So having kind of liked the old Colonial Gothic game I checked out the new version Flames of Freedom on Drivethru and found the designers had gone woke between the old edition and the new one. It has some general woke nonsense like saying you should, not can, use X cards to prevent traumatizing people in the game and having a Native American man in 1776 that uses "they" as his pronoun, and announcing the development team included
But what I'm interested in here is where in the new game it is against the rules to play a character who is sexist towards women, wantonly kill innocent people, or purchase the labor contract of an indentured servant and you are expected to play characters with diverse religious beliefs. I wonder what peoples' feelings are about this being included in the rules. It strikes me as unethical for a game designer to tell players what personality traits their characters are not allowed to have, what religions their characters should believe in, or what actions the characters are not allowed to take. I've seen recent games that go to excessive lengths to indicate how inclusive they are, but this is the first time I've seen one that makes it AGAINST THE RULES to have a racist character. On the one hand, it's the designer's game and they can obviously make whatever rules they want, and I'm all for including rules that include game mechanics for personality where appropriate such as in Pendragon, but on the other hand it strikes me as unethical for a roleplaying game designer to tell his customers that they aren't allowed to play characters with certain personality traits and/or aren't allowed to have their characters engage in certain behaviors. Even though the rules are obviously easily ignored, it still seems to violate the spirit of a roleplaying game. I'm curious about other players and game designers' thoughts about this.
Isn't that by the Zweihander guy? Not surprised it's pozzed. I was going to check it out, but not now.
Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 14, 2021, 09:29:34 PM
On the one hand, it's the designer's game and they can obviously make whatever rules they want, and I'm all for including rules that include game mechanics for personality where appropriate such as in Pendragon, but on the other hand it strikes me as unethical for a roleplaying game designer to tell his customers that they aren't allowed to play characters with certain personality traits and/or aren't allowed to have their characters engage in certain behaviors. Even though the rules are obviously easily ignored, it still seems to violate the spirit of a roleplaying game. I'm curious about other players and game designers' thoughts about this.
I'm not familiar with the specific game - but in general, I don't think every RPG needs to allow every type of character. In some games, it's simply inappropriate to make a merciless lone wolf assassin, for example. TSR's Marvel Superheroes, for example, was pretty clear with its karma system that anti-heroes like the Punisher or Deadpool weren't PC material. On the other hand, some games are intentionally about playing malicious bastards, and it doesn't work to play a goody-two-shoes. Some games there are random-roll personality traits from among a limited set, and you don't get your choice of whatever you like. Some mini-games have only premade characters, and no option to create your own.
I don't think it's unethical for a given game design to only allow a limited range of characters. If you don't like the range of characters offered, you're free to change the game or buy a different game.
Quote from: jhkim on October 14, 2021, 09:46:15 PM
Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 14, 2021, 09:29:34 PM
On the one hand, it's the designer's game and they can obviously make whatever rules they want, and I'm all for including rules that include game mechanics for personality where appropriate such as in Pendragon, but on the other hand it strikes me as unethical for a roleplaying game designer to tell his customers that they aren't allowed to play characters with certain personality traits and/or aren't allowed to have their characters engage in certain behaviors. Even though the rules are obviously easily ignored, it still seems to violate the spirit of a roleplaying game. I'm curious about other players and game designers' thoughts about this.
I'm not familiar with the specific game - but in general, I don't think every RPG needs to allow every type of character. In some games, it's simply inappropriate to make a merciless lone wolf assassin, for example. TSR's Marvel Superheroes, for example, was pretty clear with its karma system that anti-heroes like the Punisher or Deadpool weren't PC material. On the other hand, some games are intentionally about playing malicious bastards, and it doesn't work to play a goody-two-shoes. Some games there are random-roll personality traits from among a limited set, and you don't get your choice of whatever you like. Some mini-games have only premade characters, and no option to create your own.
I don't think it's unethical for a given game design to only allow a limited range of characters. If you don't like the range of characters offered, you're free to change the game or buy a different game.
There's a 140 page preview. The "no racist characters" bit is in general author virtue signaling speak. There's nothing in the rules text that prevents playing whatever type of asshole PC you want.
^^^
That's at least good to know that it isn't explicitly against the rules, but I guess I don't know why the author even needed to go on a screed about it. I'll check out the preview to get a sense for it.
Quote from: jhkim on October 14, 2021, 09:46:15 PM
I don't think it's unethical for a given game design to only allow a limited range of characters. If you don't like the range of characters offered, you're free to change the game or buy a different game.
I think it's a little different to say that you can't play a character that follows standard 18th century norms in a game set in the 18th century. I think we all agree that those things are wrong, but those things can also constitute an excellent roleplaying opportunity.
Quote from: shoplifter on October 14, 2021, 09:41:32 PM
Isn't that by the Zweihander guy? Not surprised it's pozzed. I was going to check it out, but not now.
Well, it's the same publisher and it says "Powered by Zweihander RPG"
Greetings!
Roll up a dashing, uber-Alpha masculine bastard that is a total Imperialist, Colonizing, misogynistic, and racist monster. Watch the fun unfold! *Laughing* Go forth and let the party dominate and plough through every sacred cow and special snow-flake icon that the game has established. Keep some cold beer handy, and light up some good cigars along the way. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on October 14, 2021, 10:41:02 PM
Greetings!
Roll up a dashing, uber-Alpha masculine bastard that is a total Imperialist, Colonizing, misogynistic, and racist monster. Watch the fun unfold! *Laughing* Go forth and let the party dominate and plough through every sacred cow and special snow-flake icon that the game has established. Keep some cold beer handy, and light up some good cigars along the way. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
And, despite the virtue signaling od the author(s), there's nothing in the game's mechanics that would prevent you from playing the game this way (just like there's nothing in D&D's mechanics that would prevent you from playing a game centered on avoiding conflict).
Quote from: jhkim on October 14, 2021, 09:46:15 PM
Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 14, 2021, 09:29:34 PM
On the one hand, it's the designer's game and they can obviously make whatever rules they want, and I'm all for including rules that include game mechanics for personality where appropriate such as in Pendragon, but on the other hand it strikes me as unethical for a roleplaying game designer to tell his customers that they aren't allowed to play characters with certain personality traits and/or aren't allowed to have their characters engage in certain behaviors. Even though the rules are obviously easily ignored, it still seems to violate the spirit of a roleplaying game. I'm curious about other players and game designers' thoughts about this.
I'm not familiar with the specific game - but in general, I don't think every RPG needs to allow every type of character. In some games, it's simply inappropriate to make a merciless lone wolf assassin, for example. TSR's Marvel Superheroes, for example, was pretty clear with its karma system that anti-heroes like the Punisher or Deadpool weren't PC material. On the other hand, some games are intentionally about playing malicious bastards, and it doesn't work to play a goody-two-shoes. Some games there are random-roll personality traits from among a limited set, and you don't get your choice of whatever you like. Some mini-games have only premade characters, and no option to create your own.
I don't think it's unethical for a given game design to only allow a limited range of characters. If you don't like the range of characters offered, you're free to change the game or buy a different game.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The examples you gave were all of games where the character choices were dictated by the game setting. This is a case where the choices are dictated by modern politics, not the game setting. It is, in fact, against the setting. The setting is 1776, and the personality and behavior rules are based on 2021 diversity values. In 1776 it was standard for immigrants who couldn't afford passage on a ship to pre-sell their labor in indentured servant contracts, but the game specifically forbids this. This isn't a case of forbidding lone wolf comic book heroes because they don't play well with a party-based game.
This is saying the real 1776 was a racist and sexist place with indentured servants and Puritan colonies but the designers don't like that so they made rules that you aren't allowed to play a character who is sexist, racist, or homophobic and shouldn't play mostly Christian characters. It's the opposite of what you talked about - it's not removing elements that don't work for the game setting, it's removing any elements of the authentically historical 18th century from the game and forcing players to play modern social justice warrior characters with nonbinary pronouns in an American Revolution themed game. Completely different situation than the ones you gave as examples or the example I gave of Pendragon where including moral codes of conduct are appropriate as chivalry is part of the setting.
Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 14, 2021, 11:40:07 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 14, 2021, 09:46:15 PM
Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 14, 2021, 09:29:34 PM
On the one hand, it's the designer's game and they can obviously make whatever rules they want, and I'm all for including rules that include game mechanics for personality where appropriate such as in Pendragon, but on the other hand it strikes me as unethical for a roleplaying game designer to tell his customers that they aren't allowed to play characters with certain personality traits and/or aren't allowed to have their characters engage in certain behaviors. Even though the rules are obviously easily ignored, it still seems to violate the spirit of a roleplaying game. I'm curious about other players and game designers' thoughts about this.
I'm not familiar with the specific game - but in general, I don't think every RPG needs to allow every type of character. In some games, it's simply inappropriate to make a merciless lone wolf assassin, for example. TSR's Marvel Superheroes, for example, was pretty clear with its karma system that anti-heroes like the Punisher or Deadpool weren't PC material. On the other hand, some games are intentionally about playing malicious bastards, and it doesn't work to play a goody-two-shoes. Some games there are random-roll personality traits from among a limited set, and you don't get your choice of whatever you like. Some mini-games have only premade characters, and no option to create your own.
I don't think it's unethical for a given game design to only allow a limited range of characters. If you don't like the range of characters offered, you're free to change the game or buy a different game.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The examples you gave were all of games where the character choices were dictated by the game setting. This is a case where the choices are dictated by modern politics, not the game setting. It is, in fact, against the setting. The setting is 1776, and the personality and behavior rules are based on 2021 diversity values. In 1776 it was standard for immigrants who couldn't afford passage on a ship to pre-sell their labor in indentured servant contracts, but the game specifically forbids this. This isn't a case of forbidding lone wolf comic book heroes because they don't play well with a party-based game.
This is saying the real 1776 was a racist and sexist place with indentured servants and Puritan colonies but the designers don't like that so they made rules that you aren't allowed to play a character who is sexist, racist, or homophobic and shouldn't play mostly Christian characters. It's the opposite of what you talked about - it's not removing elements that don't work for the game setting, it's removing any elements of the authentically historical 18th century from the game and forcing players to play modern social justice warrior characters with nonbinary pronouns in an American Revolution themed game. Completely different situation than the ones you gave as examples or the example I gave of Pendragon where including moral codes of conduct are appropriate as chivalry is part of the setting.
Yet, despite the demand for enforced diversity, the designers insist that all characters
must speak English!
Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 14, 2021, 11:40:07 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 14, 2021, 09:46:15 PM
I'm not familiar with the specific game - but in general, I don't think every RPG needs to allow every type of character. In some games, it's simply inappropriate to make a merciless lone wolf assassin, for example. TSR's Marvel Superheroes, for example, was pretty clear with its karma system that anti-heroes like the Punisher or Deadpool weren't PC material. On the other hand, some games are intentionally about playing malicious bastards, and it doesn't work to play a goody-two-shoes. Some games there are random-roll personality traits from among a limited set, and you don't get your choice of whatever you like. Some mini-games have only premade characters, and no option to create your own.
I don't think it's unethical for a given game design to only allow a limited range of characters. If you don't like the range of characters offered, you're free to change the game or buy a different game.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The examples you gave were all of games where the character choices were dictated by the game setting. This is a case where the choices are dictated by modern politics, not the game setting. It is, in fact, against the setting.
The only concrete example I gave was Marvel Superheroes, where you effectively aren't allowed to play antiheroes like Deadpool or the Punisher because of the karma rules. But Deadpool and the Punisher are, in fact, characters in the Marvel setting. So that isn't a setting rule -- it's just a game restriction.
Again, I don't know the specific game yet, so I'm not arguing about that. Maybe that game sucks in every possible way.
But you've leapt from "X game sucks" to "no game should ever restrict the personality of PCs" -- which I think is an unwarranted leap. Specifically, your claim here:
Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 14, 2021, 09:29:34 PM
it strikes me as unethical for a roleplaying game designer to tell his customers that they aren't allowed to play characters with certain personality traits and/or aren't allowed to have their characters engage in certain behaviors.
Quote from: jhkim on October 15, 2021, 12:28:58 AM
Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 14, 2021, 11:40:07 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 14, 2021, 09:46:15 PM
I'm not familiar with the specific game - but in general, I don't think every RPG needs to allow every type of character. In some games, it's simply inappropriate to make a merciless lone wolf assassin, for example. TSR's Marvel Superheroes, for example, was pretty clear with its karma system that anti-heroes like the Punisher or Deadpool weren't PC material. On the other hand, some games are intentionally about playing malicious bastards, and it doesn't work to play a goody-two-shoes. Some games there are random-roll personality traits from among a limited set, and you don't get your choice of whatever you like. Some mini-games have only premade characters, and no option to create your own.
I don't think it's unethical for a given game design to only allow a limited range of characters. If you don't like the range of characters offered, you're free to change the game or buy a different game.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The examples you gave were all of games where the character choices were dictated by the game setting. This is a case where the choices are dictated by modern politics, not the game setting. It is, in fact, against the setting.
The only concrete example I gave was Marvel Superheroes, where you effectively aren't allowed to play antiheroes like Deadpool or the Punisher because of the karma rules. But Deadpool and the Punisher are, in fact, characters in the Marvel setting. So that isn't a setting rule -- it's just a game restriction.
Again, I don't know the specific game yet, so I'm not arguing about that. Maybe that game sucks in every possible way.
But you've leapt from "X game sucks" to "no game should ever restrict the personality of PCs" -- which I think is an unwarranted leap. Specifically, your claim here:
Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 14, 2021, 09:29:34 PM
it strikes me as unethical for a roleplaying game designer to tell his customers that they aren't allowed to play characters with certain personality traits and/or aren't allowed to have their characters engage in certain behaviors.
Even Wolverine killed so many folks that he effectively would never have Karma in the MSH rpg. Good thing he's already the best at what he does, cuz he ain't gett'n no better.
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 15, 2021, 12:31:19 AM
Even Wolverine killed so many folks that he effectively would never have Karma in the MSH rpg. Good thing he's already the best at what he does, cuz he ain't gett'n no better.
Not when the MSH game came out. Bronze Age Wolvie was known as the guy who would kill if he needed to, but it almost never happened in practice.
This was even encouraged in the game, because killing didn't just nuke your own Karma, it nuked any Karma pools the character belonged to. So if Wolvie went berserk and sliced and diced something with more autonomy than a Sentinel, the X-Men were fucked.
MSH worked fine for Bronze Age characters, including Wolvie and Punisher. Deadpool doesn't count, because he didn't appear until the Iron Age, and MSH is poorly suited for the Iron Age.
Quote from: Pat on October 15, 2021, 12:45:46 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 15, 2021, 12:31:19 AM
Even Wolverine killed so many folks that he effectively would never have Karma in the MSH rpg. Good thing he's already the best at what he does, cuz he ain't gett'n no better.
Not when the MSH game came out. Bronze Age Wolvie was known as the guy who would kill if he needed to, but it almost never happened in practice.
This was even encouraged in the game, because killing didn't just nuke your own Karma, it nuked any Karma pools the character belonged to. So if Wolvie went berserk and sliced and diced something with more autonomy than a Sentinel, the X-Men were fucked.
MSH worked fine for Bronze Age characters, including Wolvie and Punisher. Deadpool doesn't count, because he didn't appear until the Iron Age, and MSH is poorly suited for the Iron Age.
I didn't really read X-men before 1986...and I got MSH around then too. IIRC, by then, Wolverine was killing fairly often (Marauders, Reavers, Hellfire Club Henchmen, etc.).
Quote from: Pat on October 15, 2021, 12:45:46 AM
This was even encouraged in the game, because killing didn't just nuke your own Karma, it nuked any Karma pools the character belonged to. So if Wolvie went berserk and sliced and diced something with more autonomy than a Sentinel, the X-Men were fucked.
MSH worked fine for Bronze Age characters, including Wolvie and Punisher. Deadpool doesn't count, because he didn't appear until the Iron Age, and MSH is poorly suited for the Iron Age.
OK, but aside from specifics of HappyDaze, doesn't that confirms what I said about the general point? The MSH RPG effectively restricted what the personality of the characters could be. The players can't choose to be Iron Age antiheroes like Deadpool, and they can't choose to be villains.
Plenty of other RPGs also restrict or at least have advice about the behavior of characters. I recall that Space:1889 had some verbiage about having PCs behave appropriately as well (I don't have it on hand to check).
I support diversity. I support BLM. I support LBGTQIA+ creators making the cool games they want to play.
What I don't understand is shying away from tough issues in historical settings. These issues have been explored with all the stinging truth of the past to great effect (see Lovecraft Country for example). Part of the delight for me in an RPG is exploring the human condition. It's not a primary thing (that would be fun) but there's something about stepping into the shoes of this imaginary person that can be cathartic. Pretending like 1776 was an idealistic place of diversity is absurd.
Why not just create a fresh new setting with some 18th century flavor? Just grab the handful (I mean, what else would be left?) of the tropes, themes, or elements you really wanted to explore in your rainbow happy sort-of 18th century land, and run with it! Again, my liberal cohorts have jumped the shark.
Being respectful of someone's experiences, beliefs, or traumas does not require us to rewrite history. It doesn't require much special handling at all. If an African-American responds to your game advertisement to the 1776 game, and wants to play an escaped slave, and explore kicking some old-timey ass - you are not really required to glad-handle them (they responded to the game set in an historical setting and obviously understand what the are about to embark on). If you believe there might be an issue, have a conversation about it before the game. Make sure everyone is on the same page.
Nothing about this game sounds fun. Why would I play this? To experience the War of Independence? Cool. Set the game in the near future, say 2050 AD. ETs have invaded Earth and control 70% of the planet. The humans discover some cool new thing(tm) (like guerilla tactics or something?) that gives them an edge, and VIOLA! you have a new war of independence. It's the future - so nobody cares about your race, sexuality, or religion. If you can fight, you're in. The rebel forces are a diverse lot, truly fighting for liberty and equality. Easy as potato pie.
If you're trying to just FORGET the past -- you chose a funny way of doing it.
Once again, if my friends would get off the couch and actually DO SOMETHING to fight for social justice, they would likely expunge some of this guilt and feel like they accomplished something. Self-masturbatory "Justice Porn" is hardly cutting the mustard.
I cant' believe I backed the first two Zweihander KSs, this has turned into a deluxe shit-show. I'm genuinely embarrassed.
I notice that the DTRPG entry for this product has already had a lot of critical comments washed away. Yesterday, people were expressing dislike for the product, but you wouldn't know it if you went there now.
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 15, 2021, 12:54:34 AM
I didn't really read X-men before 1986...and I got MSH around then too. IIRC, by then, Wolverine was killing fairly often (Marauders, Reavers, Hellfire Club Henchmen, etc.).
I think the Marauders were where it shifted for the X-Men. The deaths before that were things like the Dark Phoenix storyline, where one death was the climax of the whole thing.
The exception was alternate futures. Days of Future Past, that Conan sorcerer who took over Manhattan, and some of the stuff in Limbo were pretty dark, but it wasn't the real X-Men, more a What If/nightmare that got reverted.
Quote from: pond scum on October 15, 2021, 12:59:44 AM
OK, but aside from specifics of HappyDaze, doesn't that confirms what I said about the general point? The MSH RPG effectively restricted what the personality of the characters could be. The players can't choose to be Iron Age antiheroes like Deadpool, and they can't choose to be villains.
The mechanics don't work like that. Advancement is incredibly (unearthly?) slow in MSH, so there was really no point in socking away Karma in the hopes of bumping a Ex (18) to Ex (19). So all that happened with a *snikt* was the character lost their immediate Karma reserve. Which could hurt, but Karma is supposed to be a dynamic thing, constantly ebbing and flowing through the course of the adventure. While it does encourage killers to keep a bit more of an eye on their Karma total just to ensure they don't get caught with too many points when they decide they're in the mood for a killing, it's not really that big a deal. Because no heroes should be running around with high totals, and it only takes a scene or three to earn enough Karma to succeed at the right moment, or to pull off a new power stunt.
The biggest impact is probably Karma pools. The X-Men shouldn't allow Wolvie to join their pool because one bad moment with a Japanese ninja henchman mutant cyborg in a bondage outfit, and he zeros out the whole thing. That makes it harder to shift Karma to him at the right moment.
Don't let democrats at your game table.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on October 15, 2021, 02:37:07 AM
Don't let democrats at your game table.
Don't let them run your game table.
I'm a fan of Col Gothic but I don't know anything the new campaign. I see it using a semi-realistic tone so therefore I play it as if it was historically accurate. I'm not going to sanitize the game or alter history for someone's fee fees. In their games they can all play fluffy kittens for all I care.
Quote from: jhkim on October 15, 2021, 12:28:58 AM
The only concrete example I gave was Marvel Superheroes, where you effectively aren't allowed to play antiheroes like Deadpool or the Punisher because of the karma rules. But Deadpool and the Punisher are, in fact, characters in the Marvel setting. So that isn't a setting rule -- it's just a game restriction.
If I recall right in MSH you could play Deadpool or Punisher. Its just that they tend to not get much or lose what they have alot faster.
In Concrete Jungle Punisher is statted out and some of the modules have him as a playable pregen or in Lone Wolves he is an NPC the players need to stop. In MSH the system discourages killing and going too far. But you can. At a loss. Dont have the core books on hand so cant look it up.
Good old Sniktbub never struck me as a hero type really. Hes nice and all but he was designed as a killing machine ''Weapon X'' for crying out loud. A karma meter should show his ethics and morality as radically diffrent from the baseline human norm. Racism should not really apply to him imho, with his current Hickman take on the mutants, they are not even human by their own definition.
As to what the new golden standart set by some random game designer is, i can only say hes welcome to his new world view, may he reap all the rewards from it, especially the ones that censorship gives in the end.
Quote from: SHARK on October 14, 2021, 10:41:02 PM
Greetings!
Roll up a dashing, uber-Alpha masculine bastard that is a total Imperialist, Colonizing, misogynistic, and racist monster. Watch the fun unfold! *Laughing* Go forth and let the party dominate and plough through every sacred cow and special snow-flake icon that the game has established. Keep some cold beer handy, and light up some good cigars along the way. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
"I love the smell of Manifest Destiny first thing in the morning. Smells like....victory."
Quote from: jhkim on October 15, 2021, 12:28:58 AMThe only concrete example I gave was Marvel Superheroes, where you effectively aren't allowed to play antiheroes like Deadpool or the Punisher because of the karma rules. But Deadpool and the Punisher are, in fact, characters in the Marvel setting. So that isn't a setting rule -- it's just a game restriction.
It's one thing for a super hero game to have rules to make players play heroic characters, or to play cold-blooded killers in a James Bond game. But this is a historical horror game. There's nothing in that genre that would restrict players to a specific set of modern beliefs. So while I don't think it's always unethical for games to restrict character choice, this one particular example is bait-and-switch.
The idea of putting it in your game set in the 18th century that PCs cannot have attitudes that were prevalent in the 18th century sounds nuts to me.
It also seems quite commercially unwise, as many of us who might be interested in buying such a niche product probably already have all the rules systems we will ever need and would be buying this mainly or only for setting info. Judging by the attitude to history revealed by this pompous virtue signalling garbage, I would probably look for my setting info elsewhere. Likewise, it seems guaranteed to put off another prospective niche, AWI buffs.
Anyway if you want to play an escaped slave then you can fight for the good guys, the British.
Quote from: Marchand on October 15, 2021, 09:43:54 AM
Anyway if you want to play an escaped slave then you can fight for the good guys, the British.
Hear hear!
I saw the bit in the previews about the Knights Templar running a witch hunt in Maryland. Anyone with the game know if that's supposed to be Catholic Church-sanctioned? (The mere concept is already rife with anachronisms, but that would just really take the cake ... )
Quote from: Marchand on October 15, 2021, 09:43:54 AM
Anyway if you want to play an escaped slave then you can fight for the good guys, the British.
The intro chapter, at least, explicitly forbids Loyalist PCs. :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 15, 2021, 10:22:42 AM
Quote from: Marchand on October 15, 2021, 09:43:54 AM
Anyway if you want to play an escaped slave then you can fight for the good guys, the British.
The intro chapter, at least, explicitly forbids Loyalist PCs. :)
That's not true at all. I'm looking at it right now, and literally the first step in character creation is picking your starting allegiance: Rebels or Loyalists (p.14).
Quote from: Tubesock Army on October 15, 2021, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 15, 2021, 10:22:42 AM
Quote from: Marchand on October 15, 2021, 09:43:54 AM
Anyway if you want to play an escaped slave then you can fight for the good guys, the British.
The intro chapter, at least, explicitly forbids Loyalist PCs. :)
That's not true at all. I'm looking at it right now, and literally the first step in character creation is picking your starting allegiance: Rebels or Loyalists (p.14).
I'm looking at the same page and it says "Every character begins gameplay by pledging their Allegiance to the
Rebels, which you will write onto your character sheet now."
It's an rpg from Daniel fox aka zweihander. The dude is a huge fucking tool, besides for the setting just run a historical game using literally any other game system. Mythras, brp, savage worlds, d20, amazing adventures/castles and crusades. Rather than some insane sjws version of the American revolution. I'd personally use savage worlds
Quote from: Ocule on October 15, 2021, 11:16:29 AM
It's an rpg from Daniel fox aka zweihander. The dude is a huge fucking tool, besides for the setting just run a historical game using literally any other game system. Mythras, brp, savage worlds, d20, amazing adventures/castles and crusades. Rather than some insane sjws version of the American revolution. I'd personally use savage worlds
Just buy Nations & Cannons PDF for $5 US and use their research with the system you like.
https://www.nationsandcannons.com/ (https://www.nationsandcannons.com/)
No idea how good or green this is but here:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/239327/Revolutionaries (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/239327/Revolutionaries)
Quote from: Ocule on October 15, 2021, 11:16:29 AM
It's an rpg from Daniel fox aka zweihander. The dude is a huge fucking tool, besides for the setting just run a historical game using literally any other game system. Mythras, brp, savage worlds, d20, amazing adventures/castles and crusades. Rather than some insane sjws version of the American revolution. I'd personally use savage worlds
It's not even his setting, it's a Zweihander/Grim & Perilous (i mean WFRP2 with the numbers filed off) version of Colonial Gothic.
Greetings!
Having a Tecumseh-like leader arise amongst the Native American tribes and unite them all in a serious alliance would be interesting. The brave Native American tribes could then sweep the white men into the sea, slaughtering them all. The white women could be then enslaved and kept as breeding slaves, serving their savage Native Masters. Any of the white bitches get uppity, they can be stretched out and burned alive. Their sobbing, begging screams can be savage music to the gathered tribes.
A new kind of campaign can then be played in such an environment. The Native American tribes are fierce masters of the continent, and the racist, hate-filled colonizing white devils have been properly cleansed from the land and defeated. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I would ask to be allowed to play my Dragonborn cleric character. Complete with his AD&D cleric abilities and draconic breath weapon.
Hey- assuming the original comment is accurate, it would be no crazier than what is demanded in what is supposed to be a historical setting. Who knows, with a "diversity" of religions some might worship me as a sort of demigod.
Now wouldn't that be interesting during the American Revolution?
As for you, Shark- now now.
::) x 82
Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on October 15, 2021, 02:09:35 PM
I would ask to be allowed to play my Dragonborn cleric character. Complete with his AD&D cleric abilities and draconic breath weapon.
Yes I believe that they do allow you to play black characters
Oh, Dragonborn? I thought you said Orc. ;)
I don't recall the d12 version of CG having these issues.
Is there something mechanical (besides them saying no) that would prevent me from house ruling it to be more realistic?
If I remember correctly Renaissance D100 you have to pick period appropriate beliefs.
How do authors plan to enforce all this stuff.
Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 14, 2021, 09:29:34 PMEven though the rules are obviously easily ignored -
Yes.
In my most recent game, I laid out the basic campaign types you could have: police & crime, counter/insurgency, conventional war, anarchy, terrorism, and wrote,
"Many people will baulk at playing terrorists or criminals, but this is entirely up to the game group."The implication there is that you should consider the rest of your game group when preparing to run a game, or planning your character's actions. But if all of you are good with it, enjoy.
I also said,
Nationality, ethnicity & gender: the referee may set the nationality of all the adventurers, but the player should choose their adventurer's ethnicity, gender and other personal characteristics. These will have no game mechanical effect, but naturally may become relevant in play. Then at the back of the book there's a bit about being captured, a mention of torture, and reputation. The implication there is that the PCs can run around tearing people's toes off with pliers and shooting bound civilians in the back of the head if they want - but there may be
in-game consequences. It's not the GM's job to judge the players morally, but just to present them with reasonable consequences for what their characters do, reasonable given the setting.
I think it's best for a game designer to lay things out impartially, more or less, to say: this is what the game is designed and works best for, but hey do what you like.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on October 16, 2021, 12:19:37 AM
In my most recent game, I laid out the basic campaign types you could have: police & crime, counter/insurgency, conventional war, anarchy, terrorism, and wrote,
"Many people will baulk at playing terrorists or criminals, but this is entirely up to the game group."
The implication there is that you should consider the rest of your game group when preparing to run a game, or planning your character's actions. But if all of you are good with it, enjoy.
I view it somewhat similar.
In the world I'm designing there is slavery. There are rules for it, all from a player having a social status score (from -5 to 5, where negative scores are slaves and indentured servants) to how to calculate cost of slaves and where to go to buy/sell them. How a slave can earn themselves money to pay their owner to be freed. The reason I included these rules is more that if NPCs the players know (or PCs themselves) gets captured, the players knows where to go to barter for their release.
Does this mean that there are enough information for the players to run their band of adventurers as a slaving company? Well, technically yes.
Does it mean that they're supposed to? No, the rules are there to present why slavers exist. (It's profitable) The players being the heroes are their adversaries.
Will I as a designer forbid players to play as slavers instead? No. Their table, their rules.
Honestly, anymore if someone is describing their "thing" game/show/movie/story/etc as being: "inclusive" or "diverse" I simply assume that their "thing" is so lacking in merit of any other kind that I should simply ignore it.
If the most interesting thing you can say, if their method of advertising is along those lines; They should probably go back and rework it until they can use better adjectives. Suggested adjectives that they should aim for would be: fun, exciting, interesting, epic, etc.
Quote from: Donahue82 on October 18, 2021, 07:10:04 AM
Honestly, anymore if someone is describing their "thing" game/show/movie/story/etc as being: "inclusive" or "diverse" I simply assume that their "thing" is so lacking in merit of any other kind that I should simply ignore it.
If the most interesting thing you can say, if their method of advertising is along those lines; They should probably go back and rework it until they can use better adjectives. Suggested adjectives that they should aim for would be: fun, exciting, interesting, epic, etc.
Yes, it's an admission by everyone with the most experience of the game that they don't think it is very well done.
Quote from: trechriron on October 15, 2021, 01:30:52 AM
I support diversity. I support BLM. I support LBGTQIA+ creators making the cool games they want to play.
What I don't understand is shying away from tough issues in historical settings. These issues have been explored with all the stinging truth of the past to great effect (see Lovecraft Country for example). Part of the delight for me in an RPG is exploring the human condition. It's not a primary thing (that would be fun) but there's something about stepping into the shoes of this imaginary person that can be cathartic. Pretending like 1776 was an idealistic place of diversity is absurd.
Why not just create a fresh new setting with some 18th century flavor? Just grab the handful (I mean, what else would be left?) of the tropes, themes, or elements you really wanted to explore in your rainbow happy sort-of 18th century land, and run with it! Again, my liberal cohorts have jumped the shark.
Being respectful of someone's experiences, beliefs, or traumas does not require us to rewrite history. It doesn't require much special handling at all. If an African-American responds to your game advertisement to the 1776 game, and wants to play an escaped slave, and explore kicking some old-timey ass - you are not really required to glad-handle them (they responded to the game set in an historical setting and obviously understand what the are about to embark on). If you believe there might be an issue, have a conversation about it before the game. Make sure everyone is on the same page.
Nothing about this game sounds fun. Why would I play this? To experience the War of Independence? Cool. Set the game in the near future, say 2050 AD. ETs have invaded Earth and control 70% of the planet. The humans discover some cool new thing(tm) (like guerilla tactics or something?) that gives them an edge, and VIOLA! you have a new war of independence. It's the future - so nobody cares about your race, sexuality, or religion. If you can fight, you're in. The rebel forces are a diverse lot, truly fighting for liberty and equality. Easy as potato pie.
If you're trying to just FORGET the past -- you chose a funny way of doing it.
Once again, if my friends would get off the couch and actually DO SOMETHING to fight for social justice, they would likely expunge some of this guilt and feel like they accomplished something. Self-masturbatory "Justice Porn" is hardly cutting the mustard.
I cant' believe I backed the first two Zweihander KSs, this has turned into a deluxe shit-show. I'm genuinely embarrassed.
I agree with a lot of what you said. Also, history is not monolithic. There were all kinds of people and opinions back in the day. "Everyone was racist and sexist" is a generalization. Plus, people can play a group of misfits in a setting that has -isms they don't like. I have a gang of witches in a medieval setting, where witches are burned at the stake on the regular. So far they've murdered two priests (one was self defense though). The players are really enjoying playing the underdogs.
Quote from: jhkim on October 15, 2021, 12:28:58 AM
Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 14, 2021, 11:40:07 PM
But you've leapt from "X game sucks" to "no game should ever restrict the personality of PCs" -- which I think is an unwarranted leap. Specifically, your claim here:
Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 14, 2021, 09:29:34 PM
it strikes me as unethical for a roleplaying game designer to tell his customers that they aren't allowed to play characters with certain personality traits and/or aren't allowed to have their characters engage in certain behaviors.
I never said "no game should ever restrict the personality of PCs" and in fact I said the opposite and even gave the example of Pendragon where I explicitly approved including personality rules for PCs.
As a game author don't tell people how to play their characters based on your personal morality. That was my point.
Don't make a game set in 1776 and then make it against the rules to play characters that are authentic to 1776. That's it. That's my point. I think it's unethical - not a criminal offense or anything - but I just find it philosophically unethical for a game designer to attempt to control what sorts of characters players create based not on the structure of the game or on the game's setting, but instead based purely on that designer's personal sense of morality. The designer here is saying we're going to play a game set in 1776 but instead of playing characters authentic to the setting, I want you to only play characters who have personality traits that align my view of what is good and proper as a progressive in 2021.
It would be like me making a game about bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution but then saying I don't like communism so your characters can't be communists.
Quote from: PencilBoy99 on October 15, 2021, 09:23:49 PM
I don't recall the d12 version of CG having these issues.
Is there something mechanical (besides them saying no) that would prevent me from house ruling it to be more realistic?
If I remember correctly Renaissance D100 you have to pick period appropriate beliefs.
How do authors plan to enforce all this stuff.
There is nothing mechanical about it. As I said in my original post, I am curious about what people think about the ethics of what the designer did. It's purely a philosophy of game design question.
Quote from: SHARK on October 14, 2021, 10:41:02 PM
Greetings!
Roll up a dashing, uber-Alpha masculine bastard that is a total Imperialist, Colonizing, misogynistic, and racist monster. Watch the fun unfold! *Laughing* Go forth and let the party dominate and plough through every sacred cow and special snow-flake icon that the game has established. Keep some cold beer handy, and light up some good cigars along the way. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Wotc won't approve of that 🙄
But they would allow it if you were a Haitian Colonizer (non-european). 😂
Guess it comes down to how much I like the system and setting. If I like the system so long as the company hasn't gone so far around the corner that I dislike them I would ignore their stupidity and play/run the way I want to.
That being said, that kinda message and such is a really big flag black flag about it.
I suppose in the end, the people who like to push that crap would just say "its not for you" but they are also the people who would call me all kinds of vile things with no self awareness.
So I ended up getting a very heavily discounted copy (so sorry your system based entirely on stolen mechanics won't get you paid much at all for my copy Daniel) because of my love for Colonial Gothic. Page xix of the Preamble would be where the text in question lies.
For the sake of discussion, I will provide it here:
Quote
No Discrimination
Let us be clear: Flames of Freedom is not a tabletop role-playing game where you will discriminate against women, practice slavery and indentured servitude, slaughter innocent people or 'tame the wilderness' of Indigenous Nations. It is a game where people come together to fend off a secret war that took root long before the American Revolutionary War. In it, you are a person fighting against unseen powers which mean harm to every person. It is also a game where you'll blaze your own path, free from outdated thinking. History informs the story, but we do not mean it to be entirely historically accurate. It is up to the gaming group to decide how strictly it will hew to history. Everyone should be a part of this decision, and it should be a unanimous one.
This game does not endorse racial or gender discrimination based on differences in the period. Regardless of their identity, there are no mechanical, intellectual, physical, emotional or spiritual distinctions between women, men, intersex, agender, non-binary and transgender characters. That said, people relate differently to one another, and there is no reason to ignore difference because the game world does not embrace discrimination as its real world counterpart.
any typos mine
It then goes on to have a consent agreement paragraph and directs you to the website for SAFETY TOOLS.
So I *think* that it's trying to straddle the line here, telling you that's not how the game is intended to be played by sticking to historical norms rather than telling you outright that you may not do it, but I could be giving it an incredibly charitable reading. It's certainly dangerously close to a complete forbiddance of playing characters we would consider to be distasteful or abhorrent based on today's norms. Characters that
do have value in exploring in terms of a roleplaying game set during that period.
Quote
Regardless of their identity, there are no mechanical, intellectual, physical, emotional or spiritual distinctions between women, men, intersex, agender, non-binary and transgender characters.
That sounds like something that someone who has never met men and women before would say.
Greetings!
Yea, cast such pernicious garbage into the flames!
That paragraph alone would have me gleefully spraying it down with lighter fluid, and striking the match!
Fuck them, and fuck that company that published such garbage.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well it doesn't help their definition of "racism" isn't even real.
To this date, despite my genocidal campaigns against the Orcs, no real Orc has ever actually suffered.
Quote from: Shasarak on October 20, 2021, 05:16:29 PM
Quote
Regardless of their identity, there are no mechanical, intellectual, physical, emotional or spiritual distinctions between women, men, intersex, agender, non-binary and transgender characters.
As much as I disdain the Last Jedi, at least it gave us this quote that I find suitable.
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/81062536/impressive-every-word-in-that-sentence-was-wrong.jpg)
Quote from: shoplifter on October 20, 2021, 04:48:34 PM
So I ended up getting a very heavily discounted copy (so sorry your system based entirely on stolen mechanics won't get you paid much at all for my copy Daniel) because of my love for Colonial Gothic. Page xix of the Preamble would be where the text in question lies.
For the sake of discussion, I will provide it here:
Quote
No Discrimination
Let us be clear: Flames of Freedom is not a tabletop role-playing game where you will discriminate against women, practice slavery and indentured servitude, slaughter innocent people or 'tame the wilderness' of Indigenous Nations. It is a game where people come together to fend off a secret war that took root long before the American Revolutionary War. In it, you are a person fighting against unseen powers which mean harm to every person. It is also a game where you'll blaze your own path, free from outdated thinking. History informs the story, but we do not mean it to be entirely historically accurate. It is up to the gaming group to decide how strictly it will hew to history. Everyone should be a part of this decision, and it should be a unanimous one.
This game does not endorse racial or gender discrimination based on differences in the period. Regardless of their identity, there are no mechanical, intellectual, physical, emotional or spiritual distinctions between women, men, intersex, agender, non-binary and transgender characters. That said, people relate differently to one another, and there is no reason to ignore difference because the game world does not embrace discrimination as its real world counterpart.
any typos mine
It then goes on to have a consent agreement paragraph and directs you to the website for SAFETY TOOLS.
So I *think* that it's trying to straddle the line here, telling you that's not how the game is intended to be played by sticking to historical norms rather than telling you outright that you may not do it, but I could be giving it an incredibly charitable reading. It's certainly dangerously close to a complete forbiddance of playing characters we would consider to be distasteful or abhorrent based on today's norms. Characters that do have value in exploring in terms of a roleplaying game set during that period.
I don't know what's worse about Flames of Freedom, the Saturday morning cartoon version of history or the idiotic statements regarding identity/diversity. It's just gross.
Quote from: Shasarak on October 20, 2021, 05:16:29 PM
Quote
Regardless of their identity, there are no mechanical, intellectual, physical, emotional or spiritual distinctions between women, men, intersex, agender, non-binary and transgender characters.
That sounds like something that someone who has never met men and women before would say.
>mechanical
>physical
BZZZT. Daniel should read up on forensic anthropology and how they are able to determine gender via bone examination. Science fail.
>intellectual
>emotional
Yes, because men and women are well known for thinking the same ways and not seeing things differently. Jesus Christ, I honestly thinks this guy doesn't know any women beyond a polite, distant interaction.
>spiritual
Kind of out of my field of experience. Consult a priest. Although as I recall the Christian theology is that men and women will enter into Heaven, there's no separate entrances.
Quote
Regardless of their identity, there are no mechanical, intellectual, physical, emotional or spiritual distinctions between women, men, intersex, agender, non-binary and transgender characters.
So there's no more reason to have Gender Studies classes, because there's no distinctions between them?
For someone trying to virtue signal how inclusive he is, he sounds more like he wants to wash away all of these gender identities and pretend they don't exist. "Why does Daniel Fox want women and trans people to not be recognized?"
(and this is why Daniel Fox only writes things other people already wrote)
On the one hand, there is no difference.
On the other we have Critical race Theory, Gender Study courses, etc. Does this mean Black Lives Matter is a total hoax, then?
They set a game in the 18th century, yet are supposed to act like it was 2021. Why not just set it in 2021, or some alternate world?
This is yet another effort to turn humanity into a moronic grey mass.
Or am I missing something here?
The more I read this sort of thing, the more Ayundell and anything else I've ever created remains exactly the way it is.
Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on October 21, 2021, 04:58:22 PM
On the one hand, there is no difference.
On the other we have Critical race Theory, Gender Study courses, etc. Does this mean Black Lives Matter is a total hoax, then?
To be fair, he never mentions race. Likely because this is 2021 and not 2020, and it's okay to ignore black people again. Plus, orcs and drow don't have to be evil anymore, so the problem of black representation in D&D is being worked on.
If we want to be fair to Daniel Fox, maybe he meant that there are no differences in the game regarding attributes and character classes the character is allowed to play as.
Still, that is a bit boring mindset. Part of playing a character of a certain gender is to embrace, or break, the stereotype associated with it.
Once I played a -I guess it would be called a genderfluid- character who used magic to transform between male and female forms depending on how he/she felt at the time. As a man I played him as a introverted emotionally cold rational logical thinker who preferred ranged weapons and used magic to boost his weapon.
As a woman I played her as a extroverted charismatic, funny flirty tease who in combat used her magic to buff up her attributes and fight in melee.
The character was brought up and trained as a spy/assassin since birth and had been able to change sex since puberty. Because it is a great ability to infiltrate somewhere. Due to brainwashing and emotional trauma, he/she no longer remembered what sex he/she was originally born with. When the magic wore off, the character returned to a sexless, androgynus, infertile body.
I don't know if that gives me, or removes, Woke points.
Quote from: shoplifter on October 20, 2021, 04:48:34 PM
So I *think* that it's trying to straddle the line here, telling you that's not how the game is intended to be played by sticking to historical norms rather than telling you outright that you may not do it, but I could be giving it an incredibly charitable reading. It's certainly dangerously close to a complete forbiddance of playing characters we would consider to be distasteful or abhorrent based on today's norms. Characters that do have value in exploring in terms of a roleplaying game set during that period.
My post went off of a discussion on Drivethrurpg that has since been removed along with most other discussions. In it, the person said here are things the game says, and then gave an itemized list of things such as it's against the rules to play a racist character, your characters should not all be of the same religion, you cannot buy indentured servant contracts, etc. The game designer replied to this post agreeing to all the items on the list and saying this is how the game is done right.
So yes, the game's designer did say that using nonbinary pronouns are an important facet of life for Revolutionary War soldiers and all the rest. I have RPG rules that say no fascists are allowed to play this game and that say people should respect diversity at the game and things like that and I just move past them. It was largely this discussion where someone specifically itemized a half a dozen or so things and the game's designer personally answered to say that disallowing racism in the game was 100% his intention and he affirmed it, which was what got me thinking about how ethical it was for a designer to expect people who play his game to do so with his personal moral system in place. The designer's comments on the thread indicated that he absolutely did intend it to be a forbiddance for people to play the game how they wanted, he intended them to only play the game how he wanted them to play. The rulebook could be read charitably or uncharitably, but the designer's commends indicated that he intended the uncharitable interpretation to be the correct interpretation.
So since these things are cropping up more and more in rulebooks what's the next step? How do they enforce them?
Quote from: PencilBoy99 on October 22, 2021, 06:47:37 PM
So since these things are cropping up more and more in rulebooks what's the next step? How do they enforce them?
If you were dumb enough to buy their shit when they clearly don't want your money and then wanted to run the game in any public space, you can bet the thought police will be all over you. Probably by pretending to be just a player and acusing you of witchcraft the moment you deviated from the holly writ of the game designer.
This is all part of a greater push to drive out the creative people so the ones left have to buy the next Adventure Path in order to keep playing.
Its pretty funny we can all play thieves and murderers, but don't you dare be racist or even worse - SEXIST!
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 22, 2021, 09:06:13 PM
Its pretty funny we can all play thieves and murderers, but don't you dare be racist or even worse - SEXIST!
"Sexism is a real problem people struggle with daily. You only have to handle being murdered once usually."
Reminds me of people complaining about rape being a theme in games and wanting it removed, but getting very upset if you talked about taking out violence in general. It's kind of weird.
Quote from: PencilBoy99 on October 22, 2021, 06:47:37 PM
So since these things are cropping up more and more in rulebooks what's the next step? How do they enforce them?
I suspect their goal is to have the community enforce their "rules." The largest online group of RPG gamers in my area requires you to affirm that you will use all of the "safety" tools at your table, as a condition of advertising your game with to their group. (Hence, I don't belong to this group.) It's slow normalization. Rule books including this junk is another step to normalization.
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 25, 2021, 05:39:03 PMThe largest online group of RPG gamers in my area requires you to -
That's the thing: people
online insist on all sorts of stupid shit they never would in person, whether it be racist nonsense, or nonbinary pronouns in 1776 nonsense. The bravery of being behind a keyboard brings them to all sorts of retardation.
Where possible, play in person.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on October 26, 2021, 12:01:40 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 25, 2021, 05:39:03 PMThe largest online group of RPG gamers in my area requires you to -
That's the thing: people online insist on all sorts of stupid shit they never would in person, whether it be racist nonsense, or nonbinary pronouns in 1776 nonsense. The bravery of being behind a keyboard brings them to all sorts of retardation.
Where possible, play in person.
This is absolutely true. This is a pretty old concept, actually, called the "Giant Internet Fuckwad Theory".
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on October 26, 2021, 12:01:40 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 25, 2021, 05:39:03 PMThe largest online group of RPG gamers in my area requires you to -
That's the thing: people online insist on all sorts of stupid shit they never would in person, whether it be racist nonsense, or nonbinary pronouns in 1776 nonsense. The bravery of being behind a keyboard brings them to all sorts of retardation.
Where possible, play in person.
The nonsense was for in-person play. They have a form to fill out the specifics of your in-person game to advertise it online with them, and you must check a box affirming that you will provide several safety tools.
It makes it harder to find players or games, but the ones you can find using other means are thankfully free of that crap.
Quote from: Wntrlnd on October 22, 2021, 01:53:04 PM
If we want to be fair to Daniel Fox, maybe he meant that there are no differences in the game regarding attributes and character classes the character is allowed to play as.
That's how I read it as well, but ...
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 26, 2021, 09:12:48 AM
They have a form to fill out the specifics of your in-person game to advertise it online with them, and you must check a box affirming that you will provide several safety tools.
I didn't see mention of "safety tools" in the quote provided here, that's a whole separate "ew". I've played with folks that needed safety tools before -- each one
one time. RPGs just aren't the right activity for those people, at least not as entertainment. Therapy perhaps.
Quote from: Habitual Gamer on October 21, 2021, 05:19:46 PM
Plus, orcs and drow don't have to be evil anymore, so the problem of black representation in D&D is being worked on.
Oh, snap!
Quote from: Zalman on October 26, 2021, 10:27:58 AM
I didn't see mention of "safety tools" in the quote provided here, that's a whole separate "ew". I've played with folks that needed safety tools before -- each one one time. RPGs just aren't the right activity for those people, at least not as entertainment. Therapy perhaps.
Exactly. I'm your GM not your therapist. I suppose the tools are a good way of identifying people who should not be invited to my table.