TheRPGSite

"Diversity And Representation In The Hobby" is meaningless, let me make my case -
https://youtu.be/JvPeGvKC5do

I honestly think real diversity in friend groups is a good thing, liberal bubbles need more real conservative friends, and vice versa.

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on September 17, 2021, 09:06:36 AM
I honestly think real diversity in friend groups is a good thing, liberal bubbles need more real conservative friends, and vice versa.

  I have to be honest, I think a WHOLE lot of very lefty people clamoring for diversity and always talking inclusion tend to be very white in their persona, as well as their peer/friend groups.  I think they either grew up in a fairly homogenous place, and played ZERO contact sports.  I grew up playing  sports (certain sports, like football and track, if your area is not lily white, you are going to make some non white friends) and had as diverse a friend group as the area I was in allowed (we had lots of white people and proportionately large population of black people (around 30 percent) by who was there.  In the military, again very diverse population and friend group.  I think the real issue with lots and lots of these folks who are in a liberal bubble is they do not know very many black, or brown people on a personal level.  One or two?  maybe, but lots? probably not.   This is why they often refer to people in different groups as just that, groups instead of individuals.  The first dungeons and dragons game I played at school in the 5th grade had 3 white players and 3 black players.  At the time I am not sure we had any other race/ethnicity in the school.   How much more inclusive do rpgs have to be?   As the video says, you can be anything you want, and play in any world you like.   

   These guys come up to me TO THIS DAY and talk about how much fun we had playing (we got shut down after about 5 sessions due to a teacher and the librarian's satanic panic).  So for the most part, more and more I think a whole bunch of these people demanding "diversity" just grew up in homogeneous (and for the most part I would bet upper middle class and white neighborhoods/school districts) places and assume their "reality" was all of reality.   

Quote from: oggsmash on September 17, 2021, 09:17:22 AM

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on September 17, 2021, 09:06:36 AM
I honestly think real diversity in friend groups is a good thing, liberal bubbles need more real conservative friends, and vice versa.

  I have to be honest, I think a WHOLE lot of very lefty people clamoring for diversity and always talking inclusion tend to be very white in their persona, as well as their peer/friend groups.  I think they either grew up in a fairly homogenous place, and played ZERO contact sports.  I grew up playing  sports (certain sports, like football and track, if your area is not lily white, you are going to make some non white friends) and had as diverse a friend group as the area I was in allowed (we had lots of white people and proportionately large population of black people (around 30 percent) by who was there.  In the military, again very diverse population and friend group.  I think the real issue with lots and lots of these folks who are in a liberal bubble is they do not know very many black, or brown people on a personal level.  One or two?  maybe, but lots? probably not.   This is why they often refer to people in different groups as just that, groups instead of individuals.  The first dungeons and dragons game I played at school in the 5th grade had 3 white players and 3 black players.  At the time I am not sure we had any other race/ethnicity in the school.   How much more inclusive do rpgs have to be?   As the video says, you can be anything you want, and play in any world you like.   

   These guys come up to me TO THIS DAY and talk about how much fun we had playing (we got shut down after about 5 sessions due to a teacher and the librarian's satanic panic).  So for the most part, more and more I think a whole bunch of these people demanding "diversity" just grew up in homogeneous (and for the most part I would bet upper middle class and white neighborhoods/school districts) places and assume their "reality" was all of reality.

Oh yeah,  I agree. I think people who clamor FOR diversity are like... whats the word... well they don't really know what they're talking about because they want to help spread their orthodoxy, they're evangelists of their faith.   But they don't understand.  They think "What" you are has to be "who" you are,  instead of "who" you are being different from "what" you are.

They are also suffering from a devastating lack of diversity in their friend groups who can tell them that these ideas are full of shit.

Quote from: CondorDM on September 17, 2021, 08:23:28 AM
"Diversity And Representation In The Hobby" is meaningless, let me make my case -
https://youtu.be/JvPeGvKC5do

"You can play a character that is not your sex or not your color."

Oh, no you didn't!! /s

There are people who would disagree with you on that, but those people don't understand role playing games or are against them. Anyway, your comments are solid and common sense, which is lacking these days.

I've noticed that the people who are most adamant about these types of causes in role playing games tend to not play much or at all. They are busybodies. At best, they are new the hobby, have played a little, and never GMed.

Gaming in England, I think it's important I (myself a mixed race Anglo-Eireann) have a diverse group of Angles, Jutes AND Saxons. Possibly even some players with ancestry in the old Danelaw, or who came over with William the Conqueror. Not forgetting my fellow Celtic Fringers. Even if they/we can be a bit wild.

When I first came to London, it was years before I played D&D with an Englishman. But representation of Indigenous Communities is important.

Quote from: S'mon on September 17, 2021, 11:39:53 AM
Gaming in England, I think it's important I (myself a mixed race Anglo-Eireann) have a diverse group of Angles, Jutes AND Saxons. Possibly even some players with ancestry in the old Danelaw, or who came over with William the Conqueror. Not forgetting my fellow Celtic Fringers. Even if they/we can be a bit wild.

When I first came to London, it was years before I played D&D with an Englishman. But representation of Indigenous Communities is important.

Angles, Jutes, Saxons, and Danes but no Gauls?

Literally the perfect group.  Sign me up.  8)

If you don't play 'persons of color' you're white washing, and if you do play persons of color, you're appropriating/gentrifying.

The wise words of Joshua come to mind.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

I literally had no idea that "diversity" in gaming was even an "issue" until leftist white people from the Pacific Northwest started screaming about it.

My regular groups - not counting players that came and went, and girl/boyfriends that dipped in and out.

LA Group #1 - Me (Asian), Mexican-Canadian guy, three black guys, an Indonesian guy, a white guy
LA Group #2 - Me, two Greek guys, a Afghani, a Greek girl, a gay Spaniard, a American white guy
LA Group #3 - Me, two Filipinos guys, a Guamanian/Filipino mutant male (I think), a Japanese guy, a Hawaiaan/Samoan hybrid experiment.
Current Group - Me, a Portuguese guy, three white guys (but one I'm not sure about as he's got a 70's softcore porn female name that sounds Hispanic), and this Italian white guy with Turkish roots.

The only thing we have in common is we all love to play RPG's. In some cases we're diametrically opposed politically and different religions - but at no point was it ever an issue over years and years of gaming.

Precisely zero curation based on race. And yes, I was living in SoCal so there's a lot of people from *everywhere*. I ran all three groups during the week, in the same campaign world, we'd interchange players as needed though all the groups were doing different stuff, and this went on for well over 20 years with some of them.

When I ran games the local LA cons for years - tons of people from all walks of life. Tons of smells there too, not of this Earth. Very diverse.

It wasn't until I moved to Dallas in 95 that I had a predominantly white group. And even then I never noticed until all this discussion about race and gender in the hobby became a thing. What annoys the fuck out of me and my players is that these fuckheads living in their bubble don't see how diverse the hobby already was. They are the one that fetishize people of other ethnicities and are trying to save us (oddly from people that vaguely look like them once you strip away the chromatic hair, clonespeak, and tendency to shriek.)

Anecdotal they might say. I might say "Don't deny my Truth", if it I didn't know how retarded that actually sounded. It's *really* creepy to watch people filled with such self-loathing, seeking for an outlet to spew their self-hate on, and collectively constructing this narrative in which to do it. Unfortunately at our expense.

Like I said they're drunk on their own urine and fumes. It might be too late for them to recover, but that's not my problem.

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on September 17, 2021, 09:06:36 AM
I honestly think real diversity in friend groups is a good thing, liberal bubbles need more real conservative friends, and vice versa.

Agreed. What most people forget is that what is wanted, for a really interesting cast of characters in any imagined narrative, is a diverse representation of experience and perspective. Your characters all have to want different things based on the different lives they've lived, and they have to have their own ideas about what that means and how to get it.

SJ fandom's tragic mistake is to assume that mere demographic diversity is a reliable proxy for this quality (which is a bit of a reflex prejudice in and of itself), coupled with the toxic entitlement syndrome which says you have a right to a protagonist who not only "represents" your group, but does so as a positive and admirable example, in any and every narrative you wish.

Quote from: S'mon on September 17, 2021, 11:39:53 AMWhen I first came to London, it was years before I played D&D with an Englishman. But representation of Indigenous Communities is important.

England (and I speak as a Scots-descended Celto-/Anglophile) is actually a perfect example of something I think it might help if we all remembered more often: If you go back far enough, nobody's "indigenous".

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on September 17, 2021, 04:18:22 PM

Quote from: S'mon on September 17, 2021, 11:39:53 AMWhen I first came to London, it was years before I played D&D with an Englishman. But representation of Indigenous Communities is important.

England (and I speak as a Scots-descended Celto-/Anglophile) is actually a perfect example of something I think it might help if we all remembered more often: If you go back far enough, nobody's "indigenous".

Speaking as a Cro-Magnon, y'all need to get off my land.

Quote from: S'mon on September 17, 2021, 11:39:53 AM
Gaming in England, I think it's important I (myself a mixed race Anglo-Eireann) have a diverse group of Angles, Jutes AND Saxons. Possibly even some players with ancestry in the old Danelaw, or who came over with William the Conqueror. Not forgetting my fellow Celtic Fringers. Even if they/we can be a bit wild.

When I first came to London, it was years before I played D&D with an Englishman. But representation of Indigenous Communities is important.

I spent a little time in England and as far as I remember it was white Englishmen as far as the eye could see.

Quote from: Shasarak on September 17, 2021, 05:21:37 PM
I spent a little time in England and as far as I remember it was white Englishmen as far as the eye could see.

England not London then, I take it?  ;D

These days I do actually live in just about the whitest (not necessarily English) part of London. My son finds it weird when he goes out of London, seeing all the white people.

Quote from: S'mon on September 17, 2021, 05:44:23 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 17, 2021, 05:21:37 PM
I spent a little time in England and as far as I remember it was white Englishmen as far as the eye could see.

England not London then, I take it?  ;D

These days I do actually live in just about the whitest (not necessarily English) part of London. My son finds it weird when he goes out of London, seeing all the white people.

No, I only spent a few days in London, mostly Norwich and Whitehaven.

Quote from: DM_Curt on September 17, 2021, 04:53:31 PMSpeaking as a Cro-Magnon, y'all need to get off my land.

According to my wife I'm at least part-Neanderthal. Y'all need tah get offa my land!

Quote from: Shasarak on September 17, 2021, 05:51:56 PMNo, I only spent a few days in London, mostly Norwich and Whitehaven.

Well there's half your problem.

Quote from: Bren on September 17, 2021, 06:18:55 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 17, 2021, 05:51:56 PMNo, I only spent a few days in London, mostly Norwich and Whitehaven.

Well there's half your problem.

It was also about 20 years ago so a little before the browning of England

Quote from: DM_Curt on September 17, 2021, 04:53:31 PM
Speaking as a Cro-Magnon, y'all need to get off my land.

Speaking as a hairless ape, "ook."

White folks are no long allowed to play in Oriental Adventures or Al-Qadem type campaign without claims of appropriation and the vast majority of the hobby is white, so what does diversity really bring to the hobby?

In a sane world we'd have people of color making amazing non-europeans settings and inviting everyone to enjoy them and they'd make a lot of money doing so. We don't seem to be in that world.

Hey Ruprecht! Welcome to the site. Nice Groo avatar!

I would love to see a good Native American setting. Coyote and Crow looked interesting initially, but then the creators went sort of hostile and made it political. I'm not sure where that dust is going to settle.

Thanks for the welcome.

Quote from: Ruprecht on September 20, 2021, 10:18:06 PM
White folks are no long allowed to play in Oriental Adventures or Al-Qadem type campaign without claims of appropriation and the vast majority of the hobby is white, so what does diversity really bring to the hobby?

In a sane world we'd have people of color making amazing non-europeans settings and inviting everyone to enjoy them and they'd make a lot of money doing so. We don't seem to be in that world.

In a sane world anyone would be able to write whatever they wanted without someone calling them names because of the color of their skin.

Who could write a better African setting? An "African"-American that knows nothing about Africa or someone of any other skin color that has done the work on researching and loves the stuff he's doing?

As op said, I'm happy playing with a diverse group of people. But I'm not going to start box ticking just for the sake of it. My games are not about fixing real world social issues. I just want to have fun.

If I want to help in the real world. I'll vote, protest, or donate to charities. Oh, and rail against censorship.

This is fkn BS.

I started gaming in '82 & ran games, AS A BLACK D&D DM, for white, black & female players in the early 80's.

As a "community", all we want to do is game. We don't care what color or sex the group is. Maybe a few small groups get down with the color 3, but most of us don't give a sh*t about what the SJWs are crying about. It's why I sh*t on them. The SJW lean is all about NONSENSE.

How can Orcs be black people when I had black PCs? How can Gary, Tim & TSR be racist when they never barred non-whites & females from the game? There's an undead species called WIGHTS, who are white-skinned, but old-school D&D is racist? TSR was "exclusive" because they demanded you play "Rules as Written", but the AD&D 1e preface states RAW was reserved for tournament play & how you played at your table was up to the DM/group?

These critics of D&D HAVEN'T READ THE BOOKS. Yet, you wowzers give them credence by even talking about their Twitter screed.

STOP.

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 21, 2021, 09:37:38 AM
This is fkn BS.

I started gaming in '82 & ran games, AS A BLACK D&D DM, for white, black & female players in the early 80's.

As a "community", all we want to do is game. We don't care what color or sex the group is. Maybe a few small groups get down with the color 3, but most of us don't give a sh*t about what the SJWs are crying about. It's why I sh*t on them. The SJW lean is all about NONSENSE.

How can Orcs be black people when I had black PCs? How can Gary, Tim & TSR be racist when they never barred non-whites & females from the game? There's an undead species called WIGHTS, who are white-skinned, but old-school D&D is racist? TSR was "exclusive" because they demanded you play "Rules as Written", but the AD&D 1e preface states RAW was reserved for tournament play & how you played at your table was up to the DM/group?

These critics of D&D HAVEN'T READ THE BOOKS. Yet, you wowzers give them credence by even talking about their Twitter screed.

STOP.

On one hand there's something to be said for not even giving them the legitimacy of a response.

On the other, letting it go unchallenged isn't a great play either.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 21, 2021, 10:05:58 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 21, 2021, 09:37:38 AM
This is fkn BS.

I started gaming in '82 & ran games, AS A BLACK D&D DM, for white, black & female players in the early 80's.

As a "community", all we want to do is game. We don't care what color or sex the group is. Maybe a few small groups get down with the color 3, but most of us don't give a sh*t about what the SJWs are crying about. It's why I sh*t on them. The SJW lean is all about NONSENSE.

How can Orcs be black people when I had black PCs? How can Gary, Tim & TSR be racist when they never barred non-whites & females from the game? There's an undead species called WIGHTS, who are white-skinned, but old-school D&D is racist? TSR was "exclusive" because they demanded you play "Rules as Written", but the AD&D 1e preface states RAW was reserved for tournament play & how you played at your table was up to the DM/group?

These critics of D&D HAVEN'T READ THE BOOKS. Yet, you wowzers give them credence by even talking about their Twitter screed.

STOP.

On one hand there's something to be said for not even giving them the legitimacy of a response.

On the other, letting it go unchallenged isn't a great play either.

Yeah, but you aren't playing the game correctly. You dismiss them with factual information, THEN CHANGE THE TOPIC. Don't give them the space to respond with their personal attacks. Example:

THEM: Gygax's D&D sucked because he demanded you play by his dumb rules!

ME: Actually, in the AD&D preface, Gygax wrote that RAW was for tournament play, but at your table, the rules are whatever your group preferred. On that note, what do you guys think of THAC0?

CROWD: My group uses a homebrew ruleset for combat.

CROWD: I use THAC0 religiously!

THEM: THAC0 was another example of Gygax's ridiculous dominance over D&D!

ME: Wow! You seem to have a real issue with Gary Gygax. Why? In the rules, he allowed DMs to change the combat rules to fit your group. Did you have a bad DM?

Stuff like that. You can easily defeat the SJW arguments IF YOU KNOW THE BOOKS. Knowledge of the game (D&D) can defeat any SJW BS.

I prefer ignoring them and changing the topic, but if you want to argue with them, at least know how.

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 21, 2021, 09:37:38 AM
There's an undead species called WIGHTS, who are white-skinned, but old-school D&D is racist?

Holy shit, I just realized - level drain is appropriation! The wights were literally stealing someone's life experiences. Sonuvabitch, the SJWs were right!

;)

Quote from: Kanyenya on September 21, 2021, 10:36:10 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 21, 2021, 09:37:38 AM
There's an undead species called WIGHTS, who are white-skinned, but old-school D&D is racist?

Holy shit, I just realized - level drain is appropriation! The wights were literally stealing someone's life experiences. Sonuvabitch, the SJWs were right!

;)

And now I'm laughing like a madman. Well played.

Meritocracy is foreign to White Leftists.

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 21, 2021, 10:21:20 AM

Yeah, but you aren't playing the game correctly. You dismiss them with factual information, THEN CHANGE THE TOPIC. Don't give them the space to respond with their personal attacks. Example:

I prefer ignoring them and changing the topic, but if you want to argue with them, at least know how.

I wish it were that easy. If you offer up factual information, and that information feels threatening, then in an online forum they will ban you. Or dogpile you with ad hominem attacks. They'll then refer back to their playbook, and find the counterargument before coming back.

Odds are good you'll hear...

...slippery slope fallacy
...misogynist overtones
...dripping with privilege
...etc

In each of these cases the accusation is unprovable, but will be immediately accepted by all the parties attacking you. If they're a majority...it's bad. See TBP, or Twitter. If they're a minority, they will pretend they are the majority until they are.

This is not about logic. It's about power. It's about enforcing an agenda, and changing society to fit certain ideals. These types are impossible to deal with online.

In person it's more possible, but they have to be open to discussion. In your hypothetical most of the ones I've dealt with have no idea what THAC0 is, wouldn't care about it, and would accuse you of privilege for changing the subject. You would then be subjected to a purity test if there is more than one at the table.

If they actually listened to what THAC0 is, then they would hate it instantly, because it is...

*checks playbook*

Dripping with privilege. It literally advantages those with a higher strength. It's ableIST. Clearly you are phobic. Straighten up! Repent, heretic!

I ended up kicking out the one at my table. THAT is the correct action. Don't change the subject. Don't try to talk. When it becomes clear they aren't listening to reason, and have no interest in real discourse, cut them off and move on. Ideologues are not looking to change. They are looking to convert, and see the hobby as a vehicle to do that.

The reason they use it is the same as every other iteration.

To leverage power over others and to leverage control over the rest. If they can co-opt the product as an agenda platform then all the better.

As said many a time. Every iteration they cycle through the same set of targets, usually inventing a new set of buzzwords everyone has to learn.

Usually it starts with "Think of the Children!" thats near always the first foot in the door. Good ol censorship.
Then "Think of the Women!" which is usually when the accusations of sexism and rape get thrown around till it becomes a joke because women invariably claim anything is rape.
Then "Think of the Gays!".
Then "Think of the Minorities!".
Then "Think of our current pet minority!".
And then "Think of the Cripples!"

Before cycling back around for the next wave.

Quote from: Omega on September 22, 2021, 05:25:49 AM
Usually it starts with "Think of the Children!" thats near always the first foot in the door. Good ol censorship.
Then "Think of the Women!" which is usually when the accusations of sexism and rape get thrown around till it becomes a joke because women invariably claim anything is rape.
Then "Think of the Gays!".
Then "Think of the Minorities!".
Then "Think of our current pet minority!".
And then "Think of the Cripples!"

Before cycling back around for the next wave.

This is it... And before you know it, you're playing PG12 scooby do rpg with a 'diverse' array of characters. Fuck that. Best to ignore all that shit and play the games as you've been playing them.

It's never enough.

No matter what you do, no matter how much you compromise, there will ALWAYS be more demands- excuse me, suggestions.

In my game design, I just don't care. Take it or leave it. Just like my art and writing. If someone finds any of it "offensive" (which stories with living hydrogen blimp dragons and cute talking red pandas must be) then too bad. A game with so many non-humanish intelligent characters is still not enough diversity, especially since it's a mostly patriarchal world (shadow elves excepted) and...GASP?!...it's heterosexual.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 22, 2021, 04:27:00 PM
In my game design, I just don't care. Take it or leave it. Just like my art and writing. If someone finds any of it "offensive" (which stories with living hydrogen blimp dragons and cute talking red pandas must be) then too bad. A game with so many non-humanish intelligent characters is still not enough diversity, especially since it's a mostly patriarchal world (shadow elves excepted) and...GASP?!...it's heterosexual.

I'm in agreement about the principle here - but I guess I'm older. I grew up being told that homosexuals and other diversity are offensive - they were banned or censored from publication. My games frequently have these things. I'm not going to bend with the wind and take them out of my games based on the political climate. I run my games to have fun the way I like.

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 05:09:33 PM

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 22, 2021, 04:27:00 PM
In my game design, I just don't care. Take it or leave it. Just like my art and writing. If someone finds any of it "offensive" (which stories with living hydrogen blimp dragons and cute talking red pandas must be) then too bad. A game with so many non-humanish intelligent characters is still not enough diversity, especially since it's a mostly patriarchal world (shadow elves excepted) and...GASP?!...it's heterosexual.

I'm in agreement about the principle here - but I guess I'm older. I grew up being told that homosexuals and other diversity are offensive - they were banned or censored from publication. My games frequently have these things. I'm not going to bend with the wind and take them out of my games based on the political climate. I run my games to have fun the way I like.

The problem is that I simply don't include it because that's not my style, Miss Red Panda is Mr. Red Panda's fiance and in Elsben he (gasp!) heroically protects her from an Elsbenian knight several times his size. But leftists will DEMAND all of the "inclusiveness" even in a game where sex does not play a role. If someone wants to have a game with homosexual characters then either I won't play or- if it's not about virtue signalling- simply not care. But in our "silence is violence" society then my game, art, and writing not including these things makes me guilty of various "isms."


By the way, has anyone noticed how radical feminism fouls up hero's journeys? If a male hero is up against a female villain he is not allowed to pummel her into defeat so in such cases a third party- apparently in a "Thor" movie it was some sort of titanic lava monster- must finish the job. This is "deus ex machina" and is not very satisfying, heck even a later Dungeon Master's guide said it was bad gaming- it's not much better in a superhero movie.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 22, 2021, 05:21:08 PM
By the way, has anyone noticed how radical feminism fouls up hero's journeys? If a male hero is up against a female villain he is not allowed to pummel her into defeat so in such cases a third party- apparently in a "Thor" movie it was some sort of titanic lava monster- must finish the job. This is "deus ex machina" and is not very satisfying, heck even a later Dungeon Master's guide said it was bad gaming- it's not much better in a superhero movie.

In fact I was musing on the same thing the other day, noticing that female film villains almost invariably require a female sidekick to do the dirty work, if the protagonist herself isn't a woman. It hasn't arisen in my games because most of the groups I've played with included one or more ass-kicking female PCs anyway.

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 05:09:33 PM

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 22, 2021, 04:27:00 PM
In my game design, I just don't care.

I'm in agreement about the principle here - but I guess I'm older.

You're older than Griswald? How old were you when you started gaming?

Quote from: Theory of Games on September 21, 2021, 09:37:38 AM
There's an undead species called WIGHTS, who are white-skinned, but old-school D&D is racist?

GREAT, now I have to clean all the coffee off my monitor.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on September 21, 2021, 10:20:02 PM
Meritocracy is foreign to White Leftists.

Well, it IS a system that discriminates heavily against them. Socialism is the fastest route for the unsuccessful to get ahead because it doesn't require actual results.

In terms of games; they want whole segments of the successful (ex. those regardless of their ethnicity who have actually studied a given place and it's history and culture) to be excluded from competition in certain areas because they think it will give them a better shot at success... when the actual result is crappy products no one will buy except out of pity/virtue signaling and entire sub-genres laying fallow lest someone who knows what they're talking is willing to risk the slings and arrows of those claiming victim status).

Which is why everything always turns to crap in LeftieLand... it punishes the exceptional and promotes the mediocre in all things while considering the lowest common denominator the height of virtue.

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 05:09:33 PM

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 22, 2021, 04:27:00 PM
In my game design, I just don't care. Take it or leave it. Just like my art and writing. If someone finds any of it "offensive" (which stories with living hydrogen blimp dragons and cute talking red pandas must be) then too bad. A game with so many non-humanish intelligent characters is still not enough diversity, especially since it's a mostly patriarchal world (shadow elves excepted) and...GASP?!...it's heterosexual.

I'm in agreement about the principle here - but I guess I'm older. I grew up being told that homosexuals and other diversity are offensive - they were banned or censored from publication. My games frequently have these things. I'm not going to bend with the wind and take them out of my games based on the political climate. I run my games to have fun the way I like.

  Other diversity sounds weird.  You mean what by that?  People told you people being homosexuals was offensive, for existing?   I also find it strange someone was telling you this in NYC, but then again those WASPs used to have quite the foothold there.   Or do you mean middle school kids called one another f#gs?

  I should also explain that, and say for certain I have heard offensive things leveled at gay people.  I guess that recap was confusing for me.  I do not put any sort of modern flavor diversity into any games though for injustice done in the real world.  I think the best thing about a table top rpg, is you can put anything you want in it, from range of character personalities for the NPCs, themes, cultural references, anything you want.  I think there is nothing wrong with including whatever you want into a game you are running.  I also think focusing on how the game world reacts to the players and what they enjoy or find fun is most important, I do not think I would be playing with people who must have some modern version of what is called diversity or inclusion today in their games.  That is not because I wouldnt play with them, it is simply because at my age, the group of people I am going to play with is fairly limited, and I would guess the age on these forums probably trends higher than some.   

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 22, 2021, 05:21:08 PM
The problem is that I simply don't include it because that's not my style, Miss Red Panda is Mr. Red Panda's fiance and in Elsben he (gasp!) heroically protects her from an Elsbenian knight several times his size. But leftists will DEMAND all of the "inclusiveness" even in a game where sex does not play a role. If someone wants to have a game with homosexual characters then either I won't play or- if it's not about virtue signalling- simply not care.

I'm fine with you running things because that's your style -- but if other people run things in a different style, I've got no problem with that either. There's always a subset of people who will DEMAND that things be run according to their style, but they don't actually have the power to do so in my games.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 22, 2021, 05:21:08 PM
By the way, has anyone noticed how radical feminism fouls up hero's journeys? If a male hero is up against a female villain he is not allowed to pummel her into defeat so in such cases a third party- apparently in a "Thor" movie it was some sort of titanic lava monster- must finish the job. This is "deus ex machina" and is not very satisfying, heck even a later Dungeon Master's guide said it was bad gaming- it's not much better in a superhero movie.

I believe you're talking about Thor: Ragnarok, which is a movie I loved. I'm happy to discuss it with you - but since you apparently haven't seen it or even know it's name, that seems tricky. Do you mind spoilers? I thought the ending was a great, and it wasn't at all a deus ex machina - since it was through the protagonists' agency. Having the evil villain caught in their exploding base, or dropped into a volcano, or eaten by their own monster is a very old trope for action movies - and not a signal of radical feminism, in my opinion.

Quote from: oggsmash on September 22, 2021, 07:09:01 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 05:09:33 PM
I'm in agreement about the principle here - but I guess I'm older. I grew up being told that homosexuals and other diversity are offensive - they were banned or censored from publication. My games frequently have these things. I'm not going to bend with the wind and take them out of my games based on the political climate. I run my games to have fun the way I like.

  Other diversity sounds weird.  You mean what by that?  People told you people being homosexuals was offensive, for existing?   I also find it strange someone was telling you this in NYC, but then again those WASPs used to have quite the foothold there.   Or do you mean middle school kids called one another f#gs?

I was born in 1970 and grew up very slightly upstate in New York in Rockland County (about a half hour north of NYC). And yeah, at the time, homosexuals were offensive for existing. Teachers would be summarily fired if they came out as gay, and kids would likely not just be called f*gs, but beaten up by their peers. Other diversity also wasn't welcome. On my elementary school yard, the recurring chant was "A fight! A fight! A n***ger and a white!" -- and I overheard friends' parents talking concernedly about how even the private swimming pools might start letting black people in.

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 07:43:12 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 22, 2021, 07:09:01 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 05:09:33 PM
I'm in agreement about the principle here - but I guess I'm older. I grew up being told that homosexuals and other diversity are offensive - they were banned or censored from publication. My games frequently have these things. I'm not going to bend with the wind and take them out of my games based on the political climate. I run my games to have fun the way I like.

  Other diversity sounds weird.  You mean what by that?  People told you people being homosexuals was offensive, for existing?   I also find it strange someone was telling you this in NYC, but then again those WASPs used to have quite the foothold there.   Or do you mean middle school kids called one another f#gs?

I was born in 1970 and grew up very slightly upstate in New York in Rockland County (about a half hour north of NYC). And yeah, at the time, homosexuals were offensive for existing. Teachers would be summarily fired if they came out as gay, and kids would likely not just be called f*gs, but beaten up by their peers. Other diversity also wasn't welcome. On my elementary school yard, the recurring chant was "A fight! A fight! A n***ger and a white!" -- and I overheard friends' parents talking concernedly about how even the private swimming pools might start letting black people in.

  I guess that is what happens in upstate NY.  Where I grew up it was 30 percent black.  Chant that, and you get your ass kicked.   I never saw a gay guy get their ass beat, matter of fact I saw the gay kid kick some other kid's balls to the roof of his mouth for calling him a f#g.  He always wore cowboy boots too, so it was not great for the kid who caught it in the pills.   I guess I never knew how racist NY was.

   added = had a gay 7th grade teacher.  I find it strange the south was less racist (well, we did have the Klan, but when I was a kid they seemed more interested in getting into shootouts with commies, and everyone I knew was not a fan) and homophobic than the enlightened NY state (we are almost the same age).   I guess the labels are sometimes misleading. 

  Anyhow, 70's bad societal habits aside, I see your point.   I just do not bother trying to fix the 70's in any table top RPGs.

Quote from: oggsmash on September 22, 2021, 08:19:18 PM
  Anyhow, 70's bad societal habits aside, I see your point.   I just do not bother trying to fix the 70's in any table top RPGs.

I don't try to fix the 1970s with my gaming, nor do I try to fix 2021 with my gaming. I game to have fun.

A lot of people both here and in other forums speak as if politics is important in games. I think politics is important, but I don't think gaming is a fruitful venue to sway anyone. Thus, I'll engage in political discussion where it comes up (such as here), but my games are whatever I find fun and interesting. Psychologically, I'm sure that's related to my politics and worldview or whatever, but that's not why I do it.

Quote from: oggsmash on September 22, 2021, 07:09:01 PM
People told you people being homosexuals was offensive, for existing?   I also find it strange someone was telling you this in NYC, but then again those WASPs used to have quite the foothold there. 

I hope that was a joke! WASPs have always had a thing for the Glories of Classical Greece  ;D

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 07:30:57 PM
I believe you're talking about Thor: Ragnarok, which is a movie I loved. I'm happy to discuss it with you - but since you apparently haven't seen it or even know it's name, that seems tricky. Do you mind spoilers? I thought the ending was a great, and it wasn't at all a deus ex machina - since it was through the protagonists' agency. Having the evil villain caught in their exploding base, or dropped into a volcano, or eaten by their own monster is a very old trope for action movies - and not a signal of radical feminism, in my opinion.

I'd agree. The Captain Marvel movie was definitely infused with radical feminism, with a protagonist who acts more like a traditional villain. Thor Ragnarok not really - I didn't like the film much, but not for that reason.

About the only think I liked about Thor Ragnarok was that Jeff Goldblum sort of reinvented Groucho Marx instead of playing the Grandmaster. I guess some of the Jack Kirby interior design on the ship they stole was fun. But Hela just...shoots infinite knives and...ugh. Really it was a big mess.

Quote from: S'mon on September 23, 2021, 02:13:53 AM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 22, 2021, 07:09:01 PM
People told you people being homosexuals was offensive, for existing?   I also find it strange someone was telling you this in NYC, but then again those WASPs used to have quite the foothold there. 

I hope that was a joke! WASPs have always had a thing for the Glories of Classical Greece  ;D

  I wasnt talking about their proclivities, I was talking about their loud proclamations and judgements.

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 11:54:59 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 22, 2021, 08:19:18 PM
  Anyhow, 70's bad societal habits aside, I see your point.   I just do not bother trying to fix the 70's in any table top RPGs.

I don't try to fix the 1970s with my gaming, nor do I try to fix 2021 with my gaming. I game to have fun.

A lot of people both here and in other forums speak as if politics is important in games. I think politics is important, but I don't think gaming is a fruitful venue to sway anyone. Thus, I'll engage in political discussion where it comes up (such as here), but my games are whatever I find fun and interesting. Psychologically, I'm sure that's related to my politics and worldview or whatever, but that's not why I do it.

  Gaming or any social activity where someone has fun is probably the BEST way to sway someone on some things they may think.   I just think the way a person goes about it matters a whole lot though, I also do not think it is really anyone's conscious goal during a game session.  At least I hope not.   My point from the beginning here though, is that I think the people who preach out about diversity and inclusion being needed and something someone should seek out gaming, likely grew up without it, or were in some middle/upper middle class area and did not have any of same growing up and have a whole bunch of perceptions of how everyone thinks/thought based on a few shits they were around. 

  Just treating people decent and allowing them to have fun during a hobby activity is IMO the easiest, and fastest way to bring them around to your point of view, because if you are a decent person, the other person is likely to see this over time, and will consider a different world view from a different perspective than opposition if it is in a person they like to be around.  I think this is why there is an element that want some political angles pushed into gaming.  I also think those same people pushing that angle have homogenous groups they game with, and probably are not much fun to be around.   

This person is worth your time. I will post two videos here, you can subscribe to him and learn more.

Diversity: A Translation from the Wokish | James Lindsay
https://youtu.be/EsVDWuQYzxs

Inclusion: A Translation from the Wokish | James Lindsay
https://youtu.be/IFREDFSGZxo

Quote from: CondorDM on September 23, 2021, 03:17:58 PM
This person is worth your time. I will post two videos here, you can subscribe to him and learn more.

Diversity: A Translation from the Wokish | James Lindsay
https://youtu.be/EsVDWuQYzxs

Inclusion: A Translation from the Wokish | James Lindsay
https://youtu.be/IFREDFSGZxo

Isn't this the guy who helped submit a whole bunch of garbage papers for peer review, to make the point that the peer review process itself was more broken than a third-party 3E supplement?

Same guy - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/04/paper-that-would-never-have-gotten-past-peer-review-criticizes-academy-film/

Quote from: CondorDM on September 23, 2021, 03:45:37 PM
Same guy - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/04/paper-that-would-never-have-gotten-past-peer-review-criticizes-academy-film/

Meh, WaPo opinion piece sniveling. Still amusing to me.

He is a good guy to follow, he can keep you informed about what this nonsense really means. A lot people feel there is something wrong with how the far left speaks, but they don't know exactly what it all means, this guy brings clarity to the situation.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 23, 2021, 03:34:31 PM

Quote from: CondorDM on September 23, 2021, 03:17:58 PM
This person is worth your time. I will post two videos here, you can subscribe to him and learn more.

Diversity: A Translation from the Wokish | James Lindsay
https://youtu.be/EsVDWuQYzxs

Inclusion: A Translation from the Wokish | James Lindsay
https://youtu.be/IFREDFSGZxo

Isn't this the guy who helped submit a whole bunch of garbage papers for peer review, to make the point that the peer review process itself was more broken than a third-party 3E supplement?

James Lindsay is the real deal.

Or in gaming parlance, he is Green

Quote from: Shasarak on September 23, 2021, 05:34:37 PM
James Lindsay is the real deal.

Or in gaming parlance, he is Green

Lindsay is dark booger green.

He's doing great work.

Having read this thread, and having been in this hobby long enough to predate the normal use of traditional dice, I have never been represented in *any* RPG to date. There have been some close calls, but never once have I felt some compelling need to be "represented" in D&D (or any other game).

And it's not because I hate my ethnic culture - I rather love it. But representation of it contextually would be a bunch of grass-skirt wearing, bone-in-the-nose spear-throwing cannibals. Because that's what my culture in a "medieval" context would look like. That's what we were prior to colonial takeover. I have no problem with that at all. Sure we could 'fancy' it up - but what for? My culture didn't create great works of literature, it didn't create great religions of deep spiritual significance that affected others and intermixed with secular philosophy to produce a meta-culture anywhere. It didn't invent anything of great significance - though it did innovate internally on some minor things that might be of interest in a D&D campaign.

The fact is my medieval culture would look not too dissimilar to how Orc savages are portrayed in my very campaigns. My people are jungle gangbangers taking the heads of their rivals and eating them for their power. Hell come to think of it I don't even portray my Orcs that bad.

Do I want to have Filipino looking Knights in Norman Castles going on stag hunts and jousting in tourneys and pretending that's "representation"? FUUUUUUUUUCK no.

But you know I can have the PC's that come from that kind of setting go sailing and up in magical version of my people and do some adventuring, maybe get a sweet magical Igorot  axe, and put them through the funny cultural hoops of dealing with my people on their terms (or killing them all - as the circumstances permit). Do I think it would be a fun thing to create a campaign or published setting around it?

NO.

For the same reason Nyambe, Kara-Tur, Al-Qadim, Maztica were not big sellers and ultimately discontinued. I'm grateful they exist, and will always be glad that material is there to be repurposed, but the fact is the vast majority of people that play D&D aren't interested in campaigning long-term in those places, and from what I can gather aren't happy adventuring in alien cultures to them. That's a simple fact. It's not racism. It's not anything. It's simply that people want to have fun with things that are familiar to them.

All the assholes that are SJW's screaming about representation aren't buying this stuff either. Otherwise we'd have tons of it in print. They say it because it makes them look virtuous.

I'm not saying don't make content that highlights other cultures - I'm saying keep it in context. An adventure that takes you sailing across the sea to land in the foreboding jungles of Fantasy Congo can be great fun. I don't know anyone at any of my tables that demanded a full blown campaign in a fantasy Africa - even when half my players were black. Hell even then, when they'd play humans IF they'd play black characters at all, they would make their PC's come from lands where black people exist and came up with a backstory why they're in Eurocentric land - because that's where they preferred to play. And most of the time they played white characters or non-humans. They didn't give a shit, and neither did I.

It really feels like white leftys and their so-called allies give a shit about this stuff more than actual non-whites of which I'm one. Isn't it funny they roll out the white-savior trope on *everything* and commit their own heresy in their virtue signalling? I feel so protected.

Nah I just say get the fuck out of my way and stop telling me how to game. Retarded pleb.

Quote from: oggsmash on September 23, 2021, 07:22:36 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 11:54:59 PM
I don't try to fix the 1970s with my gaming, nor do I try to fix 2021 with my gaming. I game to have fun.

A lot of people both here and in other forums speak as if politics is important in games. I think politics is important, but I don't think gaming is a fruitful venue to sway anyone. Thus, I'll engage in political discussion where it comes up (such as here), but my games are whatever I find fun and interesting. Psychologically, I'm sure that's related to my politics and worldview or whatever, but that's not why I do it.

  Gaming or any social activity where someone has fun is probably the BEST way to sway someone on some things they may think.   I just think the way a person goes about it matters a whole lot though, I also do not think it is really anyone's conscious goal during a game session.  At least I hope not.

I think we're saying mostly the same thing here. It seems to me that you're saying that it's the social connection that helps sway people - not the elements of the game itself. And I'd add that the contents of RPG books isn't a significant factor either.

Quote from: tenbones on September 23, 2021, 06:50:41 PM
I'm not saying don't make content that highlights other cultures - I'm saying keep it in context. An adventure that takes you sailing across the sea to land in the foreboding jungles of Fantasy Congo can be great fun. I don't know anyone at any of my tables that demanded a full blown campaign in a fantasy Africa - even when half my players were black. Hell even then, when they'd play humans IF they'd play black characters at all, they would make their PC's come from lands where black people exist and came up with a backstory why they're in Eurocentric land - because that's where they preferred to play. And most of the time they played white characters or non-humans. They didn't give a shit, and neither did I.

It's only been a small fraction of my gaming overall, but I've had a lot of fun playing games fully set in non-European-based settings. I had an old campaign set in a fantasy version of 1860s Korea called "Dragons of the Yellow Sea" (https://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/korea/) - which is because I was a fan of the book series it's based on as well as a lot of Korean movies and novels. I've also had a fun series of games using Amber Diceless set in a fantasy take on China that I'll be continuing this November.

Recently I've run one-shots in my son's fantasy Incan setting, Land of New Horizons. I've also had one-shots in Tekumel, and am planning an Arrows of Indra game for DunDraCon in February - inspired in part by a fun Vedic campaign I played in college.

There have only been a few successful non-European RPG settings like Tekumel and Rokugan, but so what? There's a lot of settings and genres that are only minority taste - like straight historical settings, or modern-day warfare or action, or hard science fiction. It's still worth having games for these.

If you and your group want to only play in European settings, fine. But there are at least some gamers who enjoy non-European settings. If we all only played what was most popular, we'd all be just played D&D 5E in Faerun.

Given the audience on this thread, this maybe fine to post here.

Introduction to Propaganda
https://youtu.be/-WpFzTplp28

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 11:54:59 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 22, 2021, 08:19:18 PM
  Anyhow, 70's bad societal habits aside, I see your point.   I just do not bother trying to fix the 70's in any table top RPGs.

I don't try to fix the 1970s with my gaming, nor do I try to fix 2021 with my gaming. I game to have fun.

A lot of people both here and in other forums speak as if politics is important in games. I think politics is important, but I don't think gaming is a fruitful venue to sway anyone. Thus, I'll engage in political discussion where it comes up (such as here), but my games are whatever I find fun and interesting. Psychologically, I'm sure that's related to my politics and worldview or whatever, but that's not why I do it.

Gawds I love this site. The ability to discuss stuff like this without "the board culture" is awesome.

And I agree with you jhkim. I just game to have fun.

Quote from: jhkim on September 23, 2021, 07:31:51 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 23, 2021, 07:22:36 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 11:54:59 PM
I don't try to fix the 1970s with my gaming, nor do I try to fix 2021 with my gaming. I game to have fun.

A lot of people both here and in other forums speak as if politics is important in games. I think politics is important, but I don't think gaming is a fruitful venue to sway anyone. Thus, I'll engage in political discussion where it comes up (such as here), but my games are whatever I find fun and interesting. Psychologically, I'm sure that's related to my politics and worldview or whatever, but that's not why I do it.

  Gaming or any social activity where someone has fun is probably the BEST way to sway someone on some things they may think.   I just think the way a person goes about it matters a whole lot though, I also do not think it is really anyone's conscious goal during a game session.  At least I hope not.

I think we're saying mostly the same thing here. It seems to me that you're saying that it's the social connection that helps sway people - not the elements of the game itself. And I'd add that the contents of RPG books isn't a significant factor either.

  I agree for one reason regarding the books, players dont read them all that much from my experience.  The people who do read them, are GMs and the first things GMs tend to do is start tinkering with a game/setting anyway.  We are certainly agreeing, I think we also agree people making the books can leave the preaching to do with their pals, and not in print.

Quote from: oggsmash on September 23, 2021, 07:10:06 AM
  I wasnt talking about their proclivities, I was talking about their loud proclamations and judgements.

I think traditional WASP culture is much more tolerant of such things than white-ethnic cultures, never mind everyone else.

Quote from: tenbones on September 23, 2021, 06:50:41 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 23, 2021, 05:34:37 PM
James Lindsay is the real deal.

Or in gaming parlance, he is Green

Lindsay is dark booger green.

He's doing great work.

Having read this thread, and having been in this hobby long enough to predate the normal use of traditional dice, I have never been represented in *any* RPG to date. There have been some close calls, but never once have I felt some compelling need to be "represented" in D&D (or any other game).

And it's not because I hate my ethnic culture - I rather love it. But representation of it contextually would be a bunch of grass-skirt wearing, bone-in-the-nose spear-throwing cannibals. Because that's what my culture in a "medieval" context would look like. That's what we were prior to colonial takeover. I have no problem with that at all. Sure we could 'fancy' it up - but what for? My culture didn't create great works of literature, it didn't create great religions of deep spiritual significance that affected others and intermixed with secular philosophy to produce a meta-culture anywhere. It didn't invent anything of great significance - though it did innovate internally on some minor things that might be of interest in a D&D campaign.

The fact is my medieval culture would look not too dissimilar to how Orc savages are portrayed in my very campaigns. My people are jungle gangbangers taking the heads of their rivals and eating them for their power. Hell come to think of it I don't even portray my Orcs that bad.

Do I want to have Filipino looking Knights in Norman Castles going on stag hunts and jousting in tourneys and pretending that's "representation"? FUUUUUUUUUCK no.

But you know I can have the PC's that come from that kind of setting go sailing and up in magical version of my people and do some adventuring, maybe get a sweet magical Igorot  axe, and put them through the funny cultural hoops of dealing with my people on their terms (or killing them all - as the circumstances permit). Do I think it would be a fun thing to create a campaign or published setting around it?

NO.

For the same reason Nyambe, Kara-Tur, Al-Qadim, Maztica were not big sellers and ultimately discontinued. I'm grateful they exist, and will always be glad that material is there to be repurposed, but the fact is the vast majority of people that play D&D aren't interested in campaigning long-term in those places, and from what I can gather aren't happy adventuring in alien cultures to them. That's a simple fact. It's not racism. It's not anything. It's simply that people want to have fun with things that are familiar to them.

All the assholes that are SJW's screaming about representation aren't buying this stuff either. Otherwise we'd have tons of it in print. They say it because it makes them look virtuous.

I'm not saying don't make content that highlights other cultures - I'm saying keep it in context. An adventure that takes you sailing across the sea to land in the foreboding jungles of Fantasy Congo can be great fun. I don't know anyone at any of my tables that demanded a full blown campaign in a fantasy Africa - even when half my players were black. Hell even then, when they'd play humans IF they'd play black characters at all, they would make their PC's come from lands where black people exist and came up with a backstory why they're in Eurocentric land - because that's where they preferred to play. And most of the time they played white characters or non-humans. They didn't give a shit, and neither did I.

It really feels like white leftys and their so-called allies give a shit about this stuff more than actual non-whites of which I'm one. Isn't it funny they roll out the white-savior trope on *everything* and commit their own heresy in their virtue signalling? I feel so protected.

Nah I just say get the fuck out of my way and stop telling me how to game. Retarded pleb.

Greetings!

PREACH ON, TENBONES! ;D

Geesus, I think it would be great fun to have a campaign or a mini-campaign exploring some tropical islands filled with bone-through-the-nose wearing cannibals, armed with them wicked weapons and feasting on yummy Filipino-style pork!

Fucking awesome stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well you know what really annoys me about "Representation" - is the insane levels of blindness to the very culture one inhabits PRESENTLY and what it has wrought with ZERO understanding of how it got be that way. (outside of the narrative they're too stupid to question).

Instead of seeing the miraculous reality of Western Culture that *despite* it's more idiotic moments (one of which is RIGHT now) it managed to synthesize various thought constructs that would never have appeared anywhere else and in the space of a couple of centuries brought us to the moon and beyond.

But rather than be grateful for the heritage of their own culture, they want to pretend it's this horrible thing to be downplayed. It's a colossal level of ignorant stupidity that they do not understand how the rest of the world operates now, or in history. What makes it even more gross is this incessant need to conflate clearly inferior methods and beliefs to being equal to optimal ones.

This is pathological post-modernism. The complete lack of discernment and standards coupled with this infantile need to be coddled for everything. This is what is dominating our culture - and ironically it's because of the relative success and decadence of the West, we got lazy and let the kids have the wheel of the culture and now we're in the fucking ditch.

The Hobby is a cottage industry that can be a double-edge sword. Yes it can be rocked by morons that ascribe to this ideology - I'm less concerned with the players in the hobby. I'm more concerned with the people in the hobby that are actively funding the corporate entities that promote this dogshit and know better. It cuts both ways - stop funding the cottage industry parasites and you'll see the problem go away.

The D&D brand is the Fentanyl of the Hobby.

"Those who play with the devil's toys will be brought by degrees to wield his sword" - Buckminster Fuller

You want representation? Make a good game and represent your ass off. Don't shit on other people because they don't care about your issues. If it's good - maybe they'll come. That's your problem on selling your product, not theirs for not giving a shit. Nobody owes anyone anything.

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 07:43:12 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 22, 2021, 07:09:01 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 05:09:33 PM
I'm in agreement about the principle here - but I guess I'm older. I grew up being told that homosexuals and other diversity are offensive - they were banned or censored from publication. My games frequently have these things. I'm not going to bend with the wind and take them out of my games based on the political climate. I run my games to have fun the way I like.

  Other diversity sounds weird.  You mean what by that?  People told you people being homosexuals was offensive, for existing?   I also find it strange someone was telling you this in NYC, but then again those WASPs used to have quite the foothold there.   Or do you mean middle school kids called one another f#gs?

I was born in 1970 and grew up very slightly upstate in New York in Rockland County (about a half hour north of NYC). And yeah, at the time, homosexuals were offensive for existing. Teachers would be summarily fired if they came out as gay, and kids would likely not just be called f*gs, but beaten up by their peers. Other diversity also wasn't welcome. On my elementary school yard, the recurring chant was "A fight! A fight! A n***ger and a white!" -- and I overheard friends' parents talking concernedly about how even the private swimming pools might start letting black people in.

Can confirm. And that lack of welcome for diversity certainly extended to the "nerds", "spazs", and "geeks" (i.e., those that made up the vast majority of RPG and boardgame players back in the day).

Comparing that time to now, in terms of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., is like night and day.

Quote from: jhkim on September 23, 2021, 08:05:30 PM

It's only been a small fraction of my gaming overall, but I've had a lot of fun playing games fully set in non-European-based settings. I had an old campaign set in a fantasy version of 1860s Korea called "Dragons of the Yellow Sea" (https://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/korea/) - which is because I was a fan of the book series it's based on as well as a lot of Korean movies and novels. I've also had a fun series of games using Amber Diceless set in a fantasy take on China that I'll be continuing this November.

Recently I've run one-shots in my son's fantasy Incan setting, Land of New Horizons. I've also had one-shots in Tekumel, and am planning an Arrows of Indra game for DunDraCon in February - inspired in part by a fun Vedic campaign I played in college.

There have only been a few successful non-European RPG settings like Tekumel and Rokugan, but so what? There's a lot of settings and genres that are only minority taste - like straight historical settings, or modern-day warfare or action, or hard science fiction. It's still worth having games for these.

If you and your group want to only play in European settings, fine. But there are at least some gamers who enjoy non-European settings. If we all only played what was most popular, we'd all be just played D&D 5E in Faerun.

You know I wrote and advocate for the Talislanta (to the point where I'm actively trying to not talk about it these days)? You'd think I know that having non-Eurocentric settings deserve to exist right? Which is a weird thing for you to say, at least to me - if it was direct at me. I'm the last person to say this to.

But put some perspective on this: Tekumel (which I dearly dearly love) and Talislanta are not examples of "massively successful" RPG's. They have their fans, sure. But so does Al-Qadim. So does Kara-Tur. So Does Mazitica (okay... no one is really a fan of Maztica). They're not *successful* games. They're notable for their existence and in the case of Talislanta in particular, their persistent existence on the periphery of almost staying in publication.

I have an actual stake in that game - but I'm not willing to blow smoke up my own ass to prove a point that's inherently false: Weird settings that are not Eurocentric in flavor and tone are not remotely as popular as mainstream Eurocentric RPG's here in America. That's all I'm really saying. And I'm not sure why that's even seen as controversial. It doesn't mean I don't adore those other settings, I was pretty clear that I do in that very post you quoted. I own all of that material, I use it liberally. But my players love to go there and have extended stays and adventures, but always like to come back home to their Eurocentric (Forgotten Realms) home base. The notable exception to this is if we're playing Spelljammer.

The facts remain - these settings do not sell well enough to maintain their existence. They exist now and largely forever in the minds and hearts of we GM's that decide to make use of them.

Nothing you say about what you believe happens at my table or even yours is going to change that. For the same reason I would expect to go to China and find RPG players playing Chinese themed games over Meso-American themed ones.

And let's be honest - diversity of representation is not what we're really talking about here is it? We can have the discussion of why Al-Qadim should exist - and it most certainly should (I know this because I designed stuff for it for WotC and Paizo), but that's not *really* what is being called for by the modern SJW's that scree! about Inclusivity and Diversity.

They want "representation without context". Hence the Combat Wheelchairs, the Homoerotic elements free of setting context, but very modern context among a specific subset of American West Coast culture, random "people of color" in European settings free of context, overt downplaying of gendered appearances free of context.

The point seems to be to unmoor western fantasy tropes from their western mythical and cultural traditions at the expense of making good games with settings people are attracted to. WotC seems to be saying "Well since we all know that if we make an actual setting to represent cultures that are non-European, we'll just push those elements into our traditionally Eurocentric game and demonize anyone that protests."

Quote from: tenbones on September 27, 2021, 11:47:56 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 23, 2021, 08:05:30 PM
There have only been a few successful non-European RPG settings like Tekumel and Rokugan, but so what? There's a lot of settings and genres that are only minority taste - like straight historical settings, or modern-day warfare or action, or hard science fiction. It's still worth having games for these.

The facts remain - these settings do not sell well enough to maintain their existence. They exist now and largely forever in the minds and hearts of we GM's that decide to make use of them.

Nothing you say about what you believe happens at my table or even yours is going to change that. For the same reason I would expect to go to China and find RPG players playing Chinese themed games over Meso-American themed ones.

And let's be honest - diversity of representation is not what we're really talking about here is it? We can have the discussion of why Al-Qadim should exist - and it most certainly should (I know this because I designed stuff for it for WotC and Paizo), but that's not *really* what is being called for by the modern SJW's that scree! about Inclusivity and Diversity.

(Side note: tenbones, I think you misread "Rokugan" for "Talislanta" in my post. I never mentioned Talislanta, and you never mention Rokugan.)

I was speaking for myself, and reacting to what you said about non-European settings. If you want to discuss what modern-day SJWs want, I'd want something more specific to talk about. I ran into this recently when discussing with Pundit, and I even bought a copy of Candlekeep Mysteries at Pacificon earlier this month to get an idea about what the controversy was. In the previous thread, he said (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/the-chronic-fatigue-barbarian-is-a-real-not-parody-new-dd-subclass/msg1186109/#msg1186109),

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM
The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible. Also, every D&D product from candlekeep onward has featured the wheelchair in art.

However, when I bought Candlekeep Mysteries, I found no wheelchairs of any sort in it, and the dungeons were not wheelchair-accessible. This makes me skeptical of claims. I'm happy to discuss specific authors or products, but discussing what an abstract group of unnamed people thinks isn't helpful in my opinion.

Quote from: tenbones on September 27, 2021, 11:47:56 AM
For the same reason I would expect to go to China and find RPG players playing Chinese themed games over Meso-American themed ones.

Whilst I can't speak for the average Chinese player in China I can tell you that in Latin America Maztica isn't more popular than vanilla D&D.

Now I do have my theories as to why:

Maztica isn't even close to being a mesoamerican setting, it's faerun with a very thin coat of paint.

There's a Spanish made game about Aztecs and Conquistadores, but I have no idea how popular that one is in Spain, here in México not really.

That one does it's own thing and it's not based on D&D at all. But from my reading it's made to play the conquista which IMHO puts unnecesary limitations on it.

Add to it the advantage of being the first and the best selling game in town.

Then add to it the universality of LotR.

Then add to it the hunger for the exotic.

And you end up with most mexicans playing D&D instead of something else.

IF WotC wanted to make a full game on a different setting they would need to either build it from zero or tailor the engine to fit the setting. And make a compelling setting built upon some readilly available tropes adecuate to it and that most people can grook fast.

Which means tailoring the magic system/spells among other things. The Aztec game I was talking about did this, but it's only in spanish which might account most of you never even hearing about it.

https://www.nosolorol.com/es/aquelarre/769/nahui-ollin (https://www.nosolorol.com/es/aquelarre/769/nahui-ollin)

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2021, 12:36:56 PM

(Side note: tenbones, I think you misread "Rokugan" for "Talislanta" in my post. I never mentioned Talislanta, and you never mention Rokugan.)

Nope you read me correctly. I just meant to say they're all in the same boat. Though Rokugan definitely had it's moment to shine - it faded into it's niche corner of acknowledged kickass non-Eurocentric settings that are no longer supported by anyone but us GM's that run that material.

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2021, 12:36:56 PMI was speaking for myself, and reacting to what you said about non-European settings. If you want to discuss what modern-day SJWs want, I'd want something more specific to talk about. I ran into this recently when discussing with Pundit, and I even bought a copy of Candlekeep Mysteries at Pacificon earlier this month to get an idea about what the controversy was. In the previous thread, he said (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/the-chronic-fatigue-barbarian-is-a-real-not-parody-new-dd-subclass/msg1186109/#msg1186109),

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM
The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible. Also, every D&D product from candlekeep onward has featured the wheelchair in art.

However, when I bought Candlekeep Mysteries, I found no wheelchairs of any sort in it, and the dungeons were not wheelchair-accessible. This makes me skeptical of claims. I'm happy to discuss specific authors or products, but discussing what an abstract group of unnamed people thinks isn't helpful in my opinion.

Yep. I hear you on that too. I don't profess to know if it's in the official books. I will not purchase any WotC product. But it's possible that you got an early printing? I dunno.

My question is WHY is this even a topic of discussion in a game about quasi-medieval European fantasy? So you go first: what do you think SJW's want in D&D and tell me at whose expense?

Because there most certainly IS an expense. I'm one of them. Just like I don't need Banjo-Representation in my favorite metal-bands, I don't need Fruit-Loop representation on my plate of steak, asparagus and potato, or on my sushi plate. The argument is always "what harm is it?" No one is saying not to make LGBT, Black supremacy, Asian supremacy games if that's what you want. But the established premise of D&D has never been those things.

This preponderance of sneaking those things in there free of context seems 1) either disingenuous to the purpose of creating them (i.e. token virtue-signaling to the alleged aggrieved 2) half-ass attempts at actual genuine design.

To WotC I say - shit or get off the pot. Create a Blue Rose on Roids setting and go wild. Don't sneak in ingredients to established settings that have no well crafted contextual reality to be there.

The reality is people want to play what they're comfortable with. The unspoken reality is that WotC wants everyone to believe that the types of western fantasy that we've been consuming for more than a century in terms of fiction is the product of white racists and they want to condition everyone to get used to their weird non-contextual political daydream dressed in fantasy. This is also true of other forms of consumer entertainment.

Deep down they detest (or at minimum look down on) the very people they say they're giving representation to. Otherwise white privilege would not exist and WotC would be run by LGBT "People of Color". Otherwise why would we poor "people of color" need white leftists who control the wheel at WotC to give us representation they say we need?

I'd love to see Jeremy Crawford give his job to me, an oppressed Asian man under his white-colonial yoke. My very genes scream with the horrors of slavery placed upon my ancestors by the Spaniards he resembles in some myopic fashion. Why is Jeremy continuing this oppression? Why won't he step down? I would usher in the most glorious era of D&D since St. Gygax lightbulb blew out in his outhouse on the cold winter's evening in Lake Geneva and he fell into the hole where his neighbor Timmy's pet iguana, Butch, used to hide out in. (the secret origin of Dungeon's and Dragons!)

I should add if I'm being kind - I recognize there is this desire to create new experiences in RPG's.

In D&D it would be setting specific. The problem is the people that cling to this ideology we see creeping into every aspect of pop-culture are intensely ignorant of reality in every meaningful sense. So they don't know or care about history, they care about other things important to them, shallow as they are, and those are the things they curating into established media without actually selling anyone that has no interest in those things on them.

This is not representation, or diversity. Diversity would be honoring the established status-quo while curating a good design to introduce elements in some plausible manner. The fact you can't disagree with them without being labeled a monster is probably indicative of that.

Diversity is a nuetral trait-not a virtue. Its like discussing the virtue of bananas in D&D. I have stated this before.

Quote from: tenbones on September 27, 2021, 04:37:55 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2021, 12:36:56 PM

(Side note: tenbones, I think you misread "Rokugan" for "Talislanta" in my post. I never mentioned Talislanta, and you never mention Rokugan.)

Nope you read me correctly. I just meant to say they're all in the same boat. Though Rokugan definitely had it's moment to shine - it faded into it's niche corner of acknowledged kickass non-Eurocentric settings that are no longer supported by anyone but us GM's that run that material.

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2021, 12:36:56 PMI was speaking for myself, and reacting to what you said about non-European settings. If you want to discuss what modern-day SJWs want, I'd want something more specific to talk about. I ran into this recently when discussing with Pundit, and I even bought a copy of Candlekeep Mysteries at Pacificon earlier this month to get an idea about what the controversy was. In the previous thread, he said (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/the-chronic-fatigue-barbarian-is-a-real-not-parody-new-dd-subclass/msg1186109/#msg1186109),

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM
The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible. Also, every D&D product from candlekeep onward has featured the wheelchair in art.

However, when I bought Candlekeep Mysteries, I found no wheelchairs of any sort in it, and the dungeons were not wheelchair-accessible. This makes me skeptical of claims. I'm happy to discuss specific authors or products, but discussing what an abstract group of unnamed people thinks isn't helpful in my opinion.

Yep. I hear you on that too. I don't profess to know if it's in the official books. I will not purchase any WotC product. But it's possible that you got an early printing? I dunno.

My question is WHY is this even a topic of discussion in a game about quasi-medieval European fantasy? So you go first: what do you think SJW's want in D&D and tell me at whose expense?

Because there most certainly IS an expense. I'm one of them. Just like I don't need Banjo-Representation in my favorite metal-bands, I don't need Fruit-Loop representation on my plate of steak, asparagus and potato, or on my sushi plate. The argument is always "what harm is it?" No one is saying not to make LGBT, Black supremacy, Asian supremacy games if that's what you want. But the established premise of D&D has never been those things.

This preponderance of sneaking those things in there free of context seems 1) either disingenuous to the purpose of creating them (i.e. token virtue-signaling to the alleged aggrieved 2) half-ass attempts at actual genuine design.

To WotC I say - shit or get off the pot. Create a Blue Rose on Roids setting and go wild. Don't sneak in ingredients to established settings that have no well crafted contextual reality to be there.

The reality is people want to play what they're comfortable with. The unspoken reality is that WotC wants everyone to believe that the types of western fantasy that we've been consuming for more than a century in terms of fiction is the product of white racists and they want to condition everyone to get used to their weird non-contextual political daydream dressed in fantasy. This is also true of other forms of consumer entertainment.

Deep down they detest (or at minimum look down on) the very people they say they're giving representation to. Otherwise white privilege would not exist and WotC would be run by LGBT "People of Color". Otherwise why would we poor "people of color" need white leftists who control the wheel at WotC to give us representation they say we need?

I'd love to see Jeremy Crawford give his job to me, an oppressed Asian man under his white-colonial yoke. My very genes scream with the horrors of slavery placed upon my ancestors by the Spaniards he resembles in some myopic fashion. Why is Jeremy continuing this oppression? Why won't he step down? I would usher in the most glorious era of D&D since St. Gygax lightbulb blew out in his outhouse on the cold winter's evening in Lake Geneva and he fell into the hole where his neighbor Timmy's pet iguana, Butch, used to hide out in. (the secret origin of Dungeon's and Dragons!)

Greetings!

*Laughing* Fucking hilarious, brother!

You know, everything you said is spot-on. I have always loved TALISLANTA!

But sadly, as a game world and commercial product, it has been consistently rejected, and has been a commercial failure. Yes, there is a vocal minority of gamers that wax poetic about wanting and enjoying non-European centric game worlds. In general, I myself appreciate such cultural, artistic, and historical variety. East Asia, Central Asia, South-East Asia, India, Africa, the Middle East, Central America, and South America--each has enormous hstory and dozens of various cultures, mini-traditions, lore, and more that can contribute to an awesome and interesting game campaign. Not to mention, of course, various mythologies, vast animal groups, clothing, weapons, and FOOD! It's all fucking awesome.

Despite that, there is either only a very small gamer minority--or through polls and surveys, most of the gaming public are schizophrenic and just lying--that are genuinely interested in such game worlds.

The vast majority want a quasi-Tolkienized Western Europe. Again, and again, and again. There can never be enough iterations on the traditions, myths, and general scope of such a stylized Western European foundation for a game world. That's the simple, brutal truth. WESTERN EUROPEAN--not South American, not Middle Eastern, not African, and not Asian. WESTERN EUROPEAN.

Talislanta is even more off the charts by dialing the races and cultures up to 11, with everyone being non-human and rainbow coloured. Talislanta is I'd say the most original, diverse game world ever produced. Certainly in the Top 5 of such original game words produced. And yet, it has always been obscure, and remains obscure. I wish the market was different, for Talislanta, and other cultural/Historical game worlds, as mentioned previously, but it isn't, and such market realities and preferences aren't likely to ever change.

Even gamers in Asia and Mexico want WESTERN EUROPEAN based worlds--not stuff created from their own native lands and culture. So, we get what we get. I have simply resolved that different cultural and historically-based settings have to be developed, introduced, and used by myself, as well as other individual DM's. Such material is a niche within a niche, right? ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on September 27, 2021, 05:13:56 PM
You know, everything you said is spot-on. I have always loved TALISLANTA!

But sadly, as a game world and commercial product, it has been consistently rejected, and has been a commercial failure.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thats what happens when you go up against Big Elf

(https://whendropbearsattack.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/no-elves.jpg)

Quote from: tenbones on September 27, 2021, 04:37:55 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2021, 12:36:56 PMI was speaking for myself, and reacting to what you said about non-European settings. If you want to discuss what modern-day SJWs want, I'd want something more specific to talk about. I ran into this recently when discussing with Pundit, and I even bought a copy of Candlekeep Mysteries at Pacificon earlier this month to get an idea about what the controversy was. In the previous thread, he said (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/the-chronic-fatigue-barbarian-is-a-real-not-parody-new-dd-subclass/msg1186109/#msg1186109),

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM
The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible. Also, every D&D product from candlekeep onward has featured the wheelchair in art.

However, when I bought Candlekeep Mysteries, I found no wheelchairs of any sort in it, and the dungeons were not wheelchair-accessible. This makes me skeptical of claims. I'm happy to discuss specific authors or products, but discussing what an abstract group of unnamed people thinks isn't helpful in my opinion.

Yep. I hear you on that too. I don't profess to know if it's in the official books. I will not purchase any WotC product. But it's possible that you got an early printing? I dunno.

My question is WHY is this even a topic of discussion in a game about quasi-medieval European fantasy? So you go first: what do you think SJW's want in D&D and tell me at whose expense?

I don't make any particular claims about SJWs. My main RPG discussion forum is here, which only has a handful at most of self-professed SJWs - so I don't follow a lot of the online discussion. On the other hand, I game in one of the most liberal areas in the country - so my actual gaming is strongly liberal. From what I can tell, the liberal crowd are relatively happy with Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft and Candlekeep Mysteries - so I'd guess that what they want in D&D is roughly products like that. And that's at the expense of people who like 5E but don't like those products.

Quote from: tenbones on September 27, 2021, 04:37:55 PM
To WotC I say - shit or get off the pot. Create a Blue Rose on Roids setting and go wild. Don't sneak in ingredients to established settings that have no well crafted contextual reality to be there.

So, you're making demands that WotC should make products the way you like them, instead of making products that others like?

You're welcome to express your preferences - and if you are representative of a large enough market share, then game companies will do well to listen. On the other hand, I don't believe in any sort of purity test for established settings. Settings change, just like rules editions change. Sometimes I like the changes, sometimes I don't. For example, I thought Champions got better through 4th edition, but then it got worse with Fuzion and 5th and 6th editions.

All of this is just different tastes in games.

Quote from: Shasarak on September 27, 2021, 05:48:53 PM

Quote from: SHARK on September 27, 2021, 05:13:56 PM
You know, everything you said is spot-on. I have always loved TALISLANTA!

But sadly, as a game world and commercial product, it has been consistently rejected, and has been a commercial failure.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thats what happens when you go up against Big Elf

(https://whendropbearsattack.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/no-elves.jpg)

Greetings!

YEP! I remember that ad for Talislanta, too. I still have the original edition of Talislanta from the 1980's, all in mint condition. I also have two of the giant blue book editions--I think that was 4th-edition Talislanta. I remember when Talislanta advertised all the time in issues of Dragon Magazine! ;D Great game world, very original, and interesting. The four initial books were softcovers--well, in truth, nearly every subsequent supplement for Talislanta was also softcover--they were produced well, with good writing, editing, layout, and consistently good, solid black-and-white art. As a second-tier game product line, it had everything, and was produced as about as good as it gets. It was a bit below D&D at the time in production values, but not by much. Talislanta was a top-notch product, and produced with obvious creativity, passion, dedication, and talent. None the less, as Tenbones described, Talislanta has always been a commercial failure, kept alive only by the company's passion to soldier on, and small pockets of devoted fans that continued to patronize the Talislanta game whenever they could do so. At various times I attempted to introduce Talislanta to my game groups--and they looked at me like I had a third eye growing out of my forehead! ;D D&D was where it was at--and D&D with added GONZO was also good. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay gained some traction, but again, all centered in Western European foundations. Talislanta? Just too strange and unrelatable.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 07:30:57 PM

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 22, 2021, 05:21:08 PM
The problem is that I simply don't include it because that's not my style, Miss Red Panda is Mr. Red Panda's fiance and in Elsben he (gasp!) heroically protects her from an Elsbenian knight several times his size. But leftists will DEMAND all of the "inclusiveness" even in a game where sex does not play a role. If someone wants to have a game with homosexual characters then either I won't play or- if it's not about virtue signalling- simply not care.

I'm fine with you running things because that's your style -- but if other people run things in a different style, I've got no problem with that either. There's always a subset of people who will DEMAND that things be run according to their style, but they don't actually have the power to do so in my games.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 22, 2021, 05:21:08 PM
By the way, has anyone noticed how radical feminism fouls up hero's journeys? If a male hero is up against a female villain he is not allowed to pummel her into defeat so in such cases a third party- apparently in a "Thor" movie it was some sort of titanic lava monster- must finish the job. This is "deus ex machina" and is not very satisfying, heck even a later Dungeon Master's guide said it was bad gaming- it's not much better in a superhero movie.

I believe you're talking about Thor: Ragnarok, which is a movie I loved. I'm happy to discuss it with you - but since you apparently haven't seen it or even know it's name, that seems tricky. Do you mind spoilers? I thought the ending was a great, and it wasn't at all a deus ex machina - since it was through the protagonists' agency. Having the evil villain caught in their exploding base, or dropped into a volcano, or eaten by their own monster is a very old trope for action movies - and not a signal of radical feminism, in my opinion.

If that's all there was to it- a sort of Frankenstein's Monster destroying its creator situation- then that would be fine, but you must know as well as I do that that was not the reason- in today's politically correct climate a male hero is NOT allowed to beat up any woman, even a villainess. That is feminism in a nutshell: equality except when it costs something.

I saw that scene in one of The Critical Drinker's videos on the subject. After "The Force Awakens" I have not set foot in a movie theater since, I will NOT give one penny to people who clearly despise me- which Hollywood does.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 27, 2021, 07:26:16 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 07:30:57 PM

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 22, 2021, 05:21:08 PM
By the way, has anyone noticed how radical feminism fouls up hero's journeys? If a male hero is up against a female villain he is not allowed to pummel her into defeat so in such cases a third party- apparently in a "Thor" movie it was some sort of titanic lava monster- must finish the job. This is "deus ex machina" and is not very satisfying, heck even a later Dungeon Master's guide said it was bad gaming- it's not much better in a superhero movie.

I believe you're talking about Thor: Ragnarok, which is a movie I loved. I'm happy to discuss it with you - but since you apparently haven't seen it or even know it's name, that seems tricky. Do you mind spoilers? I thought the ending was a great, and it wasn't at all a deus ex machina - since it was through the protagonists' agency. Having the evil villain caught in their exploding base, or dropped into a volcano, or eaten by their own monster is a very old trope for action movies - and not a signal of radical feminism, in my opinion.

If that's all there was to it- a sort of Frankenstein's Monster destroying its creator situation- then that would be fine, but you must know as well as I do that that was not the reason- in today's politically correct climate a male hero is NOT allowed to beat up any woman, even a villainess. That is feminism in a nutshell: equality except when it costs something.

I saw that scene in one of The Critical Drinker's videos on the subject.

I agree there's a rule about male heroes not beating up women - but it isn't a new rule invented by radical feminists. It's an extremely old rule that's been in place for decades. I agree that it's a dumb rule that should be retired. I had no problem when Wolverine beat up Mystique and Deathstrike in earlier Marvel-based movies, for example. Actually, X2 is one of my favorite superhero movies.

But what you're arguing is the inverse -- that a male hero always has to beat up a female villain. He's not *allowed* to win by dropping the villain into a volcano, trapping them in their exploding base, etc. - which frequently happen to male villains. Hence it's not allowed for Thor to win over Hel by any way other than beating her up. I think imposing such a rule would be just as dumb.

The ending for Thor: Ragnarok is definitely *not* a deus ex machina - and I think it follows well from the premises of the movie. Spoilers follow...

If you think the ending is a deus ex machina from just watching that scene, you may have missed the opening scene. In it, Thor plays dumb to learn how Surtur will destroy Asgard. Thor then defeats him and captures his crown to prevent Ragnarok. However, over the course of the film, he also learns that Hel's power comes from Asgard itself. I'm not saying you will like it, but it's false to call it a deus ex machina. The ending comes from Thor's choice to destroy Asgard, which he made possible by defeating Surtur and learning his secret. It's an expression of protagonist agency and has been set up through the whole movie.

If you want an example of bad politically correct influenced writing in Thor: Ragnarok, surely Valkyrie controlling Thor with an electric taser thingy is the obvious example?  :o As JHKim says, Hel & her defeat was actually well set up. 

I found the big problem in Thor: Ragnarok was how it gave up character integrity for comedy. And Feminist-influenced tropes certainly fed in there.

Quote from: S'mon on September 28, 2021, 02:19:19 AM
If you want an example of bad politically correct influenced writing in Thor: Ragnarok, surely Valkyrie controlling Thor with an electric taser thingy is the obvious example?  :o As JHKim says, Hel & her defeat was actually well set up. 

I found the big problem in Thor: Ragnarok was how it gave up character integrity for comedy. And Feminist-influenced tropes certainly fed in there.

There's a running gag of Thor being weirdly vulnerable to being tasered, despite being the god of thunder.

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2021, 05:53:48 PM
I don't make any particular claims about SJWs. My main RPG discussion forum is here, which only has a handful at most of self-professed SJWs - so I don't follow a lot of the online discussion. On the other hand, I game in one of the most liberal areas in the country - so my actual gaming is strongly liberal. From what I can tell, the liberal crowd are relatively happy with Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft and Candlekeep Mysteries - so I'd guess that what they want in D&D is roughly products like that. And that's at the expense of people who like 5E but don't like those products.

If you mean liberal - you mean those people into BLM, Social Justice, and the rest of the elements coming from the left, I would disagree that those things are "liberal". The elements in question are all purity tests for their orthodoxy. As I'll point out below.

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2021, 05:53:48 PM
So, you're making demands that WotC should make products the way you like them, instead of making products that others like?

Completely false set of choices. I literally posted the *exact* opposite in the post you quoted from. Those kinds of games with those kinds of interests - LGBT, Body Positivity, Disabled gaming, Pan-Gendered fantasy, Abortion Spells, Blackcentric-cum-white-genocide fantasy, whatever their pet axe-grinding thing is - *should* exist if they want it. Those things should be made in their own setting(s) and WotC should make them if that's what they want to make.

Here's the funny thing if you say you don't want those elements in your game setting, to *any* degree - you're a Nazi. Conversely, the elements of the game that have been traditionally emphasized which comports towards non-modern political, quasi-European historical elements from which all of this stuff came - if you want more of those things, you're a Nazi. Hence, this is not "inclusivity" at all. It's orthodoxy. It's illiberal. I'm not saying any of these elements can't exist - I'm saying they should be put in a clearer context that everyone can exept.

They, and you - based on your question, fall into the Post-Modern fallacy of conflation of all things (in this case these new elements) being equal without discernment. They're not. The vast majority of people are *not* into these things in their daily life. For the same reason that settings like Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, etc which are based on analog *actual* historical cultures didn't sell well - the Leftists twats at WotC insert this stuff into D&D where they can, into the main line because they either don't have the skill to pull it off as an ongoing product, or the market doesn't really exist for it. This is what makes their choice so insidious - people that have this pathological view as their reality assume outliers are equal to the norm, but they're too cynical to actually pull the trigger and make their own setting based on their alleged beliefs. And we all know why (see: Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, Nyambe, Sword Lesbians, etc. - they start great, after a year they die.)

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2021, 05:53:48 PMYou're welcome to express your preferences - and if you are representative of a large enough market share, then game companies will do well to listen.

Yep. And thus I vote with my wallet. The cynical reality as I pointed out above is WotC apparently would rather burn through it's IP's intrinsic value on its core audience by inserting these elements into their core line, and emphasizing their real-world politics vs. making a setting that actually exemplifies those supposed visions. And I'm perfectly happy taking them at their word and leaving, but I'm taking my considerable sums of money I spend in this hobby with me and happily giving it to others that make games more to my tastes.

This is a short-term thing for WotC - much like Marvel. They'll burn through their core base - and they'll take it further with their next edition which will alienate more.

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2021, 05:53:48 PMOn the other hand, I don't believe in any sort of purity test for established settings. Settings change, just like rules editions change. Sometimes I like the changes, sometimes I don't. For example, I thought Champions got better through 4th edition, but then it got worse with Fuzion and 5th and 6th editions.

So you do have some kind of purity test then. You DO make some discernment - you like what you like. You don't like Fuzion (who does?). But those are systems, not setting conceits. For instance - I like Greybox 1e Forgotten Realms, and I'm a huge fan of 2e. But the setting elements and metaplots of 3e got atrocious. The ELEMENTS made the setting worse. I don't give a shit about the Seven Sisters, and Drizzt now being everywhere and doing everything, and stupid shit like Spellfire (which is a 2e thing they rolled further with), I don't give a crap about their modules which pushed their increasingly stupid metaplotlines over gazeteer materials.

Just like I don't like the assumption that everything written in the rules is now assumed to be present in the setting without context. This is what degrades the basic assumptions of the original works.

Yes things change. That's obvious. But you fail to discern whether they change for the BETTER. I have no obligation to consume *bad* things. Which if WotC were neutral in their presentation of these stupid ideas like the Combat Wheelchair, and their personal politics, that too could be ignored. But they don't. Their employees that push this stuff in Social media to promote these elements cast me as an actual enemy to them - not their game we share.

Even if I *liked* the system (which I don't) I'm not going to monetarily support people who vociferously support politics that I actually find harmful. But if those politics didn't exist in the orbit of the game? I'd probably still be a consumer of WotC products - which I think most of their current herd does. They don't pay attention to what their choices, they just consume the brands they know without thought.

I'm a conscientious consumer for the most part - but in my hobbies, I take it a level further.

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2021, 05:53:48 PMAll of this is just different tastes in games.

No. There is more nuance than "different tastes". The game of Monopoly isn't the same as Stock Market. Both boardgames loosely about elements of capitalism but not the same game. RPG's clearly more complex. D&D has traditionally been about Western European fantasy and myth. Modern politics are *new* elements now informing the game. They shouldn't be there. Feel free to disagree, the problem is many of us that believe there is way of having your cake and eating it too - are labeled as Nazis, for suggesting THEIR way is the wrong way.

I'm perfectly fine for SJW themed games to exist. As are the vast majority of people on this very forum. But SJW's don't want *us* to exist. OUR games and settings are "problematic" *because* we don't have their elements in OUR games.

Therein is the issue.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 28, 2021, 09:06:50 AM

Quote from: S'mon on September 28, 2021, 02:19:19 AM
If you want an example of bad politically correct influenced writing in Thor: Ragnarok, surely Valkyrie controlling Thor with an electric taser thingy is the obvious example?  :o As JHKim says, Hel & her defeat was actually well set up. 

I found the big problem in Thor: Ragnarok was how it gave up character integrity for comedy. And Feminist-influenced tropes certainly fed in there.

There's a running gag of Thor being weirdly vulnerable to being tasered, despite being the god of thunder.

Agreed that it was a plot hole. They could have found a better mechanism by which the control collars worked and how Thor got one on him. Given the Grandmaster's advanced technology, I think there were lots of possible explanations for a control device which would have left the rest of the movie unchanged.

But I think this is getting off-topic. I agree there are feminist-influenced tropes in general, but I don't think this plot hole is radical feminism either. Lots of sci-fi movies have had a device like a control collar put on the heroes.

The funny part about the MCU - specifically with their feminist push leader - Captain Marvel, is she's very unheroic. One of the motivating factors that makes her so unlikable is her pathological need to "prove herself" against men as being a primary motivation over the relative actions going on around her.

I watched the the latest What If ... and it was godawful. They make Thor and incompetent moron, and Captain Marvel goes straight in swinging (and of course is kicking Thor's ass) with zero interplay "because stupid man". This is an extraordinary stupid version of Thor and a complete deviation from him in both the MCU pre-Thor, and let's be honest, Captain Marvel is never and has never been more powerful than Thor. That has always been Stan Lee's mantra - Thor is the most powerful hero. But with the MCU... Grrl Power prevails - which is funny, because the only principle which the MCU Captain Marvel character operates from is the execution of power on others driven by the fact she's a woman, not because of any moral or ethical value, which is the hallmark of a villain not a hero.

I'm still waiting for what is "representation" and why, and how, it should be represented in our gaming/pop culture.

Because I do not base my identity on pop-culture representations or lack thereof.

Maybe the problem is the people demanding this are the damaged folks that do?

Quote from: tenbones on September 28, 2021, 12:30:34 PM
I'm still waiting for what is "representation" and why, and how, it should be represented in our gaming/pop culture.

Because I do not base my identity on pop-culture representations or lack thereof.

Maybe the problem is the people demanding this are the damaged folks that do?

Keep an eye on "Translations from the Wokish", they will get to it sooner or latter.

https://newdiscourses.com/translations-from-the-wokish/ (https://newdiscourses.com/translations-from-the-wokish/)

Oh nice! The online Bible for the Woke!

From my perspective in the UK. Things have actually become LESS diverse. When I was first going to my local Games Workshop as a young kid there were all sorts of people there. Now to be fair, it was mostly white people and as we lived in a deprived area it wasn't seen as "cool" to play Warhammer or RPGs. But we had a few people who ticked all the (then) progressive boxes. And no one cared about any intangible aspects of a person. Most people came from hard up areas and at that time it was still feasible to spend saved up pocket money on a box of Marines or a vehicle if they were a big spender. One of our best tournament players was a girl who collected Dark Eldar and Slannesh demons. What I saw a lot of at the time was really badly behaved people getting a pass. For whatever reason the manager at that GW was one anemic sod. We had this one really nasty 12 year old who would bully the other younger kids and if he lost a game he'd start throwing your minis at you in a tantrum. He was banned and promptly let back in several times. And this resulted in a lot of people leaving the hobby just before the first big price increase I remember shortly after 5th edition 40k came out.

Eventually an LGS opened up near me and again, lots of diversity there. Lots of great people. And lots of the same bastards who made people leave. When all this stupidity over SJW bullshit happened, a lot of those bastards decided to take advantage of that. These middle to upper class white men decided that they were Attack Helicopters or whatever was popular at the time. And suddenly you couldn't just tell them to fuck off when they did stupid shit. Which led yet again to people fleeing the hobby. Round about 2015 is when I noticed women were appearing less and less at my LGS. Less non white people, less diversity, hell less young people. Last I checked my LGS was a hive of really obnoxious and toxic 20-50 year olds who've driven everyone interesting away so they can have a hug box where those evil people outside can't accidentally misgender people constantly changing their pronouns. And they can have their autistic tantrums in peace. I think the LGS in question just pivoted hard to selling MTG cards and nothing else. So they can coast along just fine.

Quote from: tenbones on September 28, 2021, 10:29:13 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2021, 05:53:48 PMAll of this is just different tastes in games.

No. There is more nuance than "different tastes". The game of Monopoly isn't the same as Stock Market. Both boardgames loosely about elements of capitalism but not the same game. RPG's clearly more complex. D&D has traditionally been about Western European fantasy and myth. Modern politics are *new* elements now informing the game. They shouldn't be there.

D&D is a brand that had produced hundreds of products in dozens of lines over more than four decades. There are going to be and must be new elements. Different editions or products might be more or less to my tastes, I don't think it's invalid to put in new elements. For example, if the brand owner wants to take Western European D&D and add East Asian martial-arts characters as a new core class - well, that's their choice. If some gamers don't want East Asian martial arts characters in their D&D, they can stick to the previous edition - or they can disallow that class in their home games. And just like monks were added, other new elements like warlocks, dragonborn, and so forth have been added.

This fundamentally is just about different taste in games. You don't like what fans of the current D&D like - but conversely, if D&D were published according to the way you like, then the fans of current D&D would not like it.

But, particularly with D&D which was released under the OGL, it's easy to have both. The older editions are still available, and there are tons of retro-clones and other OSR games.

Quote from: tenbones on September 28, 2021, 10:29:13 AM
Feel free to disagree, the problem is many of us that believe there is way of having your cake and eating it too - are labeled as Nazis, for suggesting THEIR way is the wrong way.

I'm perfectly fine for SJW themed games to exist. As are the vast majority of people on this very forum. But SJW's don't want *us* to exist. OUR games and settings are "problematic" *because* we don't have their elements in OUR games.

So if blatantly SJW-themed games like _Thirsty Sword Lesbians_ or _Coyote & Crow_ get published, then you wouldn't have any problem with it? If so, great - but as far as I can tell, the posting history in this forum says that's a minority view. Many if not most posters here had major problems with those games, as shown by the threads with hundreds of posts bitching about them.

There is a subset of people from both political sides who just want to play their games and aren't interested in changing the other side's gaming. I think there are actually plenty of these players - more than implied by the loudness in online forums.

Quote from: jhkim on September 28, 2021, 01:51:30 PM

Quote from: tenbones on September 28, 2021, 10:29:13 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2021, 05:53:48 PMAll of this is just different tastes in games.

No. There is more nuance than "different tastes". The game of Monopoly isn't the same as Stock Market. Both boardgames loosely about elements of capitalism but not the same game. RPG's clearly more complex. D&D has traditionally been about Western European fantasy and myth. Modern politics are *new* elements now informing the game. They shouldn't be there.

D&D is a brand that had produced hundreds of products in dozens of lines over more than four decades. There are going to be and must be new elements. Different editions or products might be more or less to my tastes, I don't think it's invalid to put in new elements. For example, if the brand owner wants to take Western European D&D and add East Asian martial-arts characters as a new core class - well, that's their choice. If some gamers don't want East Asian martial arts characters in their D&D, they can stick to the previous edition - or they can disallow that class in their home games. And just like monks were added, other new elements like warlocks, dragonborn, and so forth have been added.

This fundamentally is just about different taste in games. You don't like what fans of the current D&D like - but conversely, if D&D were published according to the way you like, then the fans of current D&D would not like it.

But, particularly with D&D which was released under the OGL, it's easy to have both. The older editions are still available, and there are tons of retro-clones and other OSR games.

Quote from: tenbones on September 28, 2021, 10:29:13 AM
Feel free to disagree, the problem is many of us that believe there is way of having your cake and eating it too - are labeled as Nazis, for suggesting THEIR way is the wrong way.

I'm perfectly fine for SJW themed games to exist. As are the vast majority of people on this very forum. But SJW's don't want *us* to exist. OUR games and settings are "problematic" *because* we don't have their elements in OUR games.

So if blatantly SJW-themed games like _Thirsty Sword Lesbians_ or _Coyote & Crow_ get published, then you wouldn't have any problem with it? If so, great - but as far as I can tell, the posting history in this forum says that's a minority view. Many if not most posters here had major problems with those games, as shown by the threads with hundreds of posts bitching about them.

There is a subset of people from both political sides who just want to play their games and aren't interested in changing the other side's gaming. I think there are actually plenty of these players - more than implied by the loudness in online forums.

I think there's a galaxy of difference between saying "This Thirsty Lesbian weird AF game is really badly done and I don't like it." and "If you are conservative you are not welcome and I will never let you make games." And frankly, confusing the two is a bit disingenuous. Critique is NOT exclusion. Nor is it inherently the destruction of art. I can say I don't like SJW products but that doesn't mean those products will cease to exist or that I want them to cease to exist.  Most people here are probably all for the usual crowd to go off and play whatever degenerate shit they come up with. We can laugh at them, parody them and above all criticize them. But no one is going to go actively out of there way to threaten, blackmail and bully SJWs out of the hobby or industry. Unlike them.

Quote from: jhkim on September 28, 2021, 01:51:30 PM
So if blatantly SJW-themed games like _Thirsty Sword Lesbians_ or _Coyote & Crow_ get published, then you wouldn't have any problem with it? If so, great - but as far as I can tell, the posting history in this forum says that's a minority view. Many if not most posters here had major problems with those games, as shown by the threads with hundreds of posts bitching about them.

There is a subset of people from both political sides who just want to play their games and aren't interested in changing the other side's gaming. I think there are actually plenty of these players - more than implied by the loudness in online forums.

"If."

And, I might add, that also presumes they sell more than a handful of copies. Remember, a lot of the biggest supporters of these games tend to be weirdly anti-capitalist types who don't always have a lot of money.

And more to the point, will anyone PLAY these games, or will they be the RPG equivalent of hangar/garage queens?

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 28, 2021, 01:58:14 PM
We can laugh at them, parody them and above all criticize them. But no one is going to go actively out of there way to threaten, blackmail and bully SJWs out of the hobby or industry. Unlike them.

I don't think it's purely one or the other. I got personal threats and harassment many years ago after I attended a feminist science fiction convention. It sucked, and I'm opposed to it happening to anyone. However, I don't think that all anti-feminists are responsible for this.

I am aware that there are also bad actors on the left-leaning side, and I don't condone or defend them.

On the other hand, there are some accusations of threats and blackmail that aren't actually valid. For example, both sides will criticize and boycott products of the other side - like Ocule's green/yellow/red list of publishers here, as well as the equivalent in left-leaning forums. I have no problem with Ocule's list in principle unless it has false claims in it - but I also have no problem with a similar left-leaning list. I think the main difference is that in the current online environment, left-leaning lists or targets have a lot more power than Ocule's list. But fundamentally, boycott is just using your purchasing power to express free market influence, whether you're left-wing or right-wing.

Quote from: jhkim on September 28, 2021, 02:46:31 PM
I don't think it's purely one or the other. I got personal threats and harassment many years ago after I attended a feminist science fiction convention. It sucked, and I'm opposed to it happening to anyone. However, I don't think that all anti-feminists are responsible for this.

The "Other" side of the SJW element is the very thing they claim they're against: White Male Supremacy. Where are those games? Like... one? Who plays those around here?

This is either disingenuous or you're so deep in their mire of thought you are unable to see it's not the equivalent. SJW's entered our collective spaces and pushed everyone not like them out and continue to do so.

How is that inclusive? I'm an Asian male that was kicked out of TBP for condoning the use of "bad words" at the gaming table among adults. These are the same people that helped forge the idiotic release form that is used in *not* just in Conventions - but other hobby-groups now use that form (I know the Knitting community that ended up booting Karlyn Boryshenko for wrongthink did this). Who is this helping? Are you trying to imply the gaming community like TBP that operates by these ideas is better for it? Before you slink off and say "Well not everyone goes Forums" - WE DO. And so let me head that off at the pass before you try to pull that card - if WE are a minority, so are THEY. So who is having a larger effect on things? It's not us (yet) and "They" are supported by these very companies that produce the flagship RPG of history - D&D, who stands with THEM.

We are an enemy THEY chose to create because of what we do, say and think. Not because we are activists.

Quote from: jhkim on September 28, 2021, 02:46:31 PMI am aware that there are also bad actors on the left-leaning side, and I don't condone or defend them.

On the other hand, there are some accusations of threats and blackmail that aren't actually valid. For example, both sides will criticize and boycott products of the other side - like Ocule's green/yellow/red list of publishers here, as well as the equivalent in left-leaning forums. I have no problem with Ocule's list in principle unless it has false claims in it - but I also have no problem with a similar left-leaning list. I think the main difference is that in the current online environment, left-leaning lists or targets have a lot more power than Ocule's list. But fundamentally, boycott is just using your purchasing power to express free market influence, whether you're left-wing or right-wing.

And so if you're going to equivocate "shots fired" - I'd love to see your tally by which you're making these judgements. Who are the ones *actually* doing this stuff? Ocules list is literally the first real list of its kind - most of us were already doing this privately anyhow. And it's only just now being curated for actual political specifics - the SJW side has no such stipulations. It's purely mob driven. In fact, I'll go on to say the SJW's have *created* more anger for minorities than anything I've seen in the last 50-years - and I'm saying this a man that has lived through some *shit*.

You're pretending that being anti-SJW is some kind of ideology unto itself. No it's *everything* that's not SJW that's being branded as "Evil" by the SJW's that giving you that perception. You should consider your own views in that regard.

There are people here that are independent thinkers, some might be actual leftists (Grim for instance) - I know of at least five regulars here from entirely different religious and philosophical backgrounds, and we all get along because we like gaming. We don't necessarily play the same flavors etc. but we can have that discussion and dicker around without threats or calls for censorship. That is a *radically* different reality than what you believe happens on the SJW side. This is where you always lose points with me, because I know you know better.

You stand among them out of habit, but you don't have the guts to simply say it. No one here is advocating using the Red List to take any kind of action against anyone other than to choose where you spend your money wisely. You make the limp-dick approach of pretending those companies on the Red List have done *nothing* to earn their spot there. It's not ideological purity *anyone* here is asking for, it's ideological purity that those on the Red List are *literally* demanding. We are actually obliging. And who is more upset? It's not us.

Get your perspective straight.

Again I'm asking: Where is the value of Diversity and Representation, as it's meant to be practiced by it's proponents, in this hobby? I'm REALLY interested in figuring out where any value of measure has been created that wasn't already there?

As far as I can see it's been an insanely divisive thing based on ideology and attempted to corral people into sub-groups based on race and gender. It's racist and sexist in its assumptions.

Quote from: tenbones on September 28, 2021, 03:57:13 PM
Again I'm asking: Where is the value of Diversity and Representation, as it's meant to be practiced by it's proponents, in this hobby? I'm REALLY interested in figuring out where any value of measure has been created that wasn't already there?

As far as I can see it's been an insanely divisive thing based on ideology and attempted to corral people into sub-groups based on race and gender. It's racist and sexist in its assumptions.

Not telling you anything you don't already know, but answering the question anyway: 

Real diversity of thought can be very useful, especially in academic or creative endeavors. Also in some kinds of problem solving.  The only useful measure of diversity is that there are different thoughts being expressed and the discussion/arguing/brainstorming that ensues from that expression produces something "better" than someone working alone could do.  I know that "better" is a weasel expression here, but trying to keep from going down that rabbit hole.  Suffice to say that "better" is in the terms that the working group finds useful, and as such they also make the call as to how far to take diversity of thought versus getting something done. 

To the degree that diversity of background, culture, etc. correlates to producing diversity of thought, those may occasionally be stand-ins of a rough sort, a kind of quick checksum to see if you might want to consider opening up a bit.  It would be more useful to actually consider the range of thoughts being expressed and the differences between them, but not everyone is that bright.

To the degree that those pushing "diversity" focus on the markers instead of the thoughts, they are part of a cargo cult. That's because some of them aren't that bright and also because some of them want the credit for having thoughts without doing the work of thinking. To the degree that they demand sameness of thoughts from all the participants, they are actively destroying any useful diversity that might occur (even of the incidental, merely person from a different background kind). There are also correlating markers to this kind of active destruction, too, as with any kind of group whose behavior runs from cliquish to dogmatic. 

It is, of course, no accident that the types of groups most likely to benefit from diversity of thought are also the ones most susceptible to being taken over. 

As to why this happens, if you need to motivate a crowd that is full of people that are stupid, intellectually lazy, or often both, a good way to do it is to start a clique, and then find a way for that clique to seem to exercise power.  The harm to the games comes from this.  "Diversity" is merely the excuse.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 28, 2021, 04:19:34 PM
The harm to the games comes from this. 

You can't hurt D&D. 

It's not alive.  It doesn't feel physical pain.  It doesn't care if you like it or hate it.  It's a product. 

A new version of the product doesn't destroy old versions of the product.  In this day and age, every old version of just about every product is available for anyone who wants it. 

'Harm' as you describe it may be in difficulty in finding players that want to play WITH YOU or the style of game YOU WANT TO RUN.  Yes, having more choices means people will exercise those choices.  You can pine for the good old days when there was only one game around, it was the flavor you liked best, but you have to recognize that was a LIMITATION. 

It's true that if the number of ways to play becomes infinite, finding someone that wants to play exactly the game that you want is harder.  So it's probably good to be flexible.  If you want to play a cannibalistic halfling, maybe you should be willing to let someone else play a Gully Dwarf no matter how much you hate them (even to eat).  But decrying people playing what they WANT as if that somehow hurts you in any way shape or form is really starting to bother me.  For a place like this that prides itself on being 'the adult swim', there's an awful lot of tantrums. 

Quote from: tenbones on September 28, 2021, 03:57:13 PM
Again I'm asking: Where is the value of Diversity and Representation, as it's meant to be practiced by it's proponents, in this hobby? I'm REALLY interested in figuring out where any value of measure has been created that wasn't already there?

As far as I can see it's been an insanely divisive thing based on ideology and attempted to corral people into sub-groups based on race and gender. It's racist and sexist in its assumptions.

Yup, because Shrieking Banshee is right:

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 27, 2021, 05:13:23 PM
Diversity is a neutral trait - not a virtue. Its like discussing the virtue of bananas in D&D. ...

In trying to shove Diversity and Representation as virtues down everyone's throat, all they really wind up doing is bringing Jim Crow to RPG land.

Because heaven forbid they mingle with anyone that disagrees with them.

Quote from: tenbones on September 28, 2021, 03:52:55 PM
...
You're pretending that being anti-SJW is some kind of ideology unto itself. No it's *everything* that's not SJW that's being branded as "Evil" by the SJW's that giving you that perception. You should consider your own views in that regard. ...

This.

Some people just don't understand that the SJW's will make you pick a side.

You can put it off for a while. But sooner or later, they will make you pick...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAYklUdVcAAB75I.png)

Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 28, 2021, 05:14:53 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 28, 2021, 04:19:34 PM
The harm to the games comes from this. 

You can't hurt D&D. 

It's not alive.  It doesn't feel physical pain.  It doesn't care if you like it or hate it.  It's a product. 

A new version of the product doesn't destroy old versions of the product.  In this day and age, every old version of just about every product is available for anyone who wants it. 

'Harm' as you describe it may be in difficulty in finding players that want to play WITH YOU or the style of game YOU WANT TO RUN.  Yes, having more choices means people will exercise those choices.  You can pine for the good old days when there was only one game around, it was the flavor you liked best, but you have to recognize that was a LIMITATION. 

It's true that if the number of ways to play becomes infinite, finding someone that wants to play exactly the game that you want is harder.  So it's probably good to be flexible.  If you want to play a cannibalistic halfling, maybe you should be willing to let someone else play a Gully Dwarf no matter how much you hate them (even to eat).  But decrying people playing what they WANT as if that somehow hurts you in any way shape or form is really starting to bother me.  For a place like this that prides itself on being 'the adult swim', there's an awful lot of tantrums.

But you're dodging the OP's questions. What is the importance of diversity and representation AS touted to the Hobby? It's created people like you to create some arbitrary division between us based on things we don't have a personal investment in - nor do we care to.

If you're going to wank on about "Well that's just your tastes, bruh." - Okay. So what? I've offered the solution. SJW's offer nothing but exclusion. I don't begrudge 4e players from loving the holy fuck out of 4e. I don't begrudge LGBT players from loving the fuck out of Thirsty Sword Lesbians or Blue Rose. But I don't give a flying shit about the elements of those game systems or those systems - so what is the point of trying to force those things into the games that I do play? People like myself that don't like these elements can't even disagree without potential censure at minimum on most gaming forums.

This is about the Hobby and industry. Not one particular game per se - but D&D *is* the system that currently is catering to a minority of the populace to the exclusion of the norm. A common practice among SJW's that demand for "equity" by assuming and forcing those in the majority to capitulate to the minority.

I *am* a minority. And I'm never at a loss of laughter at SJW's that are mostly white, telling me how I'm supposed to feel about their issues and desires concerning "People of Color" and "Representation" in the hobby. I do know we used to share the same spaces in this hobby - and now we don't. And it's not because of things on my side of the house. Again - I say SJW's should make the games they wanna play, "inclusion" also means understanding not everyone likes the same flavor of whiskey, but we can share a drink.

But I'm cool with going to a different bar down the street. The odd part is the assholes at the other bar want to close us down... all the time. It's weird.

Quote from: tenbones on September 29, 2021, 11:43:20 AM
But you're dodging the OP's questions. What is the importance of diversity and representation AS touted to the Hobby? It's created people like you to create some arbitrary division between us based on things we don't have a personal investment in - nor do we care to.

If you're going to wank on about "Well that's just your tastes, bruh." - Okay. So what? I've offered the solution. SJW's offer nothing but exclusion. I don't begrudge 4e players from loving the holy fuck out of 4e. I don't begrudge LGBT players from loving the fuck out of Thirsty Sword Lesbians or Blue Rose.

I'm not sure I understand the full details of your solution, so correct me if I'm misrepresenting. As I understand it, your solution is that Wizards of the Coast (WotC) aren't allowed to introduce any new elements into existing settings. Instead, if they want to have modern politics such as a gay NPC, they have to create a new setting that is designed from the start with gay NPCs included.

My solution is that gamers aren't allowed to threaten, blackmail, slander, or harass each other. Outside of that, WotC can publish whatever they like, and other companies can publish whatever they like. Gamers are free to criticize games of other politics, though I'd hope that they focus less on that and more on creating and running games that they enjoy.

Quote from: jhkim on September 29, 2021, 12:59:16 PM
I'm not sure I understand the full details of your solution, so correct me if I'm misrepresenting. As I understand it, your solution is that Wizards of the Coast (WotC) aren't allowed to introduce any new elements into existing settings. Instead, if they want to have modern politics such as a gay NPC, they have to create a new setting that is designed from the start with gay NPCs included.

WotC is "allowed" to do whatever they want. They're doing it. They can introduce whatever elements they want. I'm free to like/dislike those elements as *I* want. The issue is - if I don't like those elements, I'm demonized for not liking them.

This is the same problem I'd have if they made Iron Fist in Marvel "Asian" because he's a martial artist. This is the same reason I'm not down with people hating on Shang-Chi (the character not the actor who clearly has political issues) for being a token character - yes, he's a very little known character, and has always been such, but for those that collected his comics (and I own the complete original run) - he's a fully developed character with a fully developed background. He requires no apologies to anyone - Marvel gave him his legitimate shot. Unsurprisingly it went nowhere.

WotC is not doing that with their politics however - D&D is *not* the place to insert modern politics *because* the conventions of D&D aren't supposed to be modern representations of what the game traditionally has been about. The moment you decide to tell me otherwise - is the arbitrary moment where we'll disagree. Which is fine. But then don't be surprised if I don't eat what is served.

It's a bait-and-switch. It's not that I don't like LGBT characters. It's not that I don't like having non-Eurocentric cultures in my D&D. It's that I don't need weak ass tokenized versions of "representation" - I want fully contextualized GOOD content. I don't need some sniveling SJW lecturing me about how I *need* to accept their vision writ-large. You have to SELL ME A GOOD PRODUCT. And sprinkling your non-contextual limp-dick attempts at "representaiton" in lieu of fully realized contextual content is not going to happen over the established work that I've spent decades using "just because some SJW says so".

This is precisely why I say - "GO MAKE GOOD THINGS" - go make 5e Blue Rose and sell people on it. Go make Nyambe 5e and sell people on it. Hire me to write Al-Qadim or Kara-Tur 5e and I'll do my best to knock it out of the park. But the reality is they're more interested in forcing people to accept these elements on bad terms rather than trying to create products FOR the entire market.

You can't make Captain Kirk gay and tell me he's always been gay despite everything we know about Captain Kirk and suddenly expect me to accept it. And some things simply are not people's cup-of-tea.

Surely you understand nuance?

Quote from: jhkim on September 29, 2021, 12:59:16 PMMy solution is that gamers aren't allowed to threaten, blackmail, slander, or harass each other. Outside of that, WotC can publish whatever they like, and other companies can publish whatever they like. Gamers are free to criticize games of other politics, though I'd hope that they focus less on that and more on creating and running games that they enjoy.

Are you kidding me? They do that all the time - hell how many Jessica threads do we have to have? She shits on people non-stop in social media as a representative of the company. How many times do we have to hear from company reps and their respective constituents how evil those are that don't believe or like the things they like? This forum *exists* because of that dynamic. THOSE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED - yet you still play D&D, right?

The Red List is specific about people in this hobby doing things, many of them things you just described.

Is this that obtuse thing you always do happening again?

And you still haven't explained to us how this modern version of "Representation" and "Diversity" as practiced is GOOD for the hobby.

Quote from: tenbones on September 29, 2021, 01:17:13 PMAnd you still haven't explained to us how this modern version of "Representation" and "Diversity" as practiced is GOOD for the hobby.

Again because its been proselytized into the same unconcious morality zone as 'Don't lie/ Faithfullness to your spouse is good', moreso even, because cheating and lying is OK if it leads to more diversity.
Whats happening is cultural/moral teraforming. The greatest tool in the arsenal of the people doing so is the unawareness of the people that parrot their rhetoric without thinking it through.

Diversity & Representation is not a good. Its a neutral trait.

Quote from: jhkim on September 29, 2021, 12:59:16 PMMy solution is that gamers aren't allowed to threaten, blackmail, slander, or harass each other. Outside of that, WotC can publish whatever they like, and other companies can publish whatever they like. Gamers are free to criticize games of other politics, though I'd hope that they focus less on that and more on creating and running games that they enjoy.

But corporations or their employees are allowed to do all of that?

Someone please correct me but aren't those already crimes? Why is it that there's NEVER police involvenment? Could it be that it's all lies?

Funny thing is our criticizing games is ALWAYS minsconstrued as:

Threats, blackmail, slander, or harassment and wanting to deplatform/censor those games, the publisher and those who say they will buy a gazillion copies to make up for the ones we won't buy.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 29, 2021, 03:11:33 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 29, 2021, 12:59:16 PMMy solution is that gamers aren't allowed to threaten, blackmail, slander, or harass each other. Outside of that, WotC can publish whatever they like, and other companies can publish whatever they like. Gamers are free to criticize games of other politics, though I'd hope that they focus less on that and more on creating and running games that they enjoy.

But corporations or their employees are allowed to do all of that?

No, of course not. My point is that shouldn't happen at all. I don't know what the most practical mechanism is to enforce that, but it shouldn't happen - regardless of to whose side.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 29, 2021, 03:11:33 PM
Someone please correct me but aren't those already crimes? Why is it that there's NEVER police involvenment? Could it be that it's all lies?

I don't think it happens much - but it does happen. Personally, when I was harassed online, I didn't report it to the police. I had no expectation that the police would track down the names of the people responsible and arrest them. I expect most others are the same.

Quote from: jhkim on September 29, 2021, 04:44:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 29, 2021, 03:11:33 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 29, 2021, 12:59:16 PMMy solution is that gamers aren't allowed to threaten, blackmail, slander, or harass each other. Outside of that, WotC can publish whatever they like, and other companies can publish whatever they like. Gamers are free to criticize games of other politics, though I'd hope that they focus less on that and more on creating and running games that they enjoy.

But corporations or their employees are allowed to do all of that?

No, of course not. My point is that shouldn't happen at all. I don't know what the most practical mechanism is to enforce that, but it shouldn't happen - regardless of to whose side.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 29, 2021, 03:11:33 PM
Someone please correct me but aren't those already crimes? Why is it that there's NEVER police involvenment? Could it be that it's all lies?

I don't think it happens much - but it does happen. Personally, when I was harassed online, I didn't report it to the police. I had no expectation that the police would track down the names of the people responsible and arrest them. I expect most others are the same.

So we're left with the word of those who call me an istophobe that they got threats, blackmail, slander and harassment?

The same people that claim that Orcs are a standin for black people?

The same people that claim that ANY depiction of a scantily clad woman leads to rape?

The same people that say that the OK sign is white supremacy?

You'll excuse me if I press X to doubt.

right. Why are *we* required to give the benefit of the doubt to people whose very ideology makes them hypocritical bad actors in the first place.

I merely point to the RPGsite - say what you will about it, this place exists *because* the majority of people here have been forced out of our other haunts.

@jhkim This is why I find you a sketchy actor many times in these discussions. I  want to give you credit but your points are so often so disingenuous. I'm not saying you don't have points - but in light of the larger issue, which you can definitely see, you always do this SJW-habitual thing of using some outlier to justify your point which you then obtusely pretend is not in fact, and outlier. This is precisely what SJW's do as a matter of course in their rhetoric.

How can a cause based on allegedly forcing "equality" for *minorities* ever hit parity without sacrificing segments of the majority in *anything*? That's a logic question that does not require any specifics.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 29, 2021, 05:02:33 PM
So we're left with the word of those who call me an istophobe that they got threats, blackmail, slander and harassment?

The same people that claim that Orcs are a standin for black people?

The same people that claim that ANY depiction of a scantily clad woman leads to rape?

The same people that say that the OK sign is white supremacy?

You'll excuse me if I press X to doubt.

I think we're talking past each other here. The issue of threats and blackmail came from King Tyranno's post a little while ago:

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 28, 2021, 01:58:14 PM
Most people here are probably all for the usual crowd to go off and play whatever degenerate shit they come up with. We can laugh at them, parody them and above all criticize them. But no one is going to go actively out of there way to threaten, blackmail and bully SJWs out of the hobby or industry. Unlike them.

So King Tyranno says that SJWs are threatening and blackmailing people out of the hobby.

Then I speak out against threatening and blackmailing.

Then you come down on me that threats and blackmail aren't happening or are lies.

I'm not making claims about anyone getting threats other than myself (and my family) many years ago. I don't know the extent of the problem today within gaming. But if it is happening to whatever extent, then I'm opposed and I'd want to work against it.

Quote from: jhkim on September 29, 2021, 05:41:14 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 29, 2021, 05:02:33 PM
So we're left with the word of those who call me an istophobe that they got threats, blackmail, slander and harassment?

The same people that claim that Orcs are a standin for black people?

The same people that claim that ANY depiction of a scantily clad woman leads to rape?

The same people that say that the OK sign is white supremacy?

You'll excuse me if I press X to doubt.

I think we're talking past each other here. The issue of threats and blackmail came from King Tyranno's post a little while ago:

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 28, 2021, 01:58:14 PM
Most people here are probably all for the usual crowd to go off and play whatever degenerate shit they come up with. We can laugh at them, parody them and above all criticize them. But no one is going to go actively out of there way to threaten, blackmail and bully SJWs out of the hobby or industry. Unlike them.

So King Tyranno says that SJWs are threatening and blackmailing people out of the hobby.

Then I speak out against threatening and blackmailing.

Then you come down on me that threats and blackmail aren't happening or are lies.

I'm not making claims about anyone getting threats other than myself (and my family) many years ago. I don't know the extent of the problem today within gaming. But if it is happening to whatever extent, then I'm opposed and I'd want to work against it.

Oh?  So you were talking against the usual SJW tactics? Well if that's the case then I would aplaud you for finally doing so.

If you don't know the extent of the problem you must have been under a rock until a few minutes ago. You missed all the threads in this forum about exactly that happenning to different people all over.

But you'll excuseme for not knowing you were speaking against the SJW tactics and not painting all gamers with a wide brush, especially since you only said GAMERS, and didn't specify further.

Quote from: Ruprecht on September 20, 2021, 10:18:06 PM
In a sane world we'd have people of color making amazing non-europeans settings and inviting everyone to enjoy them and they'd make a lot of money doing so. We don't seem to be in that world.

What if - as a group average - different peoples have different preferences in how they spend their leisure time? Resulting, in for instance, people in Sub-Saharan Africa having less interest in gaming out a fantasy version of their ancestral past with polyhedrals than people of European descent. Crazy idea isn't it, different people having different cultures?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 29, 2021, 05:46:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 29, 2021, 05:41:14 PM
So King Tyranno says that SJWs are threatening and blackmailing people out of the hobby.

Then I speak out against threatening and blackmailing.

Then you come down on me that threats and blackmail aren't happening or are lies.

I'm not making claims about anyone getting threats other than myself (and my family) many years ago. I don't know the extent of the problem today within gaming. But if it is happening to whatever extent, then I'm opposed and I'd want to work against it.

Oh?  So you were talking against the usual SJW tactics? Well if that's the case then I would aplaud you for finally doing so.

If you don't know the extent of the problem you must have been under a rock until a few minutes ago. You missed all the threads in this forum about exactly that happenning to different people all over.

I'm not saying I think these threats and harassment don't happen. I know they do - I've experienced it. I am saying I don't know the extent of it. I posted some about my experiences when I was getting targeted back in 2008 on what was then the "Off Topic" forum.

https://www.therpgsite.com/media-inspiration/anyone-familiar-with-something-awful/

I don't know how common this is now. Regardless of how common it is, though, it fucking sucks. I don't want it to happen to others.

But it is happening to others - and it's far more one-sided than you're either pretending or unwilling to admit.

And several people have explained why "Diversity" and "Inclusion" as practiced by the SJW's is very harmful for our industry (and the culture at large) - no one has explained why it's GOOD.

Dividing people up into boxes based along grievances based on race, disabilities, gender (real or imagined) and ostracizing those that have no particular interest in politics and propaganda surrounding those grievances is not a good business policy.

The degree to which this is done with intention is manifest with how they try to drip this into the game (and in a larger context to other media) rather than just trying create content for people with interest in those issues.

I don't think harassment is one-sided. Plenty of (at least nominally) right-wing trolls ready to harrass JHKim or whoever.

Exclusion is one-sided, because exclusion requires institutional power.

Quote from: tenbones on September 30, 2021, 10:26:17 AM
But it is happening to others - and it's far more one-sided than you're either pretending or unwilling to admit.

And several people have explained why "Diversity" and "Inclusion" as practiced by the SJW's is very harmful for our industry (and the culture at large) - no one has explained why it's GOOD.

Dividing people up into boxes based along grievances based on race, disabilities, gender (real or imagined) and ostracizing those that have no particular interest in politics and propaganda surrounding those grievances is not a good business policy.

The degree to which this is done with intention is manifest with how they try to drip this into the game (and in a larger context to other media) rather than just trying create content for people with interest in those issues.

This here, I've got more in common with a Philipino living God knows where than with a Mexican in my same city that would mock me for playing D&D.

If you're white, talking about "diversity & inclusion" is a bit like back in the day, putting on that white powdered wig. You're showing that you're better than the common "uneducated" rabble.

Quote from: jhkim on September 30, 2021, 02:02:59 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 29, 2021, 05:46:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 29, 2021, 05:41:14 PM
So King Tyranno says that SJWs are threatening and blackmailing people out of the hobby.

Then I speak out against threatening and blackmailing.

Then you come down on me that threats and blackmail aren't happening or are lies.

I'm not making claims about anyone getting threats other than myself (and my family) many years ago. I don't know the extent of the problem today within gaming. But if it is happening to whatever extent, then I'm opposed and I'd want to work against it.

Oh?  So you were talking against the usual SJW tactics? Well if that's the case then I would aplaud you for finally doing so.

If you don't know the extent of the problem you must have been under a rock until a few minutes ago. You missed all the threads in this forum about exactly that happenning to different people all over.

I'm not saying I think these threats and harassment don't happen. I know they do - I've experienced it. I am saying I don't know the extent of it. I posted some about my experiences when I was getting targeted back in 2008 on what was then the "Off Topic" forum.

https://www.therpgsite.com/media-inspiration/anyone-familiar-with-something-awful/

I don't know how common this is now. Regardless of how common it is, though, it fucking sucks. I don't want it to happen to others.

God, I only knew about SA because of a feminist there that used to harrass people, can't remember the name but she was one of the Literally Whos that inserted herself in GamerGate to score oppresion points. Sorry that happened to you, harrassment is awful.

I agree it fucking sucks, it shouldn't happen but it does and sadly there's not much hope (if any) that it will ever not happen at all.

I'm guessing you're not into social media (you don't know how lucky you are) or if you are your very left leaning opinions have (so far) shielded you from the onslaught of the SJWs. They are such good persons that would try to deny my being Maya to be able to dismiss me, white well to do gringos pretending to speak for me.

The same types you see on videos yelling racial slurs to a black police officer.

I'm sure there are assholes on the right (I mean vile assholes not like myself a good natured asshole :D ), but they have zero power and are banned everywhere at the smallest sugestion they might have spoken against the cult's dogma.

  About the words harassment and threats... I think I define these differently than is being used here.  If someone shows up to where you work, in person and starts making a stink, or runs into you in the store, etc that to me is harassment.  If someone says they are going to do you harm, and then shows up at your house... that is a threat.  When I was a kid, getting a threatening phone call to my father's house...it was called Tuesday, not a threat.  Now when the guys, came to kill him, and attempted to ambush him in the front yard by opening all the doors on my mother's car and turning her lights on...that was a threat.  A true threat condition then, my brother and I could not live at home for a month.

  The words threaten and harass get over used a bit.  Talking shit online, to me is just words.  I guess online campaigns to get you fired that have some traction, then we can talk harassment.  I just think those words are way, way over used today.   Every person who gets a message online where someone says they hope they die is a death threat.  No, that is some spurg spouting off online.

The glaring silence of people that believe "Diversity" and "Inclusion" is good for the industry - when at least two people of color are vociferously asking "how?" is growing.

This is the issue with these silly terms without real context. Because the idea is "We are going to diversify and include things in your game for you. And if you don't like it, and we hear about it - we will ostracize you." is how it's done in practice.

I can clearly see a middle ground here. SJW's don't. I'm sure a lot of non-SJW's don't (and there are very good reasons why.) But the companies putting the vast majority of this ideology into the most popular game-lines are only tokenizing what they claim is "Diversity" and "Representation". There are exceptions to this, of course, but those games are either defunct or so new, they're yet to go defunct.

Let's be honest - we're talking about WotC being the primary culprit of this tokenization. Maybe this new edition will be where they put their money where their mouths are. Good. I have zero invested in D&D today *because* of WotC doesn't want me as a consumer. I'm cool with that. But at the same time when I hear about organizations like conventions, and online campaigns to harass non-woke people, the *vast* majority of these instances come from the same fucked up people with the same ideology fueling their grievances. We're talking about actual harassment, not just talking shit online.

As a Jungle Asian guy (as opposed to the Fancy Asian variety) - I can't begin to tell you how hilarious and awful these people sound to me, when they're "allegedly" trying to speak for people like me (they are not - they're using people like me against people that look like themselves). When in reality, they've created their own gameshow out of self-victimization and imported it into our collective hobby which originally was about heroic gaming.

Yes having flaws and overcoming them can be heroic. But that's not what "Diversity" and "Representation" means to these people. For them it means wallowing in your feelings of oppression as a virtue, *extraneous to the hobby*. And everyone should kneel before your oppressed status (whatever variety it comes from). It's not a virtue. It's a mental illness. And I can't even give those people a hot-link of my hardiest shit on how little I care to prostrate myself before their issues. That's THEIR problem, not mine. I start caring when it interferes with my ability to engage with other like-minded people in the hobby.

I hold the same contempt for any political ideology masquerading in my games I consume if the game is not expressly designed to play with those ideas as a conceit. Right now it's mostly the people in the orbit of D&D doing this shit of pushing their political ideology into the game, so I take them at their word on how they feel about those that don't agree with them. Just like I take those on the Red List at their word: they do not want me, or those whose ideas don't agree with theirs, to play their make-believe games. But they sure as fuck do not represent me based on the slant of my eyes, or the ethnic heritage in my DNA, and they sure as fuck don't represent my culture which is as about as Western European as it comes - by my CHOICE. Not by their limp-dick coercion.

It doesn't have to be like this but they are making it that way.

  I should clarify, the words are over used on all sides of the discussions about harassment and threats.   I would say I see a good deal more (these days) real harassment coming from the SJW sorts, but I am not sure how many of those people are SJW's or just attention whores starting cancel campaigns when someone says something they do not like online.

Well said Tenbones, and BTW I like to say that my wife is a "Jungle Asian" too 😄

Quote from: tenbones on September 30, 2021, 02:48:38 PM
by my CHOICE. Not by their limp-dick coercion.

If the problem is coercion then one solution is take away the power away to have an effect. Hence why I am strong advocate of open content. Let's face it, if pinnacle goes south either socially, financially, or another reason that prevent Savage World from being supported or actively published then you and the Savage World are fucked with not recourse other than "wink wink" "nudge nudge" style of sharing.

With D&D 5e is that not case. if D&D 5.5 turns out not to be any particular group cup of tea. There still the SRD as open content.

And yes it is not simplistic, some people like stuff like the Feywild, Beholder, and Mind Flayers and other non-open content as part of the support they get.

It sucks that I am not going to touch the Wilderlands again while the Bledsaws own the IP. But by doing the Majestic Fantasy Realms, I don't have to worry about what they are doing and still share a lot of what I did using the ideas that I grew up with Judges Guild. And I will ensure that other don't have to rely on me by making most of what I do open content.

If it not the SJWs it the Christians, if not the Christians, it is the concerned mothers (BADD), and so on. It will never end as long there is a single point of control, the IP holder, then we will have this problem over and over again until a hundred years from now it becomes public domain.

We can fix it ourselves right now by making open content and sharing it. That way everybody's cudgel gets taken away. It won't be an utopia but it would be far more fair. And combined with digital technology it will enable folks coming from left-field or a place or culture that never had a tradition of roleplaying to start out without seeking rent or permission from entrenched interests.

Quote from: estar on September 30, 2021, 03:08:02 PM

Quote from: tenbones on September 30, 2021, 02:48:38 PM
by my CHOICE. Not by their limp-dick coercion.

If the problem is coercion then one solution is take away the power away to have an effect. Hence why I am strong advocate of open content. Let's face it, if pinnacle goes south either socially, financially, or another reason that prevent Savage World from being supported or actively published then you and the Savage World are fucked with not recourse other than "wink wink" "nudge nudge" style of sharing.

With D&D 5e is that not case. if D&D 5.5 turns out not to be any particular group cup of tea. There still the SRD as open content.

And yes it is not simplistic, some people like stuff like the Feywild, Beholder, and Mind Flayers and other non-open content as part of the support they get.

It sucks that I am not going to touch the Wilderlands again while the Bledsaws own the IP. But by doing the Majestic Fantasy Realms, I don't have to worry about what they are doing and still share a lot of what I did using the ideas that I grew up with Judges Guild. And I will ensure that other don't have to rely on me by making most of what I do open content.

If it not the SJWs it the Christians, if not the Christians, it is the concerned mothers (BADD), and so on. It will never end as long there is a single point of control, the IP holder, then we will have this problem over and over again until a hundred years from now it becomes public domain.

We can fix it ourselves right now by making open content and sharing it. That way everybody's cudgel gets taken away. It won't be an utopia but it would be far more fair. And combined with digital technology it will enable folks coming from left-field or a place or culture that never had a tradition of roleplaying to start out without seeking rent or permission from entrenched interests.

Excellent points as always.

That is something worth considering for SW fans (obviously myself). I've given this some thought as I'm in the middle of making a Savage Worlds project for publication... My further plans were to create a house-system so I'm not completely married to Savage Worlds.

Something I did not consider was making it Open Source. This is something I'm going to seriously consider, and I'll probably get feedback from you the rest of Mos Eisley when the time comes. I'm a LONG way from doing the house-system for myself, but I have some solid ideas on its foundation. But it might be worth building from the ground up as an Open Source system.

I'm pretty divorced from D&D's core mechanics. But I could see myself building an Open Source flavor of it, as we've discussed in other threads here. Lots of food for thought.

Quote from: Trond on September 30, 2021, 03:03:25 PM
Well said Tenbones, and BTW I like to say that my wife is a "Jungle Asian" too 😄

You have good taste in games and women, heh.

Quote from: tenbones on September 30, 2021, 03:14:28 PM
Something I did not consider was making it Open Source. This is something I'm going to seriously consider, and I'll probably get feedback from you the rest of Mos Eisley when the time comes. I'm a LONG way from doing the house-system for myself, but I have some solid ideas on its foundation. But it might be worth building from the ground up as an Open Source system.

Be glad to help with any useful advice I may have. I am glad you are considering doing something for yourself and others and sharing it.

Quote from: tenbones on September 30, 2021, 03:14:28 PM
...
Something I did not consider was making it Open Source. This is something I'm going to seriously consider, and I'll probably get feedback from you the rest of Mos Eisley when the time comes. I'm a LONG way from doing the house-system for myself, but I have some solid ideas on its foundation. But it might be worth building from the ground up as an Open Source system.
...

IMHO games with OGL's have all but killed off the previous 'universal game system' kings like HERO and GURPS.

Because people don't really want to work through a big tome and construct a game from the ground up.

Most would much rather take a game that they are already familiar with, like D&D that already does 80% of what they want, and then hack the rest.

Much less work.

And now they get to do it without the potential of cease and desist letter hanging over their head if they want to widely share it online..

The game systems that really seem to have legs these days are all open source, or like SW have a very friendly 3pp policy.

If people like your system - they will want to fiddle with it. If they can do so without being sued, they may even publish new games using it.

This creates a bigger word of mouth and network effect for your game that would not otherwise exist. Allowing your system to punch above its weight so to speak in RPG land.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 30, 2021, 03:34:53 PM
IMHO games with OGL's have all but killed off the previous 'universal game system' kings like HERO and GURPS.

Because people don't really want to work through a big tome and construct a game from the ground up.

True but we also have the example of Fate which started as bunch of RPGs that happen to share a system like Chaosium's BRP and later got a omnibus rule book, Fate Core.

And it could work that the omnibus rule book just a SRD that exists as a digital publisher's aide much in the same way OSRIC 1e was supposed to work. If the demand is there then somebody can make a go of it to turn the SRD into a traditional rulebook which is what happened with OSRIC 2e.

Duplicate

Quote from: oggsmash on September 30, 2021, 02:38:24 PM
  About the words harassment and threats... I think I define these differently than is being used here.  If someone shows up to where you work, in person and starts making a stink, or runs into you in the store, etc that to me is harassment.  If someone says they are going to do you harm, and then shows up at your house... that is a threat.  When I was a kid, getting a threatening phone call to my father's house...it was called Tuesday, not a threat.  Now when the guys, came to kill him, and attempted to ambush him in the front yard by opening all the doors on my mother's car and turning her lights on...that was a threat.  A true threat condition then, my brother and I could not live at home for a month.

  The words threaten and harass get over used a bit.  Talking shit online, to me is just words.  I guess online campaigns to get you fired that have some traction, then we can talk harassment.  I just think those words are way, way over used today.   Every person who gets a message online where someone says they hope they die is a death threat.  No, that is some spurg spouting off online.

I'm sorry you had to go through that, oggsmash, and obviously, actual murder attempts are far worse than words. Still, that doesn't mean that behavior like doxing and online harassment is acceptable.

Too often, I think online behavior is given a pass which would be unacceptable in real life. Even if there wasn't a physical threat, having people following my wife around and telling her to suck a cock whenever she appeared in public would be unacceptable behavior. I don't know the exact legalities of it, but I'm pretty sure I could call the police to get them to stop - even though it was just words. But when the trolls were posting this on her different social media accounts, it seemed more dismissed. Thankfully, at that time my son was only 7 and he didn't have any social media yet. Trolls posted his picture around saying things like how they wanted to punch him in the face, but he didn't see that.

Physical violence would be much worse, and I'm not trying to draw any equivalence, but I can still say that both are frickin bad and shouldn't happen.

The problem seems to be a total disconnect from reality.

This is 2021. Unlike in my day there is a little something called "the Modern Internet," which allows use of another little something called "Twitch TV." I myself watch games on that channel when I can on Monday and Tuesday nights. Heck, in that "other games" bar on the left there was even one for a game with "transsexual" players for crying out loud- it was right there!

PDF game manuals exist. Easy to find.

When one says there is a need for "greater diversity and representation" in the gaming world then that cannot not exist today- obviously anyone can get a game together of any sort.

If they are talking about the game itself how is it possible to get more diversity in AD&D when you can play almost anything within reason? Gone are the days where you pretty much had to play a human or humanoid, you can be a dragonborn, a spell-slinging kobold, a half-devil, a...you get the point. One Twitch TV game had anthro-creatures, including a sort of raccoonish creature, set in a prehistoric world.


So if they mean hiring practices then everyone must know it was only a quota system that explains the staff, nothing more. But who really cares about that- it's the product that gets all of the attention. And it must be obvious by now that IT'S NEVER ENOUGH. Obviously there must always be a need for "more," but what happens when it reaches saturation, 100%? The only thing left will be the bosses themselves who will end up in the crosshairs, even the top CEOs. Wonder what will happen then?

Seems to be a logical fallacy here somewhere in all of this...

Quote from: estar on September 30, 2021, 03:43:43 PM
...
True but we also have the example of Fate which started as bunch of RPGs that happen to share a system like Chaosium's BRP and later got a omnibus rule book, Fate Core.

And it could work that the omnibus rule book just a SRD that exists as a digital publisher's aide much in the same way OSRIC 1e was supposed to work. If the demand is there then somebody can make a go of it to turn the SRD into a traditional rulebook which is what happened with OSRIC 2e.

In my opinion:

I always saw the omnibus rule books that came out of those games as a hacking reference for the hardcores.

Fate, and especially BRP had long since made their bones by offering their RPG system in many genres as full games.

GURPS did the reverse; A tome, with supplement books for the genres.

HERO did some full games, champion, fantasy hero, etc. but it was perpetually saddled by the weight of its complex powers system. And they made things worse for themselves when they went the universal GURPs route.

IMHO - The Fate, and BRP model has come off much better in the long run.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 30, 2021, 03:59:38 PM
When one says there is a need for "greater diversity and representation" in the gaming world then that cannot not exist today- obviously anyone can get a game together of any sort.

If they are talking about the game itself how is it possible to get more diversity in AD&D when you can play almost anything within reason? Gone are the days where you pretty much had to play a human or humanoid, you can be a dragonborn, a spell-slinging kobold, a half-devil, a...you get the point. One Twitch TV game had anthro-creatures, including a sort of raccoonish creature, set in a prehistoric world.

You are looking at this from the surface as a consumer - as most people do. But if you think about it, the truth is these companies (i.e. Corporations, i'm not talking about these independent game-studios) don't really give a flying shit about Representation or Diversity as they present it or as you understand it.

People with those interests do not play the same kinds of games the mainstream core of D&D is playing at their own tables. If it were monetarily lucrative to do so - Hasbro would be making settings *specifically* for that crowd. There is no real attempt at doing that - there is only the veneer of it. Very caricaturish representations that largely leftist white people "think" of minorities, and disabled people - tokens to their cartoonish views of these poor oppressed people that exist only in their own minds.

Case in point - when companies DO make content specifically for these Woke folks, I mean really attempt to give them what they say they want you get shit like Sword Lesbians, and Netflix's Q-Force which is over the top. And even LGBT people cringe at it. This is what they really think of themselves and others.

It's like watching 30 Rock, which was right at the cultural cusp of the Proto-Woke movement when all these Leftist Actors like Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey are talking *mad* shit about the people that are currently Woke, but the writing assumes they're not being watched. It's literally 4th Wall breaking (it's actually 5th wall - because they're literally writing it and acting it and it's very funny but they know they're only half-joking). Yes they look down on minorities but pretend to their face to care. Liz Lemon (the main character) is a *horrible* person, which is what makes it funny, the irony is because it's really true, but they could *never* make that show today. I'm shocked that show is still being shown on Netflix frankly... it'll get the Office treatment soon and be censored episode by episode.

The only representation that exists for these racist asshats is the kind that further tokenizes people. Because the normal rules of cultural psychology apply: People with similar cultural values like to hang around those like themselves. SJW's have internalized this to be demonic bigotry - and in rebellion to those conventions have invented their own sub-cultures which ultimately only mimic the worst elements of the cultures they say they hate.

Hence Wokeism has many of the most horrible aspects of western theology - Original Sin (White Privilege), Lextalionis (Eye for an Eye - the only problem here is because they believe in White Privilege, everyone that doesn't believe as they do needs to be punished), they have an indoctrination process which like all fundmentalist religions requires preying upon some perceived weakness - in this case it's White Fragility, which they use to gaslight people into believing in their Original Sin (White Privilege), they do this by an endless series of Purity Tests designed for you to capitulate or be ostracized until you fall into line where they can reprogram you to look at everything through their myopic lens of reality (in this case Intersectional Grievances based on the assumed oppression of White Male Dominate Culture).

The bad actors here are not necessarily 100% pure - to be sure - in their own ideology. But the game is to pretend to everyone else in the Cult that they are. And there is no better way to do it than to do it on Social Media or spend some corporate capital to show all the Peoples of Color, the Gender Fluids, and the Disabled are being given token nods at the expense of all existing culture. Now buy my product.

The real Cultists lead the charge in the Red List as they are given corporate cover as useful morons. And hey - they get some clout to further prove their purity to the rest of the Cultists at our expense. There is money in tearing down the edifices of existing Greco-Roman Western European culture, and armed with a complete ignorance of history, they've managed to replace those edifices with the worst cargo-cult effigies that were mostly weeded out already by the mainline culture.

As the old adage goes about dooming oneself to repeat history...

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 30, 2021, 03:59:38 PMSo if they mean hiring practices then everyone must know it was only a quota system that explains the staff, nothing more. But who really cares about that- it's the product that gets all of the attention. And it must be obvious by now that IT'S NEVER ENOUGH. Obviously there must always be a need for "more," but what happens when it reaches saturation, 100%? The only thing left will be the bosses themselves who will end up in the crosshairs, even the top CEOs. Wonder what will happen then?

Seems to be a logical fallacy here somewhere in all of this...

The fallacy is that people in the Cult actually believe their corporate slave masters give a shit. The Corporate slave masters are terrified of their slaves - because they are cannibals. We are the barbarians of the Old World... and they want us dead because they believe we had nothing to do with the Old Empire because they're too stupid to read a book.

And the ones that actually read the book are too stupid to understand it, but benefit from telling the others an even more stupid version of history and apparently they actually believe them.

We are Legend.

Quote from: jhkim on September 30, 2021, 03:58:31 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 30, 2021, 02:38:24 PM
  About the words harassment and threats... I think I define these differently than is being used here.  If someone shows up to where you work, in person and starts making a stink, or runs into you in the store, etc that to me is harassment.  If someone says they are going to do you harm, and then shows up at your house... that is a threat.  When I was a kid, getting a threatening phone call to my father's house...it was called Tuesday, not a threat.  Now when the guys, came to kill him, and attempted to ambush him in the front yard by opening all the doors on my mother's car and turning her lights on...that was a threat.  A true threat condition then, my brother and I could not live at home for a month.

  The words threaten and harass get over used a bit.  Talking shit online, to me is just words.  I guess online campaigns to get you fired that have some traction, then we can talk harassment.  I just think those words are way, way over used today.   Every person who gets a message online where someone says they hope they die is a death threat.  No, that is some spurg spouting off online.

I'm sorry you had to go through that, oggsmash, and obviously, actual murder attempts are far worse than words. Still, that doesn't mean that behavior like doxing and online harassment is acceptable.

Too often, I think online behavior is given a pass which would be unacceptable in real life. Even if there wasn't a physical threat, having people following my wife around and telling her to suck a cock whenever she appeared in public would be unacceptable behavior. I don't know the exact legalities of it, but I'm pretty sure I could call the police to get them to stop - even though it was just words. But when the trolls were posting this on her different social media accounts, it seemed more dismissed. Thankfully, at that time my son was only 7 and he didn't have any social media yet. Trolls posted his picture around saying things like how they wanted to punch him in the face, but he didn't see that.

Physical violence would be much worse, and I'm not trying to draw any equivalence, but I can still say that both are frickin bad and shouldn't happen.

  I think the online harassment comes from the simple fact a person can do it and have zero balls.  Where I live, if a guy comes up to me and tells my wife to suck his cock, I beat the shit out of him, the police come, tell him he used fighting words, and he learns a hard lesson.  I have no idea how other states handle this (I know there is a massive range on what one can and can not do in response to provoking language).   The simple fact is, people posting things online are not threats or harassment, they are cowards doing what they do.  Now, I will say doxxing is a bit different, because that is more a case of a coward attempting to shine a light on you for some nut to see.   I guess if I got doxxed in that scenario, I would hire an investigator to track down my doxxer, and I would go to their house and fix it.  I am not suggesting that is the correct action for everyone, but people act as they do online because they do not get their teeth broken when they say rude things about people's spouses, kids, etc.   

   I just think the nature of the people who do that sort of stuff make it not a threat (to me, a threat has to be credible), with the exception of doxxing being an implied threat, to which I would do as I said, I would go to their residence and we would work it out.  I also do not mean to single you out on this, I constantly see people on tv, from right, left and center, call things that are not really harassment or threats just that.   I think these things are extremely rude, and are behaviors the people who engage in them certainly would not do if there was any chance of a real consequence.  The main reason my father did not get killed, is he did not go outside when traps were set, and the people who wanted to do harm were not going to actually attempt to break in (as they would have likely died then) to do their thing.  As it was, they were not motivated enough to continue their attempts, as they likely got caught up in other crime crap.  They were after my father due to a dude who had assassinated a police officer who looked a lot like my father.  My father had arrested this guy for a DUI a year or so before, and he made a phony police call to lure a cop as he thought the other cop was my father.  When the guy got there, the assassin shot him 3 times in the head, killing him on the spot.  After he was in jail, a TV reporter, on tv (back then for all to see with the grand 3 channels everyone had to watch) asked my father if he was concerned for his safety, after making a big deal as to how much the two men looked alike.  Needless to say my father was pissed off, knowing the reporter had a source telling him my father was the intended target, and explained to the reporter if he did not inform him of any impending harm and any harm came to his family, he would react in an impulsive manner.  Mr reporter about shit his pants. 


   Any how, I think lots of people play up some of these things bigger than they are with regard to physical safety.  Most cowards making threats are not going to do anything.  The people who do real harm are the people who attempt to get people de-personed, or character assassinated digitally in such a way they never find work again.  That...is more grey to me, and I think a problem, and what the SJW left engages in big time these days, and I know the 'right' did it in the past, but I do not live in the past, and what I called wrong then is wrong now.  But reality is, even though a person who actively works to have you fired and unemployable likely would not mind if you died, they are not willing IMO to actually do physical harm to anyone (again, cowards).   

  Rambling aside, I do have some concerns that these online behaviors could possibly spill over into real life to some degree,  Likely carried out by some moron who is heavily medicated and looking for a  problem.    I just think we need to be careful in how we talk about what is going on and what could be going on.  Famous people constantly talk about "death threats" they get online, and I think almost all of those are doofuses with access to the internet, and in no way credible threats.   I do not blame you for taking their words seriously, they were putting your family into the picture.  I do think if you are going to call what they did threats, you should have either talked to the police (granted they are not likely to do shit, but it helps to have a paper trail started if something did ever happen, or... you had to do a bit of problem solving yourself) or taken my route and hired someone to track them down and speak with them. 

Quote from: tenbones on September 30, 2021, 05:06:23 PM
...
People with those interests do not play the same kinds of games the mainstream core of D&D is playing at their own tables. If it were monetarily lucrative to do so - Hasbro would be making settings *specifically* for that crowd. There is no real attempt at doing that - there is only the veneer of it. ...

Exactly.

If "SJW Woke" really was a selling point, then the Blue Rose RPG would be known in the hobby for more than just its magic deer...

There is a reason SJWs have to infiltrate and converge established institutions and IPs: Because they are creatively bankrupt.

People are buying and playing D&D in spite of the SJW inclusions, not because of them.

But as we have seen with Dr. Who, Star Wars, Star Trek, and superhero comic book fans, they are extremely long suffering when it comes to their favorite geek IPs.

I mean ridiculously long suffering!

But even these Golden Goose geek IPs managed to drive their main fan base away, and turn themselves into absolute jokes of what they once were.

Because Woke.

They make the mistake of conflating Tolerance with Acceptance.

The delude themselves with the idea that if someone doesn't care about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, or the choices they make for themselves in their private personal lives; It must mean that they would love seeing those private personal behaviors and choices constantly pushed in their escapist media as good and wonderful things.

Nope. Sorry; there are very good reasons why every tv show and movie that has characters in straight relationships does not regularly feature Pegging and BDSM play.

This is not hard.

Sooner or later pushing the Woke will exceed the tolerance level of an IPs fandom, and cause them to walk away.

Go Woke go Broke, is a real thing.

But we must always remember that for SJWs: 'go Broke' is a victory condition...

Quote from: Jaeger on September 30, 2021, 09:02:24 PM

Quote from: tenbones on September 30, 2021, 05:06:23 PM
...
People with those interests do not play the same kinds of games the mainstream core of D&D is playing at their own tables. If it were monetarily lucrative to do so - Hasbro would be making settings *specifically* for that crowd. There is no real attempt at doing that - there is only the veneer of it. ...

Exactly.

If "SJW Woke" really was a selling point, then the Blue Rose RPG would be known in the hobby for more than just its magic deer...

Wait!





Blue Rose has magic deer?


That changes everything.

This is why no one is telling me how Diversity and Representation is "good".

It's an endless parade of jargon on the backs of Corporate shilling while mining the IP's good will and turning it to dust.

This is *across* the cultural board.

The very culture writ-large that produced all this stuff we used to share is being undermined by morons and degenerate weirdos that want to punish everyone for not giving a shit about their personal kinks and mental issues.

Because I'm a very patient man, and if I can go 43-years active service in this Hobby without anyone advocating for my representation or even asking me nicely if I'd like it (nevermind that *I* personally have never been narcissitic enough do it myself in my own work or the stuff I've written professionally unless you count Beastmen in Talislanta), there is little chance these leftist assholes (who if held to their own standards are apparently racists for NOT representing me at all, how ironic) will do it.

And hey - despite all this non-representation, I'm doing pretty damn good.

If the claim is I'd be doing better *because* of this magical Representation, I'm *still* waiting to hear HOW.

So to answer the question: There isn't any major importance.

A diversity of ideas could mix it up, but not necacarily. It could also make a hobby loose focus. Getting people who hate fishing to like fishing generally will make fishing less fun for the people that like fishing.

Diversity as its been marketted, is a ideological scam to let bad faith actors subvert mediums in the persuit of critical theory. Thats it.

Diversity and Representation are good. 

Let's start with Representation first.  It is historical fact that black ball players weren't allowed to play in Major League baseball.  Likewise, it is historical fact that black soldiers weren't allowed to serve in integrated units in the US Military.  In both cases, it was NOT because of a lack of ability.  Qualified people who could have excelled in those careers did not even consider them because they were not allowed.  Even if it was not officially a violation of policy, everyone KNEW how it worked, so there seemed no point in challenging the system. 

More importantly, when black baseball players and black soldiers performed as well or better than whites, it proved the lie of claims of racial superiority.  Proving their ability on a stage that could not be ignored helped lead to the successful challenge of discrimination supported by Federal Policy in myriad other ways. 

Representation comes first. 

On the subject of diversity, that can mean a lot of things.  But essentially, it means a broad type of experience and ways of thinking about the world.  A different view - a different way of doing things - can change the world.  It's very easy to prohibit women and/or minorities from sharing their views (or to rob them and credit someone more 'acceptable'), which in turn leads to a form of stagnation.  Inclusion doesn't mean that all ideas are inherently equal - some OUGHT to be better than others - but exposure to a large number of ideas helps 'the marketplace of ideas' produce the best ones. 

Exposure to more people means exposure to more ideas.  Some of them are going to be good - better than you've thought of on your own. 

Trying to be inclusive - welcoming people who don't agree with you or have different life experiences - can make your life better.  Maybe it's as simple as finding out that you love Ethiopian food, or maybe it's finding your spouse.  It's not a guarantee that your life will improve, but I think that exposure to new ways of doing things makes you more 'worldly'. 

The alternative is to remain 'provincial', and not even realize how much of the world you're missing. 

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 12:42:33 PMLet's start with Representation first.  It is historical fact that black ball players weren't allowed to play in Major League baseball.

The question isn't why segregation is good. Why is diversity/representation good. I know you conflate the two to muddy the discussion but thats what it is.

QuoteA different view - a different way of doing things - can change the world.

And it can also be a change for the worse.

QuoteTrying to be inclusive - welcoming people who don't agree with you or have different life experiences - can make your life better.

Or worse.

Coloring your walls red and wearing exclusively red shirts can make your life better. But nobody is saying 'Don't worry, this game is being made by people in PLENTY of red shirts. We made sure that we have red shirts in our team'.

That would be odd. Parading a neutral trait as a merit in it of itself.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 12:42:33 PM
Diversity and Representation are good. 

Let's start with Representation first.  It is historical fact that black ball players weren't allowed to play in Major League baseball.  Likewise, it is historical fact that black soldiers weren't allowed to serve in integrated units in the US Military.  In both cases, it was NOT because of a lack of ability.  Qualified people who could have excelled in those careers did not even consider them because they were not allowed.  Even if it was not officially a violation of policy, everyone KNEW how it worked, so there seemed no point in challenging the system. 

More importantly, when black baseball players and black soldiers performed as well or better than whites, it proved the lie of claims of racial superiority.  Proving their ability on a stage that could not be ignored helped lead to the successful challenge of discrimination supported by Federal Policy in myriad other ways. 

Representation comes first. 

On the subject of diversity, that can mean a lot of things.  But essentially, it means a broad type of experience and ways of thinking about the world.  A different view - a different way of doing things - can change the world.  It's very easy to prohibit women and/or minorities from sharing their views (or to rob them and credit someone more 'acceptable'), which in turn leads to a form of stagnation.  Inclusion doesn't mean that all ideas are inherently equal - some OUGHT to be better than others - but exposure to a large number of ideas helps 'the marketplace of ideas' produce the best ones. 

Exposure to more people means exposure to more ideas.  Some of them are going to be good - better than you've thought of on your own. 

Trying to be inclusive - welcoming people who don't agree with you or have different life experiences - can make your life better.  Maybe it's as simple as finding out that you love Ethiopian food, or maybe it's finding your spouse.  It's not a guarantee that your life will improve, but I think that exposure to new ways of doing things makes you more 'worldly'. 

The alternative is to remain 'provincial', and not even realize how much of the world you're missing.

Even granting you all of that is representation and diversity it's not what they are selling plus you still need to explain exactly why A pseudo medieval Europe NEEDS to have Maya people in it.

Do you understand that I don't need to see myself everywhere to be able to empathize with the characters?

Not to mention that reducing me to my ethnicity is pretty racist IMO.

You're also assuming ALL people of X group think alike or had the same experiences. Pro tip they don't.

You do know the proponents of all of this bollocks are the same people demanding I don't play a black person because reasons?

And demanding racial segregation everywhere.

You're following the advice of self admited racists. While dismising what "people of color" tell you because it goes against your cult's dogma.

I don't want nor need your "representation" what you understand by "diversity" nor your white saviour complex. I'm perfectly able to play elfgames in worlds where the Maya don't exist, because I'm not a psychopath.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 12:42:33 PM
On the subject of diversity, that can mean a lot of things.  But essentially, it means a broad type of experience and ways of thinking about the world. 

Nobody who talks about diversity has ever meant that.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 12:42:33 PM
Diversity and Representation are good. 

...

The alternative is to remain 'provincial', and not even realize how much of the world you're missing.

Uh, okay. I don't think anyone's arguing in favor of racism or sexism at their IRL game table. In the game world, that's a whole different story. You seem incapable of distinguishing the real world from game worlds.

Quote from: Pat on October 01, 2021, 01:02:24 PM

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 12:42:33 PM
On the subject of diversity, that can mean a lot of things.  But essentially, it means a broad type of experience and ways of thinking about the world. 

Nobody who talks about diversity has ever meant that.

Remember that for the woke Ethnicity/Race = Culture/Experience/Ideology

"If you don't vote for Joe you ain't black"

To them I SHOULD want to play a Maya/Spaniard mongrel and nothing else because THEY can't feel empathy for other people, one of the warning signs of a Psycho.

You know, I never thought it was about 'diversity and representation' when I played a Redguard in Morrowind. It was all about the Adrenaline Rush power and the solid resistances to disease and poison.

Back in ancient times, we had supplements dedicated entirely to non-white non-western campaign settings like Nyambe and Rokugan. We had emerging genres like Afro fantasy, Asian fantasy, Latin fantasy, etc that showcased the sheer diversity of human cultures and aesthetics. Just raceswapping people in generic faux medieval Europe feels like... what's the cultural equivalent of racism? Culturism? Imperialism? It feels very imperialist to see the fantasy genre dominated by generic faux medieval European pastiche. That said, I'd be satisfied to see a generic faux Europe setting where all the humans are black or Asian or whatever rather than reflecting a diversity quota with no world building behind it.

The Wheel of Time show racebent everyone to, as the leaked script explains it, reflect the Amazon writers' vision of future USA as a multicolor paradise. (Altho realistically the majority of the population of a brown USA will be about as "brown" as Eiza González. Which the more forward-looking SJWs are now complaining about (https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/04/us/census-browning-of-america-myth-blake/index.html).) What exactly led to the region being so diverse that even small isolated villages tick the diversity quota? Do genetics just work differently on this planet? Fuck you, the writer's don't give a shit.

This obsession with "diversity" is one of the reasons why I no longer intend to write white characters anymore in my prose. If all my characters are one specific non-white race, then adaptations won't racebend them for diversity quotas because racebending non-whites to be other non-whites is too racist even for Hollywood racists. Well, at least until the SJW's anti-Latino, anti-Asian, and Anti-Indian racism reaches the same levels as their anti-white racism.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2021, 12:50:53 PM
The question isn't why segregation is good. Why is diversity/representation good. I know you conflate the two to muddy the discussion but thats what it is.

When something is absent, not everyone notices it.  As a white dude, watching a movie that is full of nothing but white dudes (like Lord of the Rings) never strikes me as weird.  But the world that is portrayed in the movies looks nothing like the world I live in.  We KNOW that there are people of other ethnicities - but they're not really represented in the movies/books.  Asking the question: should they have been included? isn't a problem.  We can disagree on the answer...  Keeping in mind that I dressed as Aragorn for Halloween ~1987, I KNOW that having a heroic role-model that you identify with is a good thing.  It's not REQUIRED that your role-models share your race or gender, but it is important that you can identify with them.  Having physical traits in common certainly helps. 

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2021, 12:50:53 PM

QuoteA different view - a different way of doing things - can change the world.

And it can also be a change for the worse.

I'm not arguing that all ideas are equally good.  I am proposing that EXPOSURE to more ideas is actually a good thing.  That's what education is.  Now, if you're educated enough, you can evaluate different ideas and different ways of doing things and build consensus around the best ones. 

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2021, 12:50:53 PM
Coloring your walls red and wearing exclusively red shirts can make your life better. But nobody is saying 'Don't worry, this game is being made by people in PLENTY of red shirts. We made sure that we have red shirts in our team'.

That would be odd. Parading a neutral trait as a merit in it of itself.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.  Is 'liking red shirts' supposed to equate to life experiences?  Because I am quite confident that running ideas and jokes past people that are all the same race/gender/socio-economic status is going to get you a non-representative response.  If your goal is something that appeals to a broad cross-section of people (and for most entertainers it is), getting the opinions and incorporating the ideas of a broad cross-section absolutely makes sense in that regard.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 01, 2021, 12:56:47 PM
Even granting you all of that is representation and diversity it's not what they are selling plus you still need to explain exactly why A pseudo medieval Europe NEEDS to have Maya people in it.

No, I don't.  I didn't make the claim that it did.  In fact, no one is saying that a medieval simulation needs Maya people in it if no one wants them there.  But, and this is a huge but - if a player wants to be a Maya character that's worth exploring.  If you're playing a strict medieval simulator, that may not work at all.  But if you're playing a fantasy world with teleport, or a fantasy race that has characteristics in common with Maya culture, maybe an option that's acceptable to everyone at the table is possible. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 01, 2021, 12:56:47 PM
Do you understand that I don't need to see myself everywhere to be able to empathize with the characters?

Do you understand that this isn't about you?  It's great that you don't feel the need to have someone that shares cultural traits with you in order to have fun with a game.  I'm sure most people are quite capable of having fun with a character that is very different from them - like a nerdy guy in glasses enjoying playing a hulking orc.  But sometimes it's MORE FUN to play someone that you identify with, and I think saying no to that without good reason is a bad idea. It's a game of imagination - if you can't find an imaginative way to 'say yes' to your players, I think that reflects poorly on you.  Now if none of your players want something, it's a non-issue.  It is specifically only in the case that someone is asking for something that this comes up. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 01, 2021, 12:56:47 PM
Not to mention that reducing me to my ethnicity is pretty racist IMO.

I didn't do that.  I also didn't say that you want to/don't want to play a character that shares your ethnicity. I am saying that there are times and places where some people would prefer that.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 01, 2021, 12:56:47 PM
You're also assuming ALL people of X group think alike or had the same experiences. Pro tip they don't.

No, I'm not.  I'm saying 'if someone expresses a specific preference, it's good to try to accommodate it'. If you don't want to play a Maya character, but your friend does, and I'm running the game, I'm going to look at whether that's possible.  And maybe instead of playing a simulationist medieval England game, we might play in Forgotten Realms where it IS POSSIBLE. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 01, 2021, 12:56:47 PM
You do know the proponents of all of this bollocks are the same people demanding I don't play a black person because reasons?

No. I don't know that.  Who is demanding that you don't play a black character?  Who is demanding that you don't play a female character?  Who is demanding that you don't play an elf?  Role-playing games let you put yourself in someone else's shoes - at least, they should.  Now, not everyone can handle it.  If you play all female characters as over-sexed hornballs, maybe people will tell you that you shouldn't try to play female characters.  Not because it's inherently wrong - just because you're very bad at it. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 01, 2021, 12:56:47 PM
I don't want nor need your "representation" what you understand by "diversity" nor your white saviour complex. I'm perfectly able to play elfgames in worlds where the Maya don't exist, because I'm not a psychopath.

More power to you.  If you're having fun, you're doing it right.  If someone ISN'T having fun because they can't play the character that they want, I think you should try to address that.  That's not always possible - some people want to play in a game that is all about them and their needs, and have no consideration for what other people want.  But if you're saying that other players can't play what they want because of how it affects YOU, well, you might be the problem.

Anyway the true reasons that the SJWs at the top of the pyramid believe:

White men are evil and spoiled the world. Presence and importance are a fixed thing that they undeservedly stole in the past by being so prominent.

In removing them from the culture, swapping them out and such, they are correcting a past injustice.

When superman is made a guy black woman, the useful idiots parrot "well its representation, do its good somehow", but the real reason is because the people at the top believe that superman should have always been gay and black they are just returning the scenario to justice.

Critical theory is a mad rejection of reality and the very idea of normalcy. Anything thats against current reality is therefore good.

A new character within the system is co-towing to what they believe is an unjust system. Thats why the system must be undermined, subverted, and destroyed.

It has fuck all to do with representation or diversity.

Peoples skin color, gender, and sexual preference are NOT cultures.

"Multi-culturalism" has never historically worked. When you have people identifying with sub-cultures and different values than the mainline culture and are intolerant to that mainline culture - you are, in fact, not being diverse. You're in conflict.

This is exactly how leftism has promulgated throughout American society. Those of us that have lived in the third-world see this shit, grew up with this shit, and now we're watching it proliferate here through deracinated white people that are clueless as to WHY America got to be how it is. Instead they use this retarded and unhistorical narrative about slavery to explain their ignorance of actual history. It's especially egregious to hear it today. Because the pretense that America is some kind of racist country... let me tell you, go to Asia and try this bullshit there. Tell the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans you need to have more gay and black representation in their media and watch what happens.

No one has advocated for my representation yet. I'm doing just fine. So who are we advocating for? Who exactly is being left out of gaming? Who is unable to create their own cultural analog setting?

The real indictment is that the unspoken clause to all this is this: If you DON'T consume other sub-cultural elements you're a racist/phobe. Which is complete horseshit. Nyambe - I own it. Al-Qadim - I own it and designed for it, Kara-Tur - love it to death, own everything for it. These all failed because people, including SJW's, didn't support it enough. Welcome to reality. Now we have to just randomly seed all games with Africans, Asians, and Middle-Eastern people... at the expense of setting verisimilitude? Yeah get that shit out of here.

It's like walking into China and demanding their culture have more representation of Mexicans, because .01 of the Chinese population is Mexican and hates Chinese culture.

I'd love for SJW's to tell me which is more racist in this scenario? The Mexicans or the Chinese? Or are Magically evil white-people the only ones capable of being racist?

Am I *supposed* to be outraged there are no Filipino Boxsets? Please oh please white people, tell me to what degree I should be angry or triggered?

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 02:38:22 PM
Am I *supposed* to be outraged there are no Filipino Boxsets? Please oh please white people, tell me to what degree I should be angry or triggered?

No.  You are not supposed to be triggered.  If it's important to you, you could create one.  Since you've got publishing credits, I'm confident you can pull it off if you want to. 

BUT if you're interested in playing a Filipino character (or a fantasy character that has Filipino cultural traits) and people are telling you that you're bad to want it, or that you're some special snowflake, or that you should be content with playing a character that looks exactly like they do - you wouldn't be wrong to push back.

If you were playing in a historical game set after 1521, the presence of a Filipinio character in a European setting isn't difficult to explain - while unusual (like adventurers), it is plausible. 

@ DeadDMWalking

I call bullshit. You can't have it both ways. You can't talk about representation in the general - without being specific about who and why? I am a filipino. I've literally asked dozens of times about why no one advocates for my representation. If you were being honest about your position you would advocate for that representation despite the fact you know I don't care.

But you don't. For the exact reason I've cited - you don't *really* care. Hell how can you? You don't know dick about my culture. But yet - I'm a bigger minority than the fucking cultures you pretend to advocate for. So where does this stupid idea end?

Magical Tinikiling poles for Bards (https://youtu.be/kckR6wf5xe8)? Yeah I can see this in my Ravenloft games. Makes PERFECT sense.

How far shall we undermine the conceits of a setting to the Hecklers Veto? Because that's what this is. All the weirdos and degenerates now want their representation too. At the expense of everyone else that doesn't. When does it cease to be what brought us all together in the first place?

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:47:12 PM

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 02:38:22 PM
Am I *supposed* to be outraged there are no Filipino Boxsets? Please oh please white people, tell me to what degree I should be angry or triggered?

No.  You are not supposed to be triggered.  If it's important to you, you could create one.  Since you've got publishing credits, I'm confident you can pull it off if you want to. 

BUT if you're interested in playing a Filipino character (or a fantasy character that has Filipino cultural traits) and people are telling you that you're bad to want it, or that you're some special snowflake, or that you should be content with playing a character that looks exactly like they do - you wouldn't be wrong to push back.

If you were playing in a historical game set after 1521, the presence of a Filipinio character in a European setting isn't difficult to explain - while unusual (like adventurers), it is plausible.

That's right. But if you know anything about publishing - you have limited space. What is the point of putting in material specifically for me that is out of context with everything else?

That's the problem. It's because of politics - it has NOTHING to do with actual representation.

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 02:38:22 PM
Am I *supposed* to be outraged there are no Filipino Boxsets? Please oh please white people, tell me to what degree I should be angry or triggered?

Don't know.  But I suspect the answer is that if you aren't angry or triggered all the time, you are falling short.  :D

When it was done to honor and try (your mileage may vary on the quality of the attempt) - Al-Qadim, Maztica, Kara-Tur, The Hordelands, Nyambe - these products were discontinued.

White people still dominate this hobby because they invented it. Africans are not playing Nyambe in Africa. Asians are not playing Kara-Tur in Asia. Central and South Americans aren't playing Maztica. They're playing D&D - warriors and wizards killing orcs and taking loot.

This incessant neurotic self-loathing need to make themselves feel "less guilty" for representation is racist in its own misplacement - you won't even listen to *actual* people from these places telling you it's racist, you're so sure of your own arrogant position.

Is this what the "White Savior" meme comes from? You SJW guys invented  it and like to project it so hard you don't realize you're the ones that perpetrate it? I'm reminded of the albino in "Da Vinci Code" where somewhere there are white SJW's flagellating themselves over their own actions which by their own dumb warped definitions of racism - brand themselves as racists.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 01, 2021, 02:49:50 PM

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 02:38:22 PM
Am I *supposed* to be outraged there are no Filipino Boxsets? Please oh please white people, tell me to what degree I should be angry or triggered?

Don't know.  But I suspect the answer is that if you aren't angry or triggered all the time, you are falling short.  :D

I literally can't stop laughing at the absurdity of this thread, and your post made me choke on my chicharone.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:32:47 PMWhen something is absent, not everyone notices it.  As a white dude, watching a movie that is full of nothing but white dudes (like Lord of the Rings) never strikes me as weird.  But the world that is portrayed in the movies looks nothing like the world I live in.  We KNOW that there are people of other ethnicities - but they're not really represented in the movies/books.  Asking the question: should they have been included? isn't a problem.

The people in woke movies/books generally think nothing like I think and do not represent the world I live in. Asking the question: should they have been removed? isn't a problem.

Why is the world you invision the one that must be represented. This isn't about some vision of balanced justice. Its about demanding the world be how you want it to be.

QuoteI am proposing that EXPOSURE to more ideas is actually a good thing.

So will the LGBTQ movie have a heroic and balanced view of people against gay-marriage?
Will bollywood have more Japanese in it?
Will the D&D provide balanced exposure to the race-mixer as well as the race purist?
Should the rape victim be exposed to raunchy sex comdies inside of her safe space?

There are a quintillion different ideas and they all want exposure. Who gets to choose who 'gets' that exposure, and who must sacrifice their exposure?

QuoteIs 'liking red shirts' supposed to equate to life experiences?

Because you will engage in mott & bailey techniques I will chase you into the secure position:

Yes. Different perspectives are not always for the better. When designing a fishing pole, I don't want the experience of people sucky at fishing and blame the very idea of fishing. A team will not have good perspectives on fishing by virtue of being different. Having similar experiences, but being good at what they do will be better.

Double Post

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 02:47:34 PM
@ DeadDMWalking

I call bullshit. You can't have it both ways. You can't talk about representation in the general - without being specific about who and why? I am a filipino. I've literally asked dozens of times about why no one advocates for my representation. If you were being honest about your position you would advocate for that representation despite the fact you know I don't care.

I'm specifically arguing that people who think representation is important should be represented.  Since you don't care, I don't care.  Or at least, not as it pertains to running a hypothetical game with you as a player. 

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 02:47:34 PM
How far shall we undermine the conceits of a setting to the Hecklers Veto? Because that's what this is. All the weirdos and degenerates now want their representation too. At the expense of everyone else that doesn't. When does it cease to be what brought us all together in the first place?

A setting like Raveloft includes pulling in things (and characters) from any number of other worlds.  The conceit of the setting is that the plane is itself selecting and holding people.  IF SOMETHING IS IMPORTANT TO ME, you should have a reason why you're not allowing it.  That does not mean that every village in Ravenloft has to have a quota of specific minorities; but it also doesn't mean that it can't.  Likewise, any port city in any type of high-trade environment (like most published fantasy settings) should have people from the far-flung corners of the globe. 

If you have every reason to include diversity, but you haven't, there really are only two reasons that make sense.  One - you thought about it and rejected it because you don't WANT diversity, or Two - you just didn't think about it. 

#2 is what usually happens.  When I'm writing, race isn't necessarily important to me.  It's quite likely that failure to specify will cause people to assume the race they're most familiar with/comfortable with.  Reminding people to consider diversity isn't bad - it actually makes worlds seem MORE REALISTIC. 

In the real world, think about how many stereotypes you can think about for Germans versus Italians.  Keep in mind that they're people that share a border.  They have a lot of shared history.  And yet, they're VERY DIFFERENT.  Even within a single country (like Italy) where they share a language, a political structure, and popular entertainment, consider how many stereotypes exist between Northerners and Southerners.  Monocultures are unrealistic and boring. 

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:59:05 PM
I'm specifically arguing that people who think representation is important should be represented.

Should people that don't think representation is important be represented?

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:32:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 01, 2021, 12:56:47 PM
Even granting you all of that is representation and diversity it's not what they are selling plus you still need to explain exactly why A pseudo medieval Europe NEEDS to have Maya people in it.

No, I don't.  I didn't make the claim that it did.  In fact, no one is saying that a medieval simulation needs Maya people in it if no one wants them there.  But, and this is a huge but - if a player wants to be a Maya character that's worth exploring.  If you're playing a strict medieval simulator, that may not work at all.  But if you're playing a fantasy world with teleport, or a fantasy race that has characteristics in common with Maya culture, maybe an option that's acceptable to everyone at the table is possible. 

Yeah, so IF my world has magic then there's no reason not to have any and all cultures or races cramed in the same continent/kingdom/city.

Why? Because Dragons.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:32:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 01, 2021, 12:56:47 PM
Do you understand that I don't need to see myself everywhere to be able to empathize with the characters?

Do you understand that this isn't about you?  It's great that you don't feel the need to have someone that shares cultural traits with you in order to have fun with a game.  I'm sure most people are quite capable of having fun with a character that is very different from them - like a nerdy guy in glasses enjoying playing a hulking orc.  But sometimes it's MORE FUN to play someone that you identify with, and I think saying no to that without good reason is a bad idea. It's a game of imagination - if you can't find an imaginative way to 'say yes' to your players, I think that reflects poorly on you.  Now if none of your players want something, it's a non-issue.  It is specifically only in the case that someone is asking for something that this comes up. 

Oh, trust me, I do understand it isn't about me, nor is it about other "people of color", it's all about white gringo leftists pretending to speak for me and to be offended in my behalf. Which is why you dismiss mine and Tenbones criticism of the idea by alluding to "someone, somwhere, MIGHT soday want to do X" and therefore X should allways be on the table.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:32:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 01, 2021, 12:56:47 PM
Not to mention that reducing me to my ethnicity is pretty racist IMO.

I didn't do that.  I also didn't say that you want to/don't want to play a character that shares your ethnicity. I am saying that there are times and places where some people would prefer that.

Oh, yes, you did, and I quote

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:32:47 PM"On the subject of diversity, that can mean a lot of things.  But essentially, it means a broad type of experience and ways of thinking about the world.  A different view - a different way of doing things - can change the world.  It's very easy to prohibit women and/or minorities from sharing their views (or to rob them and credit someone more 'acceptable'), which in turn leads to a form of stagnation.  Inclusion doesn't mean that all ideas are inherently equal - some OUGHT to be better than others - but exposure to a large number of ideas helps 'the marketplace of ideas' produce the best ones.

Exposure to more people means exposure to more ideas.  Some of them are going to be good - better than you've thought of on your own.

Trying to be inclusive - welcoming people who don't agree with you or have different life experiences - can make your life better.  Maybe it's as simple as finding out that you love Ethiopian food, or maybe it's finding your spouse.  It's not a guarantee that your life will improve, but I think that exposure to new ways of doing things makes you more 'worldly'.

The alternative is to remain 'provincial', and not even realize how much of the world you're missing. "

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:32:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 01, 2021, 12:56:47 PM
You're also assuming ALL people of X group think alike or had the same experiences. Pro tip they don't.

No, I'm not.  I'm saying 'if someone expresses a specific preference, it's good to try to accommodate it'. If you don't want to play a Maya character, but your friend does, and I'm running the game, I'm going to look at whether that's possible.  And maybe instead of playing a simulationist medieval England game, we might play in Forgotten Realms where it IS POSSIBLE. 

Your table your rules, but it's not about your table is it? It's about everybody else's tables, that's what's being pushed by the "Muh Representashun" and "Muh Diversity" white gringo leftists.

You shouldn't be able to write a game/setting/adventure without including all of their "protected" groups. You also shouldn't be able to write a game/setting/adventure with ALL of their "protected" groups because you're white and male and probably hetero.

You can equivocate all you want, we know what it's being said and demanded because we have seen it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:32:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 01, 2021, 12:56:47 PM
You do know the proponents of all of this bollocks are the same people demanding I don't play a black person because reasons?

No. I don't know that.  Who is demanding that you don't play a black character?  Who is demanding that you don't play a female character?  Who is demanding that you don't play an elf?  Role-playing games let you put yourself in someone else's shoes - at least, they should.  Now, not everyone can handle it.  If you play all female characters as over-sexed hornballs, maybe people will tell you that you shouldn't try to play female characters.  Not because it's inherently wrong - just because you're very bad at it. 

So you have been living under a rock for the past 5 years and haven't ever read/participated in anyu of the discussions on this same forum where we spoke about who, where and what is being demanded?

Fine, I believe yoiu, but then you can't speak with any authority in this matter due to your self admited ignorance in the subject.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:32:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 01, 2021, 12:56:47 PM
I don't want nor need your "representation" what you understand by "diversity" nor your white saviour complex. I'm perfectly able to play elfgames in worlds where the Maya don't exist, because I'm not a psychopath.

More power to you.  If you're having fun, you're doing it right.  If someone ISN'T having fun because they can't play the character that they want, I think you should try to address that.  That's not always possible - some people want to play in a game that is all about them and their needs, and have no consideration for what other people want.  But if you're saying that other players can't play what they want because of how it affects YOU, well, you might be the problem.

Because IF I don't want those who want to make the game all about themselves (those crying about "Muh Representashun" and "Muh Diversity") in my table/game then I'm the problem.

Because Dragons.

Tell me, should my pseudo medieval europe elfgame also have light sabers?

Why not? Teleportation, magic, post apocaliptic, Dragons, other planes, blah, blah, blah.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2021, 03:02:14 PM

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:59:05 PM
I'm specifically arguing that people who think representation is important should be represented.

Should people that don't think representation is important be represented?

That's diversity of opinion, not diversity of race or sex. So no.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:47:12 PM
If you were playing in a historical game set after 1521, the presence of a Filipinio character in a European setting isn't difficult to explain - while unusual (like adventurers), it is plausible.

You're so tolerant you can't even be arsed to spell Filipino correctly.

A Filipino advernture in historic renaissance Europe would be exceedingly unlikely. The concept would need so much explanation and support that the game would end up revolving around that character. So, yeah, it's a snowflake move to try to hijack someone's game like that. If you agree to play in someone's world, you should respect the world.

Flip it around. You're running a game of Coyote and Crow. I want to play some Norse guy who got shipwrecked. (Look at me, I'm so special, the only white dude in fantasy North America!) Do you accommodate me? Do you role play everyone pantomiming to my character because I don't speak the language? Would you enjoy having every NPC encounter start with "Who the fuck is this hairy white devil?" Is catering to one jackass's conceit fun to you?

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 01, 2021, 03:10:34 PM

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:47:12 PM
If you were playing in a historical game set after 1521, the presence of a Filipinio character in a European setting isn't difficult to explain - while unusual (like adventurers), it is plausible.

You're so tolerant you can't even be arsed to spell Filipino correctly.

A Filipino advernture in historic renaissance Europe would be exceedingly unlikely. The concept would need so much explanation and support that the game would end up revolving around that character. So, yeah, it's a snowflake move to try to hijack someone's game like that. If you agree to play in someone's world, you should respect the world.

Flip it around. You're running a game of Coyote and Crow. I want to play some Norse guy who got shipwrecked. (Look at me, I'm so special, the only white dude in fantasy North America!) Do you accommodate me? Do you role play everyone pantomiming to my character because I don't speak the language? Would you enjoy having every NPC encounter start with "Who the fuck is this hairy white devil?" Is catering to one jackass's conceit fun to you?

Of course not, including a white devil in Coyote & Crow would make it less Diverse don't you know?

And as deadDM pointed out:
If there is a ton of diversity in italy, why does it need more? Why does it need more of a specific kind of diversity? Is there a thing as too much diversity? If not, why. If yes, then what is it?

The ideology of diversity & representation only makes sense as a cover for a ideology of critical theory.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:59:05 PM

I'm specifically arguing that people who think representation is important should be represented.  Since you don't care, I don't care.  Or at least, not as it pertains to running a hypothetical game with you as a player.

But that's precisely why your argument *is* bullshit. If it matters - I don't see you campaigning for ALL the other poor filipinos in the world not getting THEIR representation in this hobby.

And you're going to use me as a poor excuse to not care? Dude you don't care because you didn't even think about it. No more than you're thinking about Berber representation. Or Bantu representation. etc. etc. You don't really care. The whole game about Representaiton and Diversity is a bullshit scam used for one purpose - to gaslight other white people into feeling shame for shit they had nothing to do with.

That shit may work on weak-willed sub-urb raised white coastals, but to actual people with brains (white and otherwise) we see the bullshit for what it is.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:59:05 PMA setting like Raveloft includes pulling in things (and characters) from any number of other worlds.  The conceit of the setting is that the plane is itself selecting and holding people.  IF SOMETHING IS IMPORTANT TO ME, you should have a reason why you're not allowing it.  That does not mean that every village in Ravenloft has to have a quota of specific minorities; but it also doesn't mean that it can't.  Likewise, any port city in any type of high-trade environment (like most published fantasy settings) should have people from the far-flung corners of the globe.

I love this... wait for it. "So you're saying" - people of color, and gender fluids don't need representation in print in Ravenloft? If they do - who is in and who isn't? Who makes the Combat Peg Legs for the Limb-impaired in Ravenloft? Bantu-Gepetto? Or Jorge the Bandito Lord of Duskwallow, with his sombrero wearing gay Filipino Tinikling Bard side-kick, Bong (yeah... a common Filipino name).

Who is in and who is out - and when we get to "out" part, we'll get to point at you for being clearly racist by your exclusion. <--- this is what SJW's do.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:59:05 PMIf you have every reason to include diversity, but you haven't, there really are only two reasons that make sense.  One - you thought about it and rejected it because you don't WANT diversity, or Two - you just didn't think about it.

But... I'm not the one demanding this shit. People like YOU are. And it's making the published work worse - not better. You forgot the third reason: You want to make a virtue signal to your fellow SJW's to prove contrary to your own new definitions of racism - you aren't racist. But the very *act* of doing this proves to every reasonable person that understands what actual racism is, that you are in fact a racist.

Now there are degrees to it to be sure - you may not be the knuckle-dragging kind of violent racist you imagine other non-SJW White folks to be (they're not). But you are the "POC's are really dumb second-class citizens we take pity on because they're too stupid to know better" kind of racist.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:59:05 PM#2 is what usually happens.  When I'm writing, race isn't necessarily important to me.  It's quite likely that failure to specify will cause people to assume the race they're most familiar with/comfortable with.  Reminding people to consider diversity isn't bad - it actually makes worlds seem MORE REALISTIC.

But that's not what's happening. WotC and these companies on the Red List demand it. Nevermind these same companies were hiring POC for *DECADES* to write for them based on their skill - not the color of their skin or the slant of their eyes. This is why you are a racist. You pretend that these things *actually* matter. You're the kind of person actually judging people based on their ethnic appearances - even RPG's can't really portray.

Do you think "This NPC that is the captain of the guard looks like a Filipino" <insert colorful description of a Visayan islander here> is *Representation* of Filipino culture? You know where we have ten-thousand islands, with different internal cultures (but united as Filipinos) suffices for "representaiton"? To WHOM? To Filipinos? No. To YOU and the rest of the largely white SJW audience? Of course it does - that's why you're self-flagellating racists by your own definition of Representation. Because it's not representaion. Don't try to confuse what we do at the table with what is being demanded in print.

I know - I'm one of those POC's they published. Just like a black man, "Maximum" Mike Pondsmith wrote the legendary Kara-Tur boxset. There is not a drop of Asian blood in his body, but I have yet to hear people scream "Cultural Appropriation". Because none of this shit you're talking about really matters.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 02:59:05 PMIn the real world, think about how many stereotypes you can think about for Germans versus Italians.  Keep in mind that they're people that share a border.  They have a lot of shared history.  And yet, they're VERY DIFFERENT.  Even within a single country (like Italy) where they share a language, a political structure, and popular entertainment, consider how many stereotypes exist between Northerners and Southerners.  Monocultures are unrealistic and boring.

SJW "culture" is monolithic and intensely racist (again by their own standards not mine). The problem you're claiming here is only valid to the point where people are willing to support that which is not that. It's been tried. Many times. I know personally - I'm a survivor of many many many of those ships that went down. I helped write Talislanta - because I loved the game, not because I need money - and it went nowhere.

Did you buy it by chance? if so - thank you. If not - what the fuck are you complaining about? It's so goddamn diverse there is not a white European in sight there - It literally has rainbow colored warriors, an all-female race of Amazon clones that rule as a matriarchy. That setting should make SJW's jizz liquid skittles into the air.

They didn't support it.

No, this is not about actual Representation - this is about politics. Pretending otherwise will not convince many here.

I think part of the problem here is that "diversity" and "representation" are buzzwords rather than well-defined positions. I avoid using them, and instead I try to talk about specific positions.

For me, it becomes clearer when we talk about specifics. For example, having gay characters in RPG modules. tenbones has said that it's inherently wrong for WotC to include gay characters in existing settings like Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Greyhawk, because it's inserting modern politics where it doesn't belong. While I might like or dislike any given character, I don't agree with that as a policy. I think it's fine to have gay characters in modules. Conversely, I believe that most RPG publishers banned gay characters in the 70s and 80s, and that ban was wrong and rooted in the prejudice of the time.

Likewise, I have no problem with publishers releasing non-European settings like Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, and so forth. Maybe they won't be the biggest thing, but I have no problem with them trying.

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 02:47:34 PM
I call bullshit. You can't have it both ways. You can't talk about representation in the general - without being specific about who and why? I am a filipino. I've literally asked dozens of times about why no one advocates for my representation. If you were being honest about your position you would advocate for that representation despite the fact you know I don't care.

But you don't. For the exact reason I've cited - you don't *really* care. Hell how can you? You don't know dick about my culture. But yet - I'm a bigger minority than the fucking cultures you pretend to advocate for. So where does this stupid idea end?

I realize this was to deadDMwalking, but I'll answer for me. I don't advocate for anyone's representation. I don't advocate for my own representation. I will, though, run games that interest me - and those have included games set in Korea, like my 1860's pulp dragons campaign. I'll also advocate for games I like. If someone were to come out with a Filipino-based game, I'd give it a fair shot.

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 02:47:34 PM
Magical Tinikiling poles for Bards (https://youtu.be/kckR6wf5xe8)? Yeah I can see this in my Ravenloft games. Makes PERFECT sense.

The original Ravenloft setting included non-European lands like Egyptian-inspired Har'akir with its mummy lord and Indian-inspired Sri Raji with its rakshasa lord. I think these fit with the tone because Ravenloft is inspired by 19th and early 20th century gothic fiction, which includes Near East and Far East settings for horror. It seems to me that Filipino elements could also be fittingly included - drawing inspiration from Filipino gothic horror like Gerardo de León's blood drinker films.

@jhkim - reasonable reply.

I *love* non-European settings - if only to bring my players there. I don't *require* them. The market has spoken *many* times as to the importance of such settings.

The implied issue here is for the people currently in control of D&D and it's orbiting studios and system-knockoffs, is that it's replete with these cultists that believe the reason for this market reality is *racism*.

It's *not*. It's about cultural preference. I could live like a fucking king in the Phillipines if I wanted to. It's more American there than Seattle by values. But I choose not to. It's a cultural preference.

The animus of those buzzwords have taken the exact life they were intended for - and that's exactly why I'm posting in this thread. I'm waiting for some chucklehead to tell me how the weaponized buzzwords and their real meaning have been good for this industry I've been in and part of for so long.

It's *always* been diverse. It's the SJW's with their own internal racist assumptions about non-whites with their presumed low-expectations  of agency that are the actual racists. They mistake modern corporate tokenism for "representation" when it only exists to ease the cannibal SJW's in their midst... it sure as fuck isn't for minorities. Again, I submit the endless list of cultures that have never seen their cultures represented in any RPG, much less D&D, and the glaring lack of SJW chorus for them unless they can weaponize it to beat other white people down with it. No it's purely politics.

Now to your real point about making RPG's set in real analog settings - I'm down for that stuff too, but time is money and its always going to be incumbent on the proper spin to make it fun. When I wrote Talislanta: The Savage Lands, there was a *lot* of my own personal experiences about my filipino culture (the tribal aspects) that informed me. And I feel really happy with the results. I don't *need* to make fantasy Philippines, but I'd make a fantasy Asian RPG with those elements in there. Someday.

@tenbones You must remember that we're now "POC" so if they include anyone black well that represents ALL the different cultures/ethnicities with that skin tone, if they include some "Brown bodies" then that represents all latinos and other cultures that more or less share that skin tone, if they include "Asians" well that surelly represents all of the different cultures/ethnicities in the continent.

Because to them we're all the same, inferior beings needing their protection and they don't really care for us beyond pointing to their virtue while doing jack shit in the real world.

How many of them have donated their time/work to go build houses for the trully poor of the world?

It's not even about the game as you correctly point out, it's about exerting control over the hobby by terrorizing the publishers "Nice company you have there, it would be a shame if someone would come and called you an istophobe".

You know the funny thing is that some games mine the mythological wells of various cultures and unearth some neat critters. Heck, even Paizo's later Bestiaries featured some REALLY neat monsters, like the Filipino tikbalang or the Chilean cherufe.

If they spent more time coming up with constructive neat stuff, and less time hectoring people, things would be very different.

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 02:38:22 PM
Am I *supposed* to be outraged there are no Filipino Boxsets? Please oh please white people, tell me to what degree I should be angry or triggered?

Dont worry tenbones you dont have to do anything because I, as a White Man, have got this and am very angry and triggered on your behalf.

In fact where is the Manager, I would like to have some words.

Right!

but don't worry they're screaming for REPRESENTATION! and DIVERSITY! for us. See?

It's hilarious. I love this game.

"Hey, did you know Mexicans and Filipinos were literal slaves to the Spanish for *centuries* even before the African slave trade. Why are you SJW's racists not lamenting our fates? where are our Brown Lives Matter protests?!??"

You didn't think about us - proof you're a SJW-racist.

You actually think we care, but we don't - so you don't protest - proof you're really don't care - proof you're probably a mild racist masquerading as an SJW-racist.

You do think you care, you protest - but you don't really know why, but you're racist against white people anyhow - proof you're a moron and an SJW-racist.

You blame the Spanish for being colonizers. But you're not sure if they're POC's... And you're afraid of offending Hispanics, fuck it they're European - proof you hate white people, regardless of culture, and therefore you're definitely an actual racist. (and doing it poorly)

You realize Hispanics would not exist without colonization! Damn... - Proof you're a typical clueless SJW-racist.

You realize Filipino's don't consider themselves "hispanic" but probably genetically are... but we can't say that because that would SJW-racist, leaving you to do nothing - Proof you're a lazy millennial and SJW-racist.

Or you know... maybe none of this is racist *at all* and it's your dumb fucking ideology that has you cornered among the rest of the SJW cannibals to hate your own culture and people as intended for other reasons.

TSR was always diverse. They already were inclusive. WotC has given us dick-in-ass for "Diversity". But some people like that.

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 03:29:57 PM
For me, it becomes clearer when we talk about specifics. For example, having gay characters in RPG modules. tenbones has said that it's inherently wrong for WotC to include gay characters in existing settings like Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Greyhawk, because it's inserting modern politics where it doesn't belong. While I might like or dislike any given character, I don't agree with that as a policy. I think it's fine to have gay characters in modules. Conversely, I believe that most RPG publishers banned gay characters in the 70s and 80s, and that ban was wrong and rooted in the prejudice of the time.

Gary Gygax had a gay character in Gord the Rogue Greyhawk AIR - a bad guy, probably one of those Blond of Evil Suel Scarlet Brotherhood types. I recall Gord amazed that a gay could fight bravely (against Gord). Gord also had some opinions about the Gynatrix of Hardby... If I'm GMing authentic-feeling Greyhawk, I probably want homosexual characters, but I don't want it considered socially acceptable - outside of Hardby Lesbians, obviously.  ;D I wouldn't touch Eberron. Forgotten Realms by contrast to Greyhawk is going to be a lot more tolerant, at least in the Heartlands & Dalelands, and unlikely to mind two men or two women shacked up together. But it was not created as a Blue Rose setting and having Gay Marriage as a thing with a man referring to 'my husband' is far too 21st century not to be a huge hit on suspension of disbelief.  In a Cyberpunk or SF setting, sure, go to town.

TL;DR: it's not the people existing that's the problem. It's the existing pseudo-medieval game worlds created with fantasy 1970s or 1980s social norms being warped to look like Seattle 2021 that's the problem for me.

So in summary...

The importance of diversity and representation is roughly the same as the color of toothpick in the next club sandwich I order.

SJW arguments fall apart at alarming speeds on forums where the non-woke are not immediately banned and deleted.

Oh and most importantly, Shasarak would like to speak with the manager.

Representation matters to some people:

Why on-screen representation matters according to these teens (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/why-on-screen-representation-matters-according-to-these-teens). 

I'm not hostile to the idea.  Most campaign settings are not rigidly defined.  I don't think any official publisher has ever said 'nobody in the Forgotten Realms is gay'.  Since the Forgotten Realms is a big place and it represents numerous human cultures and there have been gay people in EVERY human culture, that'd be awfully weird.  If gay people exist, I'd expect to see them featured proportionally.  Ie, if the Forgotten Realms is like the United States and 5.6% of Americans identify as gay, I think it would absolutely make sense if approximately 1/20 featured characters were gay.  Keep in mind that I don't think that revealing everyone's sexuality explicitly is necessary or even desirable. 

Likewise, a cosmopolitan city should be racially diverse (among humans and non-humans).  If 50% of the population is non-human, it doesn't really make sense that 100% of the humans that exist represent a single culture.  Melting Pots be melting pots, yo. 

The best campaign worlds have blank spots on the map.  While they may have been painted in broad strokes, there's room for more detail and nuance when the focus shifts to that area.  If a campaign area is 'mostly like China', most people will have an idea of what that means.  But as you focus in, you'll see differences between Han, Tibetans, and Uyghur.  If something hasn't been defined to be non-existent, then we can consider the possibility of its existence. 

In a fantasy world that has regions inspired by the Maya and Filipinos, you'd expect to find examples of those characters in that world.  Worlds get bigger as you explore them; the things that you know were included don't become less significant as you find examples of things that weren't thought up from the beginning.  This is as true for monsters as it is for cultural groups.  I've never had trouble explaining the presence of a heretofore monster; why would a cultural group be any harder? 

I've never met anyone from Liechtenstein. But I don't have any trouble believing they exist. 

But that's not the narrative and you know it.

Why are *WE* made to bend the knee on things we like for other peoples mental ISSUES?

This is *not* representation. This is politics.

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 04:53:56 PM
Why are *WE* made to bend the knee on things we like for other peoples mental ISSUES?

No one is forcing you to 'bend the knee'.  People are advocating for what they want to see in their favorite settings.  That's what fans do. 

Yes, sometimes people want things that you don't (like Acrobatic Yoda).  Yes, sometimes you feel the things people want ruin the setting (like Acrobatic Yoda).  Yes, sometimes you have to change the setting canon to get rid of things you think are bad for the setting (like Acrobatic Yoda).  What you do at your table is your business - but when you have a player that rolls up and WANTS something you don't (like Acrobatic Yoda) you try to work out something that's fun for both of you.  Maybe even though you think it's stupid, you roll with it.  At least they're not playing Jar-Jar Binks. 

Oh, and to the person who asked, yes, lightsabers are already a thing in just about every setting.  Brilliant energy was a core weapon property in 3.5. 

I have yet to see where WotC has produced settings that are Uighur or Filipino or Mexico specific. Hell - they're so concerned with Black Lives Matter socially - where is the Blackcentric RPG setting?

Instead they'd rather shoe-horn non-contextual content into established content. Lazy, patronizing tokenism.

That suffices for SJW's. Meanwhile in the same breath they'll call previous TSR's honest attempts as "cultural appropriation"

You aren't very convincing at this. Maybe it only works on leftists?

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 04:58:52 PM

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 04:53:56 PM
Why are *WE* made to bend the knee on things we like for other peoples mental ISSUES?

No one is forcing you to 'bend the knee'.  People are advocating for what they want to see in their favorite settings.  That's what fans do. 

Yes, sometimes people want things that you don't (like Acrobatic Yoda).  Yes, sometimes you feel the things people want ruin the setting (like Acrobatic Yoda).  Yes, sometimes you have to change the setting canon to get rid of things you think are bad for the setting (like Acrobatic Yoda).  What you do at your table is your business - but when you have a player that rolls up and WANTS something you don't (like Acrobatic Yoda) you try to work out something that's fun for both of you.  Maybe even though you think it's stupid, you roll with it.  At least they're not playing Jar-Jar Binks. 

Oh, and to the person who asked, yes, lightsabers are already a thing in just about every setting.  Brilliant energy was a core weapon property in 3.5.

Wait you're pretending that none of the social ostracizing that has been happening for the last decade over SJW ideology which has produced this very fine forum of proud bastards never happened?

That the very ideas this thread is named for isn't a real thing? Dude why are you even posting? Oh wait... I must be a dumb POC to you. Is that what's going on here? LOL

Just because someone likes and wants something DUMB and STUPID doesn't mean it's GOOD and should be included.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 04:52:08 PMWhy on-screen representation matters according to these teens (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/why-on-screen-representation-matters-according-to-these-teens). 

And their voice matters because??? If some teens said why they think public execution was important, and how inspiring seeing a hanged man was, this wouldn't get a PBS article about it.

Representation & diversity get exceptional treatment as ideas because as I said: they are covers for even worse ones.

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 05:02:06 PMI must be a dumb POC to you. Is that what's going on here?

If analyzed as a means towards furthering critical theory, it all makes sense. They don't think your dumb. They just see you as a tool just like everybody else. In that sense its very racially blind.

When you see all of reality as a lie, then all people are just illusions to be used.

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 04:53:56 PM
But that's not the narrative and you know it.

Why are *WE* made to bend the knee on things we like for other peoples mental ISSUES?

This is *not* representation. This is politics.

It's all a gotcha rhetoric and catch-22 set ups:

Activist: Why do you have no mentions of homosexuality in your RPGs?

RPG Co: Dude, 'homosexual rights' are a hot-button political issue, and we don't want to touch that stuff in our escapist RPGs.

Activist: Since when are basic human rights a political issue?

RPG Co: WTF? We're a gaming company making escapist RPGs. Why do we need to put out a press release about our stance on some "human rights" issue?

Activist: Because everything is political, Bigot. By not mentioning homosexuality at all, you are explicitly taking an anti-homosexual political stance!

RPG Co: Wait, what!?


When you break most SJW reasoning down: It's all Motte and bailey, heads I win - tails you lose, circular Conflict Theory nonsense on a loop tape.

If it wasn't LGBTQP, or POC, it would be brown eyed people vs blue eyed people. Whatever hook that lets them get their foot in the door so that they can divide and conquer to gain Control.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 04:52:08 PM
Representation matters to some people:

Why on-screen representation matters according to these teens (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/why-on-screen-representation-matters-according-to-these-teens). 

I'm not hostile to the idea.  Most campaign settings are not rigidly defined.  I don't think any official publisher has ever said 'nobody in the Forgotten Realms is gay'.  Since the Forgotten Realms is a big place and it represents numerous human cultures and there have been gay people in EVERY human culture, that'd be awfully weird.  If gay people exist, I'd expect to see them featured proportionally.  Ie, if the Forgotten Realms is like the United States and 5.6% of Americans identify as gay, I think it would absolutely make sense if approximately 1/20 featured characters were gay.  Keep in mind that I don't think that revealing everyone's sexuality explicitly is necessary or even desirable. 

Likewise, a cosmopolitan city should be racially diverse (among humans and non-humans).  If 50% of the population is non-human, it doesn't really make sense that 100% of the humans that exist represent a single culture.  Melting Pots be melting pots, yo. 

The best campaign worlds have blank spots on the map.  While they may have been painted in broad strokes, there's room for more detail and nuance when the focus shifts to that area.  If a campaign area is 'mostly like China', most people will have an idea of what that means.  But as you focus in, you'll see differences between Han, Tibetans, and Uyghur.  If something hasn't been defined to be non-existent, then we can consider the possibility of its existence. 

In a fantasy world that has regions inspired by the Maya and Filipinos, you'd expect to find examples of those characters in that world.  Worlds get bigger as you explore them; the things that you know were included don't become less significant as you find examples of things that weren't thought up from the beginning.  This is as true for monsters as it is for cultural groups.  I've never had trouble explaining the presence of a heretofore monster; why would a cultural group be any harder? 

I've never met anyone from Liechtenstein. But I don't have any trouble believing they exist.

Especially if said Maya or Filipinos have planes to jump in and go to Europe.

Oh, right, I forgot "Muh Teleportation!", which is just another way of saying "Because Dragons".

Never mind that those spells need the caster to know perfectly the destination to reduce the probability of death to "only" 3% and can't carry more than 250 pounds + 150 pounds for each level above 10th and he needs to be touching it.

I bet those wizards would charge just a copper to take you from the Mayab to Europe per person.

But the wizard has to go with you, and how exactly did that wizard get to the Mayab? He couldn't have teleported there unless he knew it like his hand, and 3% of those who tried it probably died. So he must have gotten there by more conventional means.

Which means sailing. For a fucking month, on seas with literal sea monsters and other perils, to reach a fucking island on the bahamas. another month to reach Cuba (lets say it was the Mayab instead). So two months to get there, and you took with you a 10th level wizard that Hapens to know the Teleport Spell, so after spending there a few months the wizard now knows "very well" one spot to teleport back and so he and one other can teleport back to Europe.

Yeah I think this would be so cheap as to make Mayas ubiquitous all over Europe...

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 04:58:52 PM

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 04:53:56 PM
Why are *WE* made to bend the knee on things we like for other peoples mental ISSUES?

No one is forcing you to 'bend the knee'.  People are advocating for what they want to see in their favorite settings.  That's what fans do. 

Yes, sometimes people want things that you don't (like Acrobatic Yoda).  Yes, sometimes you feel the things people want ruin the setting (like Acrobatic Yoda).  Yes, sometimes you have to change the setting canon to get rid of things you think are bad for the setting (like Acrobatic Yoda).  What you do at your table is your business - but when you have a player that rolls up and WANTS something you don't (like Acrobatic Yoda) you try to work out something that's fun for both of you.  Maybe even though you think it's stupid, you roll with it.  At least they're not playing Jar-Jar Binks. 

Oh, and to the person who asked, yes, lightsabers are already a thing in just about every setting.  Brilliant energy was a core weapon property in 3.5.

I am "the person who asked" you care so much about us non-whites you can't even arse to answer me directly.

Or maybe, just maybe you're lying?

Lets see if you're answering my question, I said "Tell me, should my pseudo medieval europe elfgame also have light sabers?"

So I guess we now know why you didn't quote me huh? Because you're not answering MY question but a strawman.

Guess I'm a dumb "POC" to you because you thought you could slip that one thru.

Quote from: FingerRod on October 01, 2021, 04:50:30 PM
So in summary...

The importance of diversity and representation is roughly the same as the color of toothpick in the next club sandwich I order.

SJW arguments fall apart at alarming speeds on forums where the non-woke are not immediately banned and deleted.

Oh and most importantly, Shasarak would like to speak with the manager.

It is exhausting complaining but at least I can sleep well knowing that I have done my part.

Quote from: Shasarak on October 01, 2021, 05:26:34 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 01, 2021, 04:50:30 PM
So in summary...

The importance of diversity and representation is roughly the same as the color of toothpick in the next club sandwich I order.

SJW arguments fall apart at alarming speeds on forums where the non-woke are not immediately banned and deleted.

Oh and most importantly, Shasarak would like to speak with the manager.

It is exhausting complaining but at least I can sleep well knowing that I have done my part.

Your bravery is so inspiring. You are #lifegoals.

Quote from: Shasarak on October 01, 2021, 05:26:34 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 01, 2021, 04:50:30 PM
So in summary...

The importance of diversity and representation is roughly the same as the color of toothpick in the next club sandwich I order.

SJW arguments fall apart at alarming speeds on forums where the non-woke are not immediately banned and deleted.

Oh and most importantly, Shasarak would like to speak with the manager.

It is exhausting complaining but at least I can sleep well knowing that I have done my part.

But you failed to link to your paypal so "POCs" can donate so you can keep on being offended on our behalf!

Quote from: FingerRod on October 01, 2021, 05:28:14 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on October 01, 2021, 05:26:34 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 01, 2021, 04:50:30 PM
So in summary...

The importance of diversity and representation is roughly the same as the color of toothpick in the next club sandwich I order.

SJW arguments fall apart at alarming speeds on forums where the non-woke are not immediately banned and deleted.

Oh and most importantly, Shasarak would like to speak with the manager.

It is exhausting complaining but at least I can sleep well knowing that I have done my part.

Your bravery is so inspiring. You are #lifegoals.

I know right.  All my White friends agree.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 01, 2021, 04:52:08 PM
Representation matters to some people:

Why on-screen representation matters according to these teens (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/why-on-screen-representation-matters-according-to-these-teens). 

And this is the best example of why the modern "woke" left is ideologically bankrupt.  When you truly believe that you should be paying close attention to what teenagers say, as if they know what they are talking about (and remembering how clueless all teenagers were when you were that age, as you look back on it), then you are intellectually bereft of any solid arguments...

Quote from: Shasarak on October 01, 2021, 04:36:02 PM

Quote from: tenbones on October 01, 2021, 02:38:22 PM
Am I *supposed* to be outraged there are no Filipino Boxsets? Please oh please white people, tell me to what degree I should be angry or triggered?

Dont worry tenbones you dont have to do anything because I, as a White Man, have got this and am very angry and triggered on your behalf.

In fact where is the Manager, I would like to have some words.

Greetings!

*Chokes on soda*--*Laughing* Fucking hilarious, Shasarak! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Eirikrautha on October 01, 2021, 07:40:39 PMWhen you truly believe that you should be paying close attention to what teenagers say, as if they know what they are talking about (and remembering how clueless all teenagers were when you were that age, as you look back on it), then you are intellectually bereft of any solid arguments...

They don't. They just don't argue in good faith. They make appeals that they think matter to you, but don't care about that themselves.

Greetings!

As has been mentioned numerous times by many, there is NOTHING legitimate about the SJW's arguments in favor of "Diversity and Representation." It is all political bullshit created by cock-sucking Marxists that want to corrupt everything in Western society.

D&D games have *always* been diverse. Every campaign I have DM'd--and most of the campaigns I have played in from the beginning--decades ago now, from the 1970's--have been diverse.

The SJW's can get fucked. Geesus, these people are such mindless, brainwashed troglodytes! In random hypothetical game world I have played in--just like nearly every gamer's campaign worlds--we have had white people, black people, brown people, and Asian people. Is it verboten to characterize Asian people as "Yellow"? I recall reading numerous books that considered the technical skin tones of Asians as being "yellow"--which is why forever they have been considered the yellow race. I've always thought Asians seem to mostly range from being pale, pale white, to a warm, medium brown colour. Ahh, the various technical manuals that describe skin colours get all into all kinds o crazy shades and variations. Whatever though. And campaigns had lots of Middle-Eastern types of people, too.

However, the huge elephant in the room though, is when you actually think of "Diversity"--all of these various Human traditions and variations--and focusing on them to the hysterical obsession--is really petty and irrelevant in a typical D&D fantasy world. In the typical D&D fantasy world, there are Orcs, Halflings, Elves, Dwarves, and Gnomes as major races. Then, there are numerous other potential races that are relatively common--Tieflings, Dragonborn, Minotaurs, Goblins, Beastmen, Satyrs, as well as Ratmen, Lion-people, Tabaxi, Tiger people, Elephant people, Hippo people, not to mention Insect people, Trolls, Bird people, and dozens of half-races.

How much fucking diversity do you need? All of that seems overwhelmingly diverse to me. It's a wonder that Humans manage to survive at all in such worlds full of diverse humanoid races. Still, the point being, there is enormous variety nd diversity throughout D&D game campaigns. In the face of such enormous racial and cultural diversity, the particular Human varieties seem entirely irrelevant to me. Furthermore, in such an environment, it doesn't seem like most Human communities would be all that concerned about slight variations of Humans, when there are absolute hordes of non-Human races in every direction.

D&D has always had enormous diversity, inherently, in every game world and campaign.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: S'mon on October 01, 2021, 04:46:26 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 03:29:57 PM
For me, it becomes clearer when we talk about specifics. For example, having gay characters in RPG modules. tenbones has said that it's inherently wrong for WotC to include gay characters in existing settings like Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Greyhawk, because it's inserting modern politics where it doesn't belong. While I might like or dislike any given character, I don't agree with that as a policy. I think it's fine to have gay characters in modules. Conversely, I believe that most RPG publishers banned gay characters in the 70s and 80s, and that ban was wrong and rooted in the prejudice of the time.

TL;DR: it's not the people existing that's the problem. It's the existing pseudo-medieval game worlds created with fantasy 1970s or 1980s social norms being warped to look like Seattle 2021 that's the problem for me.

Later D&D material has always updated itself, though, rather than aspiring to seem like 1970s retro. That was true in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s just as much as today. I can generally tell just by looking at them what decade most modules were published in - not by the mechanics, but by the artwork, descriptions, and so forth. They have different feel on many levels.

I think that's common if not inevitable for an ongoing game brand. Both the mechanics and the background are regularly getting updated and changed.

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 10:11:27 PMI think that's common if not inevitable for an ongoing game brand. Both the mechanics and the background are regularly getting updated and changed.

And the latest trend is diversity & representation. Why is it the latest trend and why is rejecting it seen as somekind of blasthemy is the question here.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2021, 10:23:23 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 10:11:27 PMI think that's common if not inevitable for an ongoing game brand. Both the mechanics and the background are regularly getting updated and changed.

And the latest trend is diversity & representation. Why is it the latest trend and why is rejecting it seen as somekind of blasthemy is the question here.

If someone opposes gay characters in modules on general principles that gay characters are bad, then this argument works.

But some posters like tenbones and S'mon are saying ​roughly, "There's nothing wrong with gay characters in modules. The problem is just that they don't fit with the established settings."

But there have been a ton of major changes in the D&D settings. Opposing all the other changes in D&D would at least be consistent - but even then, that doesn't mean it's right.

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 10:31:46 PM
If someone opposes gay characters in modules on general principles that gay characters are bad, then this argument works.

Again its the 'red shirt' principle. Why are you insisting to add redshirts? Why am I a bad person for even asking? You are willing to even add reflective neon redshirt characters for forest hunters for whom dressing in red would break camoflage. And insist this is good.

QuoteBut some posters like tenbones and S'mon are saying ​roughly, "There's nothing wrong with gay characters in modules. The problem is just that they don't fit with the established settings."

I am not like them. I feel that their reasoning puts them on the defensive on enforced changes. I don't hate gay people (or characters) but I oppose diversity qouta changes on principle. I don't care if you do it makes 'sense' or not. I find that entire line of reasoning corrupt.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2021, 10:51:12 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 10:31:46 PM
But some posters like tenbones and S'mon are saying ​roughly, "There's nothing wrong with gay characters in modules. The problem is just that they don't fit with the established settings."

I am not like them. I feel that their reasoning puts them on the defensive on enforced changes. I don't hate gay people (or characters) but I oppose diversity qouta changes on principle. I don't care if you do it makes 'sense' or not. I find that entire line of reasoning corrupt.

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing. I'm opposed to both quotas and bans. There should be gay characters in a module if the author imagines them and wants them there. As far as I know, the gay characters that have appeared in modules are the result of author choice - not an enforced editorial quota.

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 11:01:51 PMI'm not sure if we're disagreeing. I'm opposed to both quotas and bans. There should be gay characters in a module if the author imagines them and wants them there. As far as I know, the gay characters that have appeared in modules are the result of author choice - not an enforced editorial quota.

Im playing Psychonauts 2. It has a ton of great characters. Some of those great characters are also gay. All fine by me.

But there are more forces at work here then just qoutas or bans. The cultural forces that led to qoutas being put into place, and the mobs that are created in support or destruction of something.
Have you REALLY not witnessed any such cultural forces?
Why is it the authors choice to stress that the characters are gay and not that their italians? Why has it become a talking point AT ALL, is the entire discussion point.

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 10:31:46 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2021, 10:23:23 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 10:11:27 PMI think that's common if not inevitable for an ongoing game brand. Both the mechanics and the background are regularly getting updated and changed.

And the latest trend is diversity & representation. Why is it the latest trend and why is rejecting it seen as somekind of blasthemy is the question here.

If someone opposes gay characters in modules on general principles that gay characters are bad, then this argument works.

But some posters like tenbones and S'mon are saying ​roughly, "There's nothing wrong with gay characters in modules. The problem is just that they don't fit with the established settings."

But there have been a ton of major changes in the D&D settings. Opposing all the other changes in D&D would at least be consistent - but even then, that doesn't mean it's right.

I for one find it weird you insisting on gay characters but don't provide a quote, can you quote tenbones or S'mon saying what you say they said?

I strongly suspect you're embelishing whatever they wrote.

The Argument goes like this:

If you don't include group X in your games then you're an istophobe! And you can't make them the bad guys. You also can't write them if you're not part of group X so hire me.

Our argument goes like this:

Group X can't be in this place (and we have provided logical reasons you can't dismantle so you don't address them)

In this world group X wouldn't be as accepted as in 2021 Seattle (and we provide reasons)

The useal reaction is to call us istophobes and to ignore that tenbones and myself aren't huwhite males.

And that last part is why (I suspect) you switched to gays.

Since I'm not playing an X rated game the sexuality of the characters comes up almost never. If in the world I built gay people aren't accepted and need to hide you will call me a phobe. Because to you ALL fantasy worlds need to feel like 2021 Seattle. Why? Because Dragons.

The exact same argument DeadDM uses to say that Mayas and Filipinos SHOULD be in my pseudo medieval Europe elfgame. Because Dragons.

Please provide quotes to prove what you're saying and try and level up your "arguments" I can only entertain so many variations of "Because Dragons", it gets boring real fast.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2021, 11:13:16 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 11:01:51 PMI'm not sure if we're disagreeing. I'm opposed to both quotas and bans. There should be gay characters in a module if the author imagines them and wants them there. As far as I know, the gay characters that have appeared in modules are the result of author choice - not an enforced editorial quota.

Im playing Psychonauts 2. It has a ton of great characters. Some of those great characters are also gay. All fine by me.

But there are more forces at work here then just qoutas or bans. The cultural forces that led to qoutas being put into place, and the mobs that are created in support or destruction of something.
Have you REALLY not witnessed any such cultural forces?
Why is it the authors choice to stress that the characters are gay and not that their italians? Why has it become a talking point AT ALL, is the entire discussion point.

"It's not censorship if the author chooses to change shit to get the cannibals off of his back" Of course I doubt jhkim will aknowledge the cannibal mob even exists.

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 10:31:46 PM
But some posters like tenbones and S'mon are saying ​roughly, "There's nothing wrong with gay characters in modules. The problem is just that they don't fit with the established settings."

You know I didn't say that, though. I'm broadly in favour of having homosexual characters in published settings, and it can be done well*. Eg Paizo when created Sandpoint in 2007 for Rise of the Runelords, there's a male homosexual couple. The liberal-minded Sandpoint folk mostly think it's a bit odd, but don't worry about it. This fitted in well with the general vibe of Golarion as created. But most stuff from ca 2012 on feels different; like they don't care how incongruous the gay or trans etc characters are, and in particular how the surrounding society regards them as normative; in fact the writers seem to take delight in beating the reader over the head with SEE!! SEE!!! To some extent that's true of POC inserts too, especially when they're race swapping existing characters. Some random character in the middle of the northern wilds is suddenly African-American.

*A recent example I can think of is in Odyssey of the Dragon Lords (2020) which I've just started running. The Amazons of Themis use men for breeding, but their loves & life mates are female. The description riffs well off actual Greek Amazon mythology + the Theban Sacred Band, and does not feel incongruous at all. Conversely in the frontier city of Estoria there's a minor male character with a 'husband' and a missing daughter, but no attempt to explain what 'husband' might mean in this pseudo-Greek setting, or how he has a daughter. The latter bugged me a bit. If they'd wanted modern style gay marriage to be a thing in Estoria, they could at least have taken a couple lines to describe how this worked.
Odyssey also does an 'everywhere is multi-racial' thing, but at least they explain this in the setting background, with the human population descended from centuries of shipwrecks from all over the multiverse. It can occasionally feel slightly 'off' in that most characters should probably look more multi-racial by default, rather than white-black-Asian, but at least there is an explanation good enough for handwavium.

Quote from: S'mon on October 02, 2021, 02:41:09 AM
You know I didn't say that, though. I'm broadly in favour of having homosexual characters in published settings, and it can be done well*. Eg Paizo when created Sandpoint in 2007 for Rise of the Runelords, there's a male homosexual couple. The liberal-minded Sandpoint folk mostly think it's a bit odd, but don't worry about it. This fitted in well with the general vibe of Golarion as created. But most stuff from ca 2012 on feels different; like they don't care how incongruous the gay or trans etc characters are, and in particular how the surrounding society regards them as normative; in fact the writers seem to take delight in beating the reader over the head with SEE!! SEE!!!

I apologize for misrepresenting you, then. It might help to discuss particular examples. I haven't read Rise of the Runelords, for what it's worth.

Quote from: jhkim on October 02, 2021, 03:21:59 AM
I apologize for misrepresenting you, then. It might help to discuss particular examples. I haven't read Rise of the Runelords, for what it's worth.

If you've not read RoTR you've probably not read Wrath of the Righteous, then? Pretty sure I've discussed it before. Guess it might have been on RPGnet, back when you could still sort of discuss stuff.

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 10:31:46 PM
And the latest trend is diversity & representation. Why is it the latest trend and why is rejecting it seen as somekind of blasthemy is the question here.

Because in the 80's and 90's - it was not about politics and more about actually trying to put elements into the D&D brand that were fantastical that players might appreciate as part of the product. It wasn't to show Asians, and Hispanics or Middle-Eastern people "representation". At least for the Forgotten Realms, Maztica not withstanding, it was because these cultures had a footholds into the pop-culture of the west - Arabian Nights, and Kung-fu cinema, both of which were strong in their own unique fantasy elements with very well established tropes.

It had nothing to do with people's personal agenda, political or otherwise. It was designed to enrich the game. That people didn't buy enough of these products to keep these lines going could be due to a number of reasons, not the least of which is lack of interest. It could be marketing, it could be a host of reasons.

And non-white around the world did not give a shit that these lines didn't continue. Nor did anyone scream racism.

Quote from: jhkim on October 01, 2021, 10:31:46 PMIf someone opposes gay characters in modules on general principles that gay characters are bad, then this argument works.

But some posters like tenbones and S'mon are saying ​roughly, "There's nothing wrong with gay characters in modules. The problem is just that they don't fit with the established settings."

But there have been a ton of major changes in the D&D settings. Opposing all the other changes in D&D would at least be consistent - but even then, that doesn't mean it's right.

As for homosexuality - I'm loathe to compare sexuality to ethnicity as a "group" because they're not the same thing. SJW's do this for, again, political purposes. There are gay people that *detest* "LGBT-culture" that SJW's prop-up enmasse with their hysteria machine.

Again - since D&D has always been traditionally pretty tepid on sex in their game - even as early as 2nd Edition they had gay characters (the rulers of Elversult, which coincidentally is where some of my longest campaigns were situated. Yanseldara and Lady Hawklyn were prominent NPC's in my own campaign for *decades*). Greenwood has sprinkled other gay/bi characters into the Realms for years but never beat us over the head with it because no Rainbow-flag waving retrograde thinking morons made a cult out of it - because it wasn't necessary. Nor did Greenwood think it proper to be an element of political necessity or need because fantasy-elf games are about killing orcs, and getting gold.

SJW's have this de-humanizing need to put people into boxes and categories for the purposes of deracinating others in order to control them.

"Change" for change's sake is not a GOOD thing. The ends never justify the means. SJW's do not understand this because they're pathologically post-modern in their view of reality. They can't discern WHY minorities are minorities, only that they believe all things "should be equal" when they aren't for very good reasons. I can't go to China and demand muh Filipino rights of the Chinese (yeah fuck your spring rolls, Filipino lumpia rocks all over yours) and this made up LGBT culture has no "right" to put its interests over those that have no interest in their sub-culture.

The interest of representation by largely white-leftists will *destroy* any other culture it touches. Because SJW Representation is about niche and minority views of their host culture. LATINX is *not* Latino culture. Latinos vastly do not like this SJW attempt at co-opting them. Not all gays enjoy LGBT representation of the San Francisco Gay Pride variety - which is pretty perverted given how they perform in the streets in front of kids. Under the auspices of "minorities can do no wrong" is a perfect example of how they coerce people to excuse any perceived excess lest they tar-and-feather you for criticizing them - with being a racist and homophobe.

SJW's are playing with fire. Representation is earned not demanded. No one owes anyone a spot on the stage - you want representation: go make the thing worthy of people's attention and money.

Don't be a parasite on established cultures at their own expense. <--- this is something SJW's don't understand. BEING an SJW can only happen because of the cultural structures that they are trying to tear down. Once those things are gone, the whole SJW concept will, itself, get destroyed by the SJW's themselves, if not from the backlash they will create.

Edit: TL/DR - I'm totally fine with gay characters as long as they're contextually appropriate. I don't need to have modern views of political LGBT culture as wink/wink examples of out of setting nods to their political constituents. Just like I don't need token filipinos wandering around Cormyr because some asshole at WotC reads this forum and sees my posts and feels sorry for filipinos all of a sudden.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
Again - since D&D has always been traditionally pretty tepid on sex in their game - even as early as 2nd Edition they had gay characters (the rulers of Elversult, which coincidentally is where some of my longest campaigns were situated. Yanseldara and Lady Hawklyn were prominent NPC's in my own campaign for *decades*).

Did they ever explicitly say Vaerna and Yanseldara were gay, in 2e? I only have Forgotten Realms Adventures, which left room for that interpretation, but it required quite a bit of extrapolation to get there. Checking, the most suggestive part is a statement that Vaerna is "Yanseldara's deeply trusted companion, strong right arm, and former adventuring comrade", and that they live together in the "Ladytowers". So really nothing. Gay? Not gay? Up to you. Which is par for the course, when it comes to all forms of sexuality in early D&D.

Quote from: S'mon on October 02, 2021, 03:26:05 AM

Quote from: jhkim on October 02, 2021, 03:21:59 AM
I apologize for misrepresenting you, then. It might help to discuss particular examples. I haven't read Rise of the Runelords, for what it's worth.

If you've not read RoTR you've probably not read Wrath of the Righteous, then? Pretty sure I've discussed it before. Guess it might have been on RPGnet, back when you could still sort of discuss stuff.

Correct, I haven't read either.

As a generality, something that I note in D&D setting material is that they tend to ignore both social class and gender in a way that doesn't fit at all with real-world history. That's been the general tone of D&D from the start. Gender meant only a very minor strength limit in AD&D1 and no change in any other character skills, ability, or relation to the world. Social class wasn't mentioned at all. D&D characters have no defined social class - only money.

That's very different from how I handled gender and social class in my pseudo-historical games, for example. It took a fair amount of creative work between me and the players to include female characters and especially mixed-gender groups in my pseudo-historical games. Gender was something that frequently came up. But in D&D, I've generally ignored that - which has meant that I've defaulted to an ahistorical gender equality. It's a similar with social class. Having Skallagrim gain his own land after success in raids was a huge deal in my vikings game.

I think it's a question of taste whether one prefers this. Some would argue that its simpler and helps getting straight to the fantasy adventure stuff -- similar to having a "Common" language, universal base-10 coinage, and fixed prices around the world. There are GMs who make their D&D worlds more immersive with mixed languages, unique coinage, social class, and gender roles. But a lot of them default to ahistorical.

Similar issues apply to issues like sexuality, marriage, lineage, and inheritance. I'd agree that same-sex marriage (for example) is ahistorical, but like with these other issues, matching history is a matter of taste - not an absolute.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
Representation is earned not demanded. No one owes anyone a spot on the stage - you want representation: go make the thing worthy of people's attention and money.

Don't be a parasite on established cultures at their own expense. <--- this is something SJW's don't understand.

This is something I agree about. If one wants game products like X, then make game products like X. It's fine to make one's preferences as a customer clear, but in the bigger picture, if a large group wants something, they need to make it.

I'm absolutely with OSR people who want old-school style games, and then make and play such games.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
Edit: TL/DR - I'm totally fine with gay characters as long as they're contextually appropriate. I don't need to have modern views of political LGBT culture as wink/wink examples of out of setting nods to their political constituents. Just like I don't need token filipinos wandering around Cormyr because some asshole at WotC reads this forum and sees my posts and feels sorry for filipinos all of a sudden.

But as you said, no one owes you anything. If you want contextually-appropriate gay characters, then make modules with contextually-appropriate gay characters. If WotC makes modules that aren't to your tastes, that's them doing their thing and they have no obligation to make what you want.

Quote from: jhkim on October 04, 2021, 12:59:53 PM

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
Representation is earned not demanded. No one owes anyone a spot on the stage - you want representation: go make the thing worthy of people's attention and money.

Don't be a parasite on established cultures at their own expense. <--- this is something SJW's don't understand.

This is something I agree about. If one wants game products like X, then make game products like X. It's fine to make one's preferences as a customer clear, but in the bigger picture, if a large group wants something, they need to make it.

I'm absolutely with OSR people who want old-school style games, and then make and play such games.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
Edit: TL/DR - I'm totally fine with gay characters as long as they're contextually appropriate. I don't need to have modern views of political LGBT culture as wink/wink examples of out of setting nods to their political constituents. Just like I don't need token filipinos wandering around Cormyr because some asshole at WotC reads this forum and sees my posts and feels sorry for filipinos all of a sudden.

But as you said, no one owes you anything. If you want contextually-appropriate gay characters, then make modules with contextually-appropriate gay characters. If WotC makes modules that aren't to your tastes, that's them doing their thing and they have no obligation to make what you want.

  Incorrect, they have an absolute obligation to make what customers want and will pay for.  This is why they shoehorn their current year perspectives into established settings and games instead of simply making a game where those things make sense.  They want to have and to eat their cake.  If lots and lots of people are asking for those things in modules, so be it.  They are not however.  They just get crammed in so a massive corporation can "check a box" and cash a check at the same time.  There is a reason this is always a very, very gradual creep in the direction they are going. 

Quote from: Pat on October 04, 2021, 10:38:58 AM

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
Again - since D&D has always been traditionally pretty tepid on sex in their game - even as early as 2nd Edition they had gay characters (the rulers of Elversult, which coincidentally is where some of my longest campaigns were situated. Yanseldara and Lady Hawklyn were prominent NPC's in my own campaign for *decades*).

Did they ever explicitly say Vaerna and Yanseldara were gay, in 2e? I only have Forgotten Realms Adventures, which left room for that interpretation, but it required quite a bit of extrapolation to get there. Checking, the most suggestive part is a statement that Vaerna is "Yanseldara's deeply trusted companion, strong right arm, and former adventuring comrade", and that they live together in the "Ladytowers". So really nothing. Gay? Not gay? Up to you. Which is par for the course, when it comes to all forms of sexuality in early D&D.

During the 2e-era, I think it was highly suggestive. I just ran with it. My players thought it was cool how I handled it, I kept it discrete because POWER - ruling without producing heirs is/was and issue in monarchies etc. In fact that was at one point one of the sub-plots of our long-standing campaign, some of the PC's having become powerful enough to be in her orbit finding someone to potentially fulfil her monarchial duties with. In the end she ended up adopting an infant the PC's rescued...

So yeah, *I* made her gay overtly. Again, it's implied, and I simply contextualized. And I think that's how it should be. This is why Thirsty Sword Lesbians exists as it does - its not trying to look like what the Realms of 1e/2e era is trying to present.

But they want Thirsty Sword Lesbians in everything. And they want pretty much anything associated with western European culture downplayed for their own weirdo sensibilities, not their core audience.*

* The Core Audience has changed - since they're not catering to long-haul campaign playing, they are shoe-horning in modern politics as promulgated in the rest of pop-culture and media (and the education system) into the game. I'm banking on this catching up with them.

They don't want me, or my gold. And I'm fine with that. I sure as hell don't need some Leftist pretending to represent me in some tokenized fashion for them to score points with each other in their cult.

Quote from: jhkim on October 04, 2021, 12:59:53 PM

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
Edit: TL/DR - I'm totally fine with gay characters as long as they're contextually appropriate. I don't need to have modern views of political LGBT culture as wink/wink examples of out of setting nods to their political constituents. Just like I don't need token filipinos wandering around Cormyr because some asshole at WotC reads this forum and sees my posts and feels sorry for filipinos all of a sudden.

But as you said, no one owes you anything. If you want contextually-appropriate gay characters, then make modules with contextually-appropriate gay characters. If WotC makes modules that aren't to your tastes, that's them doing their thing and they have no obligation to make what you want.

That's correct. They *don't* owe me anything. They're trying to sell me a product. If they're trying to sell me something I don't want - I don't buy it. Better still - their creators are on social media saying they don't want people with "wrong thoughts" buying their work. Fair play. Done and done.

But this thread is about the "importance of Diversity and Representation" - how is it important? The hidden clause here is that if you don't agree with how that "Representation and Diversity" is portrayed then what? You're a monster.

So it's not that WotC is even really trying to sell me something - they're turning it into a litmus test for the Cannibal cult. WotC has not given us "representation". They've given us tokenized caricatures of what those that ascribe to their Woke culture *believe* about POC's and LGBT folks and any other "minority" status they can invent out of thin air for the purposes of bludgeoning other with. So WotC doesn't even believe this is "representation" - of what? This is to assuage the monsters in their midst (which may only exist in their own minds) that *they* are not the racists they pretend they're against. (while treating white people that don't agree with them - and anyone else for that matter, as Nazis.)

TSR? They showed diversity - they tried to give us settings in actual non-European context. Still, imo, some of the best stuff they've ever done. WotC isn't even *trying*. Instead they're coercing people by sprinkling little bits of this non-contextual garbage into established settings for the purposes of marking their territory like jackals, pissing in our collective yards and daring to attack you if you say otherwise.

WotC like all these other corporations are mining the IP for what its worth and producing dogshit for the brand-loyalists to consume. As they say there's good news and bad news... the bad news being it's dogshit. The good news is there plenty of it to eat.

Quote from: oggsmash on October 04, 2021, 01:38:13 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 04, 2021, 12:59:53 PM
But as you said, no one owes you anything. If you want contextually-appropriate gay characters, then make modules with contextually-appropriate gay characters. If WotC makes modules that aren't to your tastes, that's them doing their thing and they have no obligation to make what you want.

  Incorrect, they have an absolute obligation to make what customers want and will pay for.  This is why they shoehorn their current year perspectives into established settings and games instead of simply making a game where those things make sense.  They want to have and to eat their cake.  If lots and lots of people are asking for those things in modules, so be it.  They are not however.  They just get crammed in so a massive corporation can "check a box" and cash a check at the same time.  There is a reason this is always a very, very gradual creep in the direction they are going.

I disagree. Customers don't own the company. If a Christian shop owner wants to stay closed on Sunday, even if the customers want to buy from the store then - that's their right. If an environmentalist shop owner wants to not provide disposable plastic bags even if the customers want them, that's also their right. If a game developer wants to make modules however they want, that's their right.

Of course, it's also the customers' right to not buy from them if they don't like it.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 02:12:52 PM
WotC isn't even *trying*. Instead they're coercing people by sprinkling little bits of this non-contextual garbage into established settings for the purposes of marking their territory like jackals, pissing in our collective yards and daring to attack you if you say otherwise.

(bolding above is mine) I fundamentally disagree that WotC is coercing people by including any sort of content in their modules - whether that's gay NPCs or anything else. Whatever they want to print in their modules is just fucking words on a page. No one is being coerced by the printing of fictional game content.

Quote from: jhkim on October 04, 2021, 02:33:40 PM
I disagree. Customers don't own the company. If a Christian shop owner wants to stay closed on Sunday, even if the customers want to buy from the store then - that's their right. If an environmentalist shop owner wants to not provide disposable plastic bags even if the customers want them, that's also their right. If a game developer wants to make modules however they want, that's their right.

Of course, it's also the customers' right to not buy from them if they don't like it.

But if we're being apples to apples - the Christian store owners are not demonizing their patrons for not agreeing either. They're not on social media shitting on their established patrons for not agreeing either. They're not inserting little Satanic references into their products either that their constituents do not believe in, at least as presented.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 02:12:52 PM
WotC isn't even *trying*. Instead they're coercing people by sprinkling little bits of this non-contextual garbage into established settings for the purposes of marking their territory like jackals, pissing in our collective yards and daring to attack you if you say otherwise.

Quote from: jhkim on October 04, 2021, 02:33:40 PM(bolding above is mine) I fundamentally disagree that WotC is coercing people by including any sort of content in their modules - whether that's gay NPCs or anything else. Whatever they want to print in their modules is just fucking words on a page. No one is being coerced by the printing of fictional game content.

What do you call it if you're associated with a company's products, for decades and now it's expected if you purchase and use those products and engage with them publicly about your opinions and are mobbed for wrongthink about those products?

REMEMBER this is about "Diversity" and "Representation" - yes words on the page (and pictures) is what is supposed to be representative of ones thoughts and ideas - and how is this playing out? Is what WotC putting out there *actually* good in these terms. And if you are a public consumer of those goods as they slide this garbage in there - how obtuse to you have to be, once again, to know that if you speak up you will be attacked publicly.

So you're making my point - it's "shut up and keep buying products, or you're a Nazi". Or don't buy them at all. It's absolutely coercion to anyone that is a consumer of D&D products that doesn't agree with this stuff. And if you're going to engage publicly about our content, expect to be shunned.

Edit: Remember - people were ALREADY playing D&D long before WotC went woke and took over. When they started doing this shit in D&D people have been speaking up against it - we're here RIGHT now because of it. And look, we're multiple pages into this thread and not a single good example of why WotC brand of "Diversity" or "Representation" has been presented as being GOOD for the hobby.

I'm still waiting. When I ask for "is it good?" it's deafeningly silent. So which is it? And why?

Here is a better litmus test for you jhkim... or anyone else.

Put some words on the screen that we can judge for good Representation of Gay Filipinos you'd like to see in D&D.

You're the one that wants to pretend all is well in the land of D&D. Give us a paragraph or two. Go on. My filipino Straw Hat of Judgement awaits. After all, if you can obtusely pretend whatever it is WotC is doing is "Good" then you should be able to illuminate us on what that looks like.

... or you can just admit what WotC does for "Representation" is stupid.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 03:33:34 PM
Here is a better litmus test for you jhkim... or anyone else.

Put some words on the screen that we can judge for good Representation of Gay Filipinos you'd like to see in D&D.

You're the one that wants to pretend all is well in the land of D&D. Give us a paragraph or two. Go on. My filipino Straw Hat of Judgement awaits. After all, if you can obtusely pretend whatever it is WotC is doing is "Good" then you should be able to illuminate us on what that looks like.

... or you can just admit what WotC does for "Representation" is stupid.

He cant because he is not a Gay Filipino.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 02:03:20 PM
During the 2e-era, I think it was highly suggestive. I just ran with it. My players thought it was cool how I handled it, I kept it discrete because POWER - ruling without producing heirs is/was and issue in monarchies etc. In fact that was at one point one of the sub-plots of our long-standing campaign, some of the PC's having become powerful enough to be in her orbit finding someone to potentially fulfil her monarchial duties with. In the end she ended up adopting an infant the PC's rescued...

So yeah, *I* made her gay overtly. Again, it's implied, and I simply contextualized. And I think that's how it should be. This is why Thirsty Sword Lesbians exists as it does - its not trying to look like what the Realms of 1e/2e era is trying to present.

I don't think it's even implied. More the possibility was left often, without any real emphasis on it.

With hindsight, particularly with what we've learned about Ed Greenwood's campaigns, what festhalls really are, and so; I think it's blindingly obvious that it was both very deliberate and intended from the start, and not a retrofit. But based just on the FRA, you had to make the leap yourself. They weren't really helping you. This wasn't a sly wink, it was an elision.

Which I'm fine with. Author-insert sexuality can be as creepy as creepy gamers make sexual jokes at the table. A game aimed at a mass market audience shouldn't assume that level of intimacy with the readers, or between gamers; that's something for each group to decide. That doesn't mean you have to hide homosexuality or similar relationships, but it does mean it should be treated like other forms of sexuality. And in D&D, explicit heterosexual relationships are rare to the point of almost being nonexistent, outside of chaste references to marriage. The few exceptions are usually things like lusty pirates or misbehaving princesses, where it's one of the most prominent parts of their character. And Vaerna and Yanseldara aren't that type. The main difference between 30 years ago and today is it's more acceptable to throw in a few marriages where the couple may not be a man and a woman (I'm phrasing it that way because whether an NPC was male or female wasn't always stated).

Yeah - I took it that way.

I agree, either way it's fine. It's not intruding on the assumptions of the setting and it's left to the GM's and players to go wherever they want with it.

I don't want "modernisms" in my fantasy Realms settings that are informed by things not appropriate to the pastiches that the Realms pulls from. And if you're going to try and pull that off, do it with the understanding that it has to be good.

I don't *really* know what "Representation" means coming from the Left, because all their examples since this term have become a "thing" in the entertainment world already existed - it's called Tokenism.

There were excellent examples of representation already extant in pop-culture, it's pathetic that rank and file consumers side with the very corporations that have convinced them their Tokenism has some value, vs. creators in the past that tried to deftly navigate those waters when it was far more difficult and challenging to produce something good that was accepted and consumed. Now if you don't accept it - you're a monster. The nuance of these standards is lost, and the use of first principles completely missing.

Quote from: Pat on October 04, 2021, 10:38:58 AM

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
Again - since D&D has always been traditionally pretty tepid on sex in their game - even as early as 2nd Edition they had gay characters (the rulers of Elversult, which coincidentally is where some of my longest campaigns were situated. Yanseldara and Lady Hawklyn were prominent NPC's in my own campaign for *decades*).

Did they ever explicitly say Vaerna and Yanseldara were gay, in 2e? I only have Forgotten Realms Adventures, which left room for that interpretation, but it required quite a bit of extrapolation to get there. Checking, the most suggestive part is a statement that Vaerna is "Yanseldara's deeply trusted companion, strong right arm, and former adventuring comrade", and that they live together in the "Ladytowers". So really nothing. Gay? Not gay? Up to you. Which is par for the course, when it comes to all forms of sexuality in early D&D.

To be fair there was only so far you could go in the early 90s. We'd just spent a decade defending our hobby's existence, and had to skirt certain lines. This was before gay characters were common on TV, and before the word itself stopped being a slur. D&D was really pushing the envelope, as much as it could I think.

I learned more about what women suffer, what it's like to be a minority, and what it's like to have power and privilege in Faerun and Krynn than I ever did the real world. I knew what they meant by Ladytowers. Do you have any idea how much giggling happened across geeky basements at that single word?

Huh huh. Huh huh huh. Ladies. In a tower.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
...
Again - since D&D has always been traditionally pretty tepid on sex in their game ...

It always has, and still is in their best interest to be so.

Tolerance is not Acceptance.

When you only have the former, yet act as if you have the latter, and start to shove it in peoples faces...

You get This:

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
...
SJW's are playing with fire. Representation is earned not demanded. No one owes anyone a spot on the stage - you want representation: go make the thing worthy of people's attention and money. ...

Because This:

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
Don't be a parasite on established cultures at their own expense. <--- this is something SJW's don't understand. BEING an SJW can only happen because of the cultural structures that they are trying to tear down. Once those things are gone, the whole SJW concept will, itself, get destroyed by the SJW's themselves, if not from the backlash they will create.
...

I know a lot of people hope that if the SJWs are beat, that things will go back to a nice middle of the road normal.

But historically that is just not how these things tend to work out.

I think that for purposes of enjoying running water, flushing toilets, and a working electrical grid: Some people will have to make some hard choices about who they're going to have to side with to beat the SJWs.

As someone that has lived without running water, an electrical grid, and comes from a culture whose cuisine most American's would call "offal" and "trash" - I'll be perfectly fine.

My newfound neighbors, that grew up on participation trophies, easy-mode gaming, and fast-food and not working, will learn the true meaning of competition.

Ideological cannibals are not the same thing as actual cannibals.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 09:11:08 PM
As someone that has lived without running water, an electrical grid, and comes from a culture whose cuisine most American's would call "offal" and "trash" - I'll be perfectly fine.

My newfound neighbors, that grew up on participation trophies, easy-mode gaming, and fast-food and not working, will learn the true meaning of competition.

Ideological cannibals are not the same thing as actual cannibals.

By being fine won't you also be a target? One of the hallmarks of every socialist / communist regime is the continual scapgoating of the next group. If you have money or resources they'll just take it. Obviously you didn't earn it because ________________.

The SJWs will run down your privilege dance card, and if they find nothing they'll just use the White Supremicist label. Doesn't matter what you actually look like, do, or have said.

If resources become an issue, as increasingly seems like it will very soon, then they'll use whatever flimsy logic necessary to take from the haves. Those who had the foresight to prepare will be prime targets.

@jaeger points out that a lot of disparate groups are going to need to band together to prevent this from happening. I already see that coalition growing. The threat is real. Ruining our hobbies is one thing, but we're crossing a whole other scary corner, and I'm pleased to see more people around me waking up to that fact. I choose to take a hopeful view.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 03:11:42 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 04, 2021, 02:33:40 PM
I fundamentally disagree that WotC is coercing people by including any sort of content in their modules - whether that's gay NPCs or anything else. Whatever they want to print in their modules is just fucking words on a page. No one is being coerced by the printing of fictional game content.

So you're making my point - it's "shut up and keep buying products, or you're a Nazi". Or don't buy them at all. It's absolutely coercion to anyone that is a consumer of D&D products that doesn't agree with this stuff. And if you're going to engage publicly about our content, expect to be shunned.

OK, so from what I'm understand here -- you're saying that it's not the content of the module that's coercion, but you think that shunning is coercion? That makes a little more sense to me, but I still wouldn't call it coercion.

From my view, being shunned by group X isn't taking anything away from me. Over my life, I've been used to not being invited to the popular crowd. They don't owe me anything, and I don't owe them anything. If they don't want me, I'd prefer to play with other people anyway. My tastes have rarely been very mainstream in terms of RPGs, so I often had to stretch to find people to play with - and that's fine.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 03:11:42 PM
Edit: Remember - people were ALREADY playing D&D long before WotC went woke and took over. When they started doing this shit in D&D people have been speaking up against it - we're here RIGHT now because of it. And look, we're multiple pages into this thread and not a single good example of why WotC brand of "Diversity" or "Representation" has been presented as being GOOD for the hobby.

I'm still waiting. When I ask for "is it good?" it's deafeningly silent. So which is it? And why?

I've already answered before about this. I consider the question to be bullshit because there's no clear definition of "diversity" - it's a buzzword that can mean whatever positive or negative meaning the person considers it.

I consider WotC's products in general to be good for the hobby because some people enjoy playing them. I likewise consider OSR products good for the hobby, because some people enjoy playing them. This includes SJWs enjoying playing the latest Ravenloft book, and it includes people here enjoying Lion & Dragon.

Quote from: The OSR Is A Scam on September 17, 2021, 08:23:28 AM
"Diversity And Representation In The Hobby" is meaningless, let me make my case -
https://youtu.be/JvPeGvKC5do

The username is too retarded to make clicking on that link worth the effort.

Fucknut either doesn't know what the OSR is or what a scam is.

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on September 17, 2021, 09:06:36 AMI honestly think real diversity in friend groups is a good thing, liberal bubbles need more real conservative friends, and vice versa.

Fuck that. We need segregation (and secession).

Leave the left to their Woketopia. Life's too short to tolerate their presence.

And gaming tables are for relaxation and fun. Unless you're dealing with a convention table of strangers, why fuck up a home game by including people who want you eradicated?

EDIT: and that goes both ways.

Quote from: tenbones on October 04, 2021, 09:11:08 PM
As someone that has lived without running water, an electrical grid, and comes from a culture whose cuisine most American's would call "offal" and "trash" - I'll be perfectly fine.

My newfound neighbors, that grew up on participation trophies, easy-mode gaming, and fast-food and not working, will learn the true meaning of competition.
...

If your newfound neighbors could not bring themselves to ally with someone they otherwise largely agree with on Big  issues because you were not 100% in lock-step on ideology: Then they deserve the isolation they've brought upon themselves.

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 05, 2021, 01:25:04 AM
..
@jaeger points out that a lot of disparate groups are going to need to band together to prevent this from happening. I already see that coalition growing. The threat is real. Ruining our hobbies is one thing, but we're crossing a whole other scary corner, and I'm pleased to see more people around me waking up to that fact. I choose to take a hopeful view.

Exactly. Alienating potential natural allies over issues that are dwarfed by the SJW threat is stupid.

SJWs don't care if you're religious, and the other guy is an atheist. If you both don't like SJWs; they are very happy to march both of you both off to the gulags. They are very equal-opportunity that way.

Like the artist formerly known as Condor DM - now Mr. The OSR is a scam.  He obviously has no love for the SJWs, but he has gone out of his way, and doubled down on alienating a group of people who would otherwise consider him an ally, over some stupid hot take video.

He's an idiot.

Don't be an idiot. Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

There will be plenty of time to fall-out over arguments about Enlightenment philosophy vs. Christian morality, or Atheistic determinism: After we are done toasting each with the hollowed out skulls of our mutual SJW enemies, whilst sitting atop their charred funeral pyre.

One of the biggest problems with all of this talk about "diversity" is that it comes from an elite and SJWs who are- and this is the pathetic part- basing what they think diversity is on themselves in the particular portion of the temporal-probability area they live in.

In other words, they seem to assume that everything centers around America in the 1960's (since we're usually talking about Baby Boomers being behind this). This is what made those arguments about whether or not ancient Egyptians were actually black so pathetic: 1) they were not, they were a sort of unique blend if their own illustrations are any indication and 2) if you went back in time and tried to lay any of the current dogma about races on them they would have absolutely no idea what you were talking about- the entire mindset and definitions of these things were different.

So the very ones preaching diversity and multiculturalism are in fact looking through it all through their own lenses. Assuming it MUST be what THEY think it is. This is why, years ago, white leftists were defending gangsta rap as part of "black culture:" because in their minds that was what black people were all about.

It must be on display somehow. A homosexual who dresses normally and while being attracted to men isn't into actual sex (as many people aren't) isn't going to cut it with leftists as a character because he does not fit their definition of what a homosexual is like- if he doesn't display it so you wouldn't even know it- he just acts like a regular guy because that's the way he is- then something is wrong, he isn't "gay enough."

RPGPundit gets it all wrong when he wonders when companies are going to wake up and realize if you go woke you go broke, because he's assuming money is the issue, that the Baby Boomers running (ruining) things are misguided into believing going totally SJW will make money- the entire idea is to ruin, destroy, undermine, brainwash. WE ARE PAST THE POINT WHERE IT'S ABOUT MAKING MONEY. Now it's about pushing a destructive agenda. Setting off a bomb in an airplane will bring down the airplane, but of course it will also destroy the bomb- but who cares about the bomb as long as it does its job?

If black people want to play AD&D what is stopping them and what has ever stopped them? Nothing. Want to play a B.A. Baracus in a fantasy setting, cooking up something to bring down the red dragon? Who ever stopped you? Nobody. You could play almost anything, most DMs would allow you to play a Phanaton or whatever as long as it didn't unbalance the game, so why not black, asian, or whatever humans?

So why the "demand" for "diversity" now, now that with the Internet people from all over the planet can literally play any kind of game they want? This was NOT the case back in my day, but now that it is the demands are so much more shrill?

In my game you can be human, elf, half-orc, dwarf, red panda, dragon (Ayundellian dragons are not as overpowered as AD&D dragons), lesser dragon, draconfolk, deerfolk, whatever. Want to be a black human from the "Sunlands?" Why not? There are rules and limitations pertaining to characters (differences based on sex, species, race (e.g. elves are more agile than humans and have infravision), but they are logical ones. 

No, it's not about "diversity." That is here and has been all along. It's all about ruining everything. You see, the thing about these games was the idea of good vs. evil, and especially in the 1977 monster manual you could see good creatures were actually superior to evil ones (e.g. gold dragons vs. red dragons). Without that concept, a society withers and dies. And that is what that elite wants.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on October 05, 2021, 04:42:20 PM
The entire idea is to ruin, destroy, undermine, brainwash. WE ARE PAST THE POINT WHERE IT'S ABOUT MAKING MONEY. Now it's about pushing a destructive agenda. Setting off a bomb in an airplane will bring down the airplane, but of course it will also destroy the bomb- but who cares about the bomb as long as it does its job?

This paragraph is chillingly accurate, and took me a long time to admit. It isn't about money. It's about bringing down the system. That is becoming increasingly obvious. If it isn't subservient, then it needs to be destroyed.

The vast majority of SJW gamers I've met...don't play the game. They don't buy the books. They certainly don't read the books. I realize there are exceptions, but in general their knowledge is confined to whatever live-play they happen to watch / listen to. Critical Role being the most common example.

The very instant gaming is ruined they will look to whatever refuge / game / hobby has been created and move in on that. There really is only one answer. You found Zion, the last city, and you bar the gates.

What concerns me is how fast it seems to be sweeping all media.

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 06, 2021, 01:28:15 AM

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on October 05, 2021, 04:42:20 PM
The entire idea is to ruin, destroy, undermine, brainwash. WE ARE PAST THE POINT WHERE IT'S ABOUT MAKING MONEY. Now it's about pushing a destructive agenda. Setting off a bomb in an airplane will bring down the airplane, but of course it will also destroy the bomb- but who cares about the bomb as long as it does its job?

This paragraph is chillingly accurate, and took me a long time to admit. It isn't about money. It's about bringing down the system. That is becoming increasingly obvious. If it isn't subservient, then it needs to be destroyed.

The vast majority of SJW gamers I've met...don't play the game. They don't buy the books. They certainly don't read the books. I realize there are exceptions, but in general their knowledge is confined to whatever live-play they happen to watch / listen to. Critical Role being the most common example.

The very instant gaming is ruined they will look to whatever refuge / game / hobby has been created and move in on that. There really is only one answer. You found Zion, the last city, and you bar the gates.

What concerns me is how fast it seems to be sweeping all media.

What puzzles me -- and mind you, I don't think you're completely wrong -- is how many OTHER people who seem willing to join in on this even in the face of financial ruin.

It's literally signing up for the Poisoned Cocktail. Doesn't ANYONE look at the sales figures and say, 'Hey guys, why are our numbers down?'

We think of companies as logical things, but I'll use Blizzard as an example since they've been in news a lot lately, and the SJWs are now dismantling their game piece by piece with no resistance, driving away many of the few remaining players.

Back when Blizzard founded it was a bunch of geeks at Blizzard North, and a bunch at Blizzard south. Two groups of geeks, one working on Diablo, the other on Warcraft, then Starcraft. These were small companies. Startups.

I've worked at a lot of startups, and you make miracles. You create amazing software, and hardware, and change the market. In the case of games you get out books quickly and easily. The hardcover in my profile is 400 pages, made by 2 people, and some freelance artists.

Once a company finds success they have to start adding departments:

1- Human Resources
2- Diversity, Inclusion, & Equity
3- Compliance
4- Marketing
5- Customer Service

Etc, etc, etc. The company grows and grows. Now you have real employees, with rights. They can't be worked through breaks. They can't stay late on salary to finish that feature.

Before people lived at the job. Employees were there 16+ hours a day, and so relationships formed. Friendships, and romantic relationships. But, the bigger the company becomes, the more bad apples are introduced. Now there's sexual harassment. Bullies.

The bigger a company gets the more entropy impacts it. The people at the top making the decisions are not longer sitting one cubicle over from the guy building the software or writing the book. Now there's 12 layers between Hasbro execs and the people on the ground.

They hear someone say that SJW is the way to go. They hear that's what the kids want. And so they green light a change without really understand their market. We've seen this in nearly every industry. It rises as indie, and falls as corporate.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion departments didn't even exist when I worked software. Now they are larger than HR, and neither of those two entire departments does anything to make the product better. How many other departments is that true for?

"So what you're saying is..."(tm)

White Supremacist men (which oddly includes anyone male or female of any ethnic background that doesn't agree with the Left) are *not* holding down minorities that agree with Leftist narrative boxes they've been stuffed into?

I find that very difficult to believe.

/slurps THEY'S double soy-latte decaf ristretto Frappuccino with semen seasoning

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 06, 2021, 01:28:15 AM
..
This paragraph is chillingly accurate, and took me a long time to admit. It isn't about money. It's about bringing down the system. That is becoming increasingly obvious. If it isn't subservient, then it needs to be destroyed.
...

Yes. When they converge a company and it starts to: "get Woke, go broke"....

"Go Broke" is a victory condition for them.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 06, 2021, 08:07:05 AM
What puzzles me -- and mind you, I don't think you're completely wrong -- is how many OTHER people who seem willing to join in on this even in the face of financial ruin.

It's literally signing up for the Poisoned Cocktail. Doesn't ANYONE look at the sales figures and say, 'Hey guys, why are our numbers down?'

They are all either true believers that think the cause is more important. Or they are afraid of them, and are just trying to hold on to their jobs as long as they can.

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 06, 2021, 09:16:07 AM
We think of companies as logical things, but I'll use Blizzard as an example since they've been in news a lot lately, and the SJWs are now dismantling their game piece by piece with no resistance, driving away many of the few remaining players.

Back when Blizzard founded it was a bunch of geeks at Blizzard North, and a bunch at Blizzard south. Two groups of geeks, one working on Diablo, the other on Warcraft, then Starcraft. These were small companies. Startups.
...

Blizzard is a real good example of what can happen to WotC and D&D.

EverQuest was the first mover in the MMO sphere. Straight up King. But Blizzard saw that they were doing some things that could be really improved upon, and came out with the WoW MMO.

EQ couldn't keep up. The King is Dead, Long Live the King!

WoW has been the King since release in 2004. And it has taken a market leader dominating position that has been regarded as basically unassailable.

But enter Final Fantasy 14, or: FFIXIV (WTF kind of acronym is that? I know right? Damn Japanese...)

Canceled once, then relaunched again in 2013. Voicing the idea back in 2013 that FFIXIV would go on to have more players than WoW would have gotten you laughed out of the room.

WoW is the 800,000lb gorilla of the MMO hobby. Someone coming in and beating them straight up? Ridiculous!

Except that it happened:
https://www.denofgeek.com/games/final-fantasy-14-vs-world-of-warcraft-differences-player-count-subscribers/
https://in.ign.com/final-fantasy-xiv-online-shadowbringers/160109/news/final-fantasy-14-vs-world-of-warcraft-most-played-mmorpg

Why? Just search: Why Players Are Leaving World of Warcraft
This is one of many replies:
https://www.wales247.co.uk/why-players-are-leaving-world-of-warcraft-after-17-years

This is one of the few that tangentially touches "Blizzards Politics".

And while many articles list many reasons how Blizzard is screwing the pooch, they never mention the underlying reason why they are no longer able to creatively match FFIXIV.

Because Blizzard had become SJW converged. And all their issues are a result of the creative bankruptcy of SJWs who are unable to relate to what their normie audience actually likes anymore. So as a company they have become unable to properly serve their largest customer base.

It doesn't help that the developers obviously no longer play the game, let alone the issues they are facing in the form of lawsuits due to the toxic SJW gamma-male "feminist's" that are in positions of power in Blizzard.


As for WotC...

It is increasingly obvious now that they are both Converged and creatively bankrupt.

WotC staff should be lining up to kiss Mike Mearls bare ass each time he enters the office, and his bare feet should touch nothing but rose petals as he walks around...

For all its issues, 5e hit the right level of complexity to take advantage of the big pop-culture nostalgia wave that D&D is currently riding.

But now that he is no longer in charge of D&D we are starting to see all the indications that WotC is starting to embrace their inner SJW.

They won't make the same mistakes they made with 4e. But they will make all new ones...

I would further posit something when using the WoW analogy... especially as it relates to EQ.

One of the things WoW did was make the assumptions of EQ play *easier*. EQ was designed specifically to emulate the experience of AD&D. And it's adherents that formed the kernel of the first raiding guilds were the most hardcore segment of the players. Many of those raid-leaders ended up being hired into the industry (some went on to Blizzard).

Blizzard softened a lot of the harder edges of EQ to make it more accessible to players. They put more effort into streamlining a lot of the analog processes like having to actually LOOK for NPC's to take quests from by putting a big glowing Exclamation Point! over their head. Putting in built-in radar. And in-game map. And a whole host of little features to make life in the game "easy".

At first it was great, but then they kept going - the same hardcore raiders came over to WoW, and soon instead of fleshing out their world, after a few expansions they were effectively just creating raid-content and slap-dashing zones around those raids, and creating dumbed down versions of the raid so they could appeal to the casual raiders so they could get a Candyland version of the raid and pretend they too were like the hardcore raiders. They watered down all the socialization needs by automating them. They watered down all the classes so that each class could nearly operate in any role. And this was being driven by the least active players. Not the hardcore ones.

Then all the politics starting decaying this whole process and Blizzard is where it is now - dying from the inside due to the non-stop whining and appeasement of those whiners whose politics became part of Blizzard if only by coercive force.

Meanwhile - Everquest has been legally released in its original form to Project 1999. And it has reawakened something missing from the MMO scene, a hunger for difficulty and with that the immersion of in-game exploration and socialization requiring people to work together organically, not because some system randomly slammed you together with people playing for different reasons.

The point being - yes there are many casual nobs that think playing D&D is just playing modules and throwing dice. There are more now that believe it's about performative showing off how woke they can make the game into their own image and demand such from the company. Some are in the company... and likewise catering their tokenized view to their new constituents (with the unspoken threat of being called Racist/Phobe). There are the hardcore D&D players that left trying to recapture that Old School vibe. And many left for other pastures looking for other RPG experiences to emulate D&D by other means.

It's very much the same thing here. Even now Pantheon - Rise of the Fallen is in development as the spiritual successor to EQ (helmed formerly by Brad McQuaid himself before his passing) and it's basically EQ with modern production values.

Maybe D&D will get this. For me - it's already done. I like the pastiche of D&D fantasy, i don't need the system. I need a system that will let me play all of the flavors and settings of D&D interchangeably, and I got that in SWADE.

D&D to me is like WoW. An IP riddled with ideological cancer eating itself and trying to outgrow the malignancy of its own creation.

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 04, 2021, 05:36:51 PM
I learned more about what women suffer, what it's like to be a minority, and what it's like to have power and privilege in Faerun and Krynn than I ever did the real world. I knew what they meant by Ladytowers. Do you have any idea how much giggling happened across geeky basements at that single word?

Huh huh. Huh huh huh. Ladies. In a tower.

I think it is difficult to credit an RPG with stuff like this.  I think it's more the players than the game.  You say you learned more about what women suffer from Krynn than from the real world.  My question to that would be whether you would have learned that from playing #Feminism.  From #Feminism you would have learned that 99% of men are misogynists who lead problem-free lives of privilege and plenty while they keep women under their jackboot heels.  While lots of people obviously think #Feminism absolutely wonderful for highlighting women, I myself see it more as a risk of stunting proper emotional growth amongst boys with demonization and guilt of their gender rather than teaching them anything accurate or valuable about understanding the female experience.  I think in most cases, how valuable a game is so far as lessons about life and society goes is dependent more upon the group than it is on the game.  Learning good lessons from a game requires having good players.  I don't think a good game itself is powerful enough to overcome bad players, nor is a bad game powerful enough to overcome good players.  If you use playing a game to learn good lessons and accurate things about history and society you'll benefit, but usually the same game could be used to teach misinformation and poor social skills.  Macho Women With Guns, if taken seriously, would probably have the polar opposite effect on a still-growing and still-developing boy than #Feminism, as it presents a mocking caricature of women, and that would be just as bad for producing an emotionally healthy man.  If you want to use RPGs as an educational tool for kids, I think it's all in how you play the game, I don't think any game is going necessarily be good straight out the box.

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 06, 2021, 09:16:07 AM
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion departments didn't even exist when I worked software. Now they are larger than HR, and neither of those two entire departments does anything to make the product better. How many other departments is that true for?

One might say that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion departments make companies DIE.  8)

Quote from: kidkaos2 on October 08, 2021, 06:55:27 PM

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 04, 2021, 05:36:51 PM
I learned more about what women suffer, what it's like to be a minority, and what it's like to have power and privilege in Faerun and Krynn than I ever did the real world. I knew what they meant by Ladytowers. Do you have any idea how much giggling happened across geeky basements at that single word?

Huh huh. Huh huh huh. Ladies. In a tower.

I think it is difficult to credit an RPG with stuff like this.  I think it's more the players than the game.  You say you learned more about what women suffer from Krynn than from the real world.  My question to that would be whether you would have learned that from playing #Feminism.  From #Feminism you would have learned that 99% of men are misogynists who lead problem-free lives of privilege and plenty while they keep women under their jackboot heels.  While lots of people obviously think #Feminism absolutely wonderful for highlighting women, I myself see it more as a risk of stunting proper emotional growth amongst boys with demonization and guilt of their gender rather than teaching them anything accurate or valuable about understanding the female experience.  I think in most cases, how valuable a game is so far as lessons about life and society goes is dependent more upon the group than it is on the game.  Learning good lessons from a game requires having good players.  I don't think a good game itself is powerful enough to overcome bad players, nor is a bad game powerful enough to overcome good players.  If you use playing a game to learn good lessons and accurate things about history and society you'll benefit, but usually the same game could be used to teach misinformation and poor social skills.  Macho Women With Guns, if taken seriously, would probably have the polar opposite effect on a still-growing and still-developing boy than #Feminism, as it presents a mocking caricature of women, and that would be just as bad for producing an emotionally healthy man.  If you want to use RPGs as an educational tool for kids, I think it's all in how you play the game, I don't think any game is going necessarily be good straight out the box.

Back in the 90s we had lots, and lots of amazing novels to go with the RPG, and those novels are what taught me strong moral lessons. Dragonlance. Shadowrun. Dark Sun.

Tanis had mixed heritage. Prior to reading that book it had never once occurred to 10 year old Chris that a person with parents from different races might be discriminated against, or mocked. Half-elves seemed cool. I knew half-race people in the real world and had never looked twice. That book showed how neither culture accepted him, and how he had to fight for everything he earned.

The Rifts novels were some of the worst edited books I have ever read...but they were amazing. Among the various characters were a number of women, who faced discrimination from men, especially superior officers. I had no idea what it was like to be a woman, until I started reading books where the protagonist was a woman.

That taught me empathy, which is antithetical to the modern feminist, unfortunately. I lived with one. My wife's sister spent five years living with us. She never once looked for a job. Never once took responsibility, or agency for her life. Gleefully hated on men, and freely admitted that she was glad we were discriminated against in areas like car insurance. She wanted revenge, and I'm not even clear what she wanted revenge for.

Note that this girl had been put through a great university by loving parents...who are still carrying her since I tossed her out. Feminism was amazing in its time, and needed. 4th wave feminism is downright dangerous, and I completely agree with you that it will destroy the self-esteem of young boys, while ruining young women.

I remember being told that everything bad that had ever happened had been committed by someone who looked like me, but I didn't hear it until my senior year of high school. They're getting that in elementary school now =/

Quote from: Aglondir on October 08, 2021, 10:12:07 PM

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 06, 2021, 09:16:07 AM
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion departments didn't even exist when I worked software. Now they are larger than HR, and neither of those two entire departments does anything to make the product better. How many other departments is that true for?

One might say that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion departments make companies DIE.  8)

That was really clever. I laughed IRL lol

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 12:14:37 AM
Back in the 90s we had lots, and lots of amazing novels to go with the RPG, and those novels are what taught me strong moral lessons. Dragonlance. Shadowrun. Dark Sun.

You might not want to re-read those books as an adult. You probably got more out of them than was really there.

Quote from: Pat on October 09, 2021, 01:29:17 AM

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 12:14:37 AM
Back in the 90s we had lots, and lots of amazing novels to go with the RPG, and those novels are what taught me strong moral lessons. Dragonlance. Shadowrun. Dark Sun.

You might not want to re-read those books as an adult. You probably got more out of them than was really there.

I couldn't disagree more, and seeing dismissive, post-modernist attitudes like this saddens me.

Reading about Drizzt taught me what it was like to be judged for the color of your skin, to have everyone assume that your entire race is evil. The dude was black on the cover. It hit hard.

Reading the Shadowrun novel Changeling the main character is a human who devolves into a troll. He loses intellect, and is treated radically differently by society because of his new race.

I could go on, and on, and on about specific books that taught racial injustice, the horrors of unchecked colonialism, and countless other lessons.

Sure, some of the books are trite on a re-read. Tanis is a whiny, wishy-washy, terribad leader...but I still learned from his choices, from his mistakes. And it wasn't just me. It was my friends as well.

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 11:29:03 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 09, 2021, 01:29:17 AM

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 12:14:37 AM
Back in the 90s we had lots, and lots of amazing novels to go with the RPG, and those novels are what taught me strong moral lessons. Dragonlance. Shadowrun. Dark Sun.

You might not want to re-read those books as an adult. You probably got more out of them than was really there.

I couldn't disagree more, and seeing dismissive, post-modernist attitudes like this saddens me.

Reading about Drizzt taught me what it was like to be judged for the color of your skin, to have everyone assume that your entire race is evil. The dude was black on the cover. It hit hard.

Reading the Shadowrun novel Changeling the main character is a human who devolves into a troll. He loses intellect, and is treated radically differently by society because of his new race.

I could go on, and on, and on about specific books that taught racial injustice, the horrors of unchecked colonialism, and countless other lessons.

Sure, some of the books are trite on a re-read. Tanis is a whiny, wishy-washy, terribad leader...but I still learned from his choices, from his mistakes. And it wasn't just me. It was my friends as well.

There's nothing postmodernist in what I wrote. Not a word. In fact, I don't even know how you made that connection, because it doesn't seem to logically follow. It should have been pretty obvious I was pointing out that we absorbed media in very different ways when were children, compared to when we are adults. The books we read as a children may be trite rehashes of tropes that adults have seen endlessly, but if it's your first time coming across the trope, then it can be revolutionary. But that says more about who you were, than the overall quality of the books. They just hit you at the right and time, and in the right way.

That's why I recommended against reading them again. You're not the same person, so they won't have the same impact. It's easier to see the flaws and weaknesses, and harder to see what you originally found so moving. So people are often disillusioned when they re-read their childhood favorites. That's why many choose to let them endure as fond but distant memories, instead of trying to revisit them.

So I strongly the premise of your response.

What I mean by a post-modernist bent is the idea that books I treasured in my childhood that taught me important lessons haven't aged well. That they are somehow now problematic, or lesser. I've re-read quite a few of them, some very recently.

2XS and Burning Bright are just as impactful to me as Neuromancer was, and re-reading them takes me back to where I was at in life when I first read those books. It allows me to contrast my current self against my past self. They don't have the same impact, you're right, but I still learn from them

I'll say again...many of those books hold up extremely well. I've reread:

Dragonlance (first 2 trilogies)
The Chronicles of Prydain
The Prism Pentad (Darksun)
2XS, Burning Bright (Shadowrun)
Eye of the World

If you want to leave the books in the past that's certainly your prerogative. But they are just as important as they were then. I hear what you're saying about first encountering a trope, and know that these books aren't important to everyone in the same way. Older gamers read a different set, as younger gamers are immersed in Sanderson.

But they were important to me, and a lot of other people, and helped shape the direction of that aspect of American culture. I just hate seeing them denigrated, especially when many people today are standing on the shoulders of giants, but also hate the people they're standing on. Not accusing you of that, but I see it a enough that I almost expect it now.

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 03:59:22 PM
What I mean by a post-modernist bent is the idea that books I treasured in my childhood that taught me important lessons haven't aged well.

Outgrowing certain things is not a post-modernist thing. Somethings retain value even when your 95 and other things where made by the Hasbro corporation to sell toys for instance.
I can think of media and things from when I was 5, 10, and 15 which I think are still great, or are terrible.

That's a fair point. I'm definitely defensive about it.

For five years I've watched them tear down Dungeons & Dragons, Star Wars, Terminator, and many of my other favorite franchises. I'm told how everything I've ever loved, and all the people who made them, are evil and problematic.

When someone warns me not to go back and re-read something great I tend to assume they're doing it to discredit the work. That's not a fair assumption.

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 04:53:58 PM
That's a fair point. I'm definitely defensive about it.

For five years I've watched them tear down Dungeons & Dragons, Star Wars, Terminator, and many of my other favorite franchises. I'm told how everything I've ever loved, and all the people who made them, are evil and problematic.

I feel on the defensive as well, so I get it. I personally am glad for the SJWs that shoock parts of me out of a consumer mindset. I do not get attached to franchises, or engage in what I call 'franchise thinking'.
I like creators, ideas, and genres. Not properties owned by soulless corporations. Doesn't make what SJWs are doing any less disrespectful of course.

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 03:59:22 PM
What I mean by a post-modernist bent is the idea that books I treasured in my childhood that taught me important lessons haven't aged well. That they are somehow now problematic, or lesser.

I never said anything was problematic, and I explicitly emphasized that the lessons were valid. I just said a lot of books we read as children aren't that good, from an objective standpoint. So it can be better to keep them as fond memories rather than trying to revisit them and being disappointed.

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 04:53:58 PM
That's a fair point. I'm definitely defensive about it.

For five years I've watched them tear down Dungeons & Dragons, Star Wars, Terminator, and many of my other favorite franchises. I'm told how everything I've ever loved, and all the people who made them, are evil and problematic.

When someone warns me not to go back and re-read something great I tend to assume they're doing it to discredit the work. That's not a fair assumption.

Yes, it's not a fair assumption.

So let's drag your list through the mud.

I never read any Robert Jordan or Shadowrun, though I do remember hearing good things about Nigel Findley's stories.... and it looks like 2XS is one of his. I picked up the Prism Pentad in recent years, but haven't gotten around to reading it. The original Dragonlance series was... I'm going to go with "acceptable". I'm not trying to either downplay or upplay it. Except for being the first big RPG epic, it's not particularly ground breaking. The writing isn't amazing, the characters aren't full of endless layers of nuance, and some are so thin they'd blow away in a stiff breeze (Riverwho and Goldwhat?). The structure gets strange, with some odd jumps, and can feel a bit scattered. But it had a big epic story line, and a good number of memorable/appealing characters, and not just the (very large) main cast (even after all these years, secondary and tertiary characters like Fizban, Astinus, Soth, and Kitiara come to mind). That's probably its biggest strength. It has some emotionally appealing storylines, like Sturm, or the silver dragon romance. The Time of the Twins is more of a character study, so it had some more depth, but I felt it got a bit tiresome by the end. Ironically, my favorite Dragonlance stories were a couple that appeared in Dragon. The one where Tas meets Demogorgon (believe it or not, it's fairly subtle story), and feels a tinge of fear. And the one detailing Raistlin's test.

The Chronicles of Prydain isn't game fiction, it's a genuine classic. (The cauldron-born are one of the reasons why I found the magen in X2 so interesting. No surprise the series shows up in Moldvay's recommended reading list in the B/X Basic Rulebook.) So are Star Wars and Terminator, for that matter.

So based on the ones I'm familiar with, you have at least one series that stands the test of time, a fair but not great fantasy RPG series, and a game novel by a fairly highly regarded author in the RPG world. That's a decent list; there's nothing abysmal like Quag Keep or the Avatar trilogy. But excluding Prydain, they're probably just okay. That tends to be the top bar reached by gaming fiction.

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 11:29:03 AM
Reading about Drizzt ...

What's the best book for the Drizzt saga? There is a large selection, and I don't want to pick a mediocre book.

Quote from: Aglondir on October 09, 2021, 08:46:22 PM

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 11:29:03 AM
Reading about Drizzt ...

What's the best book for the Drizzt saga? There is a large selection, and I don't want to pick a mediocre book.

I haven't read a lot of the later books, but I have read a bunch of the early books, and my recommended starting point would be the original Dark Elf trilogy: Homeland/Exile/Sojourn. These are the books that defined who Drizzt is. Exile is probably the best, but it's a real trilogy not a loosely connected set of books, so read them in order.

Quote from: Pat on October 09, 2021, 09:01:20 PM
I haven't read a lot of the later books, but I have read a bunch of the early books, and my recommended starting point would be the original Dark Elf trilogy: Homeland/Exile/Sojourn. These are the books that defined who Drizzt is. Exile is probably the best, but it's a real trilogy not a loosely connected set of books, so read them in order.

I see it on Amazon. Books 1, 2, 3 of a 23 book series. I'm guessing he wrote a trilogy, and then kept writing?

Quote from: Aglondir on October 09, 2021, 11:00:14 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 09, 2021, 09:01:20 PM
I haven't read a lot of the later books, but I have read a bunch of the early books, and my recommended starting point would be the original Dark Elf trilogy: Homeland/Exile/Sojourn. These are the books that defined who Drizzt is. Exile is probably the best, but it's a real trilogy not a loosely connected set of books, so read them in order.

I see it on Amazon. Books 1, 2, 3 of a 23 book series. I'm guessing he wrote a trilogy, and then kept writing?

It's a little more complicated than that. Salvatore first wrote the Icewind Dale trilogy. Drizzt featured in the stories, but he was not the main character. But he was breakout popular. So he got his own series, which was the original Dark Elf trilogy. Which were pretty good, as gaming fiction goes. A little angsty and aimed at alienated 14 year old boys, but an interesting setting, and some pathos. They were very successful, and that turned into a career for the author.

I wouldn't recommend starting with the Icewind Dale trilogy, because it's a little rough in comparison, Drizzt is only a supporting character, and it's set after the events of Sojourn. The Dark Trilogy is basically Drizzt's launch as a major driver of book sales, as well as being his origin story.

Quote from: Pat on October 09, 2021, 11:32:00 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on October 09, 2021, 11:00:14 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 09, 2021, 09:01:20 PM
I haven't read a lot of the later books, but I have read a bunch of the early books, and my recommended starting point would be the original Dark Elf trilogy: Homeland/Exile/Sojourn. These are the books that defined who Drizzt is. Exile is probably the best, but it's a real trilogy not a loosely connected set of books, so read them in order.

I see it on Amazon. Books 1, 2, 3 of a 23 book series. I'm guessing he wrote a trilogy, and then kept writing?

It's a little more complicated than that. Salvatore first wrote the Icewind Dale trilogy. Drizzt featured in the stories, but he was not the main character. But he was breakout popular. So he got his own series, which was the original Dark Elf trilogy. Which were pretty good, as gaming fiction goes. A little angsty and aimed at alienated 14 year old boys, but an interesting setting, and some pathos. They were very successful, and that turned into a career for the author.

I wouldn't recommend starting with the Icewind Dale trilogy, because it's a little rough in comparison, Drizzt is only a supporting character, and it's set after the events of Sojourn. The Dark Trilogy is basically Drizzt's launch as a major driver of book sales, as well as being his origin story.

The Dark Elf trilogy is ok. After that IMO the books get more & more repetitive & formulaic, until I stopped reading some time in the early-mid '90s.

When I got rid of my FR books, the only one I kept was The Crystal Shard. It is the only one that is pre TSR Ethics Code, it's the only one with some (very mild) adult content, actual nasty bad guys (the activities of the Drow Matrons in later books are elided over, to put it mildly - about the worst thing they ever do onscreen is shag a Type III Demon). The Crystal Shard reads like decent ish swords & sorcery in a D&D setting. Akar Kessell is an actual nasty bad guy. And it has some pretty good world building. It's not a 'Driz'zt book', though - and all the better for that. If anything, I'd say Bruenor is the main character. Wulfgar was supposed to be, but he's just too bland - Salvatore has no feel at all for the Alpha Male Conan types, whereas he can write the angsty Goth teen Driz'zt quite well. He's especially good with Artemis Entreri, the human Assassin who is kind of a dark shadow of Driz'zt.

Salvatore's real talent is in writing the fight scenes, particularly the duels. Some of these are brilliant, up there with Milius' Battle of the Mounds in the original Conan film. The big problem though is that Salvatore turned the series into serial fiction, where important characters (even villains) can't die because they need to be around for the next book.

I have to concur. Stick to the Dark Elf trilogy and the Icewind Dale trilogy and don't bother with the rest.

Quote from: Aglondir on October 09, 2021, 08:46:22 PM

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 11:29:03 AM
Reading about Drizzt ...

What's the best book for the Drizzt saga? There is a large selection, and I don't want to pick a mediocre book.

Just read Elric instead

Quote from: Slambo on October 10, 2021, 05:30:11 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on October 09, 2021, 08:46:22 PM

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 11:29:03 AM
Reading about Drizzt ...

What's the best book for the Drizzt saga? There is a large selection, and I don't want to pick a mediocre book.

Just read Elric instead

Or Corum.

Quote from: dkabq on October 10, 2021, 05:37:31 PM

Quote from: Slambo on October 10, 2021, 05:30:11 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on October 09, 2021, 08:46:22 PM

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 11:29:03 AM
Reading about Drizzt ...

What's the best book for the Drizzt saga? There is a large selection, and I don't want to pick a mediocre book.

Just read Elric instead

Or Corum.

Or Harry Potter

Quote from: Shasarak on October 10, 2021, 09:22:50 PM

Quote from: dkabq on October 10, 2021, 05:37:31 PM

Quote from: Slambo on October 10, 2021, 05:30:11 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on October 09, 2021, 08:46:22 PM

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 11:29:03 AM
Reading about Drizzt ...

What's the best book for the Drizzt saga? There is a large selection, and I don't want to pick a mediocre book.

Just read Elric instead

Or Corum.

Or Harry Potter

Please no. Every retard leftist hipster's been slinging Harry Potter analogies to current politics for the last. five. fucking. years.

Pick something else. Read fuckin' Dragonlance. Hell, read that godawful FR novel Spellfire. I won't judge.

(well, maybe a little, but I won't say anything.)

Quote from: S'mon on October 10, 2021, 05:43:23 AM
When I got rid of my FR books, the only one I kept was The Crystal Shard...

Thanks, I will check that out. The library only had volume 3 of the trilogy.

Quote from: Shasarak on October 10, 2021, 09:22:50 PM

Quote from: dkabq on October 10, 2021, 05:37:31 PM

Quote from: Slambo on October 10, 2021, 05:30:11 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on October 09, 2021, 08:46:22 PM

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 11:29:03 AM
Reading about Drizzt ...

What's the best book for the Drizzt saga? There is a large selection, and I don't want to pick a mediocre book.

Just read Elric instead

Or Corum.

Or Harry Potter

Y'all need Terry Pratchett and it shows.

Or Steven Brust, starting with "Jhereg".

How about Eddings? He wasn't that bad.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 11, 2021, 10:21:57 AM
How about Eddings? He wasn't that bad.

Garion isn't really a good stand-in for Drizzt.

Or some Raymond Feist...

No "Drizzt" analogs - but pretty much all the main-line characters are well drawn D&D figures archetypes.

Arutha - Noble "light-weapon" fighter.
Martin Longbow - quintessential ranger.
Baru Serpentslayer - barbarian with a mastiff the size of a small horse.
Amos Trask - Pirate/corsair extraordinaire
Pug/Milamber - Wizard.
Tomas - God-mode Fighter
Kasumi - Oriental Adventures Samurai/Bushi
Jimmy the Hand - Thief
Laurie - Bard

And many others...

Quote from: DefNotAnInsiderNopeNoWay on October 11, 2021, 09:28:28 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on October 10, 2021, 09:22:50 PM

Quote from: dkabq on October 10, 2021, 05:37:31 PM

Quote from: Slambo on October 10, 2021, 05:30:11 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on October 09, 2021, 08:46:22 PM

Quote from: ChrisFox on October 09, 2021, 11:29:03 AM
Reading about Drizzt ...

What's the best book for the Drizzt saga? There is a large selection, and I don't want to pick a mediocre book.

Just read Elric instead

Or Corum.

Or Harry Potter

Y'all need Terry Pratchett and it shows.

We all need Terry Pratchet.  RIP 😢

Quote from: DM_Curt on October 11, 2021, 09:38:29 AM
Or Steven Brust, starting with "Jhereg".

Can confirm.   :)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 11, 2021, 10:21:57 AM
How about Eddings? He wasn't that bad.

I read Eddings. Not bad, but I prefer swords-and-sorcery/Appendix N over High Fantasy. YMMV.

You might like Lawrence Watt Evans

Quote from: palaeomerus on October 12, 2021, 02:29:08 AM
You might like Lawrence Watt Evans

Oooh, good call. I consider With A Single Spell to be right up there in terms of  good fantasy yarns.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 08:13:15 AM

Quote from: palaeomerus on October 12, 2021, 02:29:08 AM
You might like Lawrence Watt Evans

Oooh, good call. I consider With A Single Spell to be right up there in terms of  good fantasy yarns.

The Unwilling Warlord is the other book at the top of the Ethshar stories. LWE doesn't have the most developed characters, but the world building, scope of history, and twists on magic are interesting.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:05:31 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 08:13:15 AM

Quote from: palaeomerus on October 12, 2021, 02:29:08 AM
You might like Lawrence Watt Evans

Oooh, good call. I consider With A Single Spell to be right up there in terms of  good fantasy yarns.

The Unwilling Warlord is the other book at the top of the Ethshar stories. LWE doesn't have the most developed characters, but the world building, scope of history, and twists on magic are interesting.

I'm thinking about adapting aspects of the otherdimensional castle from With A Single Spell for use in my 5E game, once my players gain a few more levels. 'Yes, we will sell you this castle, dirt cheap... no backsies though.'

And the castle is infested with spriggans (or some other appropriate critter), the unseen servants are obnoxious, and there may be an invasion looming. Just another day at the office for adventurers, right? :)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:08:50 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:05:31 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 08:13:15 AM

Quote from: palaeomerus on October 12, 2021, 02:29:08 AM
You might like Lawrence Watt Evans

Oooh, good call. I consider With A Single Spell to be right up there in terms of  good fantasy yarns.

The Unwilling Warlord is the other book at the top of the Ethshar stories. LWE doesn't have the most developed characters, but the world building, scope of history, and twists on magic are interesting.

I'm thinking about adapting aspects of the otherdimensional castle from With A Single Spell for use in my 5E game, once my players gain a few more levels. 'Yes, we will sell you this castle, dirt cheap... no backsies though.'

And the castle is infested with spriggans (or some other appropriate critter), the unseen servants are obnoxious, and there may be an invasion looming. Just another day at the office for adventurers, right? :)

Not the spellbook?

A lot of the Eshthar stories remind me of giving a PC a vorpal sword or other immensely powerful magic items at first level, and seeing how the campaign plays out.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:30:43 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:08:50 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:05:31 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 08:13:15 AM

Quote from: palaeomerus on October 12, 2021, 02:29:08 AM
You might like Lawrence Watt Evans

Oooh, good call. I consider With A Single Spell to be right up there in terms of  good fantasy yarns.

The Unwilling Warlord is the other book at the top of the Ethshar stories. LWE doesn't have the most developed characters, but the world building, scope of history, and twists on magic are interesting.

I'm thinking about adapting aspects of the otherdimensional castle from With A Single Spell for use in my 5E game, once my players gain a few more levels. 'Yes, we will sell you this castle, dirt cheap... no backsies though.'

And the castle is infested with spriggans (or some other appropriate critter), the unseen servants are obnoxious, and there may be an invasion looming. Just another day at the office for adventurers, right? :)

Not the spellbook?

A lot of the Eshthar stories remind me of giving a PC a vorpal sword or other immensely powerful magic items at first level, and seeing how the campaign plays out.

The problem is that most D&D magic items (outside of artifacts) don't usually have tangible complications that make up for their powers.

My party currently has possession of a very powerful magical item. The problem is (a) they don't even know they have it, and (b) they'd need to figure out how to use it first (although just carrying it around would be a good benefit).

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 10:17:22 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:30:43 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:08:50 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:05:31 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 08:13:15 AM

Quote from: palaeomerus on October 12, 2021, 02:29:08 AM
You might like Lawrence Watt Evans

Oooh, good call. I consider With A Single Spell to be right up there in terms of  good fantasy yarns.

The Unwilling Warlord is the other book at the top of the Ethshar stories. LWE doesn't have the most developed characters, but the world building, scope of history, and twists on magic are interesting.

I'm thinking about adapting aspects of the otherdimensional castle from With A Single Spell for use in my 5E game, once my players gain a few more levels. 'Yes, we will sell you this castle, dirt cheap... no backsies though.'

And the castle is infested with spriggans (or some other appropriate critter), the unseen servants are obnoxious, and there may be an invasion looming. Just another day at the office for adventurers, right? :)

Not the spellbook?

A lot of the Eshthar stories remind me of giving a PC a vorpal sword or other immensely powerful magic items at first level, and seeing how the campaign plays out.

The problem is that most D&D magic items (outside of artifacts) don't usually have tangible complications that make up for their powers.

My party currently has possession of a very powerful magical item. The problem is (a) they don't even know they have it, and (b) they'd need to figure out how to use it first (although just carrying it around would be a good benefit).

The spellbook from A Single Spell doesn't have any real complications, but the sword in the Misenchanted Sword definitely does. And the spriggan mirror is a self-inflicted wound.

D&D never really did the enduring magic items with complications well. It's more into serendipity and magic item churn. But still, I've always liked the idea. Tie the item to an individual, give a serious boost and downsides right from the start, and let additional features slowly be revealed.

Better to read the initial Salvatore, Eddings, Feist, Brust, etc. of the suggestions above, then decide.  They all have one thing in common--the early books are mostly better than the later books.  Brust has the least fall-off and writes in two completely different styles in different series.  Feist has a very slow fall-off, and the "Nakor" character almost makes up for it.  Eddings wrote the same series 5 times, with each one worse than the last (with a few key exception in the initial Sparhawk trilogy).  I read Salvatore way past the point where I should have quit, and can confirm that it never turns around.

Eddings you pretty much read for the characters. The story is pablum.  If you like the characters, it's worth the ride.  Brust is the only talented writer in the bunch.  Feist is workman-like and knows how to put together a plot--a skill not to be despised compared to most current fantasy writers.

Pratchett is better than all of them, but also not the same kind of stories.  Certainly should read him.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 12, 2021, 11:02:57 AM
Pratchett is better than all of them, but also not the same kind of stories.  Certainly should read him.

Maybe not at the surface, there's much more humor at the surface, but at their core Pratchett's work touches on the timeless things in ways few modern authors can.

I highly recommend Reaper Man, Small Gods, any of the Watch books, all things Rincewind and The Last Hero (the art is as fantastic as the story). All of it is great, but those particularly stand out.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 12, 2021, 11:33:13 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 12, 2021, 11:02:57 AM
Pratchett is better than all of them, but also not the same kind of stories.  Certainly should read him.

Maybe not at the surface, there's much more humor at the surface, but at their core Pratchett's work touches on the timeless things in ways few modern authors can.

I highly recommend Reaper Man, Small Gods, any of the Watch books, all things Rincewind and The Last Hero (the art is as fantastic as the story). All of it is great, but those particularly stand out.

Oh, I agree.  I was being deliberately vague with "not the same kind of stories" because I think the reasons why I say that are a discussion all by themselves.  You've touched on some of it already.  I'm partial any scenes with Death and Susan and the Ludwig von Moist stories myself, but there is something worth talking about in all of them.

Brust has an element of that, but 1.) he got uneven in the middle, kind of lost his way on the story, and 2.) he hasn't finished the Taltos cycle yet, and may not.  Kind of disappointing to start it and not know where it goes.  The last one was the best one he's done in awhile.  So I hold out hope that he'll wind it up with a bang. 

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 12, 2021, 11:02:57 AM
Better to read the initial Salvatore, Eddings, Feist, Brust, etc. of the suggestions above, then decide.  They all have one thing in common--the early books are mostly better than the later books.  Brust has the least fall-off and writes in two completely different styles in different series.  Feist has a very slow fall-off, and the "Nakor" character almost makes up for it.  Eddings wrote the same series 5 times, with each one worse than the last (with a few key exception in the initial Sparhawk trilogy).  I read Salvatore way past the point where I should have quit, and can confirm that it never turns around.

Eddings you pretty much read for the characters. The story is pablum.  If you like the characters, it's worth the ride.  Brust is the only talented writer in the bunch.  Feist is workman-like and knows how to put together a plot--a skill not to be despised compared to most current fantasy writers.

Pratchett is better than all of them, but also not the same kind of stories.  Certainly should read him.

I agree with all of this.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 12, 2021, 11:02:57 AM
Better to read the initial Salvatore, Eddings, Feist, Brust, etc. of the suggestions above, then decide.  They all have one thing in common--the early books are mostly better than the later books.  Brust has the least fall-off and writes in two completely different styles in different series.  Feist has a very slow fall-off, and the "Nakor" character almost makes up for it.  Eddings wrote the same series 5 times, with each one worse than the last (with a few key exception in the initial Sparhawk trilogy).  I read Salvatore way past the point where I should have quit, and can confirm that it never turns around.

Eddings you pretty much read for the characters. The story is pablum.  If you like the characters, it's worth the ride.  Brust is the only talented writer in the bunch.  Feist is workman-like and knows how to put together a plot--a skill not to be despised compared to most current fantasy writers.

Pratchett is better than all of them, but also not the same kind of stories.  Certainly should read him.

Greetings!

Excellent observations, Steve. I agree. I always thought that Feist, Edddings, Salvatore, Brust--were all pretty decent authors. I never quite understood the ocean of hate and derision for them as writers.

However, I must have read the first three or four books from each of them. ;D

I can't really explain why I didn't keep up with reading further books written by them--I somehow just got involved in reading other stuff. I probably got even more into reading Non-Fiction History books, and kind of left off from reading Fantasy Fiction.

I always enjoyed David Gemmel, Harry Turtledove, Bernard Cornwell, and Jack Whyte, as well. As you may know from such authors, they definitely have a more historical style than the earlier group--more history, war, religion, politics, and drama, and less fantasy and magic for sure. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on October 12, 2021, 06:57:32 PM
Excellent observations, Steve. I agree. I always thought that Feist, Edddings, Salvatore, Brust--were all pretty decent authors. I never quite understood the ocean of hate and derision for them as writers.

I think we've shifted from stories as entertainment to stories as art and more lately stories as performance outrage.

They're reasonably competent stories. I haven't read Feist, but Eddings' characters are all likeable stereotypes with just enough twists or subversions (i.e. not a lot) to make them memorable, while retaining the degree of warm comfort that comes from familiarity. Salvatore hit the sense of being an outcast but somehow cooler than thou that all 14 year old boys except the chads aspire to. Drizzt has that mix of "just like me!" except with twin scimitars and all the challenges are overcome. Brust has a bit of that too cool for thou, mixed in with some earthy touches and being accepted and respected by a higher caste. None of these are deep or wildly original, but they're tropes for a reason: They appeal to people.

I think we need to find a balance between criticism and popcorn entertainment. They're not high art; they might not break any ground or be a superlative exemplar, and they may do many things awkwardly or even poorly. But excessive prosody, symbolism, and even characterization can be exhausting, or just not fun. And easy fun has value, too.

Quote from: SHARK on October 12, 2021, 06:57:32 PMI always thought that Feist, Edddings, Salvatore, Brust--were all pretty decent authors. I never quite understood the ocean of hate and derision for them as writers.

However, I must have read the first three or four books from each of them. ;D

I can't really explain why I didn't keep up with reading further books written by them--I somehow just got involved in reading other stuff. I probably got even more into reading Non-Fiction History books, and kind of left off from reading Fantasy Fiction.

I always enjoyed David Gemmel, Harry Turtledove, Bernard Cornwell, and Jack Whyte, as well. As you may know from such authors, they definitely have a more historical style than the earlier group--more history, war, religion, politics, and drama, and less fantasy and magic for sure. ;D

Well, it's relative. Compared to some of the things that are selling now, all of those guys are excellent.  But I'm a person that reads very fast and widely.   Sometimes you just want a quick read. For example,  I've read all the first four Eddings series too many times to count, because they are easy, and I do like the characters.  It's not literature, but I'd rather read that than watch most TV shows. I've read them when not feeling well because I know how they come out, and I know I'm not going to stumble on some nuance that I've missed before.  You can't do that with Pratchett or Tolkien or let alone someone like E.R.R. Eddison, where every turn of phrase has a meaning.  I like Cornwell, too.  There's real depth there.  Gemmel I'm not sure about yet, but I do know he sits in my mind in some middle ground where I have to pay attention when I read him.  Barbara Hamby and Patrician Wrede are in that some boat.

Turtledove is an interesting case.  He's a formulaic author that writes fantastical narrative history, as if he was Shelby Foote telling you about true events after the fact.  I like real narrative history and I like fantasy, so those are kind of interesting.  However, almost invariably his best stories are his shortest.  I suspect some judicious padding to pay the bills. I know that's the case with S.M. Stirling, who isn't even pretending to care anymore.

Another interesting case is the various Flint books, starting with 1632.  They are communist fantasy masturbation with a host of writers so varied in talent and skill that it is simply breathtaking.  Some of them are clever yarns if you can look past the silliness, but others are practically unreadable for anyone with any sense of story telling and phrasing. 

Of course, for those of us weaned on the pulp writers, the 90's were a difficult shift.  Leiber, Vance, and even Harry Harrison and the like wrote vividly and with care to get accepted into a magazine and thus have money to eat.  When they wrote longer, the habits stuck.   Others wrote novels that happened to have a fantastical theme but hearkened back to what came before.   In contrast, 90's writers got verbose to sell big hardbacks--even when they didn't have much to say.

Not sure I'm explaining my point very well.  There's a difference between a pulp story expanded into a longer yarn, a novel or epic that happens to be fantastical, and some of what we have now that is the "long form fantasy story".  Much like people talk about early D&D pulls from myth, but later D&D is derivative of itself.  This is what makes Neil Gaiman stand out positively compared to most recent writers:  Not only can he write, he also avoids the derivative trap.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 07:34:17 PM
I think we've shifted from stories as entertainment to stories as art and more lately stories as performance outrage.

They're reasonably competent stories. I haven't read Feist, but Eddings' characters are all likeable stereotypes with just enough twists or subversions (i.e. not a lot) to make them memorable, while retaining the degree of warm comfort that comes from familiarity. Salvatore hit the sense of being an outcast but somehow cooler than thou that all 14 year old boys except the chads aspire to. Drizzt has that mix of "just like me!" except with twin scimitars and all the challenges are overcome. Brust has a bit of that too cool for thou, mixed in with some earthy touches and being accepted and respected by a higher caste. None of these are deep or wildly original, but they're tropes for a reason: They appeal to people.

I think we need to find a balance between criticism and popcorn entertainment. They're not high art; they might not break any ground or be a superlative exemplar, and they may do many things awkwardly or even poorly. But excessive prosody, symbolism, and even characterization can be exhausting, or just not fun. And easy fun has value, too.

I would say that Eddings writes good dialog, Feist crafts his stories fairly well, and Salvatore writes good action scenes.  That's not all they have going for them, but it is their only real standout strengths.  This is what keeps the reader going when their other abilities lag. 

Brust is a little different.  He's better than average at plotting, dialog, and characterization, and has obviously worked at his craft.  If the synthesis appeals, that is what keeps the reader coming back.

It's when you compare them to Pratchett that they fall short.  Pratchett is sitting in the same spot to English literature that Dickens inhabited a century before.  You can read the same Pratchett story 5 times and still find nuance that was missed before.