, attractive/distractive/repugnant to others, represented to the satisfaction of strangers on the internet?

That's where we're at?

LOL

Quote from: rgalex;1039197Have you ever had the PCs meet the King and Queen?  What about an innkeeper and his wife?  How about a farm worked/owned by a family?  If so, then according to some you have overtly included sexual orientation in your RPGs.  I've even seen it claimed that those examples are shoving your heterosexual norms down their throats and reason enough to force the opposite into games.

I know it's awfully CIS-normative, patriarchal, and colonialist of me, but I use historical medieval society as the baseline for my fantasy worlds. So yeah, farmers will be heterosexuals because they need to raise children to help on the farm. And kings will have queens because they live in hereditary aristocracies. Could some NPCs have illicit same-sex lovers? Sure. But I can't even get my head around an entire pre-modern society abandoning sex roles and hetero mating and child-rearing. How does succession work? How does the king get more farmers for the fields and soldiers for his armies? Does the mage's guild offer in-vitro fertilization services? Raise armies from clone banks? I like my fantasy weird, but not that weird.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1039201Which is a fine example of begging the question--that is, it's assuming that all forms of sexual orientation, family life, etc. are equally normative and deserving of representation, which is one of the points under debate.

Not by anybody with a scrap of human decency.

Quote from: tenbones;1039208So let me get this straight...(err... you know what I mean).

The thread has been won. No further comment necessary. :D

Quote from: tenbones;1039208So let me get this straight...(err... you know what I mean).

In order to enjoy D&D in the privacy of your own home, to play as you wish, with others ostensibly as you see fit, the game itself has to have representation of every alternative lifestyle and every culture you've never heard of, doing things that may/may not be morally, ethically, philosophically, physically, emotionally, attractive/distractive/repugnant to others, represented to the satisfaction of strangers on the internet?

That's where we're at?

LOL

No, that's what you have to do to sell a commercial product in today's world.

And I have enough LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ friends to have some idea of how it makes them feel to actually see characters like themselves.

And if wanting my non-cis-white-male-heterosexual friends to feel like a game acknowledges their existence makes me a "Social Justice Warrior," I accept the designation with pride.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039218And if wanting my non-cis-white-male-heterosexual friends to feel like a game acknowledges their existence makes me a "Social Justice Warrior," I accept the designation with pride.

Perhaps the problem is that that acknowledgement is reducing them down to their sexuality, their group identity, as their most important trait. Perhaps the only trait that "counts".

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1039224Perhaps the problem is that that acknowledgement is reducing them down to their sexuality, their group identity, as their most important trait. Perhaps the only trait that "counts".

I once played in a Star Wars game with a straight player playing a Wookiee who kept insisting the character shaved his genital area and walked around like that. In another D&D game, we had Conan the Ballbarian.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039218No, that's what you have to do to sell a commercial product in today's world.

And I have enough LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ friends to have some idea of how it makes them feel to actually see characters like themselves.

And if wanting my non-cis-white-male-heterosexual friends to feel like a game acknowledges their existence makes me a "Social Justice Warrior," I accept the designation with pride.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2494[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1039224Perhaps the problem is that that acknowledgement is reducing them down to their sexuality, their group identity, as their most important trait. Perhaps the only trait that "counts".

The expected outcome of identity politics.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1039229[ATTACH=CONFIG]2494[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2495[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039233[ATTACH=CONFIG]2495[/ATTACH]

Yeah, if you have to resort to this, you've lost this one.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1039224Perhaps the problem is that that acknowledgement is reducing them down to their sexuality, their group identity, as their most important trait. Perhaps the only trait that "counts".

  From the common point of view, I'm overrepresented in WotC products. From another point of view, after some representation during the TSR days, WotC has been engaged in wholesale erasure of people like me and appropriation of my culture. :)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039218No, that's what you have to do to sell a commercial product in today's world.

What do you think about the idea I suggested earlier? Allow me to repeat it:

For example, a scenario in which the Baron's eldest son wants the PCs to help him escape an arranged wedding because he is in love with his squire. After the PCs succesfully help him escape, the young lord and the squire become an adventuring duo and allies of the party for several escapades. Meanwhile the evil younger brother becomes the heir but secretly puts a bounty on his brother's head and the PCs too. Finally when the Baron dies, young evil brother puts the squeeze on the common folk and the elder gay son returns to depose him with the PCs help. Saga ends with the eldest son becoming the Baron, his squire as his captain (and open secret that he is his "beloved") and the PCs rewarded with their own keep to clear out and occupy as their own in the hinterlands of the Barony (only to discover the deposed younger brother waiting there to take his revenge).

This way the PCs actually care and hopefully the players too.

Moreover, if the scenario above was published, I would put in options to allow the DM to include what he/she and his/her group were comfortable with.

1. The lover is not his squire but is actually his maid or some other member of the common class (changing theme from homosexual love to class conflict).
2. The lover is an elfin maiden sent as a diplomat/ambassador by  Queen Galdrielrond (changing the theme from homosexual love to miscegeny).
3. The eldest son is actually the eldest daughter and the squire is a handmaiden. (lesbian and femminism issues)
4. The eldest son is actually the eldest daughet and the squire is the stableboy. (class and femminism issues)
5. There is no love interest with the loyal squire. The eldest son has sworn an oath of celibacy to God because he's a secret Paladin. The squire loves his lord platonically. (religious freedom)

That would allow for the GM and players to have themes they want to explore without being given no choice: after all, issues of class/caste, the rights of women and racial equality are just as important as those of LGBQT rights.


Would love to have your input.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039218No, that's what you have to do to sell a commercial product in today's world.

Wait. Is that an actual fact? I'm not being sarcastic. Is it the LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ-crowd that is buying D&D and generating sales? What about for non-D&D rpgs? Or is it merely the ideology running its course through a vein of society that feels this is their chance at being the "chosen"?

And more specifically - is the *WAY* they're going about marketing such things the best way to do it? At the cost of alienating: cis-white-male-heterosexuals? Because I don't personally care one bit about needing to be represented as an Asian in RPG's here in America. I'm perfectly able to play any RPG and inject that stuff in meaningful ways (<--- see that right there?) without denigrating others simply by the lack of representation at my table or in the games I help produce.

The issue here is the constant handwringing over the appearances of things rather than the substance of things and then people doing bad things over the internet that impact people's lives over it. I have very little to go on here that this is the best course for marketing other than anecdotal evidence, or parallel evidence from other industries partaking in this behavior. My own spending habits certainly reflect that.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039218And I have enough LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ friends to have some idea of how it makes them feel to actually see characters like themselves.

And if wanting my non-cis-white-male-heterosexual friends to feel like a game acknowledges their existence makes me a "Social Justice Warrior," I accept the designation with pride.

So do who doesn't get to be outraged for not appearing in gaming? Only to the point where you know people of a specific denomination, proclivity? Fetish? Self-identification? Where is this magical demarcation line that has nothing to do with people's over-emotional reactions which fuel their own bigotry and biases? I'm genuinely interested in your view on this. Because this is the real question.

Or because *I* and others don't feel it's necessary to do these things in D&D by proscription or design, because we feel its perfectly fine to do it at the table, we're somehow homophobes, racists, bigots whatever? Because I wanna know who I get to call a racist or bigot for not making my Left-Handed Filipino/Japanese/Cajun that identifies as a Baobab tree-RPG. Let's line them all up.

Or do I not count? /raises POC-card. Who's my huckleberry?

Edit: I just want to go on record: I don't give a flying shit about my race, my sexual preference, my appearance, or people's thoughts about those things. I'm more than all of those things combined, multiplied by 10, carry the 2, to the 10th-power of Galactus's middle-finger.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1039237Yeah, if you have to resort to this, you've lost this one.

What, are you kidding?  "Look at my butthole" summarizes 95% of the posts to this forum. :)

95% Butthole Inspection rating seems awfully precise. You must either be a true fetishist, or the pay must be exquisite. Or both?

Quote from: tenbones;103925595% Butthole Inspection rating seems awfully precise. You must either be a true fetishist, or the pay must be exquisite. Or both?

I'm pretty sure at least 95% of the people here have buttholes.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039216Not by anybody with a scrap of human decency.

You are acting like "normal" comes with some sort of moral weight.

Not being normal enough to warrant representation means that something is too rare to include. It carries no moral weight.

Not including something doesn't mean you condemn it, it means you found it irrelevant to the work. Abnormal is not an insult.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1039262Abnormal is not an insult.

When I look up 'abnormal' in the Cambridge English Dictionary, I saw "different from what is usual or average, especially in a way that is bad".

"In a way that is bad" sounds like an insult to me.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039101Twenty years ago, maybe.  These days Silicon Valley is filled to bursting with Randroids and dudebros.  My sister lives just over the hills, and is a self-described "free range granola cruncher."  She's also a therapist and spends her time dealing with people.

Silicon Valley (which itself is not very representative of California as a whole - at all) tends to be very left wing when it comes to social issues and some economic issues, but also tends to favor free trade and globalism (which used to be a Republican issue), oppose labor unions, oppose business regulations and laws which make it harder to fire employees, and they also tend to favor charter schools.

So it's sort of a mixed bag, depending on the issue.

Quote from: jcfiala;1039257I'm pretty sure at least 95% of the people here have buttholes.

holy crap. This opens up a whole host of questions...

not the least of which being: who are these 5%? And keeping this on topic - are they represented in RPGs?

Quote from: tenbones;1039266holy crap. This opens up a whole host of questions...

not the least of which being: who are these 5%? And keeping this on topic - are they represented in RPGs?

95% "have" buttholes. 5% "are" buttholes.

Am I.... a butthole?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2496[/ATTACH]

Quote from: tenbones;1039266holy crap. This opens up a whole host of questions...

not the least of which being: who are these 5%? And keeping this on topic - are they represented in RPGs?

Well, when I was 12 an older brother of a friend was running us through a D&D adventure, and declared that my character had died from not going to the bathroom, so I suspect my character didn't have a butthole.  Or it's possible Ed was an asshole.  Or both.

Quote from: tenbones;1039270Am I.... a butthole?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2496[/ATTACH]

I was not suggesting you were, in case that was unclear :)

Quote from: jcfiala;1039272Well, when I was 12 an older brother of a friend was running us through a D&D adventure, and declared that my character had died from not going to the bathroom, so I suspect my character didn't have a butthole.  Or it's possible Ed was an asshole.  Or both.

So then you're be okay with advocating of having players have the Blessing of Golgothan - and be given the chance to choose what kind of asshole they are each dawn?

Quote from: Mistwell;1039273I was not suggesting you were, in case that was unclear :)

Well I wasn't sure if I was being blinded by my "unconscious bias" all these SJW's believe affects those that don't drink their Kool-Aid. I thought this was a good chance to put it to the test.

WHEW. I'm butthole-free.... wait a minute...

I find it discriminatory that there is a difference between buttholes and assholes. Aren't they all anuses together?

Buttholes are Oriental, Asshole is Asian. Anus is Celestial.

They mean the same thing but in different languages. Ironically *people* ascribe different meanings to them. Some seem to choose negative connotations to them because they're dipshits. Deep down it comes from people feeling inferior.

Ironic that this reflects that people can't control their own reactions it allows others control over them. I don't hate Greeks or Italians - so if you wanna do Asian or Oriental, go for it. Same with butthole or asshole.

Or go full anus or Celestial. It's the intent that matters. Not the shape of the sound.

There is a lesson in here if you stare hard enough.

Quote from: tenbones;1039274So then you're be okay with advocating of having players have the Blessing of Golgothan - and be given the chance to choose what kind of asshole they are each dawn?

I have no idea what the Blessing of Golgothan is, and am too lazy to google it.  So, I'm going to say Ni Itchi Itchi P'tang!

Quote from: tenbones;1039208So let me get this straight...(err... you know what I mean).

In order to enjoy D&D in the privacy of your own home, to play as you wish, with others ostensibly as you see fit, the game itself has to have representation of every alternative lifestyle and every culture you've never heard of, doing things that may/may not be morally, ethically, philosophically, physically, emotionally, attractive/distractive/repugnant to others, represented to the satisfaction of strangers on the internet?

I don't see where you're getting this. We've had a number of opinions here - but none of them correspond to the above. Notable opinions that I see here include:

1) Gay characters shouldn't appear in D&D modules, because D&D modules should be family-friendly.

2) Gay characters should only appear in modules if there is a random-roll option for them to not be gay.

3) Module writers should feel free to put in whatever gay characters they want. It's OK for modules not to have gay characters, and it's also fine for modules to have gay characters.


#3 is my stance.  I don't see that anyone here has advocated the "gay police" option that module writers should be required to have a certain percentage of gay characters, but if I missed it, please let me know who.

Quote from: jhkim;1039281#3 is my stance.  I don't see that anyone here has advocated the "gay police" option that module writers should be required to have a certain percentage of gay characters, but if I missed it, please let me know who.

I'll say it - All modules should have one gay or bi character.  Here's my logic:

1) All DMs suck some of the time.
2) Ergo, all DMs are Gay or Bi.
3) Ergo, we should include a Gay or Bi NPC to represent the poor DM.

Simple logic!

Quote from: jhkim;1039281#3 is my stance.  I don't see that anyone here has advocated the "gay police" option that module writers should be required to have a certain percentage of gay characters, but if I missed it, please let me know who.

I'll assume you just "missed" this exchange (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38902-Chris-Helton-ENWorld-and-Witch-Hunts-Buyer-Beware&p=1039218&viewfull=1#post1039218).

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1039284I'll assume you just "missed" this exchange (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38902-Chris-Helton-ENWorld-and-Witch-Hunts-Buyer-Beware&p=1039218&viewfull=1#post1039218).

Remember kids, inclusiveness is exclusion, war is peace, and hate is love.

Quote from: jhkim;1039281I don't see where you're getting this. We've had a number of opinions here - but none of them correspond to the above. Notable opinions that I see here include:

1) Gay characters shouldn't appear in D&D modules, because D&D modules should be family-friendly.

2) Gay characters should only appear in modules if there is a random-roll option for them to not be gay.

3) Module writers should feel free to put in whatever gay characters they want. It's OK for modules not to have gay characters, and it's also fine for modules to have gay characters.


#3 is my stance.  I don't see that anyone here has advocated the "gay police" option that module writers should be required to have a certain percentage of gay characters, but if I missed it, please let me know who.

*ALL* of this is stupid. Because it ignores context. Being Gay is a state. It's not not-family friendly. Just ask any family with gay people in it where the family is not a bunch of assholes/buttholes/anii.

The only option is *make it good* and make it relevant or don't do it at all.

This goes back to my left-handed, Japanese, Filipino, Cajun representation. or lack thereof. i.e. it's stupid and not required.

I think we need to avoid projections of the modern real world into D&D settings.  Historically marriage has been for producing children. Either sheer quantities, in the case of lower classes (more hands to work a farm, run a business, take care of the elderly), or to make political alliances, uniting two power blocks by producing an heir to both.

Gay couples, by their very nature, cannot have children. They can adopt, lesbians can be inseminated by someone else, but biologically, they are other people's children and there might not be any means to acquire them. In an urban setting, there probably would be surplus children for adoption, but in the standard D&D village, most farm/rural families would want all the children they produce as workers.

So anyway, what you'd probably see is things like in Rome and Ancient Greece, where you'd have married couples, but one partner or other would have a gay or lesbian lover.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1039284I'll assume you just "missed" this exchange (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38902-Chris-Helton-ENWorld-and-Witch-Hunts-Buyer-Beware&p=1039218&viewfull=1#post1039218).

First of all, Ras - that exchange comes *after* tenbones' post that I'm replying to.

Second, Gronan mouths off a lot. (As do we all, sometimes.) It can help to ask questions?

To Gronan - Are you advocating that all module writers should be expected to include gay characters in their modules?  Or are you just saying that you like modules where the writers put in gay characters, while you have no problem with modules without gay characters? Or do you have some other position?

Quote from: jcfiala;1039279I have no idea what the Blessing of Golgothan is, and am too lazy to google it.  So, I'm going to say Ni Itchi Itchi P'tang!

The Blessing of the Golgothan is my buttholian analogy (via the movie Dogma where the Golgothan is a Shit-Demon) to the Blessing of Corellon where Elves with the aforementioned Blessing can change sex everyday at Dawn. But in my analogy you Golgothan's Blessing allows you to choose what kind of asshole/butthole/anus you are everyday at Dawn.


The vast majority of joked become very unfunny when explained. Yet doing so here through no fault of your own, the Golgothan thing is  is actually kinda amusing looking at it.

Quote from: JeremyR;1039289I think we need to avoid projections of the modern real world into D&D settings.  Historically marriage has been for producing children. Either sheer quantities, in the case of lower classes (more hands to work a farm, run a business, take care of the elderly), or to make political alliances, uniting two power blocks by producing an heir to both.

Gay couples, by their very nature, cannot have children. They can adopt, lesbians can be inseminated by someone else, but biologically, they are other people's children and there might not be any means to acquire them. In an urban setting, there probably would be surplus children for adoption, but in the standard D&D village, most farm/rural families would want all the children they produce as workers.

So anyway, what you'd probably see is things like in Rome and Ancient Greece, where you'd have married couples, but one partner or other would have a gay or lesbian lover.

Thank you.

You must be a butthole. You totally get it.

Quote from: JeremyR;1039289So anyway, what you'd probably see is things like in Rome and Ancient Greece, where you'd have married couples, but one partner or other would have a gay or lesbian lover.

That's pretty much* how I do it in my vaguely Greco-Roman culture Wilderlands setting. It'd be weird not to have anyone with homosexual proclivity; it'd be even weirder to do a Paizo and have the culture follow Seattle 2018 social norms.

*I do wonder what the Amazons get up to when they're not mating with the occasional male... I suspect they have a bit of a Theban Sacred Band thing going on, but it's never come up in-game.

Quote from: JeremyR;1039289I think we need to avoid projections of the modern real world into D&D settings.  Historically marriage has been for producing children.

But, most D&D settings aren't historical at all.  Forgotten Realms?  Eberron?  Ravenloft?  Just by the name, DUNGEONS and DRAGONS, you're basically saying "This is not historical".  If you can have magic that can let a person fly from one country to another, if you can have creatures who can burn down a city on a bad day, then gay relationships is the thing that breaks your suspension of disbelief?

Really?

Quote from: Haffrung;1039210I know it's awfully CIS-normative, patriarchal, and colonialist of me, but I use historical medieval society as the baseline for my fantasy worlds. So yeah, farmers will be heterosexuals because they need to raise children to help on the farm. And kings will have queens because they live in hereditary aristocracies. Could some NPCs have illicit same-sex lovers? Sure. But I can't even get my head around an entire pre-modern society abandoning sex roles and hetero mating and child-rearing. How does succession work? How does the king get more farmers for the fields and soldiers for his armies? Does the mage's guild offer in-vitro fertilization services? Raise armies from clone banks? I like my fantasy weird, but not that weird.

Quote from: JeremyR;1039289I think we need to avoid projections of the modern real world into D&D settings.  Historically marriage has been for producing children. Either sheer quantities, in the case of lower classes (more hands to work a farm, run a business, take care of the elderly), or to make political alliances, uniting two power blocks by producing an heir to both.

Gay couples, by their very nature, cannot have children. They can adopt, lesbians can be inseminated by someone else, but biologically, they are other people's children and there might not be any means to acquire them. In an urban setting, there probably would be surplus children for adoption, but in the standard D&D village, most farm/rural families would want all the children they produce as workers.

So anyway, what you'd probably see is things like in Rome and Ancient Greece, where you'd have married couples, but one partner or other would have a gay or lesbian lover.

Historically, there were plenty of people who never married and had kids in medieval times.  It wasn't the norm, but it wasn't uncommon. Monasteries and convents were common adjuncts to communities. Plus there were plenty of people who weren't monks but still simply never married or had relations with women - like Leonardo de Vinci, Isaac Newton, etc. Being a lifelong spinster or a bachelor might be seen as odd, but it wasn't all that rare or rejected.

Quote from: jhkim;1039292To Gronan - Are you advocating that all module writers should be expected to include gay characters in their modules?  Or are you just saying that you like modules where the writers put in gay characters, while you have no problem with modules without gay characters? Or do you have some other position?

I doubt Gronan has looked at an RPG module published after 1978. :p

Quote from: jcfiala;1039297But, most D&D settings aren't historical at all.  Forgotten Realms?  Eberron?  Ravenloft?  Just by the name, DUNGEONS and DRAGONS, you're basically saying "This is not historical".  If you can have magic that can let a person fly from one country to another, if you can have creatures who can burn down a city on a bad day, then gay relationships is the thing that breaks your suspension of disbelief?

So if it's a fantasy setting, you can and should ignore any and all social, economic, and political models of historical human culture. Got it. Why stop at gay marriage? Why not include smart-phones, predator drones, cheerleading competitions, ride-sharing apps, laser-eye surgery, college saving plans, in-vitro fertilization, GMO crops, helicopter parenting, tinder, vegan activism, doxxing, and avocado toast?

Look, people have all kinds of ideas of what they want in their fantasy RPGs and their fantasy fiction. Personally, I prefer medieval or dark ages Europe and the Near East, but more perilous, weird, and hostile. I no more want modern social conventions in my fantasy world than I want modern technology. I know too much about the historical development of societies to completely detach social norms from technology.

Quote from: Haffrung;1039302So if it's a fantasy setting, you can and should ignore any and all social, economic, and political models of historical human culture. Got it. Why stop at gay marriage? Why not include smart-phones, predator drones, cheerleading competitions, ride-sharing apps, laser-eye surgery, college saving plans, in-vitro fertilization, GMO crops, helicopter parenting, tinder, vegan activism, doxxing, and avocado toast?

I want a summon avacado toast cantrip.  Now.

But yeah, you pretty much are throwing out a lot of stuff if you're playing Dungeons and Dragons.  I mean, it's right in that title - Dungeons, complexes extending underground with crazy traps and treasure, and Dragons, giant lizards with wings and energy breath.  Neither of those existed historically.  They're the bedrock of the game.

Smart Phone?  Communication spell magic item.  Predator Drones?  Summon Monster I-IX.  Cheerleading competitions?  Bard class. Ride-sharing apps?  Guarding caravans! Laser-eye surgery? EYE OF VECNA, Baby!

It's all there already!

Quote from: jhkimNotable opinions that I see here include:

1) Gay characters shouldn't appear in D&D modules, because D&D modules should be family-friendly.

2) Gay characters should only appear in modules if there is a random-roll option for them to not be gay.

3) Module writers should feel free to put in whatever gay characters they want. It's OK for modules not to have gay characters, and it's also fine for modules to have gay characters.

#3 is my stance.

Quote from: tenbones;1039287*ALL* of this is stupid. Because it ignores context. Being Gay is a state. It's not not-family friendly. Just ask any family with gay people in it where the family is not a bunch of assholes/buttholes/anii.

The only option is *make it good* and make it relevant or don't do it at all.

This goes back to my left-handed, Japanese, Filipino, Cajun representation. or lack thereof. i.e. it's stupid and not required.

Can you unpack what you mean by "make it relevant"?  For example, some others have criticized the example of Dala the cutpurse in Temple of Elemental Evil - that her relationship with Dick Rentsch is irrelevant information that should be cut.  What's your feeling on NPCs like that?

Quote from: jhkim;1039292First of all, Ras - that exchange comes *after* tenbones' post that I'm replying to.

Second, Gronan mouths off a lot. (As do we all, sometimes.) It can help to ask questions?

To Gronan - Are you advocating that all module writers should be expected to include gay characters in their modules?  Or are you just saying that you like modules where the writers put in gay characters, while you have no problem with modules without gay characters? Or do you have some other position?

You need him to walk that shit back because it fucks with your narrative.

So I watched SPF's video (https://www.facebook.com/seanpatfan/videos/10156520818301494/), and dear lord you can almost hear him begging to be taken back in the subtext. Of course they never will, so I'm not sure what he's hoping to accomplish. And apparently there was a meltdown over him suggesting people ask a woman if they can pay her a complement, because that puts everything on her.

The issue here is no longer harassment, it's the complete lack of social acumen of everyone involved.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1036883The accused doxxed his accusers over at TBP. In Tabletop Roleplaying Open.

Identifying someone by name isn't doxxing. Sharing 'private' correspondence isn't doxxing. Funny how this wasn't an issue when Jessica Price shared her correspondence with Frank Mentzer. Funny how this isn't an issue when it comes to sharing otherwise private posts in Tangency on the Infraction Forum when the moderators have someone to shame.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1036977It's clearly a case of SJWs devouring one of their own.

There truly is some Oroboros level shit going down.

Quote from: rgalex;1037045According to the mods "innocent until proven guilty" has been deemed a sexist derailing tactic.

Which has already come back to bite them, and will again, and again. Because like Sean they never learn, as their social status is too tied up in that narrative to ever abandon it, even if it kills them.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037229because the testimony provided in this case so far is only hearsay,

He admitted to pestering a woman for a hug in his defense. The fact something like this is even an issue though shows just how poorly socialized these people are.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037229they should really use their iPhone and all that fine portable tech like their tablets and such, to very discreetly record one of these real losers making unwanted advances, and record themselves rejecting such an advance.

Most of the time this simply isn't feasible, and people such as Jon Del Arroz have been banned from conventions for just saying they intended to bring recording devices for their own protection.

Quote from: Headless;1037304In his denial we learn that he does have pictures of him having sex on his phone and he does show them to women in the hopes of picking them up.

Yeah that's... umm... Does that even work?

Quote from: jhkim;1037312Helton's article appears to be roughly responsible.

Well at least after Morris' editorial contributions.

Quote from: jhkim;1037312Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay, and is admissible in court.

It's also open to cross examination.

Quote from: Haffrung;1037320It is weird how it seems to be only geek conventions that have erupted with hysteria, and where consensual hook-ups are regarded as so unlikely or dangerous that they shouldn't even be attempted.

At this point I'm all for a complete ban on flirting. If only I was confident they could tell the difference between that and normal conversation. I guess as long as you don't ask a woman...anything everything should be OK.

Quote from: CarlD.;1037378Look at rpg.net, for example. It went from hosting an annual NC-17 content contest for Exalted with the prize being an X-rated (if desired) illustration from Melissa Uran who was openly praised for her talent for erotic art.  Now pictures of a woman in a slit gown that wouldn't cause a stir on a children cartoon draw cries of outrage.

Yeah, it's pretty sobering.

Quote from: Dave R;1037432Never apologize; it doesn't save you or stop the controversy, it just moves it to the show trial, parade and execution stage.

Agreed.

Quote from: Haffrung;1037446So what do you think are the correct social environments for people to pursue romantic interests? And why do you think you should be able to restrict where and when other willing and adults flirt with one another?

Good questions, because apparently even clubs and bars are not the proper venue anymore.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1037466Monsterheats written by Avery Alder aka...

Yaknow, we could leave her deadname out of this simply out of respect.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1037466In fact the last in the list features a "sex move" which is triggered when they have sex with somebody and moreover a PC may roll to turn on/seduce any other character, including other PCs.

And the entire game is about toxic relationships to boot.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037524I have never heard of a one time, reasonable attempt at expressing interest leading to any issues except when there is a clear power difference

But this gets complicated when your status is based on how much of a victim you are.

Quote from: Silas1066;1037530his behavior probably would have been considered OK by the women involved if he was good-looking or had some charisma.

No shit.

Quote from: Silas1066;1037530He is already being kicked out of other conventions, such as Chupacabracon ...

It does say he's not attending (http://chupacon.cicolanistudios.com/?page_id=147), but then why leave his name on the guest list at all?

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037601Women are no less shitty than men but the power structure still is tilted heavily toward men.

Depends on the arena, and much more on wealth and status than gender.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037601What you do not seem to grasp is that one woman making an accusation does not end the career of the man.

Yes. It does.

And my brother went to prison for a crime he didn't commit on the word of a single women.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037601The number of false accusations is very small and the long history of complaints being ignored is real.

Nice to hear, but that doesn't help the victims of false accusations, and they shouldn't be ignored just because they are fewer in number.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037601This is not a court of law and innocent until proven guilty is not required and no company will run into an issue for firing someone is there is any credibility to the accusation.

Innocent until proven guilty is not just a legal principle, it's a moral one. And these days most institutions will just play it safe and fire them regardless, because the cost of keeping them is too much even if innocent.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1037618There are not women routinely making false accusations and it is not costless for them to make an accusation in the first place.

I know plenty of women who make false accusations on a regular basis, in casual conversation, so I do wonder how costly it actually is.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037619It is improper and wrong to focus on sex, and sexual power as a game, in public, or at a gaming convention.

I'll have to inform the folks who run Vampire and Monsterhearts at cons then.

Quote from: GRIM;1037716he's apparently not allowed to present his side of things without being censored.

Fuck apparently, it's a fact.

Quote from: GRIM;1037716Accusations such as this, true or false, ruin people. As little as a couple of tweets can see people lose their relationships, jobs, future prospects and end up with an internet profile that renders them socially toxic and unemployable for years to come. This happens whether or not they've actually done anything at all. Surely we can agree that this isn't a good way to proceed? To – metaphorically – lynch someone, purely because an accusation is made?

No, they can't, because they never believe it can happen to them. Until it does. And even then they'll often cling to the ideology that destroyed them like Sean has.

Quote from: GRIM;1037716The fact of the matter is that we really have no idea how many accusations are false.

Of course not. And we never will. Because the results are too agenda driven, and they depend on provably false statements.

Quote from: GRIM;1037716I don't think anti-harassment policies are a good idea.

I do.

Quote from: GRIM;1037716I've attended more than one convention which, if the policy were strictly enforced, would have had no sales room and no games.

That's because they were vague and poorly written, and yes such policies are extremely dangerous because they can be selectively enforced and interpreted in whatever way necessary to go after whoever you want.

Quote from: GRIM;1037716I mean, they're even measuring skirts at PAX now.

Holy shit they really are.

At least they're not measuring Kilts yet.

Quote from: Haffrung;1037910Margaret frickin' Atwood herself has learned this the hard way. Seems Millennial women think she's a bad feminist because she still believes in the rule of law and the presumption of innocence.

That's because it was never really about social justice or feminism, but control.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202Beyond this, we have leftists like Hans Cummings, the submissions director for the Ennies, who openly admits that when a submission comes in from an author he isn't familiar with, he checks the social media of that author, and if he sees that the guy is a conservative, straight, etc., the submission goes right into the trash: the judges never see it. So the games that win Ennie Awards are gay friendly, feature women of color, etc.

Sources? Because that's pretty damning.

Quote from: tenbones;1038244Do you think that D&D before the inclusionary language was de-facto *exclusionary* for not specifying inclusive language for LGBT+ crowd?

Considering my Cthulhu/D&D group in the 90's consisted of myself, a gay dude, a lesbian chick, a transwoman, and an Eagle scout, I can say for a fact it wasn't.

Quote from: tenbones;1038270unless they now meet the criteria of untouchable Oppression Olympians who are immune to their own ideology

At least they think they're immune. Until they aren't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038291That's the problem with any movement based on Identitarianism. It eats itself. They're always going through Purity Purges.

As I said, they'll destroy themselves. So we don't have to start the fires, just take the pictures.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038443Is Raggi a member of this group? Why is he putting up my posts on other forums?

Now I stand by what I said about LotFP, but this discussion was for this audience, not for the general public.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038457I'm just wondering why my post found its way over to Raggi's group.

Some dogpile by proxy effort?

Welcome to the internet chuckles.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038452There was a game years ago called "The World of Necroscope" by West End. Cool system, pretty good writing, interesting game world, but the art in the first module was outright torture-porn

Actually it was outright porn, because I know the magazines it was traced from.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1038843If they have to tell you they're doing it they're probably pandering.

Perhaps the most useful point made in this entire thread.

Quote from: jeff37923;1039061Of interest to the conversation about SJWs harassing published authors, I submit this piece from Larry Correia.

Aaand update! (http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/05/15/statement-concerning-my-being-disinvited-as-the-guest-of-honor-for-origins-game-fair/)

I also remember how careful Jim Butcher had to be to not outright agree with Larry when he shared his post about the state of WorldCon and the banning of Jon Del Arroz.

Quote from: Krimson;1039180A GM that allows a disruptive player at the table still had to at some point make the decision to allow them.

Not according to Helton. He believes the GM has no more authority than any other player. And I believe his response to having this error pointed out was "lol".

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1039310So I watched SPF's video (https://www.facebook.com/seanpatfan/videos/10156520818301494/), ... (mouth noises) .

Hey, don't you have an overdue kickstarter to fulfill?  Go mail me my fucking dice!

Quote from: jcfiala;1039313Hey, don't you have an overdue kickstarter to fulfill?  Go mail me my fucking dice!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2499[/ATTACH]

Quote from: jcfiala;1039303But yeah, you pretty much are throwing out a lot of stuff if you're playing Dungeons and Dragons.  I mean, it's right in that title - Dungeons, complexes extending underground with crazy traps and treasure, and Dragons, giant lizards with wings and energy breath.  Neither of those existed historically.  They're the bedrock of the game.

Right, as you say, its there in the title... its Dungeons and Dragons, not Butt-sex and Barbarians. In my 35 years of gaming I have never seen a player's or an NPC's sexual orientation come into play...

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1039322Right, as you say, its there in the title... its Dungeons and Dragons, not Butt-sex and Barbarians. In my 35 years of gaming I have never seen a player's or an NPC's sexual orientation come into play...

So, you don't like the Barbarian class?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1039310Not according to Helton. He believes the GM has no more authority than any other player. And I believe his response to having this error pointed out was "lol".

His opinion is just as valid as anyone else who doesn't pay my bills nor sign my paycheck. :D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1039237Yeah, if you have to resort to this, you've lost this one.

"Lost?"  That implies some sort of "contest."

I am merely mocking and deriding someone I find loathsome, for the pathetic shreds of entertainment it provides me.

Quote from: jhkim;1039292First of all, Ras - that exchange comes *after* tenbones' post that I'm replying to.

Second, Gronan mouths off a lot. (As do we all, sometimes.) It can help to ask questions?

To Gronan - Are you advocating that all module writers should be expected to include gay characters in their modules?  Or are you just saying that you like modules where the writers put in gay characters, while you have no problem with modules without gay characters? Or do you have some other position?

I'm saying I don't give a shit one way or another, because I don't run modules.  But some of my non cis hetero friends have said it makes them feel better to see characters like themselves, and I think my friends feeling good is a good thing.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039328I'm saying I don't give a shit one way or another, because I don't run modules.  But some of my non cis hetero friends have said it makes them feel better to see characters like themselves, and I think my friends feeling good is a good thing.

So apparently you do give some of a shit.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038202Beyond this, we have leftists like Hans Cummings, the submissions director for the Ennies, who openly admits that when a submission comes in from an author he isn't familiar with, he checks the social media of that author, and if he sees that the guy is a conservative, straight, etc., the submission goes right into the trash: the judges never see it. So the games that win Ennie Awards are gay friendly, feature women of color, etc.

Would like a link to that.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1039322Right, as you say, its there in the title... its Dungeons and Dragons, not Butt-sex and Barbarians. In my 35 years of gaming I have never seen a player's or an NPC's sexual orientation come into play...

Hi, NYTFLYR.  What do you think of old-school material like Dala the cutpurse and other examples I pointed out in Post #202 (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38902-Chris-Helton-ENWorld-and-Witch-Hunts-Buyer-Beware&p=1038501&viewfull=1#post1038501)? Do you think Gary Gygax was wrong to put in such information in the module?

Also, I noticed your Fists and .45s link.  It has a "Drop Dead Gorgeous" trait that helps with Seduction and High Society rolls.  Does that ever come up in play?

Quote from: jhkim;1039306Can you unpack what you mean by "make it relevant"?  For example, some others have criticized the example of Dala the cutpurse in Temple of Elemental Evil - that her relationship with Dick Rentsch is irrelevant information that should be cut.  What's your feeling on NPCs like that?

I don't have TEE, but do the relationships play a role in the module?

If they do, then its not extraneous. AKA, Chekhov's Gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun).

And I'm not saying it MUST be mandatory to the core of the module, but worth the brain space for the DM.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1039310Aaand update! (http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/05/15/statement-concerning-my-being-disinvited-as-the-guest-of-honor-for-origins-game-fair/)

Holy shit!

a) I didn't know Larry Correia was an active RPGer.

b) WTF is wrong with Origins and GAMA?

Quote from: jhkim;1039338Hi, NYTFLYR.  What do you think of old-school material like Dala the cutpurse and other examples I pointed out in Post #202 (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38902-Chris-Helton-ENWorld-and-Witch-Hunts-Buyer-Beware&p=1038501&viewfull=1#post1038501)? Do you think Gary Gygax was wrong to put in such information in the module?

Also, I noticed your Fists and .45s link.  It has a "Drop Dead Gorgeous" trait that helps with Seduction and High Society rolls.  Does that ever come up in play?

Drop Dead Gorgeous is a trait, like lock-picking, its not Bob the barbarian has a secret fetish where he dreams of bubble-baths being administered by well oiled teen male halflings wearing studded leather thongs. that is nothing more than the author projecting how they want you to run your game. with the example "She is Dick Rentsch's lover", that makes it a tidbit of information that the GM could work in if he wanted to, but unless its actually part of the information needed for the game its unnecessary, I mean why should we care that she is his lover?

Nobody in the games I've played cared who was bedding who (or what). if that's important to your game, go right ahead, but that's it, its YOUR game, you shouldn't have to have every finite unrelated tidbit of information written out for you, unless you have the imagination of a snail....

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/cc9b0b672b25489816c5aa5913d8a9dc/tumblr_mkdllsGNxU1rs8fyyo1_1280.jpg)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1039335So apparently you do give some of a shit.

Next he'll be telling us how many black friends he has.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1039322Right, as you say, its there in the title... its Dungeons and Dragons, not Butt-sex and Barbarians. In my 35 years of gaming I have never seen a player's or an NPC's sexual orientation come into play...

No Kings and Queens sitting on their thrones?  No romance subplots driving assassination attempts?  My goodness.

Half of all mystery plots seem to be based on lust and romance (the other half being driven by money and inheritance).  You should try it sometime.

Quote from: jcfiala;1039414No Kings and Queens sitting on their thrones?  No romance subplots driving assassination attempts?  My goodness.

Half of all mystery plots seem to be based on lust and romance (the other half being driven by money and inheritance).  You should try it sometime.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/995/415/b30.jpg)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1039415(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/995/415/b30.jpg)

Amusingly, either my browser or this forum says that the image isn't secure, and recommends me not to look at it.

What's it show?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039344Holy shit!

a) I didn't know Larry Correia was an active RPGer.

b) WTF is wrong with Origins and GAMA?

What really astonished me yesterday was that Larry was invited, and then rejected, by Origins in a 4 hour period, and it seemed like nobody much noticed.  No commentary here or on the big purple, not much of a mention anywhere.  I mean, yeah, Larry's big fans were yelping about it, and file770 is contractually obligated to comment on anything to do with the poor sad puppies who insisted on participation trophies, but everyone else just didn't give a shit.

Which, y'know, Origins.  Most people just show up to game and shop, and don't even notice who the guests of honor are.

Quote from: jcfiala;1039416Amusingly, either my browser or this forum says that the image isn't secure, and recommends me not to look at it.

What's it show?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2500[/ATTACH]

PS: You don't see the SSL announcement at the top of the forum?

Quote from: jhkim;1039306Can you unpack what you mean by "make it relevant"?  For example, some others have criticized the example of Dala the cutpurse in Temple of Elemental Evil - that her relationship with Dick Rentsch is irrelevant information that should be cut.  What's your feeling on NPCs like that?

Let's make a few stipulations here. A module (or adventure if it pleases) is a different thing than the rules of the game. D&D gets murky, especially since 3e where the conceits of the rules and settings get intermingled. I have *zero* problems with designers putting whatever they want into their modules, because it's take it or leave it.

But having a gay character in a module, much like having a gay character in a work of fiction is not the issue. The issue in both cases are - is it meaningful? In other words is the point of highlighting someone's sexual preference there for the purposes of the adventure/story? Or is it simply there to signal to people with a wink "Hey look! I'm thinking about you too" (which is not meaningful to the game or the fiction). This goes with any form of ego-identification. If you're doing an adventure where having *sex* is part of the adventure, say around a brothel, or there are specific goals required like seduction, then great! It's meaningful to the game. Otherwise it should be up to the GM to decide what an NPC *is* and what that NPC's proclivities are in game. Or anything else the GM wants to tack on to the NPC in order to customize it to their game. Otherwise if it's going to be implicit to the sandbox, I'll assume the designers have fleshed it all out in accordance with the conceits of the setting to establish why it even matters.

Again, as I always say, context is king. If the game assumes you can play any way you want, the setting doesn't necessarily mean that. Dala and Rentch are lovers because the setting has no assumptive issue with hetero-normative relationships<---- this is the hangup that post-modern SJW's have an issue with. Because it's the appearance of hetero-normative reactions that they want for LGBT+ representation and they want it as a conceit of gameplay not of anything else. Which for me, that cleaves a little closer to quasi-historical realities is silly. For the same reason if you play a Half-orc in most of my games, it could be a social issue in certain locations or settings. It could also be a huge benefit socially in certain settings/locations. It DEPENDS. Just like I'll have LGBT NPC's all over the place, and to the degree that it even comes out depends greatly on the context.

Just saying an NPC is gay, or a specific race or whatever means little if you, as a GM, aren't going to do anything with it. Otherwise it's just pandering and window-dressing (or worse as others put it - virtue signalling).

I'll be honest - one of the things that has pushed me away from D&D's modern primary settings which is directly related to this lack of setting context that is purely ideological and has nothing to do with these real-world examples of identity politics is the "Freakshow" issue that's been talked about in many threads.

The proliferation of tons of non-traditional D&D races has never been a big deal (I love Spelljammer for that exact reason - anything goes). But in your standard Eurocentric quasi-medieval Greyhawk/Realms (unless you're playing in one of the obvious outlier locations in those worlds) the advent of those snowflake races has become so ubiquitous that many people assume it's normal for a Half-drow, an Aasimar, a Tiefling, Half-orc, Human, Wood-elf and Deep-Gnome party is just hanging around a tavern without context. And I've had players give me incredulous looks when I tell them when they are playing something like that it might pose some circumstantial issues. But I rarely say no because I'd rather give them *context* as to why they're even there. And I generally make it clear why it matters. The consequences of which could be an adventure unto itself.

Adding a layer of real-world identity politics into a fantasy setting *without* context is not only meaningless it's a bit insulting. If I had a GM suddenly started making random NPC's look like feudal-Japanese folks while I'm adventuring in Cormyr or Furyondy just to make me feel "included" my first assumption is "Oh there might be some reason there are Japanese-stuff going on!" and I might pursue checking it out if my character is so inclined. But if I found out it was just there for window-dressing then I'd be annoyed. This is the difference of putting such contextual things in a module vs. putting it in the overall rules where those things should be assumed from the beginning. And the GM gets to decide when/where to make those things matter. Not by proscription.

WotC is not doing that. It's pretty obvious just from the tweets of their designers. And hey - I say go for it. They want to lose money unnecessarily, just like Marvel did, that's on them. There is a way to thread that needle. But they're too busy fighting their own make-believe war at the expense of the quality of their product to see that. That's money that will be spent elsewhere.

Edit: to bring this full circle - this attitude about SJW's is not about women, or gender issues, or race. It's about groupthink infecting a bunch of ideologues trying to deconstruct everything that they decide is their ideological opposite. To which they invent these purity-tests that inevitably blows up in their faces. This is why they often eat themselves when they find themselves invariably contradicting their own positions publicly when reality slaps them in the head. See: Marvel Comics

This whole #MeToo thing has been co-opted almost from the get-go. So you have the usual suspects weaponizing it for their own needs over the actual victims of such crimes. Assuming of course there were actual crimes. See: SPF

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1039418PS: You don't see the SSL announcement at the top of the forum?

I guess I didn't.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1039415(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/995/415/b30.jpg)

Well of course it's a strawman!  I'm not trying to seriously argue here.  I'm throwing shit at people in this channel. :)

(Especially when Anon shows up.)

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1039393Drop Dead Gorgeous is a trait, like lock-picking, its not Bob the barbarian has a secret fetish where he dreams of bubble-baths being administered by well oiled teen male halflings wearing studded leather thongs. that is nothing more than the author projecting how they want you to run your game. with the example "She is Dick Rentsch's lover", that makes it a tidbit of information that the GM could work in if he wanted to, but unless its actually part of the information needed for the game its unnecessary, I mean why should we care that she is his lover?

The fact that Drop Dead Gorgeous gives a bonus to Seduction rolls implies that seduction is a reasonable part of the game. For example, a wealthy heiress is funding the villain's expedition and has the secret plans in a safe in her office. The GM expects the PCs to break in and has the guards and alarms worked out. However, one player thinks to use a High Society roll to get an invitation to a party at her place, and succeeds on a Seduction roll to seduce her. This gives the PCs access to get at the safe. The NPCs sexuality was thus important to the plot (along with the gender of the PC attempting the seduction).

Further, even if there is absolutely no seduction or romance in the game, sexuality can matter because of the relationships it forms. For example, the fact that Dala is Dick Rentsch's lover will affect how she acts. If he is captured by the PCs, she might endanger herself to rescue him, for example. If their relationship was left out of the module, and they were just two NPCs at that location, then that wouldn't be likely.

Tenbones, that was an awesome post. Extremely well put.

Quote from: jhkim;1039426If their relationship was left out of the module, and they were just two NPCs at that location, then that wouldn't be likely.

Unless that relationship was friendship. Like, I dunno, Frodo and Sam or Farhfrd and Mouser or Kirk and Spock etc etc

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1039395Next he'll be telling us how many black friends he has.

I wasn't going to go there, but I was thinking it.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1039429I wasn't going to go there, but I was thinking it.

He wants everyone to know how super woke he is. :D

Quote from: jcfiala;1039417What really astonished me yesterday was that Larry was invited, and then rejected, by Origins in a 4 hour period, and it seemed like nobody much noticed.  No commentary here or on the big purple, not much of a mention anywhere.  I mean, yeah, Larry's big fans were yelping about it, and file770 is contractually obligated to comment on anything to do with the poor sad puppies who insisted on participation trophies, but everyone else just didn't give a shit.

Which, y'know, Origins.  Most people just show up to game and shop, and don't even notice who the guests of honor are.

Actually he announced it a couple of weeks ago:
https://www.facebook.com/larry.correia/posts/2150818234929094

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039344I don't have TEE, but do the relationships play a role in the module?

If they do, then its not extraneous. AKA, Chekhov's Gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun).

And I'm not saying it MUST be mandatory to the core of the module, but worth the brain space for the DM.




Holy shit!

a) I didn't know Larry Correia was an active RPGer.

b) WTF is wrong with Origins and GAMA?

I just spent forty minutes writing an answer to your question, but the browser software unexpectedly ate my post, so you are only going to get a fast summary now, Because from today forward, I'm no longer going to be wasting my time with substandard software, like this BBScode that doesn't automatically keep a record of what I'm writing as I write. Hell, even Wordpress will automatically save a draft copy of whatever I'm writing every five minutes.

To answer, I don't know, I don't think there is anything wrong, I'll ask John about the specifics when I see him at Origins in a few weeks.

In short, Larry is a well noted notorious writer, who writes for one of the big publishing houses who became an active RPGer. GAMA was formed because of the unfair working conditions imposed on writers and game designers by the big publishing houses, so there is a long history of bad blood between the two organizations.

While Larry has done nothing "wrong" as far as I can tell, he probably didn't tell John about his past with the organization known as Sad Puppy who pretty much wrecked the Hugo Awards. Nothing is worse than signing a "Guest of Honor" that earns you negative press, and may have offended some of your organization members, and I'm talking about GAMA here, not the Science Fiction Writers Association, although Larry did also manage to offend John Scalzi, as well as the SFWA awhile back.

I think the thing that will tell you the most about Larry Correia is his own post which I have included a link to below. I'll quote a few notable sections though...

"John Ward, head of GAMA, folded like a cheap lawn chair. Only a couple hours after their post went live, a fan told me on Facebook that Origins had put up an announcement that I'd just been disinvited."

"So then I went and checked my email. (and I am perfectly happy to share every single email ever sent between me and Origins). John Ward had emailed me, and his email was nearly identical to the public Facebook announcement (including the spelling errors). He said that he was recently informed of some of my "personal views" which made me a detriment as a guest, and that Origins is a family friendly and inclusive event."

"Since it just went down last night, I don't know how this one will shake out. I'm fine. I'll just do something else this weekend. But I've also got a solid career, a lot of books out, and a rabid fan base. I can weather this kind of slander. The sad thing is, these assholes do this to any author who gets out of line.  You cross them, they'll lie their asses off about you and try to burn you down. So authors who haven't made it big keep quiet, and keep their heads down, to not draw the wrath of the mob, so they don't hurt their career."

So for me, Larry has slammed the door shut on any possible reconciliation, and even though he is probably not guilty of anything at all other than being a politically charged writer with a hot temper, he is making a statement that he is too important to attend Origins and that he has a bunch of other options for venues, doubtless many of which are sponsored by his big-time publisher, and I'm not sure he is aware just how many other authors and game designers who haven't made it big yet are keeping quiet and keeping their heads down, and working hard over at GAMA, with GAMA, to minimize the negative effects the big publishers like Baen have traditionally created for Indy Game Publishers and Writers. By making such a strong statement though, he actually gave John Ward no graceful opportunity to fix the developing situation.

Larry Correia - Statement Concerning My Being Disinvited as the Guest of Honor for Origins Game Fair  
http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/05/15/statement-concerning-my-being-disinvited-as-the-guest-of-honor-for-origins-game-fair/

Quote from: jhkimFor example, the fact that Dala is Dick Rentsch's lover will affect how she acts. If he is captured by the PCs, she might endanger herself to rescue him, for example. If their relationship was left out of the module, and they were just two NPCs at that location, then that wouldn't be likely.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1039428Unless that relationship was friendship. Like, I dunno, Frodo and Sam or Farhfrd and Mouser or Kirk and Spock etc etc

I think you're clearly misreading the Kirk/Spock relationship.  :-)  

But seriously, sure one could substitute "She is Dick Rentsch's friend." instead of "She is Dick Rentsch's lover."  But what's the point?  It's not like it saves space or is clearer.  I don't get what the problem is.  Would it be OK if they were married or engaged?

Quote from: jcfiala;1039414No Kings and Queens sitting on their thrones?  No romance subplots driving assassination attempts?  My goodness.

Half of all mystery plots seem to be based on lust and romance (the other half being driven by money and inheritance).  You should try it sometime.

Put me in the camp that has never had any of that stuff in 38 years of D&D. Exploration, delving, machinations of evil sorcerors, invasions, etc. But no romantic stories, and maybe one or two mysteries. Really, NPCs don't figure especially prominently in my campaigns, which are much more about places.

Quote from: tenbones;1039420to bring this full circle - this attitude about SJW's is not about women, or gender issues, or race. It's about groupthink infecting a bunch of ideologues trying to deconstruct everything that they decide is their ideological opposite. To which they invent these purity-tests that inevitably blows up in their faces. This is why they often eat themselves when they find themselves invariably contradicting their own positions publicly when reality slaps them in the head. See: Marvel Comics

Every few weeks you supply me with a new signature quote, huh?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039218No, that's what you have to do to sell a commercial product in today's world.

And I have enough LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ friends to have some idea of how it makes them feel to actually see characters like themselves.

And if wanting my non-cis-white-male-heterosexual friends to feel like a game acknowledges their existence makes me a "Social Justice Warrior," I accept the designation with pride.

Adding stuff like that and not standing on the roof and crowing about it is not SJW-ing. That is the big point and why people keep jumping on certain examples. Its just about allways because someone had to virtue signal it.

Quote from: jhkim;1039433I think you're clearly misreading the Kirk/Spock relationship.  :-)  

But seriously, sure one could substitute "She is Dick Rentsch's friend." instead of "She is Dick Rentsch's lover."  But what's the point?  It's not like it saves space or is clearer.  I don't get what the problem is.  Would it be OK if they were married or engaged?

You're staring at the tree and not looking at the forest. It's "okay" because contextually no one cares or thinks twice about hetero-normative relationships. It's there to give a prompt to the GM, if they care, to use it as a possible plot device or actionable item for roleplaying purposes. Can you do this with gay characters? Sure.

The passive issue is setting conceits. *Is* it normal in village life for there to be openly gay, inter-species, relationships? The mere fact those words and their meaning exist *mean* something. The fact that they're open about it or not *means* something. In the context of one's adventure - the designer is implicitly saying something about the setting. That's fine too. But this is the conflation of the non-normative to being something it's not: normal.

And lets be clear here: by saying something is not *normal* isn't a aspersion. It's an observation of fact. SJW's (and those with pathological post-modernist leanings) emotionally have problems making discernment's between different things for fear of offending someone. They are are in fact taking the mere vocal observation of those differences as aspersions.

There is no possible way you're going to get the majority of any norm to pretend that the *not-nornal* is the status-quo without massive thought-control and social conditioning with punitive action as a threat. You're seeing this in action *right now*. This is how we end up pretending everything is equal when in fact nothing is equal. Nothing has ever been equal. Nothing will ever be equal except for when we give people the opportunity to say, do and believe things on their own merit without fear of the outcome. Or better - *despite* the outcome.

SJW's claim they want equality of outcome *regardless* of the factual iniquities that we all know are true. And they're willing to break any social contract, law, even their own for the sake of revenge against those they deem ideological opposed to them.

This is where the groupthink of left starts creating its own secular religion of belief, codes of conduct, and inquisitorial methods of censure to try and insure their ideological views are the only things that are valid despite reality.

Quote from: Azraele;1039444Every few weeks you supply me with a new signature quote, huh?

My mind-dribblings is your gold. Enjoy.

"are"

One gay character that I would love to bring into a game is Paul Smecker from Boondock Saints.

Jesus, that Larry controversy makes my blood boil.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039456Jesus, that Larry controversy makes my blood boil.

How so?

New developments from John Ringo...

Quote from: John RingoSo Larry Correia's invite as GOH to Origins got rescinded because he's 'racist', 'homophobe', 'has sex with manatees' etc.

This is a strong suggestion to any decent author, especially all Baen authors.

If invited to a con, especially as a 'special guest', require the following in your contract:

Pre-paid travel. (Non-refundable, reserved for your use and one guest.)
Pre-paid room. (Non-refundable, reserved for your use and one guest.)
A cash guarantee of non-cancellation on their part.

Show them links to what happened to myself and Larry.

If they cave to the SJW mobs, make it cost them.

If they refuse, they're probably setting you up. (This, very much, looked like a set-up to boost visibility. ConCarolinas is slightly different.) Tell them that based upon recent history you have to assume they're setting you up if they have issues with such basic items and ask them not to contact you again.

Any convention that for any reason plays this game of 'we have to rescind your invitation' (Origins, ConCarolinas, ArchCon) refuse to attend and ask other authors to refuse to attend. Not for any reason. Not because it's 'local', not because it's 'convenient'. Not because 'I've always gone to X con!'

Start choking them off of the revenue stream created by our attendance.

Just. Say. No.

As authors, we really don't need conventions anymore. You get more sales through posts online and engaging in social media (for as long as Twitter and Facebook will allows us to do so) than going to all the conventions in the world. The cons are mostly for your fans and if the cons want to play this game, the fans need to make it clear they're not going.

The exceptions to this are LibertyCon and Dragon Con. They're both professionally run cons run by professional people who don't play the SJW game. They're TRULY apolitical. ( FenCon Convention seems to still be playing it down the middle as well.)

With every other convention, assume you're being set-up at this point and don't be played for a sucker.

Oh, yeah, and as fans and lovers of liberty, never, ever attend Origins again if you ever have. Or ConCarolinas. (Sorry, Jada.) Or ArchCon. Or WorldCon.

We need a list. They never will be missed. No they never will be missed.

This has to stop and it won't until we take a stand. For those of you reading this who are 'liberals', please look at the history of how this is going and wonder how long it will take for YOU to end up against the wall. Think they're going to stop with me and Larry? Think again.

Boycott, divest, sanction.

It's time to strike back. We don't need cons. Cons need us. Time for them to figure that out.

He brings up an interesting point about conventions as a need for authors.

Politics aside I'd be happy to see most cons get much, much smaller.  300 to 500 is the sweet spot; GaryCon at 2000 or so is hitting the limits of what's too big.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039462Politics aside I'd be happy to see most cons get much, much smaller.  300 to 500 is the sweet spot; GaryCon at 2000 or so is hitting the limits of what's too big.

I'd drink to that. At that size - no one gives a shit about Guests of Honor or their politics because everyone is a Guest of Honor for just showing up and GAMING.

Quote from: jeff37923;1039458How so?

In the way they are mistreating him. In how they didn't even ask him about the allegations before booting him. In how they don't ask for any friggen evidence at all before deciding to eject him. In how people portray him as all these awful things essentially based on thinking "He's conservative" as opposed to him ever expressing any of the views they accuse him of.

It's just frustrating.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039469In the way they are mistreating him. In how they didn't even ask him about the allegations before booting him. In how they don't ask for any friggen evidence at all before deciding to eject him. In how people portray him as all these awful things essentially based on thinking "He's conservative" as opposed to him ever expressing any of the views they accuse him of.

It's just frustrating.

Correia is a founder of the Sad Puppies right?  They've probably been classified as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1039474Correia is a founder of the Sad Puppies right?  They've probably been classified as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

I've probably been classified as a Hate Group by the SPLC.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1039475I've probably been classified as a Hate Group by the SPLC.

Just posting here should be enough to make that distinction.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039462Politics aside I'd be happy to see most cons get much, much smaller.  300 to 500 is the sweet spot; GaryCon at 2000 or so is hitting the limits of what's too big.

That happened here with the Comic Expo. It's ridiculously huge now. I remember years ago being being able to actually talk to guest. One year I chatted with Jeremy Bulloch about Doctor Who and Calgary weather for nearly an hour, as well as another nice chat with Larry Niven. The last time I went was 2014, and the highlight was when you asked Sylvester McCoy a question, he would walk right up to you through the crowd. Now, you have to pay to pay to pay to pay for everything. The cost of the con is now just an entry fee.

As for gaming conventions, my dream is to attend one in a venue with ventilation.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1039474Correia is a founder of the Sad Puppies right?  They've probably been classified as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1039475I've probably been classified as a Hate Group by the SPLC.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1039476Just posting here should be enough to make that distinction.

Man, I hope they don't find out that in dentistry, white and straight is considered the norm (for teeth that is!). Hell, I'd expect Gronades to post how half his playing group has brown, positionaly fluid teeth just so he can revel in his wokness! :p

Quote from: tenbones;1039420But having a gay character in a module, much like having a gay character in a work of fiction is not the issue. The issue in both cases are - is it meaningful? In other words is the point of highlighting someone's sexual preference there for the purposes of the adventure/story? Or is it simply there to signal to people with a wink "Hey look! I'm thinking about you too" (which is not meaningful to the game or the fiction).

This goes with any form of ego-identification. If you're doing an adventure where having *sex* is part of the adventure, say around a brothel, or there are specific goals required like seduction, then great! It's meaningful to the game. Otherwise it should be up to the GM to decide what an NPC *is* and what that NPC's proclivities are in game. Or anything else the GM wants to tack on to the NPC in order to customize it to their game.

Quote from: tenbones;1039447It's "okay" because contextually no one cares or thinks twice about hetero-normative relationships. It's there to give a prompt to the GM, if they care, to use it as a possible plot device or actionable item for roleplaying purposes. Can you do this with gay characters? Sure.

The passive issue is setting conceits. *Is* it normal in village life for there to be openly gay, inter-species, relationships? The mere fact those words and their meaning exist *mean* something. The fact that they're open about it or not *means* something. In the context of one's adventure - the designer is implicitly saying something about the setting. That's fine too. But this is the conflation of the non-normative to being something it's not: normal.

tenbones - a lot of this reads like some kind of academic paper with terms like ego-identification, hetero-normative, contextual, etc.  Could you give some examples of what you consider good handling of gay characters in adventures contrasted with bad handling?

As for your core contrast, you give two possibilities:

1) Someone is gay as part of adventure/story - such as if a seduction is a required goal.
2) Someone is gay to signal people with a wink.

A lot of people (me included) prefer more open-ended  / sandbox adventures - where there aren't specific goals required at all. So a character's sexuality might or might not be relevant, depending on what the PCs do.

Further, I don't think these are even exclusive. As a specific example, in the Blue Rose sample adventure, "The Curse of Harmony" features a gay NPC (Jan) as central to its plot. Do you think that this means that it *isn't* signaling? It seems to me that a writer can be seen signaling if they make homosexuality central to the plot, because that means they're highlighting homosexuality even more. They can also be seen as signaling if they make homosexuality just a descriptive bit that isn't important.

Personally, I care about the results, not about their motives. If they signal a bunch but also write a good adventure, then I don't care.

Quote from: tenbones;1039420Just like I'll have LGBT NPC's all over the place, and to the degree that it even comes out depends greatly on the context.

Just saying an NPC is gay, or a specific race or whatever means little if you, as a GM, aren't going to do anything with it. Otherwise it's just pandering and window-dressing (or worse as others put it - virtue signalling).

With sandbox and other open-ended approaches, what is important and what is window dressing will vary widely.

For that matter, I also don't have a problem with window dressing as long as it is quick and to the point. I like giving quick, flavorful descriptions as if the place is a real place and as if the people are real people. In modules, I like having NPC portraits that I can show to the players - even though plenty of the details of that portrait might not matter. Does it matter that the university librarian is a bearded black man? Probably not, but I'm fine if that's what the picture shows.

Quote from: jeff37923;1039459....New developments from John Ringo...

"The exceptions to this are LibertyCon and Dragon Con. They're both professionally run cons run by professional people who don't play the SJW game. They're TRULY apolitical."

He brings up an interesting point about conventions as a need for authors.

That is a moot point only. The writers from the big publishing houses never did bother to attend gaming conventions until gaming conventions got big enough for them to warrant showing up, another words, when they could make more from convention book sales and autograph signings than they could make direct shipping books in a very real $ per hour kind of way.

They wouldn't even look at RPG conventions until at least ten years after RPG conventions really took off in the eighties... Before like about 1983 or so, ...only gamers, grognards, and geeks showed up for an RPG convention.

I also have news for John Ringo, I don't know much about LibertyCon but DragonCon is not apolitical, at all...

From the Atlanta Journal, this year, no less... so the saga isn't over... another one of the sjw's sicko's outed, caught, and convicted in a Court of Law. They actually did finally get around to kicking him off the Board of Directors there. That only actually happened a long time after his conviction though... never mind that a grand jury investigation found cause to issue an indictment for him, ...anyways, all the news that is fit to print for these ignorant young kids here who just assume because they haven't heard any bad press about it, that like DragonnCon is Apolitical (not!);
https://www.myajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/dragoncon-founder-fights-new-label-sexually-dangerous-predator/afMgCpotl5Z76jQkazfesL/

It is the largest gaming convention except for San Diego Comic-Con, although I think that maybe GenCon actually regained the lead as far as annual attendance, the last year or two.... and they have worked hard down there in Atlanta to cleanup their reputation in recent years.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1039493I also have news for John Ringo, I don't know much about LibertyCon but DragonCon is not apolitical, at all...

From the Atlanta Journal, this year, no less... so the saga isn't over... another one of the sjw's sicko's outed, caught, and convicted in a Court of Law. They actually did finally get around to kicking him off the Board of Directors there. That only actually happened a long time after his conviction though... never mind that a grand jury investigation found cause to issue an indictment for him, ...anyways, all the news that is fit to print for these ignorant young kids here who just assume because they haven't heard any bad press about it, that like DragonnCon is Apolitical (not!);
https://www.myajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/dragoncon-founder-fights-new-label-sexually-dangerous-predator/afMgCpotl5Z76jQkazfesL/

If you had bothered to read the article about DragonCon, you would have read the sentence that says, "Kramer, who has not been involved with Atlanta's popular science fiction convention for many years". DragonCon booted Kramer out almost 20 years ago when this shit first happened.

I've attended LibertyCon and will attend again. I've been privileged to play in Clement Sector games there run by John Watts the owner of Gypsy Knights Games. Now that I think about it, John Ringo was in one of those games. Hell, last time I attended, Steve Jackson came on by and played with my dice. It is a good convention to attend.

Quote from: jcfialaNo Kings and Queens sitting on their thrones? No romance subplots driving assassination attempts? My goodness.

Half of all mystery plots seem to be based on lust and romance (the other half being driven by money and inheritance). You should try it sometime.

Quote from: Haffrung;1039443Put me in the camp that has never had any of that stuff in 38 years of D&D. Exploration, delving, machinations of evil sorcerors, invasions, etc. But no romantic stories, and maybe one or two mysteries. Really, NPCs don't figure especially prominently in my campaigns, which are much more about places.

Haffrung - weren't you all about how game-world society should adhere to what historical medieval society was like?  Your earlier reaction on the subject was -

Quote from: HaffrungI use historical medieval society as the baseline for my fantasy worlds. So yeah, farmers will be heterosexuals because they need to raise children to help on the farm. And kings will have queens because they live in hereditary aristocracies. Could some NPCs have illicit same-sex lovers? Sure. But I can't even get my head around an entire pre-modern society abandoning sex roles and hetero mating and child-rearing. How does succession work? How does the king get more farmers for the fields and soldiers for his armies?

It seems strange to not feature NPCs prominently, but for it to be important how succession and repopulation works.

Also, you never answered my reply about how medieval society frequently featured monasteries and convents, which runs counter to your idea that everyone in the society had to be reproducing heterosexuals.

Quote from: jhkim;1039433But seriously, sure one could substitute "She is Dick Rentsch's friend." instead of "She is Dick Rentsch's lover."  But what's the point?  It's not like it saves space or is clearer.  I don't get what the problem is.  Would it be OK if they were married or engaged?

All of the above.

Quote from: jhkim;1039433I think you're clearly misreading the Kirk/Spock relationship.  :-)  

Oh I am quite well aware of the K/S speculation and how the original creators insisted that their relationship was platonic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk/Spock

The point is that the K/S relationship can be interpreted as romantic if the viewer chooses to do so, because, as the poet says "Never trust the teller, trust the tale. The proper function of a critic is to save the tale from the artist who created it.", i.e once you have created a work of fiction, it no longer belongs to you and you are not an authority on its meaning.

In other words, you are free to imagine Kirk and Spock as lovers. Just as one could argue that Rowling is not an authority on Dumbledore's sexuality: i.e. Since she never depicted his homosexuality in the texts, readers are free to dismiss her comments.

Here's the choice:

Either Roddenberry and Gerrold are right and K/S is platonic and Dumbledore is gay because Rowling said so, or Kirk and Spock are lovers if the viewer says so and the reader is free to dismiss Rowling's ad hoc edit of Dumbledore.

It will all depend on your school of literary thought. Or at least it should. Unfortunately, unlike the idea that K/S are lovers, the merest suggestion that Dumbledore is not gay is open to the accusation or "erasure".
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/02/01/harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-2-jk-rowling-dumbledore-not-gay-straightwashing/
http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/dumbledores-sexuality-575655

So it is with NPCs who are LGBTQ in modules. If the author writes an PC as hetero-cis and the GM chooses to re-write the character as gay, bi or lesbian, there would be (these days, fortunately) no recriminations. OTOH, if the author of a module writes an PC as gay or bi or lesbian and the GM chooses to re-write the character as hetero-cis, the GM is open to accusations of "erasure".

Case in point on your own thread.

Quote from: Motorskills;1039147It is erasure if the players are occupying a mirror-world (OLDWORLD) with thousands or tens or thousands of people, many of whom are identified as being in hetero relationships, and none of whom are LGBT.

That is why i suggested two methods of allowing the GM to make his or her choices without being open to such accusations.

1) A random method of determing an NPCs sexuality if/when it is needed.
2) In the case of major NPC relationship around which a plot is built, supplying the GM with a variety of relationships: platonic, hetero, interacial or across class divides etcetera that the module explicitly offers to the GM. Even going so far as to put numbers down the side so the GM can roll, or pick and say that he/she rolled.

I have yet to see you offer an alternative solution.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039042Yes.

I hate RPG crap that wastes space on stuff that doesn't matter to the actual game. I hate long dissertations on NPC histories. Give me stuff that I can quickly use to flesh out the NPC to be performed. If the NPC's relationship is meaningful to the adventure, then excellent, I want it defined. Otherwise, its clutter.

Late to the party, but I want to note that no NPC relationships are clutter. Even if only because the PCs might murderhobo it, and the GM needs to know who will be after them;).

Quote from: GameDaddy;1039432he actually gave John Ward no graceful opportunity to fix the developing situation

I am not sure what the vetting process was for the decision to invite him, but 30 seconds of googling and joining his public Facebook page would have shown it.

Larry works for a fairly big publisher now, but he started off by self publishing. He also has written game universe novels and sole rpg content (Kickstarter ended a littlle while ago for a Savage Worlds setiting for one of his series.

He is mainly a miniatures wargamer now (into painting miniatures), but if you read his blog page you will see he has been playing RPG for ages.

So Origins landed a reasonably well known author who happens to be a gamer.

I also don't know why Larry was supposed to warn John Ward of anything. His views and past actions are well known and public.

No, this is 100% a screw up by John Ward.

Quote from: jcfiala;1039417Which, y'know, Origins.  Most people just show up to game and shop, and don't even notice who the guests of honor are.

The best Guests of Honor at game cons are the ones who run a full schedule of events. Play with the Creator events are great for cons.

Quote from: tenbones;1039420If I had a GM suddenly started making random NPC's look like feudal-Japanese folks while I'm adventuring in Cormyr or Furyondy just to make me feel "included" my first assumption is "Oh there might be some reason there are Japanese-stuff going on!" and I might pursue checking it out if my character is so inclined. But if I found out it was just there for window-dressing then I'd be annoyed.

The sheer presence of katanas and ninjas are enough justification!

In the 80s, I played dozens of D&D games where samurai and ninjas appeared for no reason...and it was good.

I would joke we fought more ninjas in D&D than Bushido.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1039432While Larry has done nothing "wrong" as far as I can tell, he probably didn't tell John about his past with the organization known as Sad Puppy who pretty much wrecked the Hugo Awards.

The Hugos were a shitshow long before there was organized pushback. I worked in publishing in the 90s (and had my idealism about writing and writers ground out of me) and even back then the Hugos (and other awards) had more bullshit drama than sororities choosing a Homecoming Queen.

Back then, it wasn't political or culture war drama, but it was drama lama.

However, I get the divide between GAMA and Baen (though its a rather outdated fight). It just seems insanely counterproductive to alienate a popular author who actually plays games when you are trying to sell a gaming convention.

Quote from: jeff37923;1039459He brings up an interesting point about conventions as a need for authors.

True.

But I would argue that gaming cons should be about gaming.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039462Politics aside I'd be happy to see most cons get much, much smaller.  300 to 500 is the sweet spot; GaryCon at 2000 or so is hitting the limits of what's too big.

I absolutely agree. PolyCon, the best convention in California, has had 250-300 attendees for 30+ years and it rocks hard.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1039493The writers from the big publishing houses never did bother to attend gaming conventions until gaming conventions got big enough for them to warrant showing up, another words, when they could make more from convention book sales and autograph signings than they could make direct shipping books in a very real $ per hour kind of way.

That makes sense to me and I can't blame them.

All authors, except for the best seller list regulars, need to do whatever they can to maximize their sales.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1039493It is the largest gaming convention except for San Diego Comic-Con, although I think that maybe GenCon actually regained the lead as far as annual attendance, the last year or two.... and they have worked hard down there in Atlanta to cleanup their reputation in recent years.

San Diego Comic Con isn't much of a game con. AL and PFS has a presence, as RPGA used to.  The badge costs are too high and there are just too many long lines to wait in to justify hours of gaming. There is a decent amount of informal after hours gaming.  I know a couple GMs who run stuff for friends sleeping outside in line.

Yes, people wait in 14 hour lines, sometimes through the night, to watch movie trailers that will appear online the next day.

Quote from: AsenRG;1039549Late to the party, but I want to note that no NPC relationships are clutter. Even if only because the PCs might murderhobo it, and the GM needs to know who will be after them;).

I enjoy details on relationships (familial, romantic, etc) as well as other details aside from basic stat blocks for similar reason. It both gives me a hook for the NPC in question and how that might react (so how the little side dramas PCs tend to drag with them will play out) but from a creative standpoint it makes the setting seem more fleshed out and 'real' which serves to get my creativity flowing when working with it.

Quote from: jeff37923;1039510If you had bothered to read the article about DragonCon, you would have read the sentence that says, "Kramer, who has not been involved with Atlanta's popular science fiction convention for many years". DragonCon booted Kramer out almost 20 years ago when this shit first happened.

Actually, they didn't boot him when it first happened. There was a huge controversy about that... The board at that time that ran the show tried to sweep it under the rug, and hide it. Just like you are doing now, so I'm going to go dig up the facts and leave them here for you to look at...

It wasn't until 2013 that the board stopped paying Ed Kramer, and finally got around to reorganizing the convention so he didn't have an ownership stake anymore... So, Ten Years after he was indicted by an Atlanta Grand Jury, who found probable cause to charge him with crimes, he's finally officially fired from DragonCon. This is a fact.
https://www.themarysue.com/dragoncon-separates-kramer/

Let's look at some more facts about this, shall we?

Behind the Boycott of DragonCon
http://deadline.com/2013/02/dragoncon-boycott-accused-pedophile-cofounder-jail-434071/

"Collins has long contended that annual DragonCon revenue windfalls have enabled Kramer's defense lawyers to delay trial indefinitely with an array of legal maneuvers. 'No matter what DragonCon does or says,' she wrote when calling for the boycott, "funds from the convention will continue to go to Edward Kramer until either he dies or the corporation that runs the convention dissolves and reincorporates under another name.' With Kramer's recent extradition, Collins believes now is the time to pressure DragonCon to finally take action to cut ties to Kramer."


So DragonCon, was, ...in fact, ...enabling and paying for child pedophelia. Because one of its founders was a significant stockholder on the board, and the rest of the board, up until the call for the boycott, backed him.  They would have continued supporting him too, but the entire show came into the public eye, because of the boycott.

DragonCon Issues statement on it's connection to Ed Kramer (2013)
https://www.cbr.com/dragoncon-issues-statement-on-its-connection-to-ed-kramer/

Note this was a full decade after a grand jury had been convened to investigate him, and they found enough evidence to ask the DA to file charges against him..

Here's an article from 2011 before he was actually convicted in a court of law...

https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-sicko-side-of-the-sci-fi-circuit/?singlepage=true

...About Mike Dillson, DragonCon's Operations and Security Director at the time. (Hopefully he isn't, right now....)

"It should be noted that Dillson didn't alert authorities. In fact, for more than a decade Dragon*Con participants, from the celebrity guests to his fellow founders, witnessed increasingly obvious predatory behavior from Kramer toward young boys. But instead of a scandal, Kramer's peculiarities became an inside joke:"


So he didn't operate in a vacuum, there were people around him that knew what was going on, but did nothing. That's conspiracy to commit the crime he was convicted of, by his own admission.

"There is no way the celebrities and performers who defended him all these years wouldn't have seen Kramer – a man who can't stay away from inappropriate situations while out on bail – indulging in his depravity. They all saw and said nothing because their success was more important than Ed Kramer's victims. The fantasy industry hid the ugly reality of what this man was up to because they needed him, and now that they don't they'll pledge their loyalty to the next Ed Kramer and cover up who knows what for him. All for greed and the promise of fame, which in the world of sci-fi fandom is the mother of all sins."

So yeah... no political controversy at all, because financial success, and being a minority corporate stockholder, is far more important than protecting the rights of young people.

Quote from: jhkim;1039524Haffrung - weren't you all about how game-world society should adhere to what historical medieval society was like?  

It seems strange to not feature NPCs prominently, but for it to be important how succession and repopulation works.

The social system is window dressing that serves to establish a sense of place. So it's important that it feel authentic. I don't go into the family backgrounds and romantic dramas of the innkeepers or lords. But in their scenes with the PCs, they should bear some resemblance to pre-modern humans in their appearance and demeanour, and not act like middle-class 21st century North Americans. If you have an openly gay couple running an inn, you may as well give the inn an espresso machine and free wi-fi.

Quote from: jhkim;1039524Also, you never answered my reply about how medieval society frequently featured monasteries and convents, which runs counter to your idea that everyone in the society had to be reproducing heterosexuals.

I never said everyone had to be reproducing heterosexuals. But you don't think normalized gay marriage among farmers would pose a serious threat to any feudal order, where the peasants are essentially animal labour who their lord needs to breed more farmers and soldiers? And of course aristocracy is about breeding, alliances, and inheritance. How could it not be?

Really, I don't like anything 17th century and later in my fantasy worlds. Pirates wearing tricorn hats in D&D drives me nuts. It ruins my sense of immersion. That's why I can't stand Paizo's settings and artwork - it's a kitchen-sink neverland, a pop-culture contrivance five steps removed from history or myth.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1039570Actually, they didn't boot him when it first happened. There was a huge controversy about that... The board at that time that ran the show tried to sweep it under the rug, and hide it. Just like you are doing now, so I'm going to go dig up the facts and leave them here for you to look at...

Add to all that the fact that everyone "in the know" at DC had known for years, long before he was arrested, that Ed was a creep.  I was hearing rumors about that crap in '93 at the first DragonCon I went to.

Quote from: jeff37923;1039459He brings up an interesting point about conventions as a need for authors.

SciFi conventions, maybe, but not gaming conventions.  If I were going to Origins (which I can't due to aforementioned issues), I wouldn't really care who the Guest of Honor is unless they brought back Robert Heinlein or Issac Asimov back from the grave somehow.  If I'm going to all the trouble to travel to Origins, I'm not going to hang out and listen to a Guest of Honor, I'm going to play games.

Admittedly, if Larry was going to be running his Monster Hunter International game, I'd try to sign up for that, but then he's becoming a gaming guest, isn't he? :)

(Personally, I like some of what Larry does, but think he can be a bit of an asshole at times.  I did back the MHI kickstarter for Savage Worlds, and I've got a copy of the HERO game for MHI as well.  (Although I haven't read that book, because I haven't read that far in the books and don't want to spoil myself.  The Hero book was on clearance.))

Quote from: jhkim;1039480tenbones - a lot of this reads like some kind of academic paper with terms like ego-identification, hetero-normative, contextual, etc.  Could you give some examples of what you consider good handling of gay characters in adventures contrasted with bad handling?

As for your core contrast, you give two possibilities:

1) Someone is gay as part of adventure/story - such as if a seduction is a required goal.
2) Someone is gay to signal people with a wink.

A lot of people (me included) prefer more open-ended  / sandbox adventures - where there aren't specific goals required at all. So a character's sexuality might or might not be relevant, depending on what the PCs do.

 I said specifically that adventures are different than core systems (and settings). But when a designer is writing an adventure they're obviously free to do whatever they want. They can put whatever content they want into the adventure. But the act of putting any content whatsoever into an adventure defines the context of the setting. The problem isn't whether someone is gay or not, or has sex with sheep, or performs rituals to summon demons in their basement - but it speaks to the implications of how its presented to define what is "normal" in the context of the setting. D&D until recently was pretty neutral about those things but this is due to its quasi-historical wargaming roots. SJW's perceive everything as having a cis-white-male-bias and so therefore it's all "problematic", when in reality, this is just normal in-group preference.

So again, it's perfectly fine to create content that is important concerning whatever you think is important, but it needs to be done well. And here is where things get hazy because ultimately SJW's want their concerns to be treated as important as whatever else they feel is antithetical to their ideology - unfortunately this happens to be much of reality itself.

To the degree it's "good" or "bad" is dependent on the audience and the context of the content within the setting. Which leads us to...

Quote from: jhkim;1039480Further, I don't think these are even exclusive. As a specific example, in the Blue Rose sample adventure, "The Curse of Harmony" features a gay NPC (Jan) as central to its plot. Do you think that this means that it *isn't* signaling? It seems to me that a writer can be seen signaling if they make homosexuality central to the plot, because that means they're highlighting homosexuality even more. They can also be seen as signaling if they make homosexuality just a descriptive bit that isn't important.

And here the context of the setting is that homosexuality, transgender-ism, feminism are *part* of the setting conceits. The established norm of Aldis is one where these things are normal regardless of anything else. So it's not signaling at all because there is nothing to signal. Anyone playing Blue Rose should already know this before they even roll the first die. What would be signaling in reverse is having a non-SJW NPC that is virulently opposed to such things running around rabble-rousing with some intent on fixing those conceits within the setting. Or worse, doing so without social cost.

Quote from: jhkim;1039480Personally, I care about the results, not about their motives. If they signal a bunch but also write a good adventure, then I don't care.

Are they, in fact doing that? I'm asking because I don't actually know. Like many older gamers, I don't really do modules. But when I see them adding content into rulebooks or settings that fly in the face of what I consider traditional, I'm pretty much out. Especially if those things are blatant attempts at pushing an ideology that is extraneous to the setting or game.

Otherwise I totally agree. I think there is a way to thread the needle. But you don't do it with a jackhammer.

Quote from: jhkim;1039480With sandbox and other open-ended approaches, what is important and what is window dressing will vary widely.

For that matter, I also don't have a problem with window dressing as long as it is quick and to the point. I like giving quick, flavorful descriptions as if the place is a real place and as if the people are real people. In modules, I like having NPC portraits that I can show to the players - even though plenty of the details of that portrait might not matter. Does it matter that the university librarian is a bearded black man? Probably not, but I'm fine if that's what the picture shows.

I generally agree with you here. Nothing wrong with quick flavor text. The GM can extrapolate as they so please. I take it on a case by case basis.

The issue here - I think - is a side-discussion. Because we're talking about something I don't believe really has anything to do with the larger problem. This whole idea of gender/race/identity representation is really just a cover for an ideology of neo-Marxism. There is PUH-LENTY of evidence these things don't really matter to those that bark the loudest from the left. The goal is to divide and conquer on every group until it's boiled down to a silent constituency where everyone that does not fall into line is censured, othered and ostracized. This is only the tip of a very large shit-burgh that is sailing past our community on RPG-Island. Like the #MeToo movement is co-opted by people that were patting Weinstein on the back, while creating awards for Roman Polanski not more than a couple of years ago. Like the idea that all women need to be listened to - except when they're pointing fingers of accusation at Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Same is true here with Sean Patrick Fannon. It's groupthink activism where they have tried Sean in the court of Social Media, found him guilty, and are giving him the slow execution of banishment by shame, to fulfill their bizarre infantile revenge fantasies while patting themselves on the back and drinking in the attention while pretending it's "justice".

I would rather soberly just say "I don't know what happened. And if something did happen - they should go to the authorities."

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1039529If the author writes an PC as hetero-cis and the GM chooses to re-write the character as gay, bi or lesbian, there would be (these days, fortunately) no recriminations. OTOH, if the author of a module writes an PC as gay or bi or lesbian and the GM chooses to re-write the character as hetero-cis, the GM is open to accusations of "erasure".

Case in point on your own thread.

Quote from: MotorskillsIt is erasure if the players are occupying a mirror-world (OLDWORLD) with thousands or tens or thousands of people, many of whom are identified as being in hetero relationships, and none of whom are LGBT.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1039529That is why i suggested two methods of allowing the GM to make his or her choices without being open to such accusations.

1) A random method of determing an NPCs sexuality if/when it is needed.
2) In the case of major NPC relationship around which a plot is built, supplying the GM with a variety of relationships: platonic, hetero, interacial or across class divides etcetera that the module explicitly offers to the GM. Even going so far as to put numbers down the side so the GM can roll, or pick and say that he/she rolled.

I have yet to see you offer an alternative solution.

My solution is ignore it, because it's not a real problem. The gaming world is not, in fact, overrun with gay police who are forcing publishers to put gay characters in every module, and forcing GMs to include gay characters or suffer.

The vast majority of published modules have no gay characters at all. Even in uber-liberal Silicon Valley - most games I play in and run don't have gay characters.

The oppressed group you're protecting is GMs who are not homophobic, but who are facing false accusations of homophobia solely because they ran a module written with a gay NPC and changed that NPC to not being gay - where if only the module had put in a random roll, then they could have avoided the accusation. I'd want to talk to people in this group to get an idea of what they are going through - but frankly, I have my doubts about whether this group even exists - let alone that we should change the standards of all module-writing to help them.

Quote from: Haffrung;1039571Really, I don't like anything 17th century and later in my fantasy worlds. Pirates wearing tricorn hats in D&D drives me nuts. It ruins my sense of immersion. That's why I can't stand Paizo's settings and artwork - it's a kitchen-sink neverland, a pop-culture contrivance five steps removed from history or myth.

See, I don't know when tricorn hats were a thing, so I really don't care. Like I don't care if Plate Mail was really a thing or not. D&D, for me, has always been a mishmash of inspirations, like Dungeonland or Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.  And we can't help but view D&D through a modern lens. I doubt very many of us can relate to the day to day concerns of a medevial pesant. We can imagine it, but we're bound to get a few details wrong. If I ran into an inn with free wi-fi, I'd be more concerned that the country seems to have developed modern computer and cellular technology. That's a fairly big and important detail.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1039596See, I don't know when tricorn hats were a thing, so I really don't care. Like I don't care if Plate Mail was really a thing or not. D&D, for me, has always been a mishmash of inspirations, like Dungeonland or Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.  And we can't help but view D&D through a modern lens. I doubt very many of us can relate to the day to day concerns of a medevial pesant. We can imagine it, but we're bound to get a few details wrong. If I ran into an inn with free wi-fi, I'd be more concerned that the country seems to have developed modern computer and cellular technology. That's a fairly big and important detail.

"Everything plus the kitchen sinks" reminds me of Howard and Conan.  "Mongols vs. Athenians vs. Feudal American Settlers?  WRITE THAT SHIT!"

Quote from: Haffrung;1039571I never said everyone had to be reproducing heterosexuals. But you don't think normalized gay marriage among farmers would pose a serious threat to any feudal order, where the peasants are essentially animal labour who their lord needs to breed more farmers and soldiers? And of course aristocracy is about breeding, alliances, and inheritance. How could it not be?

Neither the peasantry nor the aristocracy were wholly about breeding.  This is proven since aristocratic families would frequently send one of their sons to the church to live a celibate life as a priest, and many commoners would join a monastery or nunnery.  And indeed, the Church was rife with homoerotic bonds among the ostensibly celibate.  Given that neither group was wholly about breeding, I don't think that gay marriage of a small subset is inherently a threat to the social order. Obviously, things would be different from historical Europe if there were open homosexual marriage - but they would also be different if there were polytheistic clerics along with elves, spells, and dragons. D&D in particular is rife with tons of unmedieval features - like how characters have no designated social class, utterly illogical and thoroughly unmedieval gold-piece economics, and lack of slavery/serfdom among mainstream kingdoms.

Quote from: Haffrung;1039571Really, I don't like anything 17th century and later in my fantasy worlds. Pirates wearing tricorn hats in D&D drives me nuts. It ruins my sense of immersion. That's why I can't stand Paizo's settings and artwork - it's a kitchen-sink neverland, a pop-culture contrivance five steps removed from history or myth.

I can sympathize to some degree. I am a fan, say, of Harn and Mythic Europe compared to some other fantasy settings. But it's not like there wasn't any homosexuality in medieval times. Take, for example, this letter from the medieval scholar Alcuin (circa 735-804 A.D.) -

QuoteI think of your love and friendship with such sweet memories, reverend bishop, that I long for that lovely time when I may be able to clutch the neck of your sweetness with the fingers of my desires. Alas, if only it were granted to me, as it was to Habakkuk, to be transported to you, how would I sink into your embraces . . . how would I cover, with tightly pressed lips, not only your eyes, ears, and mouth but also your every finger and your toes, not once but many a time.

Some people have tried to argue that this is just allegorical friendship, but I think that's just stupid. Gay people existed in medieval times. If you want to be authentically medieval, then this will be suppressed by the Church - but people still have their proclivities. If you're playing in a world without a main monotheistic church, then it could still be suppressed - but there's also plenty of possibilities for open homosexual relations.

Quote from: tenbones;1039590...

Same is true here with Sean Patrick Fannon. It's groupthink activism where they have tried Sean in the court of Social Media, found him guilty, and are giving him the slow execution of banishment by shame, to fulfill their bizarre infantile revenge fantasies while patting themselves on the back and drinking in the attention while pretending it's "justice".

...

Exactly.

I might be compelled, as a journalist, to recount the experience of the victims, in their words, to help others empathize with how they feel. This in turn (I would hope) might teach someone that harassment is unwelcome. And perhaps what specific behaviors to avoid (if the generic conceit alludes them).

On the topic of inclusion in adventures:

There are several approaches to GMing. One of the more recent developments is the idea of "no useless rolls". Failure and success should be interesting. Why just roll all the time, with simple failures, if it doesn't further the action/story/adventure? I like this idea. I think it applies to adventure design.

Why are we detailing sexual preferences? Does it serve the adventure? Does it further the story?

Inclusivity should not be focused on the sexuality of the NPCs in an adventure. It SHOULD be focused on game play. If a character is being played as gay, and they approach a same-sex NPC, and try to seduce them, the GM gets to decide at that point, what the reaction is.

Should they be gay? Will it further the story? Will it make the player happy? What are they trying to accomplish? Are you going to facilitate that or shut it down? (either being a valid choice in my mind...)

Here's my major issue with all this hand-wringing about inclusivity; it's fake as fuck. It's why the term "virtue signaling" is so apropos.

Sprinkling your adventure with "the gays" in some pathetic attempt at representation is so insincere and so obviously fake I'm flabbergasted any actual person concerned with representation would be fooled by it.

You want to be inclusive? Don't judge the people at your table on ANY distinctions including religion, race, creed, sexual preferences, gender identity or favorite flavor of Doritos. Don't EXCLUDE people. It's really not hard. Who gives a flying fuck what John Bartender's sexuality is? How many people have you met jump up on the bar and exclaim "I'm so gay it's important to everything!!!" ? I've been at gay bars - that shit doesn't happen there. Why is this important?

It's important because the people who want to make it important NEED to have this hand-wringing moment. It's about drama. It's about attention. It's about expunging feelings of guilt, and shame, and self-loathing. Probably because these same loud hand-wringing dumb-asses WOULDN'T have the gay, or muslim, or Ranch Dorito loving player at THIER table. And now they must repent in order to be accepted into the SJW inquisition club of self-flagellation.

It's fake, insincere bullshit. Go run a fucking game with your gay friends and give them the same goddamn awesome, butt-kicking rollicking good time you would your hetero friends. THAT's inclusion.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1039493The writers from the big publishing houses never did bother to attend gaming conventions until gaming conventions got big enough for them to warrant showing up, another words, when they could make more from convention book sales and autograph signings than they could make direct shipping books in a very real $ per hour kind of way.

Did you...

Did you just use the phrase, "another words"?

Well that's a new one.

Quote from: Mistwell;1039624Did you...

Did you just use the phrase, "another words"?

Well that's a new one.

No big deal, mistakes like that are a diamond dozen.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1039570The board at that time that ran the show tried to sweep it under the rug, and hide it. Just like you are doing now

I got my facts wrong from doing too quick research and believing some members of that Con committee. Mea Culpa.

You can take your accusation that I am trying to cover up for a child molester and shove it right up your diseased asshole though.

Quote from: jhkim;1039604Some people have tried to argue that this is just allegorical friendship, but I think that's just stupid. Gay people existed in medieval times.

Of course they did. I'm not claiming otherwise. But it was rarely open. And other than monks, homosexuals still carried on with their social responsibilities to mate and raise a family. Want to ogle the young men at the agora and charm them into your bed? Fine. Whatever. You still have a wife at home to carry out the property and inheritance functions of marriage contracts, provide citizens for the city or king, and provide an heir to carry on the family prestige. How many senators, dukes, chiefs, or kings said "nah, I'm gonna pass on the whole marriage and family thing and live with Marcus here instead."

And that isn't just a Christian thing. Family - necessary for marriage alliances, the stable inheritance of property, generating labour, and carrying on family status - is central to pretty much every culture we know of. Some were more tolerant then Christian Europe of how you got your sexual kicks, but opting out of the basic unit of society was rarely an option.

Again, I think the whole topic about "gays" in RPG's is not the real issue. I don't even think it's something we're really debating. No one is saying there shouldn't/can't be gay representation in RPGS. It's an issue because it's one of many fake issues used to drive the narrative SJW's use to paint their ideological enemies with that they have invented.

You have those that have bought into this ideology as it preys on people's internal guilt. The means by which they seek to ameliorate the problem is rather grotesque to me. Because by them fighting for "social justice" it is an tacit *affirmation* by mostly white leftists that these groups they use to box people into as victims are in fact victims that need the SJW's to "fight back".

I find it grotesque because it is, itself,  they condescend to label everyone that isn't a cis-white-male into some camp of victimhood where they claim any form of agency of those people they're trying to "save". This is the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

This is an ideology that has all the hallmarks of the worst parts of western theological practices contextually used to reinforce its own narratives.

Original Sin - White Privilege. Everyone is assumed to be racist/homophobic/mysogynist due to your culture. Evil white colonialist, patriarchal culture. This also goes well with the guilt-complex that you see in western religious traditions. Only now you know why: your evil ancestors.

Conditional Salvation - Woke! You too can be saved, if you're woke! Get woke. You just need to realize you've been victimized or your Privilege is what needs to be leveraged to save all the other victims.

Moral Superiority - Actions, thoughts and words that defy the ideology are evil. Even if they don't hurt anyone. This comes with a host of ecclesiastical rules where if you're Woke then you're *better* than those who aren't. And the irony of this is it says nothing of the fact that if you're White and woke, it puts you, still, on superior footing than us poor people of color who will always be suffering as slobbery victims to the white patriarchal majority. And hey! They're Social Justice Warriors - they're fighting for Justice like an evil Paladin that think's they're good and don't realize their powers come from Asmodeus... or the Golgothan.

Commandments - All women must be believed. White Male Privilege is Evil, Words are Violence, etc etc.

Rules for Confession - If you have a thought crime you need to confess your sins publicly for stepping over the line which could lead to Excommunication (see below). But the truth of course is whatever you confess to is never good enough, which goes back to the guilt in Original Sin. And if you're adopted by those outside of the ideology because you realize the ideology is bullshit, then you go straight to Excommunication and maybe even Apostasy.

Excommunication - If you disagree with the SJW narrative at all, you're censured and badmouthed on as many platforms they can muster, and no rules for decency are observed. Threats, attacks on friends, family, places of business, are fair game and encouraged.

Apostasy - Oh and if you were formerly a member of the SJW tribe... there is special poison for you. All swindling and behind the scenes chat-logs, and private interactions you had with your former cultists start getting leaked to everyone. It's made worse because there's a good chance they're more deeply connected to your private life than others, so it's easier.

and honestly - these people in this cult don't really care about people of color, nor do they care about women's issues, or anything else other than their ideology where they can use it to abuse those who don't believe, speak, feel or think as they do, and feel righteous as fuck about it. "Diversity" for them is merely a weapon to use to inject into everything in order to deconstruct it to flush out new prey. It's a means for them to feel like the "Chosen ones" and lord it over everyone else not of their cult.

So Sean Patrick Fannon is the latest witch to be burned at the stake.

Quote from: Thornhammer;1039626No big deal, mistakes like that are a diamond dozen.

:D I like that one. Nice!

Quote from: tenbones;1039636Again, I think the whole topic about "gays" in RPG's is not the real issue. I don't even think it's something we're really debating. No one is saying there shouldn't/can't be gay representation in RPGS. It's an issue because it's one of many fake issues used to drive the narrative SJW's use to paint their ideological enemies with that they have invented.

I think there is significant disagreement about having gay NPCs in D&D play. Some responses from this thread below show several differing views on the subject -

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602I think we have to remember that not everyone is down with homosexuality. Many people have an objection to it on either religious grounds (mainstream Christians and Muslims alike reject it), or ideological/philosophical. That doesn't mean they are out to persecute gays, or even deny them the ability to marry, but they aren't going to tacitly accept the gay lifestyle, and they don't feel any need to "include" something they object to in their activities.

A lot of people likewise believe that transgenderism is a mental health issue, not an identity issue. I'm not going to debate that here, but I will point out that LBG doesn't belong with "T" --those are different issues entirely, and have spoken with gay men that don't like the "T" to be included. Not all gays are leftist Democrats that embrace postmodernism, etc. Some are a lot more centrist or practical in their thinking.

So why is this important? Because gay issues are controversial, polarizing, and don't belong in a mainstream RPG game that has been traditionally directed towards teens and even younger kids. You can say I am being to rigid or conservative here, but that is what I think on this matter. It belongs outside the game.

Quote from: KingCheops;1038617Why not leave "core" D&D as devoid of sex and then open up the space through community/third party work?  How about a LGBTQ category on DM's Guild where you can see all the products that creators have flagged as LGBTQ in a quick to find category?  Let's see how big that market is.

LGBTQ doesn't want to pay "extra" to get their special butterfly content then make up some shit that they think is cool just like the fucking rest of us.

Quote from: John Scott;1038717From my personal experience most gay people are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy level just like mentally ill sexomaniac, so it's natural to them to seek sex in everything including rpgs.

Quote from: GameDaddyAfter some consideration, I can't think of any good reasons to overtly include sexual orientation in my RPGs, for the npcs, or making it excessively relevant as part of our fantasy RPGs, as it never really was relevant when I was younger, and we didn't discuss it much. There is actually very good reasons for keeping our fantasy worlds separate from the real world, not to protect the real world from our fantasies, but to protect our fantasies from the poisons and ills that are prevalent in the real world.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1039322Right, as you say, its there in the title... its Dungeons and Dragons, not Butt-sex and Barbarians. In my 35 years of gaming I have never seen a player's or an NPC's sexual orientation come into play...

Quote from: Haffrung;1039634Of course they did. I'm not claiming otherwise. But it was rarely open. And other than monks, homosexuals still carried on with their social responsibilities to mate and raise a family. Want to ogle the young men at the agora and charm them into your bed? Fine. Whatever. You still have a wife at home to carry out the property and inheritance functions of marriage contracts, provide citizens for the city or king, and provide an heir to carry on the family prestige. How many senators, dukes, chiefs, or kings said "nah, I'm gonna pass on the whole marriage and family thing and live with Marcus here instead."

And that isn't just a Christian thing. Family - necessary for marriage alliances, the stable inheritance of property, generating labour, and carrying on family status - is central to pretty much every culture we know of. Some were more tolerant then Christian Europe of how you got your sexual kicks, but opting out of the basic unit of society was rarely an option.

Family is central, I agree, and was the norm - but it was never 100% of all people. People can and did opt out. In medieval Europe, this was often by being clergy, monk, or nun - but even aside from those, bachelors and spinsters existed. In other cultures, it is the same. Marriage is the most common lifestyle, but there were vestal virgins in Rome, winkte in Lakota, and so forth. And, of course, it isn't necessary for gays to opt out of family. Cultures like the ancient Greeks had open homosexual relationships in combination with marriage and raising a family.

Quote from: tenbones;1039636This is an ideology that has all the hallmarks of the worst parts of western theological practices contextually used to reinforce its own narratives.

Pretty much. And I don't think it's a coincidence that it's most ardent champions come from the most religious country in the West.

To bring this back to D&D, where did we see the Christian fundamentalist backlash against D&D in the 80s? In the USA. And where have we seen identarian zealots carry out a cultural coup against D&D's "toxic white masculinity?" In the USA. Purity crusades, shaming, conformity, moral panics. It must be something in the water down there.

Quote from: tenbones;1039636Again, I think the whole topic about "gays" in RPG's is not the real issue. I don't even think it's something we're really debating. No one is saying there shouldn't/can't be gay representation in RPGS. It's an issue because it's one of many fake issues used to drive the narrative SJW's use to paint their ideological enemies with that they have invented.

"Representation" is another word that's been poisioned to me. Does a gay character in a module represent conservative gays? Or black gays? Or flaming queers? Or, or, or...

Quote from: Haffrung;1039646Pretty much. And I don't think it's a coincidence that it's most ardent champions come from the most religious country in the West.

To bring this back to D&D, where did we see the Christian fundamentalist backlash against D&D in the 80s? In the USA. And where have we seen identarian zealots carry out a cultural coup against D&D's "toxic white masculinity?" In the USA. Purity crusades, shaming, conformity, moral panics. It must be something in the water down there.

My guess, and it is only a guess, is it might seem more wide-spread in the US because we don't have the same Government mechanisms in place to do for the people. You're not going to be arrested and prosecuted for posting a rap lyric in the US as a "hate crime (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921)". We don't have a Canadian-like Human Rights Commission to use the force of law to force proper gender pronouns. But hey, at least they have self-reflective newspapers to talk about the evils of white privilege (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jeffrey-ansloos/this-is-us-too-the-truth-about-racial-violence-in-canada_a_23078560/). Remember, don't judge folks based on their race or ethnicity... unless they are white and especially male.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1039393Drop Dead Gorgeous is a trait, like lock-picking, its not Bob the barbarian has a secret fetish where he dreams of bubble-baths being administered by well oiled teen male halflings wearing studded leather thongs. that is nothing more than the author projecting how they want you to run your game. with the example "She is Dick Rentsch's lover", that makes it a tidbit of information that the GM could work in if he wanted to, but unless its actually part of the information needed for the game its unnecessary, I mean why should we care that she is his lover?

Nobody in the games I've played cared who was bedding who (or what). if that's important to your game, go right ahead, but that's it, its YOUR game, you shouldn't have to have every finite unrelated tidbit of information written out for you, unless you have the imagination of a snail....

You miss a few points then.

A: Its a bit of clarification on the characters. They arent just partners working together. They are lovers.
B: This could become more relevant to the DM or players by various means. It could be something the players can exploit at some point. Or it could give the GM the idea that if one of the pair is killed the other might flip out or plot serious vengance on the PCs if he or she escapes. One little sentance allows all that.
C: This is stuff for the DM to ponder and is a tiny example of world in motion type play. Similar to that room in Keep on the Borderlands where the two orc chiefs are meeting secretly.

Quote from: tenbones;1039636So Sean Patrick Fannon is the latest witch to be burned at the stake.

We had no choice. He weighs the same as a duck!

[video=youtube;zrzMhU_4m-g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g[/youtube]

Quote from: jhkimPersonally, I care about the results, not about their motives. If they signal a bunch but also write a good adventure, then I don't care.

Quote from: tenbones;1039590Are they, in fact doing that? I'm asking because I don't actually know. Like many older gamers, I don't really do modules. But when I see them adding content into rulebooks or settings that fly in the face of what I consider traditional, I'm pretty much out. Especially if those things are blatant attempts at pushing an ideology that is extraneous to the setting or game.

Otherwise I totally agree. I think there is a way to thread the needle. But you don't do it with a jackhammer.

I don't own any D&D modules that include homosexual characters, though there is one mention in a setting book I have (see below). I have Blue Rose, plus some modern RPGs like Cyberpunk. Even if there exist some badly-written modules with homosexual characters, though, that doesn't prove that it's wrong to have such characters. It just says that they should be better written.

What I'm curious about, though, is the part I bolded above. What does that mean?

So, let's take the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book. In its 3rd edition, it has an entry,

QuoteElversult is the least Dragon Coast-ish city on the Dragon Coast. Its present ruler, a former adventurer named Yanseldara (NG female human Ftr11/Sor8) led a brilliant rebellion against the previous necromantic regime. Centuries of smuggling and intrigue cannot be undone in a decade, but those seeking dishonest deals now think twice before taking their business to Yanseldara's city, particularly since she leaves law enforcement to her consort and adventuring companion, Vaerana Hawklyn (CG female human Rgr20 of Mielikki).

Do you feel that this flies in the face of what you consider traditional?

Quote from: jhkim;1039594My solution is ignore it, because it's not a real problem.

Motorskills seems not to agree with you. Perhaps you have something to discuss.

Quote from: jhkim;1039594The gaming world is not, in fact, overrun with gay police who are forcing publishers to put gay characters in every module, and forcing GMs to include gay characters or suffer.

I never suggested it was.

Quote from: jhkim;1039594The oppressed group you're protecting is GMs who are not homophobic, but who are facing false accusations of homophobia solely because they ran a module written with a gay NPC and changed that NPC to not being gay

Actually I just wanted to avoid that situation altogether. Why would one not not wish to avoid this?

Quote from: jhkim;1039594- let alone that we should change the standards of all module-writing to help them.

That's not what I suggested at all. My suggestion would require less than a paragraph in the appendix or a sidebar.

There is a practical side to this that I think is ... not exactly being missed (especially by tenbones), but it's being circled rather than pinned to the wall:  With all kinds of things that are irrelevant to a particular user, the questions are, how easy is it to ignore, and how easy from the presentation do they think it will be to ignore?

I'll use me as an example.  I'm just not all that interested in any sexuality in my gaming material, as presented by any writer that I know of, because frankly they lack the subtlety and ambiguity that I'm going to use when using such material--or are writing in something that I'm not interested in for other reasons, so unaware of.  So anything like that (e.g. heterosexual, homosexual, cross-species elf/dragon sexual, "close friends" as euphemism, etc.) is going to be changed by me anyway.  And to use a related thing, I feel exactly the same way about "weird magic tech" in my games.  I'm aware that other people like it.  I can understand why some of it gets in the game.  But it just isn't for me.

I'm a grown adult that can discern what works for me and what doesn't.  I can tolerate things that aren't so useful to me, in order to get at other, more useful material.  So that's the practical question of how much of the material is useful and how much isn't and how easy it is to ignore what isn't.  It's a business decision, related to the signal to noise ratio for my purposes.

Now, given that context, if you start a big marketing push about how your game material is all about "weird magic tech," then I'll take you at your word.  Your product isn't for me.  I don't even need to check it out more.  I'll be a little more skeptical about a marketing push that is more targeted to my wants, but usually you can trust people when they say they carefully built something to not appeal to you.  About the only thing that will convince me otherwise at that point is a bunch of reviews that indicate that the material is substantially different (in a good way to me) than what the marketing push says.  

I suspect a lot of people feel exactly the same way about the sexuality aspects (whatever they are).  OK, you say the game is all about X?  Fine, I believe you.  I hope you did a great job, and the people interested in that sort of thing enjoy it.  And I'll keep on feeling that way right up until the moment that I sense that someone is trying to ensure that, "I'm being made to care."  Then I'm not interested in any products by said person any longer.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039691We had no choice. He weighs the same as a duck!

Heh.  That's one big duck.  It must have been eating the twinkie from Ghostbusters.

Quote from: jcfiala;1039724Heh.  That's one big duck.  It must have been eating the twinkie from Ghostbusters.

That's a big Twinkie.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1039721I suspect a lot of people feel exactly the same way about the sexuality aspects (whatever they are).  OK, you say the game is all about X?  Fine, I believe you.  I hope you did a great job, and the people interested in that sort of thing enjoy it.  And I'll keep on feeling that way right up until the moment that I sense that someone is trying to ensure that, "I'm being made to care."  Then I'm not interested in any products by said person any longer.

Steven - I almost never read marketing material.  I'll read reviews for stuff that I'm interested in.  Is there marketing material that says some game is all about sexuality that you're referring to here?

Quote from: jhkim;1039741Steven - I almost never read marketing material.  I'll read reviews for stuff that I'm interested in.  Is there marketing material that says some game is all about sexuality that you're referring to here?

Maybe "Buzz" is a better word than "marketing" for what I mean.  Marketing material is too focused.  I'm talking what gets touted about making some product different, what gets said in interviews, what early reviews want to focus upon, etc.  We aren't even talking a fully reasoned filter here, but a time-saver.  I can't exhaustively review every product, knowing that I'm interested in very few.  Which is why later reports could change my mind about a particular product--if I'm given a good reason to check it again.

I think you are trying to create some kind of data-driven case for why people are annoyed by this stuff, and why you think they are unreasonable in doing so.  I'm telling you that people are forced to make some decisions based on limited or poor data, lest they waste time on something that isn't that important to them.  It's not strictly analogous to, "Cannot be reasoned out of an opinion that you were never reasoned into in the first place."  Though that's true enough.  It's rather that there is a minimum threshold of credibility before someone is going to listen to reasons to form a reasoned opinion, when their gut is already telling them that X fits a pattern of "Things like this in the past have not been worth my time."  

That's really the problem with "virtue signaling".  It's not the borderline hypocrisy that is necessarily the problem (or disingenuous aspect, if you prefer).  That's just a minor annoyance.  Rather, for the filter affect I'm talking about, it's more that, "Hey, you've got limited time to tell me why I should pay attention to this product, and this is what you choose to talk about?"  Similar to when a trailer for a movie is obviously trying to be funny, but the jokes aren't all that.  This was the best you had to show us?   OK, then.  Conversely, if the product is making a serious attempt to engage with some aspect of sexuality (or weird magic tech or some other niche in RPGs), I'd expect someone to be able to talk more sensibly than a flyby virtue signal or the equivalent.  If your product really is about X, that should come out clearly.  I'd be pretty annoyed, for example, if someone was "virtue signaling" about how their game had returned to a classical myth feel, rejected post-modern sensibilities, and all it really had on inspection was an NPC spouting a few platitudes that had surface-only classical myth references.

Suspected virtue signals--of any type--tell me that the person making them is willing to waste my time.

Quote from: jhkim;1039640I think there is significant disagreement about having gay NPCs in D&D play. Some responses from this thread below show several differing views on the subject -

I'm just trying to keep the discussion on topic before it gets booted to the Pundit Forum. I do think there's a lot to talk about this particular point - but you know... threadjacking.

Quote from: jhkim;1039692I don't own any D&D modules that include homosexual characters, though there is one mention in a setting book I have (see below). I have Blue Rose, plus some modern RPGs like Cyberpunk. Even if there exist some badly-written modules with homosexual characters, though, that doesn't prove that it's wrong to have such characters. It just says that they should be better written.

I'm not sure I do either. Most of my modules are 1e or 2e. A Setting Book is *different*. Because it implies something about the setting itself. Here let me demonstrate a Fantasy Overton Window to you without using homosexuality as a distraction...

Classic Forgotten Realms 1e used the bog-standard AD&D races as the starting PC races - but even then they made specific distinctions to their populations in specific areas to paint the status-quo. It largely adhered to a quasi-Medieval Tolkienesque flavored kitchen-sink analog world with magic. Elves were on the decline, they had a few strongholds, dwarves had theirs, halflings had theirs, and it was pretty much vastly human. The status-quo was established.

This is not to say that other more exotic races did not exist. Nor more exotic cultures of humanity. But it painted a very Sword & Sorcery vibe to the early days of the Realms (Greybox) that reminded me of the early days of Greyhawk. As the years went on, more and more products put out more playable races, and later editions of the setting that paralleled later editions of the rules started ham-fisting more of these exotic races into places that, in some cases, literally and magically appeared overnight. In game terms the world no longer even resembled the older more established context. In fact the later editions of the game assume everything is fair play as a conceit.

Whether it is implicit or explicit is irrelevant. Because that's how new players come to me with it - to the point where it's rare for a new player to play one of the established AD&D races by choice. I corroborate this with the plethora of online games that have that freakshow atmosphere. There is certainly little attempt in-setting to deal with this... why do you think that is? Let me be more clear - the reason for it is the same reason that we have a thread about "Orcs being analogs to blacks and if you kill them you're racist." It's the same reason I was permabanned for defending Paizo for being called a racist company for perpetuating that "stereotype" from the Big Purple (despite having been a member of the forums since 2001.)

One could be a lazy thinker and say "Ten, dude you're being an asshole - what's wrong with having a pack of Tieflings and Aasimar in the same group with some Genasi and half-drow in the middle of Westgate?" The answer is simple: there is nothing wrong with it. The problem is there is no context to it. I run sandbox games. Context is everything. Nothing exists without a reason. That's how my worlds operate. To deny that of myself is to deny the entire point of how I GM. When people say they love random tables - and so do I - it's not enough for me to just make a random roll. Of course I don't do this out loud, but when I make a random roll, my brain backfills all the reasons why that random thing is suddenly a THING in play.

I love Spelljammer for instance. The context and conceits of Spelljammer mean that almost *anything* goes. I'll let people play nearly anything we can agree to stat up - but you bet your ass we're going to give them a contextual background why they're playing a Githyanki on a privateer ship with the rest of the PCs. I mean they have an entire transgendered race, Reigar (http://spelljammer.wikia.com/wiki/Reigar), in Spelljammer (and they're awesome). Anything goes.

The same is true about the conceits of playing in bog-standard Westgate. So if you're going to come to me and say - "Ten, why is there a gay Githyanki innkeeper here in Westgate?" you better bet your ass again there is a good reason. They're not just there as a Githyanki "because the rules say it's possible", they're not just there with a blinking sign over their head saying "Hey I'm Gay". Those things are mutually exclusive and they're there because I as the GM say so for reasons that enable the PC's to discover and interact with as a perspective. Take it or leave it.

Where I balk is the "Mother May I" inclusiveness material where it's not needed. I don't need to be told what is allowed /not allowed in my games. And it speaks to the designers of the systems and settings that they think they need to make such proclamations - which audience are they talking down to precisely? It's clearly an agenda - because they're saying so on Social Media. I mean... why can't I just take them at their word? Why is this even a discussion?

So again. I don't care if they put homosexual NPC's in modules. I. Do. Not. Care. I've said this multiple times. I don't think this is an issue <--I've said that multiple times as well. What I care for is the inclusion of such things for ulterior motives. It puts an ideology BEFORE the product. And rather than trying to make that ideological imagery stand on its own merit (or lack thereof) they would rather replace traditional setting assumptions with mechanics and content to insinuate that ideology than create something new and novel.

Blue Rose is a *perfect* example of how to do it correctly. Making Elves now get the "Blessings of Corellon" as some proxy virtue signal to the LGBT crowd *while* proclaiming part of what make Drow evil is their binary view on gender is... ideological bullshit. With ostensibly more to come. (mind you - this doesn't affect me directly, but I have no desire to support ideologues of any stripe. So you know, I'll vote with my cash elsewhere as needed). And this is why I, and others like me are not the target demographic for the new D&D. Again... there is a lot of evidence to show this is an economic bad choice. But I suspect WotC doesn't care due to their ideological biases. So it's win-win for me for other reasons.

This is the same shit that Marvel has spent the last decade doing the same deconstruction (one might say destruction) of it's comicbook IP's. Ironman was turned into an teenage black girl (who was an asshole), Thor was turned into a woman, Spiderman was turned into half-black, half-Puerto-Rican kid* (I'll give Miles Morales a break, he's from an alternate reality), Hulk was turned into a Korean kid, Iceman was *forcibly* turned into a homosexual, telepathically by Jean Grey (and no one thought this was bad). She-Hulk became a masturbatory fantasy of all SJW's and instead of fighting actual Avenger-level villains, actually spent time hunting down... internet bullies. They DID introduce some new characters like America Chavez, a socialist hispanic girl that is horribly racist against white people. She's a lesbian naturally. They hired a bunch of Tumblr "writers" to their writing staff and editorial teams... and ran Marvel into the ground. They're currently trying to recover, and oh look, they're reversing all the crap the SJW's did.

So is it *necessary* to go through this in RPG's? You'll notice this is *exactly* why Pundit wants there to be an RPGGate. It's here in RPG's to be sure... it's one of the reasons I've stopped doing RPG development on some projects because one of the publishers I was working for has vowed to go only with POC designers going forward (or more specifically to give preference to them)... and frankly even though I am a *POC*, I'll be damned if I'm going to let my work be known because of my appearance. So yeah - it's not just about representation of LGBT's, POC's, Genders, etc. it's the placement of the ideology that uses those things as weapons over *the product* or *endeavor* itself.

Keep your bullshit politics and self-loathing out of my hobbies, unless you plan on making it useful.

Quote from: jhkim;1039692What I'm curious about, though, is the part I bolded above. What does that mean?

I trust my response above should cover this question.

Quote from: jhkim;1039692So, let's take the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book. In its 3rd edition, it has an entry,

Do you feel that this flies in the face of what you consider traditional?

So unless this has been beaten to death by me... And since I have a soft spot in my heart for both these NPC's as I've used them for YEARS in my own campaign. They absolutely are not traditional. They absolutely are gay. And I absolutely don't care because in my game I've used them and put their relationship in context with the setting. It IS unusual. But Vaeranna is a 20th-lvl character who is a practical super-hero in Elversult, and this was known by implication even back in 2e. It's an outlier. There are always outliers that prove the rule. What's the real question? Are you asking if I'm aghast that 'omg gays in D&D'? I'm not a homophobe, so no.

What does fly in the face of "traditional" is putting a mechanic that implies being transgendered is "good", and being heteronormative is "evil" by IMPLICATION of culture.

Quote from: tenbones;1039748What does fly in the face of "traditional" is putting a mechanic that implies being transgendered is "good", and being heteronormative is "evil" by IMPLICATION of culture.

...or the reverse for that matter. I thought that was what alignments were for, so the GM could pick what kind of NPCs they wanted regardless of race or gender considerations.

In the Judges Guild Wilderlands Campaign Setting, with the Judges Guild Universal Role Playing System, you had to roll 2d20 for your alignment, and then play the alignment that you rolled. I'll upload the chart for that tomorrow when I get back to my gaming stuff.

I have also never played Drow as evil in any campaign, nor have I run Drow as evil in any of my games. They are reclusive and private and prefer not to interact with other races, and this is based on my early litererary experiences concerning Drow which I first came across in Raymond E. Fiests novels, first with a short story about them in Magician were Pug's group accidentally ran into a group of Moredhel when they were being hunted, and the Dark Elves offered them a respite, as well as from the Riftwars Saga novel Krondor: The Betrayal, which featured a CN Drow that warns good of impending evil..

I read all of these novels and stories long before I ever took a good look at TSR's D3 Vault of the Drow module, and they formed my impression of what Drow should be, ...so in my campaigns, the Dark Elves are Lawful or Chaotic Neutral. The original Drow were mistakenly identified as evil, when in fact they were simply isolated and wild.