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...

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.