Quote from: blackstone;1106095An asshole is an asshole regardless of being armed or not. Nor doesn't prevent people from being assholes.

This is not on topic. Don't post in this thread again.

Quote from: jhkim;1107115(To Darrin Kelley)

I'm in agreement about the first part. Where I disagree is about dismissing what people actually think because they're "useful idiots" - and that what matters is the subversive agenda that is supposedly behind them.

I think people should be judged on what they say, rather than on "dog whistle" claims that when they say X they really mean Y, so judge them on Y.

I can believe there are some people with an explicit political agenda who are encouraging RPG safety tools as a strategy for control. But regardless of their existence, that doesn't mean it's OK to dismiss what someone actually says. There is an objective reality outside of what radical partisans think. If someone thinks that the conversation over safety tool topics is important, then opposition should show that it is not important - not just say "Well, communists think it's important."

I'm not sure why you addressed this to me. I am definitely not for pushing these tools into people's faces. Or for making them a requirement for convention games.

A GM at every convention I have been at is already required at sign-up to declare content ratings for their games. So that convention attendees can easily determine if that game is for them or not. Nothing really additional is needed. In my opinion.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1107136I'm not sure why you addressed this to me. I am definitely not for pushing these tools into people's faces. Or for making them a requirement for convention games.

Sorry, Darrin. I wasn't addressing you - I was clarifying who Brendan was replying to in the quote. The quote addresses a "you", and I wanted to clarify whom his post was addressed to.

Quote from: jhkim;1107140Sorry, Darrin. I wasn't addressing you - I was clarifying who Brendan was replying to in the quote. The quote addresses a "you", and I wanted to clarify whom his post was addressed to.

It's all cool. No harm, no foul.

Quote from: Brendan;1106786No, it's fucking not.

Your experience is not my experience.

I had some good teachers when I started into RPGs. One's that sat me down and gave me a nice long talk about acceptable content to counter any edgelord notions I might have had. I was told to be sensitive about extreme subjects and to be prepared in advance for the most extreme ones.

This isn't political to me. I view it in the purview of showing basic human empathy.

There are no fucking rapes in my games. No chopping people up into chum and throwing those pieces to the sharks. No sexualized torture.

There are boundaries set by the group in session zero. Ones expected to be followed by every participant. Including the GM. And that's it.

You are being as bad as those you criticize. By forcing this to be a political issue. When it is anything but.

Greetings!

Well, for the deluded folks living in Rainbow Barney Land, review various commentary by Melan, GeekyBugle, Spinachcat, and Brendan, as well as myself. For additional enlightenment, listen to Pundit's videos and pay the fuck attention. Additional explanation of Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, and exposition, from S'mon.

SJW's are most certainly fucking Communists, Socialist, and Globalists. They are often explicitly aligned with the goals of such, and even when they are not, they are in denial and deluded about how their own philosophies and goals are in sync with the same methods, goals and philosophy of Globalist/Communists. Hence, "Useful Idiots" at best, and sympathizers and fellow travelers at worst.

Game all you want with such people. Live in Rainbow Barney Land all you want. However, to deny the connections and conscious as well as unconscious sympathies to the Globalist/Communist agenda is simply deluded and blind--or entirely disingenuous.

I have articulated and defended this assessment, and there's not a damned thing that is "Absurd" about it. My assessment is based on facts, evidence, and observing the correlations between the various elements and known goals and philosophies.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Here's my "session zero".

I tend to go for a PG-13 tone in most of my games. If I think I'm going to go somewhere past that, I'll give the group a heads up.
If anyone has a problem with something, they can bring it up. It might be non-negotiable. Say slavery in Dark Sun. I feel it's important for the tone of the setting.

If someone needs an X-Card or a checklist... well good on them, but I don't do X-Cards or checklists. Talk to me like a frikkin adult.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1107155Here's my "session zero".

I tend to go for a PG-13 tone in most of my games. If I think I'm going to go somewhere past that, I'll give the group a heads up.
If anyone has a problem with something, they can bring it up. It might be non-negotiable. Say slavery in Dark Sun. I feel it's important for the tone of the setting.

If someone needs an X-Card or a checklist... well good on them, but I don't do X-Cards or checklists. Talk to me like a frikkin adult.

That sounds good, and I do much the same when I GM a game. I do believe that the uses of the safety tools suggested for cons hinge on the fact that there is no session zero for such games coupled with playing with people that are unfamiliar with one another, and that using the safety tools in home games would be very weird (at least for me).

What is also needed beyond session 0 is also a healthy dose of common sense both as a player and a DM.

Sexual assault or sexualized. Who the hell do some of you rpg with. Someone character being torn apart occasionally  fans if they do it by being stupid. Charging a monster or group on low HP the character is torn to shreds.

As for X-cards I don't  like them. Not the concept of it the implementation  which I find highly disruptive. Both sides players and DMs share responsibility on choosing the rightvgame to join and the rightvwayvto run it. Suffering from Aracnophobia then as a plsyerbone has no damn business joining a campaign centered around fighting Spiders and possibly Lolth. Yes the DM can change an encounter or Two, an entire campaign due to a refusal  to find another table reeks if entitlement.

Players and DM of staff that want and not want to see st Session 0 and the DM does the complete  opposite.  Yeah it may be your table and campaign  your  our still a dick, if a player takes a swing at you I may just take extra long and pulling him off you.

Session zero is key and will always be can important  part of any games I play or run.

Quote from: jhkim;1107128Actually, the case I'm going on here is:

Someone tells me that I need to stop playing RPG convention games like I do at Big Bad Con because it's helping communists overthrow the government.

On the face of it, I think that this is idiotic, but I'm trying to discuss it rationally. These are fucking games. Even if I disagree with someone about how they should be played, I think associating them with communist overthrow of the government is absurd.

As GeekyBugle pointed out in so many words, this is a straw-man.  No one has advanced any such argument.  Actually, it's more than a straw-man. You're re-framing the entire terms of the debate, flipping the sides around to make it appear that the aggressors are actually on the defensive and vice versa.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1107151Your experience is not my experience.

I had some good teachers when I started into RPGs. One's that sat me down and gave me a nice long talk about acceptable content to counter any edgelord notions I might have had. I was told to be sensitive about extreme subjects and to be prepared in advance for the most extreme ones.

This isn't political to me. I view it in the purview of showing basic human empathy.

There are no fucking rapes in my games. No chopping people up into chum and throwing those pieces to the sharks. No sexualized torture.

There are boundaries set by the group in session zero. Ones expected to be followed by every participant. Including the GM. And that's it.

You are being as bad as those you criticize. By forcing this to be a political issue. When it is anything but.

You're confusing two separate things:

1) Basic human empathy and setting an appropriate game tone for your group.

2) Demanding that human social interaction be governed by formal systems like "X-cards", "Consent check-lists", etc

This is, of course, intentional.  It's a classic Motte & Bailey approach.  They trot out the "X-Card" and the "Consent check-list" and when anyone objects they retreat to, "Hey, this isn't political.  It's just about - like, being a nice person.  What are you, some kind of RAPY EDGE LORD?!?!"  

You think this ISN'T political?  Oh, you sweet summer child...

Quote from: jhkimActually, the case I'm going on here is:

Someone tells me that I need to stop playing RPG convention games like I do at Big Bad Con because it's helping communists overthrow the government.

On the face of it, I think that this is idiotic, but I'm trying to discuss it rationally. These are fucking games. Even if I disagree with someone about how they should be played, I think associating them with communist overthrow of the government is absurd.

Not really. They are trying to rewrite the fundamental narratives of our culture by infiltrating our stories and games. Examples are the vandalization of Star Wars, Doctor Who, Star Trek, and many others, all of which have been usurped by radicals to push their political agenda. I try to be neutral, but these are, or were, my favorite movies and TV shows I'm talking about. Back in the day, the Sun Makers (an episode of Doctor Who) was edited to remove overtly political content so as not to alienate half of the audience. Whatever happened to that kind of practical common sense? Anyone that would intentionally ruin a lucrative franchise to send a political message is either a total idiot or a malevolent ideologue. When it keeps happening over and over again, one has to assume the latter.

I can no longer sit down to watch a movie or TV show or play a game without wondering if I'm about to have radical ideologues vomit forth their hatred and ruin whatever it is that I'm trying to enjoy.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley...There are no fucking rapes in my games. No chopping people up into chum and throwing those pieces to the sharks. No sexualized torture.

There are boundaries set by the group in session zero. Ones expected to be followed by every participant. Including the GM. And that's it...

In the current political climate, this could easily be interpreted to indicate hostility toward "toxic masculinity", or hatred towards men, more so because of the swearing. Especially given that it is sufficient to use previously established norms, namely the rating system by the MPAA (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC17). Like, "this is a family-friendly game, so let's keep it G-rated." Everyone understands what that means.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1107238In the current political climate, this could easily be interpreted to indicate hostility toward "toxic masculinity", or hatred towards men, more so because of the swearing. Especially given that it is sufficient to use previously established norms, namely the rating system by the MPAA (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC17). Like, "this is a family-friendly game, so let's keep it G-rated." Everyone understands what that means.

I don't care what the current political climate is! I don't want politics at my game table!

I have been able to play fine with a group of people that has wildly different political beliefs. But none of us bring it to the game table. We leave that garbage at the door and focus on having fun with the game. Our escape from the real world for just one day.

Quote from: jhkimSomeone tells me that I need to stop playing RPG convention games like I do at Big Bad Con because it's helping communists overthrow the government.

Quote from: Brendan;1107224As GeekyBugle pointed out in so many words, this is a straw-man.  No one has advanced any such argument.  Actually, it's more than a straw-man. You're re-framing the entire terms of the debate, flipping the sides around to make it appear that the aggressors are actually on the defensive and vice versa.

We are framing the debate differently.

I'm saying that people should be able to play however they want to play. That playing with the X-card is OK, and that playing without the X-card is OK. I don't use it in most of my games, but I don't have a problem with others using it, and if I'm playing in a game that uses it, I'm fine.

You're framing it that anyone using an X-card is inherently an aggressor. i.e. If some hippy liberals play with an X-card in their game, they're the aggressor invading your space. I don't agree with that framing. It's possible for either side to be aggressors -- i.e. "all games must use the X-card" or "no games should use the X-card". Both of those are One-True-Wayism.

If someone was sitting down to my table for the first time and said, "I saw something online about using a survey to see what other players and the DM were expecting from the game, especially around pushing people's comfort boundaries around violence and sexuality, and I was thinking that might be a good idea," I would probably agree.

These are things that we do discuss, and I don't have a problem with having an established framework.  I haven't had one before, so I'm fine with using the casual discussion as we have always done, but I can see the benefit of making it less casual and more explicit.  There are probably some things that I consider SO INOFFENSIVE, that I can't imagine how ANYONE could find it offensive - that doesn't mean that I can't try to show consideration to that person.  

Taken in another direction, I like using spiders and giant-creepy-crawlies as antagonists.  There are some people that really do bug out.  It's worth talking about whether that's the appropriate level of 'real life discomfort' that players want when they're in a dungeon or if I can replace those types of monsters with something that doesn't prey on the player's personal phobias.