Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 07:54:55 PM
So, is there a rule you have about women interpreting men? Or does your razor only cut one way?

No, I don't have any rules about how you should play your character, of what type of character you play.  I mean, other than we're all playing together and we care about everyone around us having fun, so we all commit to making characters that are appropriate for the tone of the campaign.  If we're playing Conan and you make Scooby Doo, that's a problem. 

If we're all making hard-boiled noir detectives and you're making a nymphomaniac, that's a problem. 

But I've certainly seen players who were disruptive because they had a 'joke' idea that was detrimental to the campaign.  And if we've got 5-6 people who feel that one person is causing problems, we're going to have a conversation about how we can keep the game as fun as possible - that's likely to require changes from the 'disruptive player'. 

Because the first rule - really the ONLY rule - is don't be an ass.  If you can get past that, everything else is easy. 

Quote from: deadDMwalking on August 23, 2022, 07:59:32 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 07:54:55 PM
So, is there a rule you have about women interpreting men? Or does your razor only cut one way?

No, I don't have any rules about how you should play your character, of what type of character you play.  I mean, other than we're all playing together and we care about everyone around us having fun, so we all commit to making characters that are appropriate for the tone of the campaign.  If we're playing Conan and you make Scooby Doo, that's a problem. 

If we're all making hard-boiled noir detectives and you're making a nymphomaniac, that's a problem. 

But I've certainly seen players who were disruptive because they had a 'joke' idea that was detrimental to the campaign.  And if we've got 5-6 people who feel that one person is causing problems, we're going to have a conversation about how we can keep the game as fun as possible - that's likely to require changes from the 'disruptive player'. 

Because the first rule - really the ONLY rule - is don't be an ass.  If you can get past that, everything else is easy.

Here we have Wokeman Walking playing the disingenuous twat.

You know perfectly well I'm talking about your example of John playing "Cathy" as an uber slut. You said that was a problem.

Reverse the sexes of player/character, a woman playing a male character as an uber dude bro incel. Is that also a problem?

If you're going to continue to play dumb don't bother answering.

deadDMwalking is notoriously disengenous, and views just about everyone here with contempt.

He is here exclusively to play dumb.

deadDMwalking is presenting an idealized (and fictional) version of the guidelines written in the C&C sourcebook. As written, it is not a "don't be an asshole" guide. It is an extremely restrictive roleplaying protocol for non-indigenous players. There are three major issues with it:
1) It assumes that it isn't possible for a non-indigenous player to be able to have the necessary knowledge or experience to properly roleplay a character respectfully, while assuming an indigenous player will. Even if that player only discovered their heritage last week.
2) Building on the first point, while it does provide some guidance on roleplaying for non-indigenous players, it restricts those players to only that material, plus guidance from indigenous players. In doing so, it implicitly claims to be the only proper written source for indigenous culture suitable for roleplaying. You have a book written by a native author you got when you took a class from the author? Too bad, you'll probably misinterpret something in there and do something offensive, only use our book.
3) Indigenous players who want to play someone from another tribe or culture are not referred to the section for non-indigenous players, but instead allowed the same freedom to explore and create their character as if they were from that tribe. Are you a Seminole who wants to play a Tlinget character? A tribe that lived on the other side of the continent from yours, with no historical contact? Go ahead and do you.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on August 23, 2022, 07:34:32 PM
But before you leave it, I think it's worth looking at a little more carefully. 

Setting aside race and ethnicity for a moment, imagine that you have a male player that decides to play a female character.  Further, let's say that that this particular female character is dialed up on the 'slut-o-meter' to the point that the player's goal is to jump every john in the game.  Now, while we can imagine that there may be females in the world that are 'easy' and or someone could even exist that was in real life exactly the same way, in the game a lot of people, male and female, may find that that it presents an insulting stereotype or caricature.  But while it's easy to imagine someone that is WAY over the line, we all recognize that where we draw the line personally varies.  Some players are going to be okay with John (playing Cathy) make a move on NPC Mr. Church; some are not.

If Cathy were played by a woman, a lot of people wouldn't even worry about it to the same degree.  If Cathy does everything that John does, our perception of whether John is crossing the line, or approaching the line or way the hell over the line is a little more flexible - in part because she's in on the joke. 

Isn't this similar thinking to what led to sexual assault at GenCon? Where a bunch of woke decided that a MtF trans was actually a woman and therefore would not try to force themselves on a woman they shared a room with?

Quote from: Wheetaye on August 23, 2022, 09:00:48 PM
"don't be an asshole"

That's been my mantra ever since I began gaming. The problem is that it's not good enough for some of these wokescolds.

I treat everyone the same until they prove me wrong. But no special 'treatment' for anyone, that includes these 'tarded wokescolds.

Okay, okay, this guy has shamed me into buying a copy.  I'll even just stick it on a shelf and not play it, as required.  But I'm not gonna insult him by offering him the white man's currency.  Nope, he'll have to take payment the indigenous way:  a muskrat pelt, a twist of tobacco, some bird feathers, and a really nice chunk of chert.  The game's not worth as much as a pony, or even a woman.

Quote from: I on August 24, 2022, 07:57:53 AM
Okay, okay, this guy has shamed me into buying a copy.  I'll even just stick it on a shelf and not play it, as required.  But I'm not gonna insult him by offering him the white man's currency.  Nope, he'll have to take payment the indigenous way:  a muskrat pelt, a twist of tobacco, some bird feathers, and a really nice chunk of chert.  The game's not worth as much as a pony, or even a woman.

I guess you can at least be commended for not paying with pox-contaminated blankets. 

Quote from: deadDMwalking on August 23, 2022, 07:34:32 PM
The author is going to give professional advice.  That's going to include game mechanics and that's going to include recommendations for players feeling included and comfortable.  Like all advice (even advice you've paid for) it's up to you to take it or leave it. 

But before you leave it, I think it's worth looking at a little more carefully. 

Setting aside race and ethnicity for a moment, imagine that you have a male player that decides to play a female character.  Further, let's say that that this particular female character is dialed up on the 'slut-o-meter' to the point that the player's goal is to jump every john in the game.  Now, while we can imagine that there may be females in the world that are 'easy' and or someone could even exist that was in real life exactly the same way, in the game a lot of people, male and female, may find that that it presents an insulting stereotype or caricature.  But while it's easy to imagine someone that is WAY over the line, we all recognize that where we draw the line personally varies.  Some players are going to be okay with John (playing Cathy) make a move on NPC Mr. Church; some are not.

If Cathy were played by a woman, a lot of people wouldn't even worry about it to the same degree.  If Cathy does everything that John does, our perception of whether John is crossing the line, or approaching the line or way the hell over the line is a little more flexible - in part because she's in on the joke. 

When you make fun of yourself, you usually have a lot of latitude.  When you make fun of someone else, they're going to have a sense of humor about it until they don't.  When you 'respectfully incorporate your understanding of a culture that you're not a part of' you can really help them have a good time - but you also risk doing something foolish or insulting that you weren't even aware of.  That's a risk you're free to take, especially with your friends, but it's  also a risk that the author shouldn't feel uncomfortable about highlighting. 

And this is especially true because there is a fictional social group presented that allows you to carefully avoid calling attention to a real extant social group that is dealing with some real shit outside of the game world like balancing tribal government versus state/city, providing social services and opportunity, trying to maintain a distinct culture among a much larger 'consumer culture'. 

If I want to style myself a Chippewa Warrior, I can do that.  But the author isn't wrong to tell me why there's a good chance that, despite whatever research I've done, I'm likely to misrepresent (at least in the minds of authentic Chippewa) their authentic culture.  At best, my research is only as good as my sources, and there are some unreliable sources on...just about anything.

Bolding mine

Connor Alexander may be a professional games designer and writer but he is not a professional at understanding what makes players feel included and comfortable, neither in the general sense or the hundreds of thousands of specific gaming groups that exist worldwide. 
And this speaks to my issues with the presentation of the game; These include that it is mechanically and as far as I can tell ideologically racist; that the premise that misrepresentation can even occur in this game is ridiculous; the premise of the advice is inimical to the spirit of rpgs. 
Specifically, the author goes out of their way to explain that Players should not play certain types of fictional Characters based on their own real-life race. This by itself is racist although without context could simply be ignored as just strange. 

But the author then has the temerity to justify this on the basis that apparently Native Americans (and every other ethnic group by implication) are a homogenous group with predictable reactions as to how they would feel about someone of a different ethnicity playing a fictional character.  Further Mr Alexander is so confident no member of any other ethnic group could possibly approach Native American culture in anything but a cursory and shallow way that certain concepts such as Two-Spirit identities are obviously off limits (his words: "Honestly, though, we shouldn't need those four pages. Everything I wrote above is just common sense to me").

Additionally, and frankly the proposition that it is even possible to misrepresent an actual Chippewa Warrior (or anyone else) from the real world when that Player Character Chippewa Warrior is existing in a different, fantastical, timeline 800 years adrift from the real world is feeble.  No one, including Native Americans, is representing anything related to real world culture any more than a player is representing actual 7th century Christian knights when you play Pendragon.   At most the player is presenting an aesthetic.

From a roleplaying consumer point of view, the advice is also deeply off putting as it runs counter to the spirit of roleplaying games which is using imagination to engage in escapism for recreation. In addition, the idea that a man I've never met before, who lives on a different continent has anything to say about my ability to put my own gaming group at ease over something as specific as race relations is asinine in the extreme.   

Quote from: Continental on August 17, 2022, 03:03:36 PM
This seems to be the state of play today unfortunately. 

There's a strong emphasis on 'diversity' -

A shame. A bunch of different cultures heading into space could have been kind of cool really.

1: Only in the woke cult circles.

2: SJWs preach fake diversity. And often enforce and even demand segregation. They are a disease.

3: Been done a few times. Raven*Star is a nominally native american themed sci-fi RPG. Original Torg had space aztecs show up. Theres been one or teo in other media too. Especially books.

Just from what I am seeing about this game, it looks like it would be terrible to play and would be, well depressing.

I am glad that this woke piece of crap is paying for his BS and I am a big believe of Go Woke, Go Broke.

To say if I don't by his game I am not an ally and I should buy it even if I don't play it?  I have said this before in this thread, but I will say it again "Screw him"

What a toolbag the author of Coyote and Crow is.  Wait, I have seen a picture of what he looks like and to no surprise he looks like a toolbag.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on August 23, 2022, 07:34:32 PM
Setting aside race and ethnicity for a moment, imagine that you have a male player that decides to play a female character.  Further, let's say that that this particular female character is dialed up on the 'slut-o-meter' to the point that the player's goal is to jump every john in the game.  Now, while we can imagine that there may be females in the world that are 'easy' and or someone could even exist that was in real life exactly the same way, in the game a lot of people, male and female, may find that that it presents an insulting stereotype or caricature.  But while it's easy to imagine someone that is WAY over the line, we all recognize that where we draw the line personally varies.  Some players are going to be okay with John (playing Cathy) make a move on NPC Mr. Church; some are not.

If Cathy were played by a woman, a lot of people wouldn't even worry about it to the same degree.  If Cathy does everything that John does, our perception of whether John is crossing the line, or approaching the line or way the hell over the line is a little more flexible - in part because she's in on the joke.

There is a giant exception to this very example: Drag Queens.  They play up a slutty, over-sexualized stereotype of women.  Yet they're rarely criticized on these grounds.  Indeed, if a woman does criticize a Drag Queen as "appropriating femininity" , chances are they're going to be judged negatively for that.

(For myself, I don't like Drag.  They remind me of Clowns, which I really don't like.  Over-sexualized Clowns.  The stuff of childhood nightmares.  Maybe a good Horror game seed..."Sex Clowns from Outer Space...")

Generally, our outrage is quite selective.  Sometimes we defend it because we're "punching up", but attack others for "punching down"...which in itself is problematic--different standards of behavior expected because of your race, ethnicity, religion, sex, etc.  And trying to determine what a reasonable person might view as "offensive" can be a minefield, with constantly shifting goalposts.  And in a RPG setting, yeah, the limits might be tested on occasion, whenever you involve real-life cultures and races.  I'm reflecting right now on White Wolf's problematic "Gypsies"...yeah, there are real-world Romani, and I can get if they're offended by a game that appeals to stereotypes.  Does that mean that any non-Romani can never play a Romani character?  I think that would be even worse--erasing them completely (assuming the campaign would normally involve them...but for the same reason, if playing a historically based game set in 15th century Germany, I'm not going to insist on Australian Aboriginal "representation".  It would be just representation for the sake of representation and ahistorical.)

And as I said, even though the "flavor" of what was written in the book was woke, I get the point--i.e., don't be a Dick, don't play to stereotypes.  I was willing to overlook the tone and move on.  However, as I learned more about the author and the company in public statements, I really had to ask myself "do I really want to support this kind of a business, with explicitly racist hiring practices (e.g., "set-asides" for Native Americans that non-Native Americans can't apply for) and pretty unveiled hatred for people like me?"

That it.  Others might feel differently.  I'm not throwing out my book or deleting the .pdf.  Heck, I might play a game as long as there are good people to play with (and that goes for any game).  But use my limited dollars to support it?  No.  Just no.

Quote from: Wheetaye on August 23, 2022, 09:00:48 PM
deadDMwalking is presenting an idealized (and fictional) version of the guidelines written in the C&C sourcebook. As written, it is not a "don't be an asshole" guide. It is an extremely restrictive roleplaying protocol for non-indigenous players.

Don't pretend that Rule 0 doesn't exist. 

Good advice, bad advice, your game, your decision.  I'd argue that it isn't such bad advice - I don't feel restricted by it because there are so many other ways to play.  And since it's alt-history, trying to shoehorn a real world history that doesn't conform just offers more challenges that are easier to avoid by accepting the setting and it's conceits. 

Quote from: deadDMwalking on August 24, 2022, 10:29:57 AM
I don't feel restricted by it because there are so many other ways to play.  And since it's alt-history, trying to shoehorn a real world history that doesn't conform

Well, this is it... Assuming you want to play the game, you just play it whatever way you want and can just ignore any advice given by the creator.

I quite like some of the Fate material (not that I will buy anymore) but I don't, particularly like F. Hicks, and certainly wouldn't conform to anything he said.

At the end of the day, play these games as you want to play them.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on August 24, 2022, 10:29:57 AM

Quote from: Wheetaye on August 23, 2022, 09:00:48 PM
deadDMwalking is presenting an idealized (and fictional) version of the guidelines written in the C&C sourcebook. As written, it is not a "don't be an asshole" guide. It is an extremely restrictive roleplaying protocol for non-indigenous players.

Don't pretend that Rule 0 doesn't exist. 

Good advice, bad advice, your game, your decision.  I'd argue that it isn't such bad advice - I don't feel restricted by it because there are so many other ways to play. 

This is pretty meaningless to the issues actually being raised. Shrugging and saying "Good advice, bad advice, your choice" can essentially be applied to any piece of art, literature, political statement, religion, philosophy or journalism without doing anything to comment on the piece or engage with a critique.

Coyote & Crow pretty obviously is not presenting neutral gaming advice but a prescriptive instruction made on the basis of the authors ideology. Instructions incidentally which in the context of choosing to play this specific game a player who was so inclined would have a pretty reaonsable assumption should be followed if they insisted. In the same way a player would have a reasonable assumption SAN rules would be used in Call of Cthulhu.