So, in some of the threads Furries have been brought up. I always thought that "Furries" were physically anthropomorphic animal RPs. That is just my personal definition. To me, games where you play animals are just not the same thing.
So, your definition?
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: HinterWelt;237399So, in some of the threads Furries have been brought up. I always thought that "Furries" were physically anthropomorphic animal RPs. That is just my personal definition. To me, games where you play animals are just not the same thing.
So, your definition?
Thanks,
Bill
My definition is the same as yours Bill, since yours is correct.
Bunnies and Burrows is not a furry rpg. Furry Pirates is (though the name is a bit of a giveaway there).
Vargr are not furries, the stuff in Other Suns is.
Physically anthropomorphic animals. Never got the appeal.
Quote from: HinterWelt;237399So, in some of the threads Furries have been brought up. I always thought that "Furries" were physically anthropomorphic animal RPs. That is just my personal definition. To me, games where you play animals are just not the same thing.
So, your definition?
Thanks,
Bill
It not "MY definition" Bill, its just a crowd that started to show up at some Sci-Fi & Fantasy conventions. There was a Vanity Fair areticle about them some years ago and also an episode of "C.S.I." featured them as a subculture.
These are folks who like to dress up in furry costumes - the kind that mascots or walk-around charascter at amusement parks wear. Then they gather and have partries ...or even orgies while wearing all that stuff. Some of them, thats the only way they can get off.
And YES, some of them play, write, and are involved with RPGS.
They have their own slan and subculture......
Here is a wikipedia on them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom
QuoteThe specific term "Furry Fandom" was being used in fanzines as early as 1983, and had become the standard name for the genre by the mid-1990s.[9] However, fans consider the origins of furry fandom to be much earlier, with fictional works such as Kimba, The White Lion released in 1965, Richard Adams' novel Watership Down, published in 1972 (and its 1978 film adaptation), as well as Disney's Robin Hood as oft-cited examples.[8] To distinguish these personae from seriously depicted animal characters, such as Lassie or Old Yeller, cartoon animals are referred to as funny animals,[10] a term that came into use in the 1910s.
During the 1980s, furry fans began to publish fanzines, developing a diverse social group that eventually began to schedule social gatherings. By 1987, there was sufficient interest to stage the first furry convention.[11] Throughout the next decade, the Internet became accessible to the general population and became the most popular means for furry fans to socialize. The newsgroup alt.fan.furry was created in November 1990, and virtual environments such as MUCKs also became popular places on the Internet for fans to meet and communicate. One of the oldest and largest MUCKs in existence is FurryMUCK.[12]
Same article , this quote is amusing:
QuoteAn online gaming community called Skotos currently offers a furry roleplaying game called Iron Claw Online and Right Brain Games is currently making a furry massively multiplayer online role-playing game titled Antilia.[29] Iron Realms Entertainment is also currently developing an MMORPG, Earth Eternal, which will feature anthropomorphic animals as playable races.[30] This will not be the first, as other games such as EverQuest II, Vanguard and World of Warcraft have anthropomorphic animals as well.[31][32][33]
Skotos - I've heard or read that name somewhere before - haven't I ??Why do I know some of this ?
Because they've invaded and made an impact on several Ohio area Science Fiction conventions - thats why.
Also, I'm on the organizing committee of a local con - this topic comes up every once in awhile. Some of them enter our costume contest every once in awhile. There was also some incidents with that group in 1990. (nothing big, just annoyed the con regulars)
- Ed C.
Bill,
There are several definitions for "Furries"
I think the primarily in the most common vernacular has to do with people dressing up in animal costumes. This is a great example of fetishism.
But I have seen it applied to anthro animals, animal centric RPGs and even animal plush toys. So, there is not a real rigid definition of this I don't think...
Quote from: HinterWelt;237399So, in some of the threads Furries have been brought up. I always thought that "Furries" were physically anthropomorphic animal RPs. That is just my personal definition. To me, games where you play animals are just not the same thing.
So, your definition?
Thanks,
Bill
Trying to figure out if you were a furry author all along?
The definition varies a fair amount from the little I've seen. There's also otherkin, who believe that they have the soul of an animal but may or may not dress up.
Quote from: Nicephorus;237423There's also otherkin, who believe that they have the soul of an animal but may or may not dress up.
Strictly speaking, those folks are called "therians" (short for "therianthropes"). The otherkin as an umbrella term also covers a whole lot of weirdness that makes the idea of reincarnated animal spirits seem positively mundane.
It varies a lot. Because I like them in games and stories (anthropomorphic characters) I get labeled one. Though, really, I'm not into the whole subculture thing.
The sexualization of anthropomorphic creatures? Ick.
Seriously. I'm human. I know that and appreciate that. I just like fictional concepts of anthros. (Albedo, Ironclaw, Swann's Moreau novels.)
I know the fandom itself separates things up a bit between those who are just fans of the material and those who make a whole lifestyle out of it.
Quote from: GrimGent;237432Strictly speaking, those folks are called "therians" (short for "therianthropes"). The otherkin as an umbrella term also covers a whole lot of weirdness that makes the idea of reincarnated animal spirits seem positively mundane.
Indeed. It's got everything from the Elf Holocaust people, to people who think they're secretly anime characters from popular television series like Dragonball Z and Pokemon, to people who think that they're the reincarnation of the person Luke Skywalker's "based on".
One of my favorite games from back in the Old Days (late 80's) was "Justifiers" - about genetically engineered bipedal animals used as explorers for a multiplanetary consortium, for those jobs when it was too dangerous to risk a human life. It was fun, and there were no sexual connotations to the game or to the folks I was playing with; it was just the setting, and we went with it.
Now, these days... not so sure 'bout some of these folks, but I could easily play in an "animals as humanoids" type setting.
Justifiers now this game brings back some memories. I first saw the ad for this game in Dragon and had to have it. Good game.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Koltar;237418It not "MY definition" Bill, its just a crowd that started to show up at some Sci-Fi & Fantasy conventions. There was a Vanity Fair areticle about them some years ago and also an episode of "C.S.I." featured them as a subculture.
These are folks who like to dress up in furry costumes - the kind that mascots or walk-around charascter at amusement parks wear. Then they gather and have partries ...or even orgies while wearing all that stuff. Some of them, thats the only way they can get off.
Not all of them? They vary from folks who just like watching anthromorphic cartoons (like... Donald Duck?) to folks who enjoy anthromorphic art, all the way over to folks who like sexualized stuff and further over to the people who like to dress up in suits. Just like folks who dress up like vampires and cross their arms in front of themselves to be invisible at cons are a minority of roleplayers, people who dress up in fursuits and make passes at each other are a minority of furries.
But, you know, the extremists are always the ones who get all the media attention, so that's what everyone assumes all furries are like. Just like the satanist roleplayers.
The problem with the term is there's a double definition in place.
What it actually tends to be used for in current parlance is specifically the fetishistic angle, Doug winger and fursuits and "yiffing" and all the rest of the creepy pseudo-bestiality shit.
But because if this association, and the extreme negative reaction it engenders, everything that resembles it tends to get slapped with the same label, fairly or not, and thus winds up struggling against the same negative connotations.
It's all the Internet's fault, really. Any fucked up kink can wind up with a hell of a lot more publicity than is generally deserved, and wind up consuming the image of something rather easily.
I see claims as well that the term dates back before its attachment to fetishism, but frankly I've still seen no evidence whatsoever of this, and given the number of furry fans who seem determined to "take back" the term and somehow force it to a more broad definition than is current for the purpose of normalizing their kink, I'm inclined to wonder how much of that claim is retroactive revisionism.
I certainly never encountered it prior to the rising awareness of the furry fetish culture via the Internet, then suddenly it was everywhere and being retroactively applied to anything and everything. I've encountered a similar effect with the term "plushie", a word I'd never even heard until this decade, and then only on the Internet, but suddenly became the de-facto term for all stuffed toys and animals.
I find it unfortunate, because a lot of great stuff these days basically gets immediately dismissed because of this guilt by association.
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp03292003.shtml
"Freaky monkey fuck suit! Bleah!"
Quote from: Koltar;237418It not "MY definition" Bill, its just a crowd that started to show up at some Sci-Fi & Fantasy conventions. There was a Vanity Fair areticle about them some years ago and also an episode of "C.S.I." featured them as a subculture.
Actually, I was asking for your definition, specifically. I will assume you then ascribe tot he definition you quoted.
Quote from: Nicephorus;237423Trying to figure out if you were a furry author all along?
The definition varies a fair amount from the little I've seen. There's also otherkin, who believe that they have the soul of an animal but may or may not dress up.
Actually a bit. I have been accused of being some sort of fetish peddler. The woman then walked away before I could ask her what she meant. It took me a couple of days to figure out she was referring to SA! This last GenCon a similar occurance when I was handing out dice. I tried to stress that my games are about playing squirrels. Eventually, I must admit, I lost my cool a bit and just said straight up to the woman that my squirrels do not have tits. This, surprisingly, worked like a switch and I ended up selling her a copy.
Its just one of those things that strikes me as strange since I see what RPGers are talking about (pretending to be animals and then having sex) as extremely different from a whole set of animal based games. SA! uses squirrels to make the joke, not enable sexual fantasies.
Personally, I really do not care about the sexual orientation or fetishes of other people as long as I do not have to hear about and it does not promote anti-social behavior (rape, murder, pedophilia, etc.).
Oh, and to add to the HaHa funny part of this, I am a musophobe.
Bill
Quote from: Werekoala;237466One of my favorite games from back in the Old Days (late 80's) was "Justifiers" - about genetically engineered bipedal animals used as explorers for a multiplanetary consortium, for those jobs when it was too dangerous to risk a human life. It was fun, and there were no sexual connotations to the game or to the folks I was playing with; it was just the setting, and we went with it.
Now, these days... not so sure 'bout some of these folks, but I could easily play in an "animals as humanoids" type setting.
Woo hoo!!! Finally, someone else who has played this awesome game. Truly the best (as in most gameable) sci-fi setting I've ever seen, even if the rules were at some point clearly dragged out back and beaten with the wonky stick.
I have long wanted to buy the rights to this game (I know where to find the copyright holder, finally tracked him down a few months ago -- tough, since he published the game under a pseudonym!) and put it back in publication, but I worry about the sort of freaks it might attract.
I'd love to run or play a game where you get to play actual animals along the lines of Watership Down or The Animals of Farthing Wood. I've got Into the Wood, which looks like it will capture this world beautifully. I just love the sense of adventure hidden in those english meadows.
Furries are those people who seem hung up on sex with things that are part animal, part humanish. I don't care if it's not a formal definition; it works for me as a general grouping of "folk I don't like to be in the same room as".
Quote from: Jackalope;237561I have long wanted to buy the rights to this game (I know where to find the copyright holder, finally tracked him down a few months ago -- tough, since he published the game under a pseudonym!) and put it back in publication, but I worry about the sort of freaks it might attract.
I love Justifiers. It's one of my favorites. So one freak here.
You can't always publish for the worst, you just have to publish for the best. Albeit I'm sad that Jason Blair's version never got done (Justifiers Omega)
Quote from: Jackalope;237561Woo hoo!!! Finally, someone else who has played this awesome game.
It's always weird, I probably see at least one Justifiers thread a month (I have one going on RPGnet right now)...yet every time one is posted people say the same thing's, like "man, I forgot about that game, I loved it", or "I thought I was the only one who played". Justifiers gets lots of love, not sure why people are always so shocked to see it mentioned.
Quote from: Jackalope;237561I have long wanted to buy the rights to this game (I know where to find the copyright holder, finally tracked him down a few months ago -- tough, since he published the game under a pseudonym!) and put it back in publication, but I worry about the sort of freaks it might attract.
Did you get a response? I wrote a lengthy letter about buying the rights, but they didn't even respond. I can only guess they have plans to turn it into a video game (as they don't seem to have anything to do with RPGs).
When I say "they", it's because I honestly can't actually remember who it was (other than a video game company). I got the information from Jason and after sending off a few eMails with no response, I just sort of gave up.
Quote from: grubman;237629Did you get a response?
No, I haven't tried contacting them. It never even occurred to me that other people might be trying to find the rights.
Looks like you guys have the definition covered, but here's a few examples of things that are NOT furries:
Intelligent animals. Doesn't matter if they can talk or not. It has to be at least somewhat humanoid to be a furry.
Man-beasts. Like werewolves and other lycanthropes. This is a completely separate theme.
Beast-men. Gnolls and orcs from D&D would be good examples. Once again a completely separate theme from the anthropomorphic animal.
Chimeric hybrids. Things like the centaur, minotaur or the sphinx.
Aspected mythic beings. Their animal parts are symbolic of some quality or aspect. Examples would be cherubs, 1st edition rakshasas or a deity like Ganesha.
Anthropomorphic animals shouldn't be excised from RPGs completely just because of the actions of few enthusiasts. There are places they could fit. Faerie worlds perhaps?
The dragonborn of 4e D&D are certainly furries. A core race is not the right place for them.
Sam
Quote from: HinterWelt;237399So, your definition?
All you need to know is that God Hates Furries (http://www.godhatesfurries.com/).